Other Transit Techs « The Gondola Project

Other Transit Techs

30
Aug

2011

Medellin to Build Two Urban Gondolas – Integrated Into A Light Rail Line!

Metro Medellin's planned LRT/Tram line (in green) and two new Metrocable lines (in Purple and Pink).

Metro de Medellin is in no rush to slow down.

The transit agency of this Colombian metropolis has been expanding their public transportation system at breakneck speeds for the past 15 years and things just continue apace.

The agency recently released plans for their Corredores Verdes (Green Corridor) Light Rail/Tram plan. Their approach is a three-pronged strategy to connect the western district of the city with downtown and includes:

An ~ 5 km long LRT/Tram system with 8 stops that terminates/originates at the central San Antonio Metro station. The connection to San Antonio will allow easy transfers to both Linea A and Linea B of their impeccably-operated elevated metro system.

Two Urban Gondola lines (Metrocables) serving hillside barrios. The lines will be ~ 1.5 km long and have three total stations each (two terminals and one intermediary station).

Of particular note is Medellin’s approach to ticketing along the route. If the agency’s promotional video is to be believed, the LRT system will adopt a technique created and popularized by Curitiba’s famed BRT system.

Rather than have LRT drivers deal with ticketing, on-vehicle ticketing agents or a policed honor-system, enclosed station platforms will be equipped with turnstiles allowing for people to pay their fare prior to queueing for the tram. This approach speeds boarding and increases efficiency dramatically:

Curitiba's BRT system - the first to pioneer enclosed platforms at street level with ticketing and turnstile features. Image via Wikipedia.

Medellin's planned LRT system appears to borrow the ticketing approach used by Curitiba. Image via Metro de Medellin.

Metro de Medellin is quickly gaining a reputation for being one of the most innovative transit planning bodies on the planet and this project should only solidify that reputation.

The agency is a poster-child for multi-modality and non-conventional thinking. With Medellin’s recent acquisition and expansion of the Metroplus bus service combined with the addition of the LRT/Tram, this agency will soon seamlessly blend four separate technology modes (Metro, LRT/Tram, Urban Gondola and BRT) in order to provide public transportation for 2.5 million people.

This is how you do multi-modality:

Comments

16
Aug

2011

Luminus via Tractus by Steven Dale

Rendering of the under-construction Blue Light Rail line in Lagos, Nigeria. Image via Nairaland.com.

Remember: Light Rail Transit (LRT) isn’t always Light Rail Transit. And that goes for all forms of public transportation.

Anyone recall our CPT / ART debate?

While we may like to pretend we work and live in a scientific field, the world of city-building and transit is anything but scientific.After all, there’s no official taxonomy of public transit technologies and I doubt we’ll see one anytime soon. (Note: While Vukan Vuchic’s Urban Transit textbooks have helped a lot in resolving this issue, even he admits to the slipperiness of transit vehicle definitions.)

Maybe we need a more defined definition of Light Rail Transit (Luminus via Tractus perhaps?), but until that time comes it’s important for everyone understand that the definition of a public transit technology isn’t arbitrary and objective – it’s subjective and as much about marketing as it is about anything else.

Consider the under-construction Blue LRT line in Lagos, Nigeria.

This system has confused more than a few people as all estimates of ridership suggest something far more robust than LRT (Yonah Freemark hints at this confusion in a post from a couple years back). From a technology perspective it’s virtually impossible to imagine any single LRT system carrying half a million riders per day (as this Lagos State Government document suggests), yet all the imagery (see above for example) and reports (see previous link for example) categorically reinforce the idea that Lagos’ first urban rail line is to be LRT in nature.

But it’s not. And we know that because of this:

Last week Railways Africa reported that Lagos state governor Babatunde Fashola has visited Toronto, Canada and is prepared to purchase a fleet of 15-year-old decommissioned subway cars in order to service the “light rail project.” The subway cars in question look like this:

"Light" Rail. Image by flickr user Loozrboy.

This is Heavy Rail Transit (HRT). Or Subway Transit. Or Metro Transit. Or Whatever You Want To Call It Transit (WYWTCIT) – but it’s clearly not Light Rail. There’s obviously a disconnect here between one person’s definition of Light Rail and another people’s definition.

That’s not to suggest nefarious doings or shenanigans on the part of anyone. It’s just to point out that when you read statistics about any given transportation technology, it’s important to consider the lens with which those statistics are being viewed through.

Calling Heavy Rail “light” doesn’t make it weigh any less.

Comments

15
Aug

2011

CABLEGRAPH: High Speed Rail

Cablegraphs / High Speed Rail / High Speed Rail

Comment

14
Aug

2011

Sunday Statshot with Nick Chu: Public Transport Profitability – Hong Kong’s MTR (Mass Transit Railway)

Hong Kong's density is a little like New York's... except it's on roids. Image Flickr user by Brad-514.

In terms of financial viability, public transportation in North America is a perpetual loser. However, rumours have it that some transit agencies abroad break even or even make a profit. So let us take a closer look into one of these transit agencies – Hong Kong’s MTR (Mass Transit Railway) – and see if its profitability scheme could work in your city:

Hong Kong’s population: 7 million

Year MTR was established: 1979

Kilometers of rail in 1984: 66

In 2004: 255

Daily ridership in 2011: 4 million

Percentage of public transport trips taken on MTR: 42

Average fare increase of MTR since 1979: 5.6% per annum

Average growth rate of Consumer Price Index: 5.6% per annum

Percentage more high depreciation and financing costs are compared to recurrent operating costs: 25

Percentage increase in MTR’s non-fare revenue (i.e. developing and enhancing commercial activities) for past 20 years: 50

Percentage of total operating costs due to high depreciation and financial burden of recent/new rail projects: 50

Percentage of railway operating revenue derived from: 1) property development profit and; 2) rental and management income: 50

Percentage of MTR’s profits (before tax) generated by: 1) property development profit and; 2) rental and management income: 90 *

Per-unit operating cost before depreciation and interest of Hong Kong’s KMB (Kowloon Motor Bus) bus operations: HK$0.10 per passenger space-km

MTR: HK$0.09 per passenger space-km

Operating Cost after depreciation and interest for KMB: HK$0.12

MTR: HK$0.18 * (explanation below)

Indirect subsidies available to MTR: Granted exclusive right to real estate property development above railway stations **

Cost of 1200 square foot “old” apartment unit: USD $1.9 million

Cost per square foot of “top” end properties: $10,500

Percentage more costly compared to London, New York and Moscow: 40

Population density: 6,500 persons per square kilometer

Most densely population district in Hong Kong: Kwun Tong

Population density: 53,110 persons per square kilometer

* While the government builds and maintains roads at no cost to bus operators (i.e. bus operating companies use roads for free), MTR funds, builds and owns the railway infrastructure/assets. As such, the operating cost after depreciation and interest for rail operations are always higher than bus operations.

** The local government in Hong Kong virtually owns all land. Given MRT’s exclusive property rights given to them by the government, MRT does not need to go through public auction as is normal for land sale in Hong Kong. Instead, MTR pays a premium that’s determined through negotiations and they earn development profits that payback rail investments. In other words, without development rights above railway stations, MTR is unable to earn a viable return.

Economics / Heavy Rail / Sunday Statshot

Comments

03
Aug

2011

Transit Innovativeness: Bamboo Railway

The Bamboo Railway or “Norry” in Battambang, Cambodia is truly a testament to human ingenuity and creativity. In this part of the world, where resources are scarce and government run train service is untimely and unreliable, this informal form of transit is an inexpensive and convenient mobility option for many.

For this simple (yet highly effective) design, here’s what you’ll need to start your own operation:

a set of old unmaintained and underutilized colonial railway tracks in Cambodia
a bamboo flatbed
self welded steel wheels
a small go-kart/water-pump engine
a simple wooden foot brake

That’s it!

Probably the most unusual and imaginative form of transport that I've ever come across. Image by Flickr User Paul Carson / Embikei Images

For the past decades, residents have used this service day in and day out with vehicle speeds reaching up to 50km/h (almost 4x the speed of Toronto’s streetcar!). However, like most things, it appears that this antiquated but highly reliable and efficient system is coming to an end. Old tracks are to be replaced in the upcoming years as part of an overall revitalization project. Hopefully, some remnants of the bamboo railway will remain – it’d be a shame to lose something so unique and special.

If you want to see more, check out this Youtube video.

Innovations / New Ideas / Oddities / Other Transit Techs

Comments

28
Jul

2011

Public Transit: Safety Should Never Be Compromised

Sometimes you forget how incredibly awesome and safe cable systems are - especially when entire systems are supported by a single cable the width of golf ball.

Last week, guest blogger Ryan O’Connor, wrote a brief analysis on the state of HSR (high speed rail) and the potential implications and lessons cable can learn from China’s recent love affair with rail. If you haven’t been keeping up-to-date with transportation news in China, last Saturday a tragic accident occurred when two HSR trains near Wenzhou collided.

Having just recently traveled to China and experienced the comfort and convenience of HSR, I cannot imagine the pain and sorrow that the victims and their families are experiencing.

Built partly to raise national pride and joy, the entire HSR network is now under extreme scrutiny as members of the public are demanding immediate answers from the government. Unfortunately, as China continues to build and develop HSR at such an unprecedented and feverish rate, quality and safety most likely will continue to arise. Hopefully this recent tragedy will serve as a grim reminder and lesson that safety should always be the paramount priority.

While the pace of HSR and CPT development are not nearly on the same level, the fact is, cable will also continue to grow. Let us hope that the growth of CPT technology continues to develop and evolve without any major setbacks.

In fact (although I don’t have the official statistics on hand) the safety record of cable technology since its inception is nothing short of a remarkable achievement – probably one that is neither praised enough nor one that’s given the attention it deserves.

Can you think of the last time someone died in a gondola accident as a result of mechanical failure? Last one that comes to my mind is the ~~Peak2Peak~~ Excalibur Gondola tower failure, but no fatalities resulted.

So to all the cable engineer dudes and dudettes that may read this blog and the supporting staff that work day and night to ensure the safety of CPT passengers, on the behalf of the Gondola Project and myself, my hat goes off to you.

Cable Transit Industry / High Speed Rail / Safety / Thoughts

Comments

21
Jul

2011

High Speed Rail in China – Lessons for the cable industry? (Part 2)

Yesterday’s post High Speed Rail in China – Theft or Innovation? (Part 1) looked at ownership of ideas and innovation, specifically in terms of China’s role in the the advancement of HSR technologies. Following that train of thought (couldn’t help myself!) today I’ll look at what this means for the CPT industry, starting the discussion on the future of CPT transit and innovations.

Traditionally HSR manufacturers focused on incremental innovation. Today, however, Chinese manufacturers are pursuing large-scale disruptive innovations. Disruptive technologies tend to thrive in high growth markets where owners of existing technologies are slow to innovate — at least beyond the pace set by sustainable innovations which are in demand by a pre-existing customer base. Where as incremental innovation generally involves low cost and low risk, disruptive innovation means high cost and high risk since it requires significantly more R&D.

MARKET: As we’ve seen with HSR, and as discussed in yesterday’s post, if a growing market is not being effectively provided for by an existing technology, someone will find a way to improve upon that technology in order to satisfy the market need. While CPT has not yet experienced the same growth as HSR, it has certainly been fielding greater interest. With an increasing number of urban installations and proposed high profile systems the market does appears to be growing. Since all signs indicate that this growth will continue I would argue that CPT will be subject to the same market threats as HSR.

INNOVATION: In the instance of HST, Chinese engineers took a highly advanced technology and (in most cases) improved upon it through genuine innovation. One could argue that gondolas are also a highly advanced technology. While HSR had four major manufacturers, there are only two major ropeway manufacturers. Whether less competition has resulted in less innovation, that is a matter of speculation! Still, it is well known that competition in a growing market drives innovation and technology benefits from offering a faster, cheaper, more capable products. Is there room for significant innovation in the cable industry? I would think so, especially for urban applications.

COST: The Chinese have already dramatically decreased the price of HSR, which was originally being built for around US$100-200 per kilometre. According to Wikipedia the Chinese have completed 250km/h to 350km/h HSR lines for US$6-32. Further investigation is required into these surprisingly low figures and what factors are attributed to these vast price disparates. Constructing anything at 70% the cost of your competitors would definitely be considered a competitive advantage. At less than 25% of the cost per kilometre, that’s a game changer!

Should the ropeway industry be concerned? I would think so. Is it helpless? Definitely not! What it can do about it is a post for another day.

What is your opinion?

This post was written by Ryan O’Connor. A planning and transportation professional based in Wellington, New Zealand. Ryan has been involved with Creative Urban Projects since March 2010.

Engineering / High Speed Rail / High Speed Rail / Innovations / Research & Development / Technologies

Comments

The Gondola Project