Problemas e soluções no transporte público e na mobilidade clipping cidade Verde
Sound Transit and Port of Seattle break ground on Airport Link light rail and airport roadway improvements
Yüklə 1,56 Mb.
|
Sound Transit and Port of Seattle break ground on Airport Link light rail and airport roadway improvements September 22, 2006 U.S. Sen. Patty Murray joined Sound Transit and Port of Seattle officials today to break ground on extending light rail directly to Seattle-Tacoma International Airport and building major airport roadway improvements. http://www.soundtransit.org/x3637.xml "Extending light rail service to the airport will give travelers fast and reliable service to and from downtown Seattle," said Senator Murray. "Sound Transit Link light rail projects are helping connect communities, reduce congestion, increase mobility, and grow our economy. I am proud to have been able to help fund their vision for the future. Today's achievement is another example of how working together we can improve our transportation infrastructure and keep Washington state strong and competitive well into the future." “Excitement is building right along with the light rail track,” said Sound Transit Board Chair and Pierce County Executive John Ladenburg. “People have been waiting for this. Our partnership with the Port will deliver fast and reliable mass transit and expanded airport road capacity at the same time. This is exactly what our region needs to fight gridlock.” “We’ve spent the last few years rebuilding Sea-Tac on the inside, and we have a lot to show for that,” said Port of Seattle Commissioner Bob Edwards. “We have a beautiful, light-filled, exciting place to begin or end a journey. But now it’s time to get started on the outside, working with Sound Transit and the City of SeaTac to bring light rail, new roadways, and better access to this already much-improved airport.” The designs and construction plans for the 1.7-mile light rail extension and the road improvements are fully integrated, with construction divided into three major civil construction contracts. The SeaTac/Airport light rail station will be built adjacent to the existing airport parking garage, with an elevated walkway connecting the station to the fourth level of the garage. Another elevated walkway will cross International Boulevard, connecting light rail passengers with the SeaTac City Center and a passenger pick-up and drop-off area. Sound Transit and the Port of Seattle have worked closely with the City of Sea Tac on a cost- effective approach that supports the City of Sea Tac’s City Center plans. The airport roadway improvements include building a significantly longer return-to-terminal loop that will fulfill the major long-term need for increased airport vehicle capacity. The existing return to terminal ramps at the north end of the parking garage will be taken out to make room for the light rail station and replaced with a new interchange. North of the airport, the northbound lanes of the airport expressway will be moved to the east so that light rail tracks can be built in the expressway median. During the construction period the Port of Seattle and Sound Transit will work to minimize impacts on airport travelers. Travelers will need to allow more time to drive to and from the airport and will need to pay close attention to roadway signage. Different routes and detours will be in place during different phases of the construction. The first construction contract to get underway, which includes the majority of the airport roadway work, was awarded to Mowat Construction. The most northerly Airport Link segment, which is primarily elevated, will be built by PCL Construction Services, which is currently building the Tukwila segment of the light rail project. The third contract, for construction of the airport light rail station, will go out for bid this fall. When light rail trains start running in 2009 they will arrive and depart up to every 6 minutes during peak hours and every 10 minutes during off-peak hours. Travel time between the Airport Station and the heart of Downtown Seattle will be 34 minutes, no matter how bad congestion gets as the region’s population grows by an estimated 1.2 million between now and 2030. Airport Link will open in December 2009, only several months after light rail starts running between Downtown Seattle and Tukwila in Summer 2009. During the several months before Sound Transit opens direct service to the airport free shuttle buses will carry light rail riders between Tukwila and the terminal. The Port of Seattle operates Seattle-Tacoma International Airport, the Pacific Northwest's largest international airport. More than 127,000 local jobs depend on the airport, which generates $9.6 billion in overall business revenue and $415 million in state and local taxes. Sound Transit estimates that in 2020 approximately 3,000 riders will use the airport station each day. Ridership will grow as the light rail system expands. Currently, Sound Transit is working with the Regional Transportation Investment District (RTID) on an integrated Roads & Transit package with projects throughout the region that will go to voters in November 2007. Proposed light rail elements include extending the 15.6-mile segment that opens in 2009 as far north as Lynnwood, as far east as Downtown Redmond and as far south as the Port of Tacoma area. Sound Transit and RTID are currently holding meetings around the region to provide information and gather public input on possible projects. For more information please visit our ST2 Web site.
Sound Transit plans, builds, and operates regional transit systems and services to improve mobility for Central Puget Sound === Volunteers sought for citizen panel monitoring regional transit progress July 28, 2006 Sound Transit – the Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority – is recruiting for a citizen volunteer to fill a vacancy on its Citizen Oversight Panel, an independent body that is part of Sound Transit’s commitment to public accountability. Formed in 1997, the Citizen Oversight Panel monitors Sound Transit’s performance against its commitments to the public in a number of policy areas, including budget and financial management, adherence to schedules, public participation in the plan’s implementation, evaluation of project alternatives, and review of annual independent performance audits. The agency is requesting letters of interest from citizens with specific skills or experience and who are willing to serve for a minimum of four years on the panel, which currently meets twice a month during normal business hours. This recruitment effort is limited to residents in Sound Transit’s Seattle/North King County geographic subarea. Applicants must be registered voters who live within the RTA district boundary and have experience in one or more of the areas of panel responsibility, including business management, engineering, large projects construction management, public facilities and service, government processes, and public policy development or review. Interested individuals should send one-page letters of interest with resumes highlighting their experience to:
John W. Ladenburg, Chair Sound Transit 401 South Jackson Street Seattle, WA 98104 The deadline for letters is Thursday, August 10, 2006. Following the deadline, the members of the Sound Transit Board will receive copies of all letters and may then nominate applicant(s) for consideration. The Board is scheduled to appoint new members in September 2006. Sound Transit actively seeks to include persons from diverse backgrounds and professional areas of expertise to support agency oversight, planning and operations. Persons of color and women are encouraged to submit letters of interest.
Sound Transit plans, builds and operates regional transit systems and services to improve mobility for Central Puget Sound. == Sen. Murray announces proposed funding for University Link light rail July 20, 2006 Sen. Murray today announced that the transportation funding bill passed by the Senate Appropriations Committee includes $80 million for current light rail construction and $15 million for extending light rail from downtown Seattle to the University of Washington. The proposed $15 million is a very positive sign as Sen. Murray, the ranking Democratic member of the powerful transportation appropriations subcommittee, leads longer-term efforts to secure a $750 million full funding grant agreement (FFGA) for the University Link extension. “We see this as an early down payment on expanding the regional system,” said Sound Transit Board Chair and Pierce County Executive John Ladenburg. “Securing $15 million at this relatively early stage in the process tells me the people with their hands on the purse strings believe the University Link is right on track. It also says Sen. Murray never stops working on behalf of the region's commuters.” University Link is the only project in highly competitive New Starts funding process that has received the Federal Transit Administration’s highest-possible ranking. Earlier this month Sen. Murray led Acting U.S. Transportation Secretary Maria Cino on a tour of Sound Transit’s Beacon Hill light rail tunneling, advocating for federal support for starting University Link construction as soon as 2008. “Sen. Murray and our congressional delegation were responsible for our first $500 million light rail grant. Thanks to the Senator, we couldn't be in a better position to get the second grant and break ground,” Ladenburg said. Later this year a conference committee will meet to reconcile the Senate and House funding proposals. The proposed $80 million represents the FY 2007 installment of the $500 million multi-year FFGA for the Central Link project and is included in both the Senate and House legislation as well as the Bush Administration’s proposed FY 2007 budget. ¬The proposed $15 million is subject to negotiation through the conference committee process. The 3.15-mile University Link extension will increase the light rail system’s ridership from 45,000 a day to more than 114,000. The project connects the three largest urban centers in the region: downtown Seattle, Capitol Hill and the University District. The project will offer much faster travel times for transit passengers than buses. Light rail will carry passengers from downtown to the University in 9 minutes instead of 25 and to Capitol Hill in 6 minutes instead of 14. Trips between Capitol Hill and the University District will take 3 minutes instead of 22. Sound Transit plans, builds and operates regional transit systems and services to improve mobility for Central Puget Sound. = 2005 - Veículo Leve sobre Trilho. Diário do Nordeste. 06/2005 - Veículo leve sobre trilho:Transporte para população de baixa renda www.detran.ce.gov./Diário do Nordeste. 23/8/2005 - Protótipo/ www.detran.ce.gov.br/Diário do Nordeste. 08/2005 - Plano preliminar de reativação do transporte ferroviário de passageiro de médio e longo percurso e de pequenas cargas nas linhas ferroviárias do Estado do Ceará. www.sfiec.org.br. Antônio Telmo Nogueira Bessa. 08/2005 - Light rail. Wikipedia. 2005 - Tramway. Wikipedia. 2005 - The Free Mall Ride, Hybrid Electric / CNG Bus Line. Yury Maller. 01/12/2005 - W3 será revitalizada após implantação de trens, acredita urbanista. CB. Maria Carolina Lopes e Carlos Vieira. 04/11/2005 Veículo Leve sobre Trilho Transporte para população de baixa renda Passagem mais barata, viagem confortável, menos gasto com combustível. Com essas possibilidades, o Veículo Leve sobre Trilho (VLT) Bi-ArticuladoElétrico Híbrido, projeto apresentado ontem de manhã no Centro CulturalOboé durante reunião do Pacto de Cooperação, mostrou-se alternativa viável e econômica para as linhas férreas já existentes na RegiãoMetropolitana de Fortaleza (RMF). A população de baixa renda seria a mais beneficiada com a iniciativa,em especial nos portos do Mucuripe e do Pecém. Mas o Estado já adiantouque não há verba para isso. O plano foi apresentado pelos engenheiros ferroviários Telmo Bessa eAníbal Arruda. Segundo eles, o VLT em questão tem 50% de economia sobreo veículo semelhante importado, sendo que o daqui seria mais leve (oeuropeu tem 60 toneladas e o local teria metade). Na Grande Fortaleza, 42% dos trabalhadores se deslocam a pé, enquanto8% de automóvel ou moto e 8%, de bicicleta. Outros 42% andam de ônibus,o que explica a presença de congestionamentos e o aumento constante dosacidentes e das pessoas que andam a pé ou de bicicleta. Diante dessa situação, Arruda afirma que o transporte coletivo atualnão resolve o problema de quem paga passagens de ônibus comdificuldade. “O vale-transporte virou moeda, é caro e não diminuiu ocusto operacional dos ônibus. Fora isso, o mototáxi é perigoso, osmicroônibus contribuem para os engarrafamentos e as ciclovias eterminais não resolvem o problema”, observa. A idéia é que o VLT Bi-Articulado trafegue na linha férrea entre oMucuripe e a Parangaba, eliminando aos poucos os terminais de ônibus eimplantando a tarifa temporal. Como informa Aníbal Arruda, os pontos teriam “bicicletários” onde aspessoas deixariam suas bicicletas e de lá pegariam o VLT, cujo projetolembra dois ônibus interligados por um eixo, sobre truques, asplataformas onde se sustentam os vagões. No lugar de trens, seriam usadas carcaças de ônibus. Segundo TelmoBessa, há 150 ônibus da CTC parados, pertencentes à Prefeitura deFortaleza, que poderiam ser adaptados. “O ônibus híbrido tem metade da potência do original, mas, emvelocidade constante e sobre trilhos, economiza energia e combustívelporque reduz a queima de gases em 80%”, informa Arruda, acrescentandoque, para manter a potência, seriam usados geradores. “Como ele vai trafegar na mesma linha do trem de passageirostradicional, o custo com o passageiro é 60% inferior. é silencioso,confortável, pode transportar bicicletas e pequenos volumes e sobrapotência para o primeiro veículo ter ar-condicionado”, completa Aníbal. Além disso, não seriam necessárias estações extras, já que o carro seria rebaixado. Os autores do projeto estimam que o custo de um veículo seja de R$ 900mil. Na Europa, um custa R$ 1,2 milhão. Para trazer para cá, seriamgastos mais R$ 500 mil, em média, com frete. O projeto-piloto sugere duas linhas: uma no Centro, ao preço de R$0,50, e outra que ligaria água Fria, Leste-Oeste e Antônio Bezerra eMessejana, ao preço de R$ 1,00. “Seria um transporte para a populaçãode baixa renda, para os trabalhadores da Região Metropolitana, do Portodo Pecém, do Mucuripe”, analisa Telmo Bessa. Fonte: Diário do Nordeste = VEÍCULO LEVE SOBRE TRILHO http://www.detran.ce.gov.br/site/default.asp?id=16&pagina=21&idnoticia=245 Transporte para população de baixa renda 23/8/2005 Passagem mais barata, viagem confortável, menos gasto com combustível. Com essas possibilidades, o Veículo Leve sobre Trilho (VLT) Bi-Articulado Elétrico Híbrido, projeto apresentado ontem de manhã no Centro Cultural Oboé durante reunião do Pacto de Cooperação, mostrou-se alternativa viável e econômica para as linhas férreas já existentes na Região Metropolitana de Fortaleza (RMF). A população de baixa renda seria a mais beneficiada com a iniciativa, em especial nos portos do Mucuripe e do Pecém. Mas o Estado já adiantou que não há verba para isso. O plano foi apresentado pelos engenheiros ferroviários Telmo Bessa e Aníbal Arruda. Segundo eles, o VLT em questão tem 50% de economia sobre o veículo semelhante importado, sendo que o daqui seria mais leve (o europeu tem 60 toneladas e o local teria metade). Na Grande Fortaleza, 42% dos trabalhadores se deslocam a pé, enquanto 8% de automóvel ou moto e 8%, de bicicleta. Outros 42% andam de ônibus, o que explica a presença de congestionamentos e o aumento constante dos acidentes e das pessoas que andam a pé ou de bicicleta. Diante dessa situação, Arruda afirma que o transporte coletivo atual não resolve o problema de quem paga passagens de ônibus com dificuldade. "O vale-transporte virou moeda, é caro e não diminuiu o custo operacional dos ônibus. Fora isso, o mototáxi é perigoso, os microônibus contribuem para os engarrafamentos e as ciclovias e terminais não resolvem o problema", observa. A idéia é que o VLT Bi-Articulado trafegue na linha férrea entre o Mucuripe e a Parangaba, eliminando aos poucos os terminais de ônibus e implantando a tarifa temporal. Como informa Aníbal Arruda, os pontos teriam "bicicletários" onde as pessoas deixariam suas bicicletas e de lá pegariam o VLT, cujo projeto lembra dois ônibus interligados por um eixo, sobre truques, as plataformas onde se sustentam os vagões. No lugar de trens, seriam usadas carcaças de ônibus. Segundo Telmo Bessa, há 150 ônibus da CTC parados, pertencentes à Prefeitura de Fortaleza, que poderiam ser adaptados. "O ônibus híbrido tem metade da potência do original, mas, em velocidade constante e sobre trilhos, economiza energia e combustível porque reduz a queima de gases em 80%", informa Arruda, acrescentando que, para manter a potência, seriam usados geradores. "Como ele vai trafegar na mesma linha do trem de passageiros tradicional, o custo com o passageiro é 60% inferior. É silencioso, confortável, pode transportar bicicletas e pequenos volumes e sobra potência para o primeiro veículo ter ar-condicionado", completa Aníbal. Além disso, não seriam necessárias estações extras, já que o carro seria rebaixado. Os autores do projeto estimam que o custo de um veículo seja de R$ 900 mil. Na Europa, um custa R$ 1,2 milhão. Para trazer para cá, seriam gastos mais R$ 500 mil, em média, com frete. O projeto-piloto sugere duas linhas: uma no Centro, ao preço de R$ 0,50, e outra que ligaria Água Fria, Leste-Oeste e Antônio Bezerra e Messejana, ao preço de R$ 1,00. "Seria um transporte para a população de baixa renda, para os trabalhadores da Região Metropolitana, do Porto do Pecém, do Mucuripe", analisa Telmo Bessa. Fonte: Diário do Nordeste / Cidade
===
= Light rail From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_rail Jump to: navigation, search
A Tyne and Wear Metro train heading forSouth Shields calls at Kingston Park station. Although nominally "light rail" the high platforms and full segregation from roads and pedestrians places this system at the upper end of the transport genre which includes street trams. Light rail or light rapid transit (LRT) is a form of urban rail transit that typically uses less massive equipment and infrastructure than rapid transitsystems, with modern light rail vehicles usually running along the system. Light rail is the modern version of the tram (British English) or streetcar or trolley (American English) in many locales, although the term is most consistently applied to modern or modernised tram or trolley operations employing features more usually associated with metro or subway operations, including exclusive rights-of-way, multiple unit train configuration and signal control of operations. Light rail traces its pedigree to street railways, whereas rapid transit (metro) technology evolved from steam commuter operations, such as were seen inLondon, New York City, and Chicago. [edit] Definition of light rail The term light rail was devised in 1972 by the U.S. Urban Mass Transit Association (UMTA) to describe new streetcar transformations which were taking place in Europe and the United States. In Germany the term stadtbahn was used to describe the concept, and many in the UMTA wanted to adopt the direct translation, which is city rail. However, the UMTA finally adopted the term light rail instead. [1] Light rail is similar to the British English term light railway long used to distinguish railway operations carried out under a less rigorous set of regulation using lighter equipment at lower speeds from mainline railways. The American Public Transportation Authority (APTA) in its Glossary of Transit Terminology defines light rail as: "An electric railway with a 'light volume' traffic capacity compared to heavy rail. Light rail may use shared or exclusive rights-of-way, high or low platform loading and multi-car trains or single cars." The use of the term light rail avoids some incompatibilities in British versus American English. The common British word for a light rail vehicle, tram, is most often used in the United States to mean a cable car suspended from towers, while trolley, which is often used for light rail in the United States, is usually taken to mean a cart, particularly a shopping cart, in Britain. In Canada, neither tram nor trolley is commonly used, and the American termstreetcar is standard for a traditional light rail vehicle. The opposing phrase heavy rail for higher capacity, higher speed systems also avoids some incompatibilities in terminology between British and American English, as for instance in comparing the London Underground to the New York Subway Conventional rail technologies including high-speed, freight, commuter/regional, and metro/subway are considered to be "heavy rail". People movers andpersonal rapid transit are even "lighter," at least in terms of capacity. Monorails are a separate technology, which has been more successful in specialized services than in a commuter transit role. The most difficult distinction to draw is that between light rail and streetcar or tram systems. There is a significant amount of overlap between the technologies, many of the same vehicles can be used for either, and it is common to classify streetcars/trams as a subtype of light rail rather than as a distinct type of transportation. The two general versions are:
Many light rail systems — even fairly old ones — have a combination of the two, with both on road and off-road sections. In some countries (esp. in Europe), only the latter is described as light rail. In those places, trams running on mixed right of way are not regarded as light rail, but considered distinctly as streetcars or trams. However, the requirement for saying that a rail line is "separated" can be quite minimal — sometimes just with concrete "buttons" to discourage automobile drivers from getting onto the tracks. There is a significant difference in cost between these different classes of light rail transit. The traditional style is often less expensive by a factor of two or more. Despite the increased cost, the more modern variation (which can be considered as "heavier" than old streetcar systems, even though it is called "light rail") is the dominant form of urban rail development in the United States. Some systems, such as the AirTrain JFK in New York City and DLR in London and Kelana Jaya Line in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia have dispensed with the need for a driver. Ultra light rail schemes are designed to offer high cost effectiveness and also easy deployment by using modern techniques and materials to dramatically reduce the weight of the vehicles. Ultra light vehicles cannot as a result co-exist with heavy rail or even most light rail systems as the light construction, comparable to that of a car or bus, is insufficiently strong to take an impact with a conventional train. It is however pefectly adequate in the event of collisions with road vehicles or other ultra light rail vehicles. Keeping the weight down allows for energy efficiency comparable with or better than a bus and regular stopping points using nothing more than a cheap petrol engine and flywheel. In addition the low weight reduces the cost of track and civil engineering and thus the otherwise high initial construction costs. [citation needed]
From the mid-19th century onwards, horse-drawn trams (or horsecars) were used in cities around the world. In the late 1880s electrically-powered street railways became technically feasible following the invention of a trolley system of collecting current by American inventor Frank J. Sprague who installed the first successful system at Richmond, Virginia. They became popular because roads were then poorly-surfaced, and before the invention of the internal combustion engine and the advent of motor-buses, they were the only practical means of public transport around cities. [2] The light rail systems constructed in the 19th and early 20th centuries typically only ran in single-car setups. Some rail lines experimented with multiple unitconfigurations, where streetcars were joined together to make short trains, but this did not become common until later. When lines were built over longer distances (typically with a single track) before good roads were common, they were generally called interurban streetcars in North America or radial railways in Ontario. In North America, many of these original light-rail systems were decommissioned in the 1950s and onward as the popularity of the automobile increased. Britain abandoned its last light rail system except Blackpool by 1962.[3] Although some traditional trolley or tram systems still exist to this day, the term "light rail" has come to mean a different type of rail system. Modern light rail technology has primarily German origins, since an attempt by Boeing Vertol to introduce a new American light rail vehicle was a technical failure. After World War II, the Germans retained their streetcar networks and evolved them into model light rail systems (stadtbahnen). Except for Hamburg, all large and most medium-sized German cities maintain light rail networks. [4] The renaisance of light rail in North American began in 1978 when the Canadian city of Edmonton, Alberta adopted the German Siemens-Duewag U2system, followed three years later by Calgary, Alberta and San Diego, California. Britain began replacing its run-down local railways with light rail in the 1980's, starting with Tyneside and followed by the Docklands Light Railway in London. The trend to light rail in the United Kingdom was firmly established with the success of the Manchester Metrolink system in 1992. Historically, the rail gauge has had considerable variations, with narrow gauge common in many early systems. However, most light rail systems are nowstandard gauge.[4] An important advantage of standard gauge is that standard railway maintenance equipment can be used on it, rather than custom-built machinery. Using standard gauge also allows light rail vehicles to be delivered and relocated conveniently using freight railways and locomotives. Another factor favoring standard gauge is that low-floor vehicles are becoming popular, and there is generally insufficient space for wheelchairs to move between the wheels in a narrow gauge layout.
With its mix of right-of-way types and train control technologies, LRT offers the widest range of latitude of any rail system in the design, engineering, and operating practices. The challenge in designing light rail systems is to realize the potential of LRT to provide fast, comfortable service while avoiding the tendency to over-design that results in excessive capital costs beyond what is necessary to meet the public's needs.[5]
LRVs are distinguished from rapid rail transit (RRT) vehicles by their capability for operation in mixed traffic, generally resulting in a narrower car body and articulation in order to operate in a traffic street environment. Due to their large size, large turning radius, and often an electrified third rail, RRT vehicles cannot operate in the street. Since LRT systems can operate using existing streets, they often can avoid the cost of expensive subway and elevated segments that would be required with RRT.
Conversely, LRVs generally outperform streetcars in terms of capacity and top end speed, and almost all modern LRVs are capable of multiple-unit operation. Particularly on exclusive rights-of-way, LRVs can provide much higher speeds and passenger volumes than a streetcar. Thus a streetcar capable of only 70 km/h (45 mph) operating on an exclusive right of way cannot be considered as “light rail”. The latest generation of LRVs is significantly larger and faster, typically of length of 25 m (80 ft with maximum speeds of 100 to 110 km/h (60 to 70 mph).
[edit] Light metro For more details on this topic, see Medium capacity system. A derivative of LRT is light rail rapid transit (LRRT), also referred to as Light Metro. Such railways are characterized by exclusive rights of way, advanced train control systems, short headway capability, and floor level boarding. These systems approach the passenger capacity of full metro systems, but can be cheaper to construct by using the ability of LRVs to turn tighter curves and climb steeper grades than standard RRT vehicles.
An important factor crucial to LRT is the train operator. Unlike rail rapid transit, traveling unattended with automatic train operation (ATO), the operator is a key element in a safe, high-quality LRT operation. Thus, a train with ATO is not “light rail”. The philosophy of light rail is that a qualified person should be on each train to deal with emergencies, and while that person is there, he or she might as well operate the train.
The latest generation of LRV’s has the advantage of partial or fully low-floor design, with the floor of the vehicles only 300 to 360 mm (12-14 inches) above top of rail, a capability not found in either rapid rail transit vehicles or streetcars. This allows them to load passengers, including ones in wheelchairs, directly from low-rise platforms that are not much more than raised sidewalks. This satisfies requirements to provide access to disabled passengers without using expensive wheelchair lifts, while at the same time making boarding faster and easier for other passengers as well.
Light rail systems are generally cheaper to build than heavy rail, since the infrastructure is relatively insubstantial, and tunnels used in most metro systems are generally not required. Moreover, the ability to handle sharp curves and steep gradients can reduce the construction work. Compared with buses, light rail systems have higher capacity, are cleaner, quieter, more comfortable, and in many cases faster. Light rail does not have the negative connotations of being a system used by the "transit dependent" that can plague BRT. Recent data indicates that BRT is more cost effective below 1600 passengers per hour, but above 2000 passengers per hour bus headways become so short that average speed falls and per-passenger costs increase. [6] In an emergency, light rail trains are easier to evacuate than monorail or elevated rapid rail trains which may require ladders or cranes to evacuate passengers from a disabled train. Many modern light rail projects gain rights-of-way by re-using parts of old rail networks (such as abandoned industrial rail lines), sharing freight railways, or using the medians of freeways. For example, theDocklands Light Railway uses a sharp, steep curve to enable it to run alongside an existing railway line and then transfer to a previously disused railway line which crosses underneath. A direct connection between these lines would not be practical for conventional rail. The hardware generally operates more quietly than commuter rail or metro systems, and noise mitigation is easier to design.
Light rail tends to be safest when operating in dedicated rights-of-way with complete grade separations. However, the low volumes light rail is suited for may not warrant the extra cost of grade separations. Light rail vehicles are often heavier per passenger carried than heavy rail and monorail cars. On the other hand, light rail vehicles tend to be more reliable and have longer service lives than the typical monorail vehicle, and the generally lower capital cost of construction usually offsets any weight disadvantage. The opening of new light rail systems has sometimes been accompanied by a marked increase in car accidents involving automobiles driving around gates, running red lights and making illegal turns.[7] Though such increases may be temporary, long-term conflicts between motorists and light rail operations can be alleviated by segregating their respective rights-of-way and installing appropriate signage and warning systems. [8] Light rail can expose neighboring populations to moderate levels of low-frequency noise. However light rail vehicles use quiet electric motors and techniques such as rubber inserts in the wheels to reduce running noise, and transportation planners use noise mitigation strategies to minimize these effects. [9]
San Diego Trolley (light rail) at San Diego State University Transit Center in San Diego, California. For more details on this topic, see Stadtbahn. Stadtbahn, meaning city railway in the German language, is the term for light rail in Germany. Most German light rail systems were started in the 1960s and 1970s with the intention of establishing full-scale subway, or U-Bahn, systems. By the 1980s virtually all cities had abandoned these plans due to the high costs of converting tramways, and the most common systems now are a mixture of tramway-like operations in suburban areas, and a U-Bahn like mode of operation, featuring underground stations, in the city centres.
inside a RTD (light rail) train in Denver,Colorado.
Light rail has been introduced in the face of considerable opposition in the United States, which has a much lower rate of transit use than Europe or Canada. Despite that, there are a large number of new light rail systems in operation in the U.S., and several more are planned. Canada has a much higher rate of transit usage than the U.S, including a few high volume light rail systems.
Light rail operation in Australia is limited to Melbourne and Adelaide. A very short service also exists in Sydney. Despite this, light rail is often considered in plans to increase public transport patronage, and is presently featured in proposals for Adelaide, Sydney and the Gold Coast.[citation needed]
Just like many other cities in the mid 20th century much of the tramway systems where closed down across Europe but in recent times the second generation systems know as Light Rail have been rolled out. [[Image:Trendelacosta.JPG|thumb|300px|inside light rail in Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Roads have capacity limits which can be determined by traffic engineers. Due to traffic congestion they experience a chaotic breakdown in flow and a dramatic drop in speed if they exceed about 2,000 vehicles per hour per lane. [10] Since automobiles in many places average only 1.2 passengers during rush hour, this limits roads to about 2,400 passengers per hour per lane. This can be mitigated by using high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes, but many people prefer to drive alone. Light rail vehicles can travel in trains carrying much higher passenger volumes.[11] If run in streets, light rail systems are limited by city block lengths to about four 180-passenger vehicles (720 passengers). Operating on 2 minute headways using traffic signal progression, a well-designed system can handle more than 30 trains per hour, achieving peak rates of over 20,000 passengers per hour per track. More advanced systems with separate rights-of-way using moving block signalling can exceed 25,000 passengers per hour per track. [12] Most North American systems are limited by demand rather than capacity and seldom reach 10,000 passengers per hour per track, but European light rail systems often approach their limits. When they do, they can carry as many passengers as a 16-lane freeway in the space of a two lane roadway. If passenger volumes exceed light rail limits, heavy rail systems can be built to carry many more people.
The cost of light rail construction varies widely, largely depending on the amount of tunneling and elevated structures required. A survey of North American light rail projects[13] shows that costs of most LRT systems range from $15 million per mile to over $100 million per mile. Seattle's new light rail system is by far the most expensive in the U.S. at $179 million per mile, since it includes extensive tunneling in poor soil conditions, elevated sections, and stations as deep as 180 feet below ground level.[14] These result in costs more typical of subways or rapid transit systems than light rail. At the other end of the scale, four systems (Baltimore MD, Camden NJ, Sacramento CA, and Salt Lake City UT) incurred costs of less than $20 million per mile. Over the U.S. as a whole, excluding Seattle, new light rail construction costs average about $35 million per mile.[13] Combining highway expansion with LRT construction can save costs by doing both highway improvements and rail construction at the same time. As an example, Denver's T-REX (Transportation Expansion) project rebuilt interstate highways 25 and 225 and added a light-rail expansion for a total cost of $1.67 billion over five years.[15] The cost of 17 miles of highway improvements and 19 miles of double-track light rail worked out to $19.3 million per highway lane-mile and $27.6 million per LRT track-mile. The project came in under budget and 22 months ahead of schedule. [16] LRT cost efficiency improves dramatically as ridership increases. the Calgary, Alberta C-Train used many common light rail techniques to keep costs low, including minimizing underground and elevated trackage, sharing transit malls with buses, leasing rights-of-way from freight railroads, and combining LRT construction with freeway expansion. As a result, Calgary ranks toward the less expensive end of the scale with capital costs of around $24 million per mile [17] However, Calgary's LRT ridership is much higher than any comparable U.S. city at over 220,000 rides per weekday and as a result its efficiency of capital is also much higher. Its capital costs were ⅓ that of the San Diego system, a comparably sized one in the U.S., while its ridership is well over twice as high. Thus, Calgary's capital cost per weekday rider is less than 1/6 that of San Diego. Its operating costs are also lower. A typical C-Train vehicle costs only $163 per hour to operate, and since it averages 600 passengers per operating hour, [18] Calgary Transit estimates that its LRT operating costs are only 27 cents per ride, versus $1.50 per ride on its buses.[17]
Around Karlsruhe, Kassel and Saarbrücken in Germany, dual-voltage light rail trains partly use mainline railroad tracks, sharing these tracks with heavy-rail trains. In the Netherlands, this concept was first applied on the RijnGouweLijn. This allows commuters to ride directly into the city centre, rather than taking a mainline train only as far as a central station and then having change to a tram. In France similartram-trains are planned for Paris, Mulhouse and Strasbourg; further projects exist. Some of the issues involved in such schemes are:
There is history of what would now be considered light-rail vehicles operating on heavy-rail rapid transit tracks in the U.S., especially in the case of interurban streetcars. Notable examples are Lehigh Valley Transit trains running on the Philadelphia and Western Railroad high-speed third rail line (now the Norristown High Speed Line). Such arrangements are almost impossible now, due to the Federal Railroad Administration refusing to allow non-FRA compliant railcars (i.e. subway and light rail vehicles) to run on the same tracks at the same times as compliant railcars, which includes locomotives and standard railroad passenger and freight equipment. A notable exception is the New Jersey Transit River Line from Camden to Trenton, which has received an exemption on the provision that light rail operations occur only during daytime hours and Conrail freight service only at night, with several hours separating one operation from the other. See also: Karlsruhe model
Main article: Ground level power supply In the French city of Bordeaux, Citadis trams are powered by a third rail in the city center, where the tracks are not always segregated from pedestrians and cars. The third rail (actually two closely spaced rails) is placed in the middle of the track, and divided into eight-metre sections, each of which is only powered while it is completely covered by a tram. This minimises the risk of a person or animal coming into contact with a live rail. In outer areas, the trams switch to conventional overhead wires. In practice the Bordeaux power system cost about three times as much as a conventional overhead wire system and took 24 months to achieve acceptable levels of reliability, requiring replacement of all the main cables and power supplies. Operating and maintenance costs of the innovative power system still remain high. However, despite numerous service outages, the system was a success with the public, gaining up to 190,000 passengers per day. This third rail technology is being investigated for use on the Gold Coast of Australia for the Gold Coast Light Rail. See the present draft report here. = Tramway From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search Tramway may refer to:
= Yüklə 1,56 Mb. Dostları ilə paylaş:
|