This series (all of which has been written by European Tribune front-pager DoDo, who posts here on dKos as Daneel) charts the specialities, differing best uses, and newer developments of different local rail systems. This part covers two newer developments, both spin-offs of light rail (see last part): light metro and tram-train.
Looks like a tram, but runs in a subway: then new K4513 (from Bombardier's Felxity Swift family) at station Ebertplatz of Cologne's Stadtbahn, September 6th, 2006. Photo by Valentin Brückel from RailFanEurope.netunder Creative Commons
This series can also be viewed as a general guide as to what kind of projects local initiatives could aim for, and tries to give examples around the world that can be used as model for supporters and argument against opponents.
With the addition of tunnel sections, grade-separated inner-city and perhaps out-of-city high-platform stations, light rail gains the characteristics of metros and suburban rapid transit. Capacity can be increased somewhat by running multiple articulated trams coupled together on the grade-separated sections. This is often referred to as 'light metro'.
A good North American example is what became of most of San Francisco's streetcars in 1978: the Muni Metro.
As often is the case, the idea is not new, only its application as a concept. The pioneer may be the streetcar line banished into a tunnel 110 years ago in Boston, which became the core of the Green Line [so-called altough it's not a single line].
Frankfurt's U-Bahn, a light metro system (apart from the purple line); with the core of the superposed S-Bahn system (thick yellowish-brown) and normal light rail (dashed grey) also drawn in, as are other railways (thin brown) and highways (grey). The metropolitan area is right of center, where stations are frequent: note how three metro lines go way out from the city. Original full-size map at JohoMaps
An impetus for light metro development was the reconstruction and development of bombed-out West German cities after WWII, when people saw an opportunity for reinvention rather than just reinstalment, and that relatively cheaply. Also, the well-developed S-Bahn systems (see second episode in series) reduced the need for the high capacity and rapidity of heavy metro. From the sixties, a dozen medium-sized cities converted some classic tram routes into light metro networks. For those with little or no subway, yet another new terminology was invented: Stadtbahn.
The steel-on-steel roll of classic railways has the problem of low adhesion relative to rubber-tyres-on-pretty-much-everything-else. So why not put rubber on subway wheels? However, there is the issue of interoperability with existing lines, and rubber tyres on rail don't bear too high loads. These limits count less on a dedicated city network, especially if all-new in a in medium-size city, these aren't problems.
The idea of rubber tyres on rail, and the ideas of platform doors and automation (discussed in the third episode) were united in the VAL type metro, first realised in the French city of Lille. These can be counted as light metro, or some just as peoplemover (a category I won't deal with in detail).
A four-car train (VAL256 type of French maker Matra [now Siemens]) reaches Zhongxiao Fuxing station on Taipei Metro's first line, the elevated Muzha Line, June 2005. After initial troubles, it is well-frequented at over 100,000 riders a day. Photo by user Kwb from Japanese Wikipedia
With light metro, I shall again emphasize that notwithstanding some policymakers' claims, it is no substitute for heavy metro, not in bigger cities. The same capacity limits apply as for normal light rail. Indeed all other lines of Taipei Metro (I discussed the rapid system growth in the third episode) are heavy metro, and mostly subway, while in Bangkok, even if both lines of the BTS SkyTrain are to expand, two further lines will be heavy metro subways, and a normal rail rapid transit network is also in construction.
The Karlsruhe Model (tram-train)
This isn't an entirely new idea either. There used to be a category of railways that ran tram-like vehicles, but on lines that go out in the countryside and then enter other towns: the overland tramway or interurban (see for example the Electroliner). Most were torn up, or converted into normal local rail, or normal light rail (if sprawl ate up the area).
Karlsruhe is a city of 286,000 in Southwestern Germany. While the city had urban trams, one private narrow-gauge overland tram led to a nearby town. Then in 1957, it came that the city got control of the overland tram. They decided to re-gauge and connect it to the system of the city proper. This took nine years, but then proved a success, and another nine years later, an expansion into a Stadtbahn network began, also absorbing former normal rail lines.
Meeting in the freshly renovated Forbach-Gausbach station on May 18th, 2002: left a push-pull stopping train in limited-stops service, right dual-system tram No. 824 of Karlsruhe's Stadtbahn. On this line, the trams boosted ridership from 2,800 to 7,000/weekday. Photo by Der Eisenbahnfotograf
Once they wanted to get an electrified line. Then they got a bright idea: instead of buying and converting it, why not just build a connection, and buy two-system trams? Sounds simple, but a lot of technical and regulatory stumbling bocks had to be cleared, from collision prevention to train controls. But, in 1992, traffic started.
Thus the Karlsruhe model was born: trams leaving cities on normal rail lines, and leaving normal rail lines in cities. Yes, plural: once you have a bi-modal tram, nothing stops you from building tramway branches for downtown access in smaller cities of the agglomeration!
By today, Karlsruhe's Stadtbahn expanded into a 423 km (263 mi) network spawning as far as 80 km (50 mi) away from the core city, with tramway sections in half a dozen other towns, while traffic grew heavily (1960: 6 million, 1990: 19 million, 2005: 63 million rides).
So far the model was copied in a number of other German cities and in the Netherlands. Two East German cities applied the idea in reverse: in Zwickau and Chemnitz, the railbuses of normal rail lines enter town on tramway tracks.
Rail bus VT 42 of regional railway Vogtlandbahn next to a normal tram at Zwickau Zentrum on February 10, 2002. The tram is narrow-gauge, so joint sections are 3-rail, but stations are separate. Photo by Marco van Uden from RailFanEurope.net
Conclusion
To fight the twin menances of global warming and Peak Oil, to have more liveable cities, and to have the freedom to choose from different transport modes, it is essential to develop public transport. Currently, the bulk of US oil consumption is transport, but with electric traction, public transport doesn't need oil at all. And not only do trains and trams offer a greater reduction for the same traffic than improving car mileage, but can induce changes in settlement pattern that reduce travel volume.
Re-introducing good public transport with dense coverage all across the USA is a herculean task. But local initiatives wouln't have to figure out if things work -- only which system to pick that already works elsewhere. I presented a lot of good examples from around the world in the series, including rather new systems, and in each part, also gave comparisons with US projects often quoted by transit opponents, to show how badly managed the latter were.
I emphasize that my examples aren't meant as representative, but examples to follow/avoid. Of course, on one hand there are exemplary US projects, on the other hand, all is not well in other countries, too. There are plenty of car-friendly politicians, plenty of projects over budget due to corruption and/or incompetence, and plenty of existing systems not in the best shape.
Subtitled trailer of genre-mixing movie Kontroll, whose anti-heroes are loser ticket controllers on a nameless ex-East-Bloc subway (filmed in its entirety on lines 2, 3 of the Budapest subway).
But the good news is that today, if you achieve a halfway decent ridership gain on an urban rail project, even on a scandal-ridden one, you gain a supportive subpopulation. People who may complain and growl, but will put enough pressure on local leaders to maintain the line, what's more, will demand spending on extensions and improvements.
One thing is sure: even without overpriced projects, fitting all the car-dependent US cities with local rail systems would cost a helluva' lot of money. But I say: so what! Its not only that the alternative, going on with car transport, is more expensive with the externalities. Let's look at this example of smallish thinking:
As the Utah Transit Authority starts its first year of an aggressive 70-mile rail-expansion program, a lawmaker and a state official are questioning the value and feasibility of building a system that requires billions of dollars worth of subsidies.
In Salt Lake County, taxpayers will pay $1.2 billion over the next 30 years to build four new TRAX light-rail lines and extend UTA's FrontRunner commuter-rail system to the Utah County border. Residents in Utah County will pay $765 million to bring commuter rail to Provo, enhance bus lines and fix roads.
$1.2 billion over 30 years is much? Regardless whether that sum is or is not overpriced, that's about as much as Salt Lake County's share in the Iraq War -- in three years. Or, only $40 per Salt Lake County citizen per year. Or, with a 20 mpg SUV, the fuel cost of driving three-quarters of a mile less a day. In the series, I showed citie around the world spending much more, and that even if cost efficiency was much higher than for US projects (I brought examples in all prior episodes). And spending that money on multiple public transport modes simultaneously. If you get the ball rolling, you can get the critical mass to support the maintenance & extension of the system. As the Zürich example shows, people may even vote in a referendum for rather expensive projects calling for their tax money.
Don't set out to reinvent the wheel, don't go for flashy futuristic projects, or follow those claiming a super-cheap alternative. Look at what works elsewhere, at what best suits local conditions, focus above all on potential ridership.
Always think in networks, even if a line built will be part of one only in decades. And coordination with other modes of transport, or even work hour schedules, is essential. This involves road traffic: say, you need new traffic lights and information campaigns for car drivers who lack life experience that a even a streetcar can't brake for them, but is so much stronger it can crush your signal-ignoring car.
Don't just think in networks, think in multiple levels of it. Here is the list from the prior parts' intro, now with short explanations on what they are for:
high-speed rail (to get to major cities up to 800 km/500miles away under three hours),
express rail (to get fast to smallercities in a few hundred km/miles, or from those to the next two major cities),
normal stopping trains (to get to towns and exurbs around a major city, or from those to the next two cities),
rapid transit (for rapid commute in the denser suburban and downtown parts),
metro (for travel in the city unhindered by street traffic),
light rail (for travel on major streets to get to your neighbourhood/near your workplace/shop),
buses (for travel within a neighbourhood to within a minute or two of your destination).
...and below that, or even as alternative to the last two, there is of course bike and pedes. Note that this list is infrastructure-focused: in each of the seven categories, you can run different services on the same infrastructure: local, express, zoned, winged.
When starting from zero, it's best to start with some cheaper and lower-capacity elements: buses, trolley buses, light rail, and re-starting stopping trains on existing lines. Long-distance rail could go ahead independently, and as they take longer to build, they could serve as further impetus when pushing local projects. In larger cities, once light rail grew into a network and stopping trains are well-frequented, the high-capacity rapid transit and metro systems could follow.
Let me close with a nice quote:
"Adding lanes to solve highway congestion is like loosening your belt to solve obesity." -- original author unknown
Permalink | 30 comments