Green Transport

[PoliticalNightmare]

I was thinking of an alternative system of transport that would not only be greener but more efficient;

Firstly we would have to introduce the tram system into the main cities of the world (it has worked very well in Melbourne, Amsterdam, Edinburgh, Istanbul, etc.). This will immediately make things greener as public transport carries more people than cars, etc. Trams are also fast and very efficient.

To encourage more people to use public transport, we would have to make it cheaper and more efficient. It would require a lot of funding.

We would have to stop people from driving their cars into the city-centres (e.g. in London, under the former mayor, you had to pay £5 to drive your car into the city-centre).

Slowly the tram system would be extended to the country as well as the cities, which increases the problems with trams.

I was thinking of a kind of license thing, not a driver's license, but a permission to drive license. If you were disabled, or your livelihood depended on driving, e.g. delivery men (everyone else could take public transport to work - I have done so for a long time), you would not have to purchase a license. Everyone else could keep their cars but they would have to spend additional money on a license when they had to buy a new car.

Eventually, because everyone will eventually need to get a new car, the number of cars would be reduced, since it would be cheaper and more efficient to use public transport.

People who live miles away from work would be guaranteed one of these licenses. There would also be a minibus service which takes people in remote areas to an from tram systems.

Think about how many roads, humanity has built. Now all we need to do is build as many tramlines, granted it would probably take 100, maybe more years, but we could do it.

Eventually the only people who could get these licences would be people who are disabled, carpenters (who have to carry round lots of tools), delivery men and other people.

Ambulances, police cars and fire engines could get around much faster due to the significantly reduced traffic.

Our economy would improve dramatically as goods could be delivered much faster and people could get to work much faster.

This system would also be much better for the environment.

[Invincible Summer]

I like the idea of light rail, but the main problem is that if something breaks down, the whole line is brought to a standstill. This is especially problematic if the light rail system is designated as the primary mode of transportation over long distances.

I think that having urban densification into the style of an arcology/ecological megastructure with light rail connecting those is more efficient than having light rail connecting suburbs to downtown cores, etc.

[Blake's Baby]

Trams are an expensive waste. In my city there were competing schemes for trams and trolly buses (neither system was eventually put in place). Trolly-buses have the advantages of trams (no polution from engines, though obviously more polution from power stations) but only 1/4 of the infrastructural cost to implement. They run on roads (no digging up roads to lay tracks; roads can be used normally at times trolly-buses are not running) and can be moved easily if they break down. The lack of rails means fewer hazards for cyclists (no getting your wheels stuck in the ruts).

Trams = vanity project by a city wanting to be cool, in my opinion.

[Lampang]

The greenest form of transport is not going anywhere. I think if you're starting out with the intention of simply substituting one form of transport for another (replacing cars with trains, buses with trams, whatever) you're not going to get very far. What needs to be addressed are the situations which make transport necessary - how production, distribution and consumption are integrated. Unfortunately, many countries have spent the past few decades investing in the infrastructure for living arrangements which are wildly wasteful (did someone say the market is the most rational way to allocate resources?) but the way to green-ify this is to attack the root causes (for example, wasteful consumption and the externalising of the costs of production and consumption), not, I think, the symptoms.

[Invincible Summer]

The greenest form of transport is not going anywhere. I think if you're starting out with the intention of simply substituting one form of transport for another (replacing cars with trains, buses with trams, whatever) you're not going to get very far. What needs to be addressed are the situations which make transport necessary - how production, distribution and consumption are integrated. Unfortunately, many countries have spent the past few decades investing in the infrastructure for living arrangements which are wildly wasteful (did someone say the market is the most rational way to allocate resources?) but the way to green-ify this is to attack the root causes (for example, wasteful consumption and the externalising of the costs of production and consumption), not, I think, the symptoms.

I would think that consumption is a symptom, not a root cause.

Also, urban sprawl is a huge factor in "making transport necessary" which is why arcology/megastructure types of living arrangements are a way forward.

[Blake's Baby]

The greenest form of transport is not going anywhere...

Except, you know, that's not 'transport'.

I do get what you're saying; I don't think either PoliticalNightmare or myself was suggesting 'just replace trams/trolly buses for cars but leave the rest of our lifestyles intact'. I would certainly agree that we need to tackle other problems in society in tandem with strategies for more efficient living. Breaking down the necessity of commuting for instance would massively ease the burden on transportation and clean up our cities. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't think about how to make transportation more useful and less wasteful.

[Lampang]

^^ Yes, it depends how you frame the issue. Excessive and wasteful consumption is a root cause of transport problems but you could certainly think of it as a symptom of other, deeper problems. But I have doubts about solving urban sprawl through mega-structures, though that's certainly preferable to the horrors of suburbia. Cities live off the surplus product of the countryside and there's rarely an equivalent exchange in return (cities often seem to be basically parasitical) so if you're going to reconfigure living arrangements to the extent of rebuilding on that scale, it might be worth reconsidering whether or not everyone really ought to be in cities in the first place.

[PoliticalNightmare]

^^ Yes, it depends how you frame the issue. Excessive and wasteful consumption is a root cause of transport problems but you could certainly think of it as a symptom of other, deeper problems. But I have doubts about solving urban sprawl through mega-structures, though that's certainly preferable to the horrors of suburbia. Cities live off the surplus product of the countryside and there's rarely an equivalent exchange in return (cities often seem to be basically parasitical) so if you're going to reconfigure living arrangements to the extent of rebuilding on that scale, it might be worth reconsidering whether or not everyone really ought to be in cities in the first place.

True but people are more likely to adjust their methods of transport (which may suit themselves, see OP) than to completely change their life and go and live in the country. Besides, city life is cool. Anyway tram structures are not the only alternative, Practically any form of public transport would work, society just need to be more creative and improve what we've already got.

[PoliticalNightmare]

I do get what you're saying; I don't think either PoliticalNightmare or myself was suggesting 'just replace trams/trolly buses for cars but leave the rest of our lifestyles intact'.

No of course not but in a way, yes, because it is capital production that causes the largest amount of pollution. It is down to the big companies to start using alternative energy sources, more economic reactions, etc., to downsize the effect on the planet. It will make little to no difference if a couple of hippies decide their going to start switching the light off and riding their bike to work. Even if the majority of the population was to do this, capital production would still be the main issue.

[MyRapNameIsAlex]

The greenest form of transport is human powered devices.

Bicycles can extend a human's velocity up into the 25 to 33kph range.

They have developed human powered cars that can go up into th 55kph range. Unfortunately you need to find four fit humans to operate the thing, but I'm game.

Ultimately transportation needs diversification (and reduction where possible), but there is a lot of potential to be realized just in rolling out human powered devices.

Looks like we'll need to be building and marketing them ourselves however, as the energy sector has not yet found a way to charge us for use of our own bodies.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

Why just trams?

Trams are an intermediate form of transport, like city buses and trolleybuses are. They in turn feed quicker and higher-capacity transportation links, such as railways of various kinds (metros, long-distance high-speed and various local commuter links) as well as long-distance buses. I think a reliance exclusively on any one mode of transportation is a sure way to disaster. Hopefully in the future the reliance of cars on petrol will be done away with.

Even so, strict regulation of city planning is required to quell the cancerous growth of external shopping centres, parking-lot oceans and office parks, single-family housing, sprawling subdivisions; and even if cars were utterly harmless to the environment, usage should be limited as much as possible to prevent congestion as well as unnecessary space waste as comes with the need for excessive amounts of roadways, like those revolting beasts of motorways one can see in most U.S. cities; albeit, admittedly, that subject is worsened by the U.S. having horrible road design practices in general.

[Psy]

Trams are an expensive waste. In my city there were competing schemes for trams and trolly buses (neither system was eventually put in place). Trolly-buses have the advantages of trams (no polution from engines, though obviously more polution from power stations) but only 1/4 of the infrastructural cost to implement. They run on roads (no digging up roads to lay tracks; roads can be used normally at times trolly-buses are not running) and can be moved easily if they break down. The lack of rails means fewer hazards for cyclists (no getting your wheels stuck in the ruts).

Trams = vanity project by a city wanting to be cool, in my opinion.
Trolly-buses have a shorter service live for example the USSR LM-49 trams was discontinued in 1960 yet saw service from 1958 till 1980 with many still in perfect working condition when they were retired, trolly-buses don't have anywhere near that kind of service life.

[syndicat]

Trolleybuses in USA typically have a service life of at least 20 years. Trolleybuses purchased for San Francisco in the late '70s were only replaced in the last decade.

Trolleybuses are only efficient for higher volume bus lines. For lighter neighborhood or feeder lines, there has recently been developed a new kind of multi-sectional battery that makes battery buses a real possibility.

If there are other vehicles on the streets, trams have no economic advantage over trolleybuses. Their larger size is useful for a busy line but this advantage is countered by the higher costs associated with track construction and maintenance. Large articulated trolleybuses can be used on busy lines. In San Francisco the Mission Street bus service has 85,000 to 90,000 rides a day and is serviced with 60 foot long articulated trolleybuses.

For regional transport or large cities spread out over a larger area, there is need for some form of rapid transit, that removes the trains from the streets. Buses can be used for rapid transit but only so long as the rider traffic density is fairly light on that route. Train operation is needed for higher density rapid transit.

But the real problem with capitalist cities is that due to market forces they have been built in ways that force people to rely on personal transport. In North America and Australia, cities tend to be low density and dispersed over a wide area. This makes it inefficient to serve them with public transit. Due to the operation of the real estate market, commercial uses such as office buildings (a lot of which is based on hierarchical state and corporate structures, inconsistent with worker self-managemnt) get concentrated in a city center and people then commute in and out from there. The alternative is for each neighborhood to be multi-function so that it contains distribution (stores), cultural & educational facilities, workplaces, and housing, so that for many people they can mostly get around by walking. This will reduce the demand for any form of vehicular transport.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0b/NorthAmericanPublicTransport.png

[syndicat]

This is okay as a gross stat but incomplete for a number of reasons. First, it doesn't differentiate between central cities and suburbs. Transit use in the USA tends to be overwhelmingly a central city phenomenon.

Secondly, people in central cities don't just use transit for commuting. On the Los Angeles transit system, for example, a majority of rides are non-commute rides.

The best way to look at transit use is in terms of number of annual rides per resident on public transit. On this measure, San Francisco and New York are equal. The reason they're so far apart on this chart is because "San Francisco" refers to the Bay Area. But that is misleading. Annual transit rides per resident in San Francisco (the city) are about 270 -- same as New York City -- but in the East Bay are about 50 and in Silicon Valley are about 40. There is a similar differentiation in the New York area. Altho in New York City there are 270 annual transit rides per resident roughly, in the northern New Jersey suburbs of New York, it's about 40.

The second tier of transit cities in the USA are in the range of 130 to 170 annual transit rides per resident...this includes Philadelphia, Boston, Chicago and central Los Angeles (area within about six miles of the downtown).

In western Europe the city with the highest level of transit rides per resident is Zurich, at about 400. I believe Stockholm is over 300. London is 250.

[PoliticalNightmare]

Wow... is there anywhere with near 90% using PT? Because that is what we want to be aiming for.

[syndicat]

highest rate of public transit use is in Moscow and Tokyo. but Russia and China both are moving away from public transit, toward the U.S. auto orientation. at the same time, both Beijing and Shanghai have been building awesome new subway systems.

[Psy]

Trolleybuses in USA typically have a service life of at least 20 years. Trolleybuses purchased for San Francisco in the late '70s were only replaced in the last decade.

The USSR LM-49 trams was retired because planners wanted more modern trams in service, after 20 years of service the LM-49 trams were in good shape but in the eyes of planners outdated yet their crude simplicity and over build bodies (almost 20 metric tonnes unloaded) made them easy to keep them running.

Hell there are narrow guage TU-2 train engines that are still in service that is around 50 years of service.



If there are other vehicles on the streets, trams have no economic advantage over trolleybuses.

Which is why you give them dedicate right of ways



Their larger size is useful for a busy line but this advantage is countered by the higher costs associated with track construction and maintenance.

If you factor in road maintenace you get more bang your buck from rails.



Large articulated trolleybuses can be used on busy lines. In San Francisco the Mission Street bus service has 85,000 to 90,000 rides a day and is serviced with 60 foot long articulated trolleybuses.

Only 10 ft longer then a LM-49 but link two LM-49's together (that was done heavily used lines) and you got a 100 ft long tram.



But the real problem with capitalist cities is that due to market forces they have been built in ways that force people to rely on personal transport. In North America and Australia, cities tend to be low density and dispersed over a wide area. This makes it inefficient to serve them with public transit. Due to the operation of the real estate market, commercial uses such as office buildings (a lot of which is based on hierarchical state and corporate structures, inconsistent with worker self-managemnt) get concentrated in a city center and people then commute in and out from there. The alternative is for each neighborhood to be multi-function so that it contains distribution (stores), cultural & educational facilities, workplaces, and housing, so that for many people they can mostly get around by walking. This will reduce the demand for any form of vehicular transport.
True.

[Technocrat]

Urban density is what sustainability looks like. Per capita energy use in NYC is 1/3rd the national average. This is resulting from building efficiency (shared walls which reduces heat loss in winter and heat gain in summer) and transportation efficiency (walking and mass transit vs private cars). In fact, if we had encouraged urban density rather than urban sprawl in the post WWII years like most urban planners suggested, we would not now have a problem with global warming and energy shortages. Unfortunately business interests (standard oil, us steel, firestone, etc) won out over practical concerns and the result was urban sprawl - an environment deliberately engineered to consume as many resources as possible. The best strategy is to reduce the need for transportation altogether through increased density and location efficiency. A combination of walking, cycling, and light rail (or something similar) would be used for intra-urban transport. High speed rail would be used for inter-urban (long distance) transport.

I've suggested a general framework for quickly increasing urban density here: http://ecomegastructure.blogspot.com

For a quick summary, think Vancouver-style eco density - mid-rise podium buildings interspersed with strategically placed, slender residential towers - minus all the cars and road infrastructure. I believe this model would use even less than 1/3rd the energy that we presently consume while providing a better quality of life to all its citizens.

[Invincible Summer]

For a quick summary, think Vancouver-style eco density - mid-rise podium buildings interspersed with strategically placed, slender residential towers - minus all the cars and road infrastructure. I believe this model would use even less than 1/3rd the energy that we presently consume while providing a better quality of life to all its citizens.

Perhaps Vancouver is "better" than some other cities in terms of density, but I live here and still think it could use some better restructuring.

I think the old mayor was talking about eco-density projects awhile back but there was strong opposition to the idea

[Technocrat]

Perhaps Vancouver is "better" than some other cities in terms of density, but I live here and still think it could use some better restructuring.

I think the old mayor was talking about eco-density projects awhile back but there was strong opposition to the idea

I was referring more to the model than to the actual built result. The actual result is going to be compromised as a result of capitalism.

In studying the efficiencies of various structure types, mid-rise courts are more efficient than high-rise towers that are spaced apart, because the amount of spacing required by towers results in a lower density than the mid-rises. The problem is resolved if you space the towers apart and build mid-rise courts in between the towers. This also adds density while preserving a human-scaled pedestrian environment, since the mid-rises come up to the street while the towers tend to be set back.

Check this out for an example: http://www.rex-ny.com/work/low2no

They actually placed the entire structure on columns so that the existing historical structures could be preserved. I don't think this is necessary for most American cities, but you get the basic idea of courts + towers from it.

[ckaihatsu]

They actually placed the entire structure on columns so that the existing historical structures could be preserved. I don't think this is necessary for most American cities, but you get the basic idea of courts + towers from it.


Yeah, *fuck* American historical structures...!


= D

[Technocrat]

Yeah, *fuck* American historical structures...!


= D

That's not what I meant...

99% of America was built after WWII and consists of vinyl suburban structures which won't last more than 20 years, anyway. This is especially true in the South and West.

I am in favor of preserving historical structures (where people want to do so). Most structures in America are not historical.