The New Type 4

Tri-Met is testing the new Siemens Type 4 LRV, also known as the S70 Avanto. Light Rail and I , written by a local Portland LRT driver, has the scoop.

New Skoda T15 LRV

As you all know, I'm a fan of light rail vehicles. So much so that I went running down an ally in Prague leaving my family wondering what the heck I was doing. Well I was chasing a tram I never quite saw up close but my dad was lucky enough to snap a photo after I had left to go home of the T14.

Looks like a nice tram no? Maybe a bit like a caterpillar or worm. Well Skoda has come out with a T15. Not to be confused with Luke Skywalker's T16 which bullseyed womprats, I'm not a huge fan of this new offering. At first look, it reminds me of the Peugeot my parents had when I was a kid and looks kind of like a bus rather than a train. Obviously with all the "bus that looks like a train" comments on BRT going on out there I'd like for trams and LRVs to be destinctive. But decide for yourselves. What do you all think?

Those BRT Lovers at the FTA Again

Update: Here is a copy of the letter sent to Metro in Houston. I encourage you to read it as it shows the FTA's BRT bias. They had no problems changing from LRT to BRT but balk when Houston wants to go back.

These guys are ridiculous. Houston was told by the FTA that they would have to resubmit engineering forms for Preliminary Engineering now that they've gone to LRT from BRT. The annoying part is that these guys don't quit trying to water down transit. I can't wait for this administration to be gone so this crap stops happening.

But perhaps the thing that annoys me the most is that these lines were to be planned to always be LRT. In fact the EIS was supposed to have a convertible alternative in it where they would build the line and run buses on it. The FTA can't call takebacks on this as its in the New Starts Report for Houston. So they decided to change the timeline and go LRT early. It's not like the FTA didn't know they were going to do it eventually. This is a stall tactic and I'm wondering if someone named Culbertson isn't behind the details. The current congressional delegation needs to step up now and set it straight.

Buses are Better? No They Aren't

So the good folks of Boston are having a debate. Should they restore streetcars on the Arborway Green Line or Replace them with Rapid Bus. Distinction....BRT has its own lanes, Rapid Bus does not. Ridership on the line is in decline from 28,000 in 1988 to 14,400 in 2005. This is really all i need to know to make a decision but lets look at what the bus lovers (actually just afraid of change) are saying.

(Note: Buses are the workhorses of most transit systems but high ridership trunk lines should be more cost effective to extend the reach of bus service in a region. Light Rail serves this need by having lower operating costs per passenger by A. attracting new passengers and B. efficiently bringing them to thier destination)

Tracks Make Pavement Hard to Maintain - Well so do buses. Actually, recent issues have arisen from the Orange Line and its pavement cracking. While this might be an issue with the contractors, it also tells the story of pavement and buses. The weight of a bus is just too much. If they are so worried about the pavement from rail...they should be really worried about the pavement from buses.

Bicycle Hazards - Yes riding over the tracks can be an issue. But Portland has signs and warnings for cyclists. I don't think that a few folks ignoring the warnings and taking the spill every year would be enough to warrant the line not run rail.

Traffic Flow - Here they say that traffic flow for cars will be impeded by the streetcars. Well isn't it already impeded by buses every day? I don't get this logic... why are people so worried about traffic flow? We shouldn't design the world for cars, we should design the world for pedestrians which means that a little traffic calming never hurt anyone. If you need to speed that bad go to Talladega.

Restricted Curbside Access - Well this is a no brainer. In Portland they have bulbouts. And if it takes up 7 parking spaces, so what...see above world for cars link. Heck there is probably an answer including creating several bulbouts for each of the door ends keeping space in the center for cars and deliveries. It's not an insurmountable engineering task and its still not enough to warrant bus only service.

Then they give a plethora of reasons why they feel bus is better... which i will answer tomorrow.

Cost Effectiveness and BRT

Recently many cities have gone to great lengths to try to second guess what the FTA is thinking. No one knows what they are thinking and some think they are crazy but I think American's are lazy. Lazy meaning they don't want to make the real investment in rail and want to do things on the cheap.

The reason why i think they are lazy is because they want instant results. 'Give it to me now' they say. Well here's the deal. The only satisfying way to get what you want is to work hard and achieve the result through that hard work and sacrifice. This is something i learned when i ran in college. You put in the miles upon miles and you get the results. You sleep all day and watch tv and play video games...you're not going to run under 4 minutes for a mile.

With all that being said my 80 miles a week in college was an investment, an investment in my future running. This also relates in a strange way to transit. Why do people think that BRT is a good idea? Cost Effective means 'yeah we know it sucks but we're gonna invest a dollar in our future rather than 5'. That is lazy. That is the I want it now attitude. It has been proven that people don't ride buses like rail. So why are we investing in inferior infrastructure? Is it because Grover Norquist wants to drown our government in a pool? Yes, partially because hacks like Wendell Cox, Ken Orski and Alan Pisarski have the ears of people that make transportation decisions, especially in places like Georgia.

I'm all for being 'cost effective' when it comes to building a transit system for what its worth and not gold plating it. But when it comes to an investment in the future, lets build a real transportation system that has rail, and not just the same ole buses that no one rides.

The reason why i'm writing this is because today in the Twin Cities a consultant said that the Cedar Avenue BRT project was more 'Cost Effective' than rail and that the corridor didn't have the densities to support the investment. Well it's a two way street buddy. If it doesn't have it now, and you change the zoning it will have it later. Bus won't change your land use. So in these schemes where transit officials hope that they get BRT to LRT, I'd say that they are going to have BRT for the rest of their lives. Bus doesn't build density, therefor doesn't grow ridership...simple before and after.

It probably doesn't help that BRT is pushed by the Oil and Auto Industries. This helps their cause for more freeways and wars and they know it. If they really wanted a cost effective way of doing things, they would have used all the money for the Iraq War on transportation...but thats for another post.