Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 3, 2006 21:05:35 GMT
They can. In fact in Shanghai trolleybuses and buses very much share garages.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2006 9:21:06 GMT
I never seen a trolleybus yet so maybe why I don't see any benefits with them. These trolleys are like buses but are restriced because of the overhead lines and also not as fast as trams. Still I woulnd like to see one implemented in London somewhere. Despite the problems with the trams, especially the traffic light signals personally for me, as well as accidents, the extension of the Croydon trams almost seems a certainty Trams in London are probably a non starter unless they can be run over existing Rail tracks. The cost and disruption are so high we are very unlikely to see much extension of trams in London. Many proposed Tram schemes around the UK have been dropped as the costs excalated out of all control. Current extimated costs of putting a Tram Network in for London is about £25 to £50 Million a mile. The cost of the depots and trams is on top of that. That cost as well does not take into account the damage to the economy along the route as the system is built. Trade will be lost. Homes and Business will be compolsary purchased. This costs as well are on top. It could be total costs would exceed in some cases a £100 Million a Kilometre.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2006 22:24:15 GMT
Very true indeed. Also London has a comprehensive tube and rail network so trams are not so desperately needed like in other cities where express public transport is almost non-existent.
On an environmental note, trolleybuses are the way forward.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 5, 2006 9:41:25 GMT
Very true indeed. Also London has a comprehensive tube and rail network so trams are not so desperately needed like in other cities where express public transport is almost non-existent. On an environmental note, trolleybuses are the way forward. A lot of the benefits & claims TfL has made for the Croyden Tram Scheme appear to be gross exagerations. There has been some increase in the use of Public Transport in the area but its not that great. Most of what has happened is passengers have switched from Bus & Train to Tramlink with a small number switching from car. Currently it is claimed 21,000,000 passengers a year and the declared cost to build was £230 Million probably not the true cost though which I suspect was a lot higher but has been accounted for out of other budgets. Some of this increase in ridership comes from a general increase in use of public tranport primarily from the various free fare schemes. The likely actually additional number of passengers is probably no more then a Million. So for an expenditure of £230 Million they have managed to only gain an additional million passengers. There has been a small decrease in car useage of about 10% but it unclear how this has been measure most could be just a reduction in the odd shopping trip. The major impact has been in a steep decrease in Bus usage which has seen a fall of 70%. The implaction of this being that most of these routes are now running at a substantial loss adding to the costs of the tramlink. It could well mean ultimatly some significant cutbacks on these services. The knock on effect would be to make tramlink less attractive and people would switch back to car. The impact on rail was far less at about 7%. This would be unlikely to impact peak journeys but a 7% loss on off peak journeys again will significantly increase the operational losses. The overall benefit of the Croyden Tramlink has been no where near as impressive as TfL would like to make out. This system as well was relatively low cost in that it nearly all run over existing rail lines so was more a light railway then a true tram system. The claimed cost is £250 Million by TfL although interestingly one of the companies involved claims the contract value to be £600 Million the £600 million would seem more realistic although I suspect the real costss will easilly exceed a Billion pounds. Its pretty clear that for their cost Trams in most cases offer little benefit. I dread to think what the cross London Tramlink would cost if it went ahead. It basically follows the Victoria Line to Central London and then the Northern Line to Camden Town. It would seem far more sensible to look to increasing capacity on these lines then just duplicating it with a surface route.. Tfl actually try to claim Trams are silent which is not true. There other claims is they can cope with steep inclines better again not true. Rail vehicles struggle with steep inclines well unless rack and pinion is used. They then claim they can handle tight bends better, again not true in fact they would have to slow down to walking pace and you would also get a lot of noise and waer on the track.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 6, 2006 22:24:22 GMT
Agreed. what trams can do trains can also do. It would certainly be a better option to just increase the frequency of the two busy tube lines. It would also be a good idea if buses were made a little bit faster with slightly wider roads and more bus lanes where possible. I can't imagine what a state of mess London will be in if a tramline were to be constructed.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2006 19:15:23 GMT
Agreed. what trams can do trains can also do. It would certainly be a better option to just increase the frequency of the two busy tube lines. It would also be a good idea if buses were made a little bit faster with slightly wider roads and more bus lanes where possible. I can't imagine what a state of mess London will be in if a tramline were to be constructed. The problem is London is so heavily built up widening roads in general is not an option it is cost prohibitive. It would mean demolishing hundreds of shops and homes etc. In very many cases even that may not be an option as many of the buildings will be grade 1 or 2 listed. I believe parts of the Northern line were actually dualled or at least some passing loops were put in. I think as well a detailed look ought to be taken of the existing Underground and rail networks. Most of the services run to routes established in the early 1900's. They may not meet todays Network By looking at the Network as a whole it could be optimized to meet todays needs . It may mean changing the routes of existing lines.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2006 22:03:32 GMT
What could be done might be to cut the pavement back a bit where it is too wide compared to the road (e.g. a few streches of the A5), and rid the central strip of the road where no one can drive on (e.g. where 29 and 253 share route).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 1, 2009 11:03:01 GMT
What could be done might be to cut the pavement back a bit where it is too wide compared to the road (e.g. a few streches of the A5), and rid the central strip of the road where no one can drive on (e.g. where 29 and 253 share route). In many cases paverments are already to narrow. In generally "A" roads with two or more lanes require a central reservation and or crash barrier by law or to meet modern safety standards
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 1, 2009 11:05:30 GMT
They can. In fact in Shanghai trolleybuses and buses very much share garages. They used to share garages in London
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 1, 2009 14:31:49 GMT
What could be done might be to cut the pavement back a bit where it is too wide compared to the road (e.g. a few streches of the A5), and rid the central strip of the road where no one can drive on (e.g. where 29 and 253 share route). In many cases paverments are already to narrow. In generally "A" roads with two or more lanes require a central reservation and or crash barrier by law or to meet modern safety standards Not necessarily. The A23 is a prime example of continued bus lanes IMO. As to pavements, for example the A5 near Cricklewood Broadway has pavements of 5 to 8 metres wide, yet loading and parking bays reduce the road to effectively only one lane.
|
|