Envied the World Over, Strasbourg’s Tram Expands Again

[marmar]

from the Transport Politic blog:




It wouldn’t be much of an exaggeration to suggest that almost every major metropolitan area in North America either already has a light rail system in operation or is planning to implement one. Unlike the metro or commuter rail systems that are primarily confined to the most populated regions, light rail is universally appealing because of its relatively cheap construction costs and the degree to which its implementation is credited with spurring the revitalization of dying city centers. More than any other mode of public transportation light rail is assumed (rightly or wrongly) to encourage “choice” riders to choose transit over driving, so it is often the most politically palatable choice when it comes to capital expansion decisions.

Compared to the tramways that have been constructed or expanded across Western Europe over the past two decades, though, U.S. attempts thus far have generally been more expensive, less productive in terms of urban redevelopment, and less effective in increasing ridership. Are U.S. cities building their light rail lines in an inappropriate fashion, or is there something inherently different about American tastes that make similar investments less effective this side of the Atlantic?

It’s worth considering the case of Strasbourg, which on Saturday opened the latest expansion to its tramway network sixteen years after this modern rail system first began operations in eastern France. Now with 34.7 miles of lines, the capital of the Alsace Region carries about 300,000 daily riders on its network. For comparison’s sake, the City of Strasbourg has about 270,000 inhabitants; the metropolitan area that surrounds it has between 470,000 and 650,000 inhabitants, depending on how far out one wants to measure. The region is planning — and has the funds for — the extension of several of the tram lines, the construction of a new downtown link, and even a connection across the Rhine River into the German town of Kehl. .........(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2010/11/29/envied-the-world-over-strasbourgs-tram-expands-again/

[elleng]

1. Interesting. Thanks.

'The 1989 municipal elections were largely fought over whether to build the VAL system, which the conservatives in power advanced, or a tramway that the opposition socialists promoted. The victory of the latter, founded on the fact that light rail at the street level is simply cheaper than a completely grade-separated network and that more could be constructed as a result, ensured the development of the system as currently in operation.

The mere fact that a local election fought between representatives of the country’s two major parties, one left and one right, was a haggling match over what form of transit technology was most appropriate for this city — rather than whether anything should be built at all — is an indication of where the politics of transportation fit in France. When one political party in the United States is ambivalent about public transportation and the other is downright hostile towards it, comparing any American city to Strasbourg may be unfair. Still, it is the implementation that matters, since many U.S. cities have been able to assemble financing to fund new light rail projects; finding ways to improve their effectiveness can’t hurt. . .

Transit planners made a conscious decision not to run the trams along highway corridors, partly because few of them enter the center city, but also because doing so increases construction costs, does little to encourage transit use because cars appear to speed by more quickly than trains, and reduces the potential for using the introduction of a new rail system to improve the aesthetics of the public sphere. Far too many American planners, from Denver to Los Angeles to Portland to San Francisco, have agreed to make a deal with the devil by placing rail lines along highway rights-of-way; doing so is often more politically feasible because it can be done in coordination with roadway improvements and does not appear to prioritize transit over car use, despite the fact that the latter is exactly what you want to do to make a transit system functional!. . .

Rennes’ center city is less remarkable than Strasbourg’s and the streets below or above which the VAL runs have not been substantially improved. Nevertheless, the large increase in transit use that has been experienced there suggests that it isn’t the tramway per se that makes transit in these cities successful. Rather, it can likely be attributed to the focus of both systems on serving only sections of the region that have adequate density to support heavy investments in rail transit. It may be hard to believe, but the furthest station from downtown Strasbourg on the tram system (Illkirch Lixenbuhl) is less than four miles away as a bird flies from the central station downtown (Homme de Fer). In other words, the region has focused its investments on a dense network with multiple, intersecting lines downtown, rather than a series of long, suburban extensions.*

Does this mean that efforts to build new transit lines in the U.S. cannot be successful? Of course not. But it does indicate that if we’re serious about taking the most advantage possible of the investments we make in new transit corridors, we must find ways to concentrate growth in the existing urban cores of our cities and find the political will to limit rail expansions to the areas that would respond most directly to its introduction.'

[txlibdem]

2. That is the difference between the French and Americans

"Now the city is building a second, €1 billion line that is expected to double rail ridership and put 73% of the city’s population withing 600 meters of a station."

They would be able to expect a significant percentage of people to walk 600 meters to get to the station. Here in 'Murika I don't think people would walk farther than 60 meters, if even that.

That is why I am a proponent of PRT -- Personal Rapid Transit. PRT picks you up at your home or apartment, takes you directly to your destination with no stops in between, you don't ride with other passengers unless you want to (that's the Personal part: you decide to share or not to share), and the PRT system is profitable because it will break through the barriers most Americans have against trams, trains, and buses.

Compare that to the US brand of public transportation: there are so few stations that you will probably have to drive to it, you then wait for up to an hour for it to arrive, then share the ride with a bunch of people you'd probably not want to associate with if you had a choice, there are many stops between your starting point and your destination so others can get off or board, the driver makes good money and has a great pension plan --that should make you happy as you ride to your low wage job with no benefits, and every car on the road is a potential show stopper for your commute because there often is no dedicated right of way, and riding public transportation takes you far longer (double or triple the time) than if you'd just driven there yourself, and you don't save that much money compared to paying for the gas to drive to work. These are failures of public transportation and a few of the reasons why only 3% to 5% of the American population use public transportation. It's as if someone put executives from the auto companies and oil companies in charge of designing public transportation in the US. You couldn't possibly be this incompetent without some kind of outside evil influence, could you?

PRT is cheaper to build than highways and needs far less routine maintenance -- so it costs less per mile. PRT would ensure the success of the American automobile companies because they would get the contracts to make the PRT dedicated taxis. US auto makers, US Steel companies, heavy industries of all types, electronics companies, computer makers, software companies, all of these would benefit from a switch away from trains, trams, buses and streetcars to the better, cheaper, more efficient PRT. Oh, and PRT uses far less energy to travel from point A to point B because the vehicles are light and are pushed along by well designed magnetic motors. The magnets are arranged in a Hallbach array and so the magnetic field does not extend beyond a couple of inches from above or below the track --only enough to securely and safely hold the PRT taxi onto the track and move it forward as fast as needed, no person or device will be harmed or affected by the magnets in any way. With the newly discovered printable magnets (so cool) the field can be fine-tuned to exist only up to 1/2 inch away --or whatever distance is desired, it is fully programmable with the printable magnets. Printable magnets would also further reduce the already competitive construction costs of PRT.

PRT can also be tasked with package and materials deliveries as well as passenger service. There would be no more need for those stinky, noisy delivery trucks that block the roadways today. PRT would make the air we breathe clean because it runs on electricity (even where the electricity is mostly produced from coal studies have shown that electric cars are cleaner than gasoline or diesel cars and PRT taxis would be even cleaner because of the very high efficiency of the Linear Induction Motors that they use).

PRT is better, more convenient, cheaper, better for the environment, and saves you thousands of dollars a year on car payments and car insurance. Why does America NOT YET HAVE an extensive PRT system in any major city yet?