High Speed Rail - bring on the trains!

High speed rail has been studied to death in Canada (as well as the US from what I've read) and yet there is not a single truly high speed rail line on the continent. Amtrak's Acela doesn't count in my books, because it is plagued by delays and sub-par infrastructure along it's route between Boston and Washington, DC. Theoretically, the Acela trainsets can reach an astonishing 322km/h (200mph), but due to the tracks and having to share with freight traffic, trains are limited to a maximum of 240km/h and in some sections can't travel at more than 200km/h. Overall, the average speed on an Acela trip: a sad 138km/h. Compare this to the speed record for conventional rail trains (rather than MagLev) that is currently held by France's TGV of an incredible 574.8km/h! You can see why I find it hard to call Acela "hish speed".

What's frustrating is that nearly every study that has been done, including all recent studies (say the past decade or so) say that Canada is ready for high speed rail in 3 corrdiors:
1. Quebec City-Montreal-Ottawa-Toronto-Windsor-(Detroit)
2. Calgary-Red Deer-Edmonton
3. Vancouver-Seattle-Portland

Having taken the train several times between Montreal and Toronto (which like the Acela line is rarely on time) and in a few places in Europe, I can say that it is 100 times better than flying between two cities. Heck, departing on a flight from Edmonton, you have to drive so far south to get to the airport that you may as well just keep on going to Calgary...which is what most people do.

Here are the main reasons I'm a huge fan of high speed rail:

1. It's faster. For example, Edmonton to Calgary is a 3 hour drive on a boring and very busy highway - add at least half an hour for travel by bus. A flight is only 45 minutes, but add to that checking-in an hour in advance, a 30-45 minute drive to the Edmonton Airport and 20-30 minutes from Calgary airport and you're easily over 3 hours. Compare that to a train traveling at a realistic 300km/h from downtown to downtown and you'd be there in just over an hour.

2. It's way more comfortable. Wide seats, tons of legroom, a smooth, quiet ride, no restrictions on when you can have your laptop out, cell phone reception (which I'll admit, at times isn't a good thing), the ability to get up and walk around whenever you want, real-sized bathrooms...I could go on forever. I'm not a huge Via Rail fan, but they got it right: "A more human way to travel." Also, it's been proven that a huge percentage of the general population will gladly take a train if it's available, but not a bus - you can count me on that list.

3. Zero emissions. Of course, only if it's planned for - but high speed rail is powered by electricity, which can come from solar, wind and hydro, emitting zero emissions. It's going to be a long time before we have a zero emissions jet (if ever).

4. Greater capacity in a smaller footprint. A high speed rail corridor with one track in each direction can easily handle 12,000 passengers per hour, each way, (and with higher speeds and double-decker trains that can reach 20,000). A single lane of highway is designed for a maximum of about 2250 cars/hour. What this comes down to is that a typical 6-lane highway has 13% less capacity than a standard rail system and takes up 2.5 times the land area!

5. It's friggen cool! Okay, I know this isn't quantifiable, but I guarantee that once you ride a high speed train, you'll be sold on it. Rocketing along the rails at incredible speeds and yet still being able to sit back and look at the scenery is one of the best experiences I've ever had.

For a great overview of high speed rail and even more stats, go to:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-speed_rail

So if high speed rail is so great, why hasn't it been built here? Well, quite simply: cost. There is no question that high speed rail, while comparatively cheap to operate, has a very high initial cost and therefore must have government involvement. Many oppose the construction of high speed rail because they feel it is giving the rail line a competitive advantage to air and road travel and that taxes shouldn't be spent on such a "subsidy". But I think they forget where our airports and roads came from - our taxes. The airline and bus industries have already been subsidized for decades. The cost to build the 6-lane highway mentioned earlier through a mostly rural area is in the range of $12 million to $34 million per km (a huge range because so much depends on the location and geography of the route). The cost for the most recent high speed rail line in France (Paris-Strasbourg) came to $15.1 million per km, hardly out of touch with the comparable highway cost. Then there's the maintenance costs; the asphalt on this 6-lane highway will last a maximum of 15 years in Canada before repaving is required (at a cost of $200,000 per km), whereas the rail line is deisgned to last 100 years with minimal maintenance.

There are a ton of studies, reports and proposals out there, so it's hard to nail down which numbers are right. But overall, high speed rail wins without question. It may be an expensive investment, but it's one that will last for decades and brings big societal and environmental gains with it.

Recommended Reading:

California High Speed Rail Authority

Stop This Train!
By Tom Vanderbilt
Are trains slower now than they were in the 1920s?
(The answer is yes)

High Speed Rail in Canada

Edmonton's Trolley Buses Laid to Rest

When I heard a few days ago that the City of Edmonton had killed it's fleet of trolley buses, I felt a bit of sadness as well as anger. As anyone in Vancouver knows, trolley buses are much preferred over diesel buses because they are so much quieter and aren't belching out fumes. It's so nice to see and hear a trolley bus glide by, hearing only the noise of its tires and the whiz of the power collectors as they slide along the wires.

Edmonton Journal: Trolleys' last stop on road to oblivion

The City of Edmonton says that killing the remaining trolleys (they were down to 24 buses operating regularly) will save $100 million over the next 20 years. I'm not sure who they got to do their math, but that seems like a number contrived just so they can justify killing the buses. So many other cities in the world are upgrading and extending their trolley bus lines. There are even cities seriously considering bringing back their trolley fleet, but starting from scratch is expensive. Edmonton already has the basic infrastructure of overhead wires in place, so why throw all that away? They seem to have completely lost their way.

The new buses with the battery back-up don't need to stop the second their poles pop off the wire, should that happen...and they can drive off their usual route should there be an obstruction ahead. Those "unsightly" wires - that's subjective. I find them very interesting - they are such an urban statement and artists and photographers find beauty in them in the urban environment. They are a clear indication of where the bus travels, making it easier for people to see where routes go.

There are those that argue that trolley buses are no cleaner than diesel buses, because in the end, (in Alberta, at least) you're still getting power from fossil fuels, be it from a coal-fired power plant or a tank full of diesel. First, they are ignoring the quality of life benefits of trolley buses vs. diesels mentioned above. Second, they miss the point that the power could be generated without fossil fuels via wind, hydro or solar. The City of Calgary runs it's C-trains (indirectly) on wind power - why can't Edmonton (who owns the power utility EPCOR) do the same for the trolley buses? In addition, studies have shown that even in places like the Netherlands where the power is generated by a mix of coal, oil and gas, the emissions of the trolley bus, including the power generated to run it, is about 30% lower than a comparative diesel.

Trolleybus UK gives a great overview of trolley buses and the system.

With any luck, maybe the city will come to its wits and realize the true value in the trolley bus, at the very least as a tourist attraction. The city of San Francisco's streetcar line is big with tourists because it run old streetcars from around the world. The trolley bus, having been in Edmonton since 1939, has the same potential and done properly, can serve as a commuter route at the same time.

Edmonton Journal: Trolleys have tourism potential

20 years ago this may have made sense, but in 2009 this is pure ignorance on the part of the city. Edmonton: fix this mistake before it's too late.

Rome's Piazza Navona in Philadelphia?

This is the type of project we need to see in more cities. High-density, mixed use development with a great public space in the middle. It's obviously no Piazza Navona, but it sure does look great. Hopefully there are days with more than a few people in it!

See the article in the Philadelphia Inquirer

Daimler and Tesla Agreement

I think this is great news for both companies, but particularly Tesla. My Model S is looking more and more attainable each day!

See this report from AutoblogGreen

Vancouver's View Corridors - Part 2

In yesterday's post I mentioned that I thought several of the view corridors should be modified into a v-shape. Here's an example of what I mean. I think it's a much more attractive "gap" in the buildings, and the V-shape (blue line) they would create would contrast with and accentuate the mountain peak beyond. This solution allows significantly taller buildings in many parts of downtown, while maintaining the great views.

Vancouver's View Corridors

Vancouver is known for its compact downtown of office and residential towers, but what you may not know is why the buildings are the height they are. Looking at the skyline from a distance they all look to stop at about the same height, forming a fairly level (and some might say boring) dome-shaped skyline.


This picture is a perfect example, but you'll notice an exception, which is the new Shangri-La tower (explained below). The reason behind these building heights is view corridors. From the City of Vancouver website:
"View Protection Guidelines were approved in December 1989 and establish a number of view corridors (also known as “view cones”) over the downtown peninsula to protect views of the north shore mountains from a variety of locations south of the downtown peninsula. In February 1997 Council endorsed policies resulting from the Downtown Vancouver Skyline Study intended to result in a “dome-like” skyline shape incorporating certain key principles. In line with this decision, in May 1997 Council adopted the General Policies for Higher Buildings which outline where and under what conditions buildings higher than current maximums—up to 600 ft.—could be considered."

Not many cities have such a policy, but few cities have the natural setting that Vancouver does. That being said, downtown is such a small part of the city and region, that this does seem a bit ridiculous. Made more ridiculous by the fact that many of the view cones start from a fairly arbitrary point. The view cones limit not only the height of buildings, but also their shape, which is well represented by the triangular shape of the Shanrgi-La where the architect basically sliced off a corner of the building so as not to obscure the view.

Now in theory, this is a great policy with plenty of merit. But, those mountains in the background are over 4000' feet tall. No building or group of buildings could ever obscure their grandure. To me, some of the view cones to me are laughable while others make sense but could use some tweaking. Fortunately, the City agrees and has begun a review of all the corridors to possibly eliminate some, change others, and possibly even add some. Go visit the City's website to see all about it and to see the view corridors for yourself and why they are reviewing them.

Downtown Capacity & View Corridors Study
Study Area & Scope (here you'll see that the view cones pretty much cover all of downtown.)
View Cone List

Now the fun part - here's my opinion on each view corridor (the ones that are part of this study, at least)! Use the View Cone List to see a photo of each one.

A - Seems random and narrow, I'd scrap it
B1 - Again seems random, but it does show The Lions which are spectactular. Take the V-shaped bottom approach (see below)
B2 - You're kidding right? Scrap it.
C1 - Take the V-shaped approach.
C2 - Scrap it.
D - Mostly obscured by sailboat masts anyways - scrap it.
E1 - V-shape
E2.1 - I think there is development planned at the water's edge there - V-shape it.
3.xx - In general I like these ones - it is one of the great views in the city. I think the buildings downtown could go MUCH heigher though before they'll even begin to impact the mountain view. So I'd say raise the bottom of it significantly.
9.1 - V-shape
9.2 - V-shape or eliminate it - buildings have already cut into the view and it still looks great.
12 - This group of views generally seems pointless - very few people walk or cycle across the bridge, and they would be the ones to see the view. The cars are all whipping along at 80km/h or more, so they sure don't really need a view (and this speed and noise also explains the lack of pedestrians and cyclists travelling it).
12.1 - Scrap it
12.1.2 - Scrap it
12.1.3 - I literally laughed out loud when I saw this image - I think you know my answer.
12.2 - Now this one makes sense - being able to have that long clear view down Granville Street is pretty cool - ideally new towers that get built would help frame the view in the distance.

In general, my opinions may seem rash and illogical with little to back them up. But the way I look at it, developers want to build tall towers, people love to see, live and work in tall towers. Cities like New York and Chicago are fun, lively, vibrant cities and are known by their tall buildings. So let's allow taller (well designed, of course) buildings! It brings even more people into the city, and the opportunity for more office and work space as part of a mixed use project can't be overlooked. And if we're lucky, we'll end up with a truly landmark tower in this city some day - maybe even more than one.

Form Shift Vancouver

I attended a lecture last night that presented the winning submissions in Form Shift. After that presentation panelists debated questions on the issues that generated the competition. What is Form Shift? Here's a description taken from clips on the site (http://formshiftvancouver.com/):

Over the past 20 years, the approach to community planning, zoning, density, transportation and housing in Vancouver has yielded substantial improvements. Continued improvement, however, requires ongoing innovation and creativity.

The City of Vancouver has developed Climate Change Action Plans as well as the EcoDensity Charter. Vancouver was the first city in Canada to adopt The 2030 Challenge for green house gas reduction. City Council has taken that commitment a step further with the stated goal of becoming “the greenest city in the world”.

FormShift Vancouver challenges you to give shape to these goals through ideas and design solutions that will help shape the future of the city...this is your chance to build a hypothetical form of the future, one that is in keeping with the vibrant, ecologically-friendly and sustainable city to which we aspire.

The post-presentation debate brought up some very interesting ideas...

• We encourage development along arterial roads (typically 4-6 stories, commercial/retail at ground level and residential above) because they are transit routes, meaning residents don't depend completely on cars. But these routes are very noisy - few people want to live on them. I can attest to this having turned down several condos while house hunting for that very reason. So how do we balance the traffic, noise and density with the desires and needs of residents?
• The suburbs are growing at a much faster rate than inner cities. How do we move more of that growth to our cities? How do we encourage people to relocate into our cities versus the suburbs? How do we work with suburban communities to help them grow smart?
• Does density = affordability?

Anyways, go visit the website and check out all the entries that are posted there.

Cars, Bikes and the Burrard Street Bridge

If you've never ridden a bike (or roller-bladed, or even walked, for that matter) over the Burrard Street Bridge here in Vancouver, let me try to paint a picture for you. There are 6 lanes of traffic squeezed onto the bridge with a sidewalk that is maybe 6' wide on each side. The curb feels like it's 12" above the road. Bikes and pedestrians share the bridge, (never a good combination). I compare it to riding your bike along a balance beam - that curb is a huge drop, and between trying to stay on the sidewalk and not hit pedestrians, well you can see why I avoid using that bridge at all costs - it's just no fun! The same could be said for the Granville Bridge, but for now I'll stick to the matter at hand.

I can't believe that the first (and to date, only) test for converting lanes on the Burrard Bridge to bicycle lanes was 13 years ago. That's right, 1996 - and the issue is up for debate again. That test only lasted one week (due to complaints from drivers), so the results have to be taken with a grain of salt. But even in that one week, car traffic dropped and bike traffic significantly increased. And no where in Canada is the climate better suited for cycling than southwestern BC. At long last the new city council is voting on a plan for a six month trial starting in June, and I predict a huge success.

First, I did some searching on the website of the Alliance for Biking and Walking. They have dozens of reports on all types of travel, and here are a few points that I liked most from one report, Making Cycling Irresistable, by Puncher and Buehler.

• Germany, Denmark, and the Netherlands have greatly improved cycling safety since 1970. Although levels of cycling have increased in all three countries over the past 35 years, the total number of cycling fatalities has declined by over 70%. Fatalities fell by 60% in the UK over the same period, but the amount of cycling also decreased. The least improvement in cycling safety has been in the USA, where fatalities fell by only 30%.
• As the cyclist fatality rate per billion km cycled rose by 174% from 1950 to 1978, the average km cycled per inhabitant fell by 65%. Since the mid-1970s, Dutch cities have undertaken massive improvements to cycling infrastructure and restricted car use. The result has been an 81% fall in the cyclist fatality rate...thus encouraging a 36% increase in km cycled per inhabitant.
• The perceived traffic danger of cycling is an important deterrent to more widespread cycling. Women and the elderly appear to be especially sensitive to such traffic danger. Many American parents do not allow their children to cycle for the same reason.
• In the USA, much of the effort to improve cyclist safety has focused on increasing
  helmet use, if necessary by law, especially for children. Thus, it is important to
  emphasize that the much safer cycling in northern Europe is definitely not due to
  widespread use of safety helmets. On the contrary, in the Netherlands, with the safest cycling of any country, less than one percent of adult cyclists wear helmets.
• Rates of cycling are similar among different income classes. For example, the
  2002 national travel survey in Germany revealed that the lowest-income quartile was
  only slightly more likely to travel by bike (10% of trips) than the highest-income quartile
  (8.3%) (German Federal Ministry of Transport, 2003). Similarly, cyclists are distributed
  evenly among income classes in the Netherlands and Denmark (Dutch Ministry of
  Transport, 2006; Dutch Cycling Federation, 2006).
  

It really boils down to common sense, as many studies have shown - make cycling safer, and more people will get out of their cars. Bikes and cars don't mix - drivers are scared of hitting bikes, and cyclists are scared of being hit by a car. Make it safer for one, and you're making the road safer for everyone, improving traffic flow overall. (Not to mention the cars that are no longer on the road because the driver now cycles). Sort of a "build-it-and-they-will-come" situation.

(On a side note, the "build-it-and-they-will-come" phenomenon works for cars as well. It's been shown that when, for example, a highway is widened, the overall increase in traffic ends up being much more than the capacity that was added, and in not too long traffic is actually moving slower than it was before! Clearly, building more roads is not generally the answer to traffic problems.)

Now of course drivers aren't going down without a fight here - they are worried about traffic. Traffic in Vancouver can be hell, but it's no worse than any other city in North America. In fact overall, I find it to generally be no big deal - and I've traveled to numerous major cities across the continent. Drivers here are worried that reducing lanes on the bridge will create traffic havoc. Fact is, although the first week or two may be a pain, in the long term drivers learn and overall traffic actually decreases by more than than the capacity that was taken away. In addition, I have never once been stuck in a traffic jam on Burrard Bridge itself - the problem has been the intersections and traffic lights at either end. Taking away space on the bridge shouldn't even be the issue for drivers.

The funniest thing I heard on the news today was someone from (I believe) the Downtown Business Association. Their concern is that fewer people will come downtown and business will suffer, because fewer people will want to cross a more congested bridge. Well, let's be honest here - there isn't a truly non-congested route to get to downtown as it is - so how will this make it any worse? If anything, business will increase as more cyclists from the rest of the city feel comfortable coming downtown instead of staying on the other side of False Creek. In a study done by the City of Toronto (Feb. 2009) with regards to adding bike lanes on Bloor Street, it was found that "Patrons arriving by foot and bicycle visit the most often and spend the most money per month..."

I could go on forever with facts and figures and reports and studies that show how beneficial the conversion of these lanes will be, but the best data is going to come from the actual test. Let's at least try this for 6 months and get the hard data. I think that even the drivers will be surprised at how much better this solution is. As I've said before, we can't keep growing based on the needs of cars, because that only keeps getting us into more trouble - no one can argue the fact our roads are only at capacity for a few hours out of every day. We have to look at new options - not just for the environment, but for our quality of life as well.