Public Transit News / Current Events (MN only)

[FISHMANPET]

No idea what an LRV costs, but a bus is about a half a million and here in MSP they're on an 8 year life span. An LRV can carry more people than a bus and I don't know what the lifespan of an LRV is but I would say it could be 20 years at the least and with rehab go much longer, as there's no internal combustion engine to maintain.

[mulad]

Tcmetro's link on the Gillig bus contract gave these prices:

• $438,033 -- 40-foot diesel
• $658,716 -- 40-foot hybrid

40-footers are the standard, non-articulated type of bus used on regular urban routes around here (some lesser-used routes have shorter buses, though).

In August 2010, the Met Council negotiated the Siemens contract with a per-unit price of $3,297,714 for the S70 LRVs, though they got a good deal.

I don't have capacity numbers off the top of my head for the different vehicles, though.

[talindsay]

Do you think the compromises in quality are a bigger cost advantage than the much lower price of asphalt relative to steel? How about the much lower price of buses relative to LRVs?

Interesting question, but I think the capital cost savings there are wiped out by the very quick amortization of asphalt road surfaces - they have to be repaved very frequently and completely rebuilt at fairly regular intervals, whereas the rails have a very long life. I don't really know how this specific operating vs. capital piece of the equation works out, though I think it's decidedly less of an advantage for BRT than the ability to just declare that there is no guideway in some places.

[woofner]

My homies, I thought we were rapping specifically about the difference between BRT and LRT in initial capital cost. Vehicle capacity and lifespan and ongoing facility maintenance are valid concerns and worth considering, especially in light of government's favorable financing opportunities. But they are properly separated from initial capital cost are they not? It is generally accepted that BRT has higher operating and maintenance cost, and LRT has higher initial capital cost. We are trying to get at the latter, not the former.

I would add that while certain components could be skimped on to save construction costs, they could technically be added in later for the most part without significant study or public process. I'm not sure how often that happens, however.

[FISHMANPET]

I don't have capacity numbers off the top of my head for the different vehicles, though.

I did some Googling. A lot of it depends on how we arrange the seats.

This appears to be an APTA site (http://modernstreetcar.org/vehicles%20Siemens%20S70.htm), and they claim 150 per car from their carbuilder survey (whatever that is) but their copy of the S70 product brochure (which I can't actually find on the Siemens site) has 200 passengers. Further I found what looks like a datasheet from Houston (http://www.greg-vassilakos.com/traindwg ... ouston.htm) claims 241 people.

The Gillig website says the Low Floor bus has 40 seats:
http://www.gillig.com/New%20GILLIG%20WE ... 0floor.htm
I'd guess at max crush you could maybe fit 20-30 more standees.

Looking at the New Flyer Articulated buses:
http://www.newflyer.com/index/cms-files ... 041913.pdf
The 60 foot model (the articulated one) has 59 seats and room for 64 standees. They also claim on their 40 foot model that it can seet 40 and have 43 standees, so maybe my estimation of the Gillig is too low.

So let's say a bus at max load can fit 80 people incredibly uncomfortably, while a single train can handle 150 or 200, nearly as uncomfortably. However the train can be a three car train so that same driver can handle 450-600 people versus 120 max if the bus is articulated. So on the driver front the train is a clear capacity winner.

For easy math I'll call a 40 foot bus 500k (I'm guessing based on the number of standard and hybrid buses we buy this comes out pretty even) and the train 3.25m. A train is worth 6.5 buses but can only handle twice as many passengers (let's call it 80 vs 160) so on that level for the math to work out the train would have to last 3.25 times as long, or 26 years. And I'm guessing 26 years is pretty short for the lifespan of a train. We've had 9 years of revenue service on the blue line and I'm guessing those cars have an awful lot of fight left in 'em.

Thank you for reading my incredibly speculative post about vehicle life cycles and passenger capacity.

[talindsay]

My homies, I thought we were rapping specifically about the difference between BRT and LRT in initial capital cost. Vehicle capacity and lifespan and ongoing facility maintenance are valid concerns and worth considering, especially in light of government's favorable financing opportunities. But they are properly separated from initial capital cost are they not? It is generally accepted that BRT has higher operating and maintenance cost, and LRT has higher initial capital cost. We are trying to get at the latter, not the former.

I would add that while certain components could be skimped on to save construction costs, they could technically be added in later for the most part without significant study or public process. I'm not sure how often that happens, however.

You're correct, I just let myself get off-track (heh) because it's such a big deal in this case. I will say though that a dedicated guideway for a bus should actually be pretty close to the price of a dedicated guideway for light rail; the substrate work is very similar except that the bus needs a wider guideway. Obviously the asphalt surface is substantially cheaper than the ties and the steel rail, but I would expect the labor, digging, substrate, etc. to be a significantly larger portion of the cost in either case, and those costs should be similar. I suppose the rail substrate is probably a bit deeper to support the greater dynamic load, but the narrower dimension should offset most of that difference.

[mattaudio]

Question for greater transit geeks than I about ADA...
The Midtown corridor had a comment:

The current light rail cars have "0%" wheelchair tie downs per ADA standard we should either pit them in and "man" them, shut down the current system, or post "cripples not welcomed". or change the law. This is also in the Northstar system.

Completely ignoring the crazy options besides "change the law," I'm curious about what this legally means and what is considered to be compliance. Isn't the point of a LRV or commuter train that it is a smooth ride? Couldn't a wheelchair user just roll on in, lock the wheels, and be stable and safe?

[MNdible]

A quick scan of the ADA documents here would seem to indicate that the securement provisions only apply to buses.

That aside, does anybody really believe that with all of the federal oversight these projects receive that they would have missed this?

[mulad]

http://xkcd.com/285/

I haven't made a deep dive, but the wheelchair-related regulations I've been able to find with a quick Google search mostly relate to ensuring appropriate clearances and requiring a non-skid surface for any place that a wheelchair may fit (with rail, it appears there must be at least two designated spaces per car, but wheelchairs are allowed anywhere).

[talindsay]

A quick scan of the ADA documents here would seem to indicate that the securement provisions only apply to buses.

That aside, does anybody really believe that with all of the federal oversight these projects receive that they would have missed this?

Yes, absolutely. There is no way that if the law required tie-downs on LRVs they wouldn't be present. Minneapolis / Metro Transit even dutifully follow all the various "best effort" parts of ADA, such as the bumpy surfaces at all new crosswalks, etc, so I'm sure that they're 100% in compliance of the actual required things.

The person involved likely uses said straps on the bus and may not be able to find an adequate securement method on the light rail cars however - given the angry tone I'm guessing this is a personal issue for the individual. That might indicate that we should be providing the possibility, even if it's not required.

I have a friend who works for Mn/DOT on ADA compliance, I'll ask her about it. But I'm pretty sure it's not required.

[talindsay]

I just heard back from my friend and she says the entire fleet is in full compliance with ADA regulations - that includes fixed-route and para-transit buses, all light rail vehicles, and the Northstar vehicles. Apparently the feds won't fund anything that's out of compliance, so that pretty much guarantees compliance. Additionally, Metro Council took members of the local disabled community to cities using the same vehicles to confirm that they really deliver on their specs before purchasing - they went above and beyond. The rule apparently is that no chair can move more than 2 inches in any direction when it is properly secured; if tie-downs are required to stay within compliance, then the vehicle operators must properly secure, using all four tie-downs, any wheelchair before the vehicle moves. If the vehicle and its guideway are smooth enough to guarantee compliance using just the chair brake, then no operator intervention is needed and the individual may simply apply the brake upon entering the vehicle.

Apparently some fixed-route bus drivers don't always secure chairs properly, and Metro Transit has made it clear that people should report when that happens; I guess the paratransit people are pretty much always in compliance, since that's what they do.

Anyway, don't take anything above as gospel since I'm paraphrasing from a more detailed message; but the basic takeaway is this: the entire fleet in the Twin Cities is 100% ADA compliant as-is, and the LRVs do not require tie-downs to meet the accepted standards for security.

[mulad]

I've been noticing a lot of buses with brighter headlights lately (in the last 2-3 months) -- I'm guessing they're LEDs, though they have a color tone much like the HIDs on fancier cars. Are those just coming in with new buses, or are older buses being retrofitted? They seem to have become common rather suddenly, and I didn't think the fleet turned over quite that fast. But maybe they've been around longer than I thought and it just took until now for me to notice...

[mulad]

Route 54 is getting 12-minute service (from 15) in August due to increasing demand. It was profiled in a recent Metro Transit blog post:

https://www.metrotransit.org/route-54-o ... e-airport-

[talindsay]

Good news! I think it's funny how the planned upgrades they describe are basically the full suite of what they're calling "BRT" but they don't want to describe it as BRT in this instance, at least in that story. I suppose the 54 is still well below the 5, 21, 18, and 6 in terms of ridership, but it would be so easy - and cheap - to do rail on this corridor that it's hard to imagine what politics continue to keep it out of top consideration. I know St. Paul is looking at streetcars, which could work well here.

[mulad]

Regarding BRT vs. "BRT", you'll be disappointed by this week's article on the 84... (well, "disappointed" is probably not the right word)

https://www.metrotransit.org/route-84-s ... ing-avenue

[talindsay]

Also interesting: the 54 has higher ridership than the 84. I didn't know that.

[Tcmetro]

Metro Transit has put together a report about bus service on the East Side of St. Paul. Mainly tells us how many people are riding the buses, and some of the future plans. 64, 74, and 63 are fairly high ridership lines, whereas the 70, 71, and 80 have a substantially lower ridership. In August, night service on the 64, 71, and 74 lines will be improved to 30 minutes. Next summer the 63 goes to 20 minutes; in 2015 the 74 will run every 15 minutes weekdays and Saturdays; also in 2015, the 80 will get bi-hourly service and longer hours. These improvements are quite significant to the East Side network, I hope they also extend the 61 to midnight, run it every half-hour and add Sunday service.

There is also mention that the W 7th BRT line will be looked into this fall, and a possible E 7th extension will be considered then. I imagine that the aBRT proposal is going to be coordinated with the Rush Line studies.

http://www.metrotransit.org/st-paul-eas ... it-service

---

I'll post some ideas about what should happen to the route network once the aBRT and Gateway open:

3: Extend B branch from Maryland and Rice along Maryland to Hillcrest Center to provide a direct bus from the East Side to Minneapolis and to strengthen the grid network.
61: Improve frequency to 15 minutes weekdays, 30 minutes night and weekends.
62: Improve to 15 minutes from Downtown to Little Canada to replace 3B service.
63: Terminate at Sun Ray and improve to 15 minutes.
64: Reduce to 20 minutes, replace 71 along Edgerton St to Little Canada.
66: New bus along Burns, Earl, Maryland, Prosperity, Larpenteur, English, Gervais, and White Bear to Maplewood Mall. Every 30-60 minutes.
70: Extend service to Midnight.
71: Simplify to Westminister-McMenemy only. Every 20-30 minutes.
74: No changes.
80: Reroute to N St Paul via 64N branch, extend south of Sun Ray via Ruth and McKnight to replace Route 63 and extend to Woodbury. Operate every 15 peak, 20-30 off-peak.

[UptownSport]

Big crash in Spain, not like autos don't crash- but worry this'll be fuel for the fire of the anti-transit flames
http://mobile.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-23448002

[FISHMANPET]

Here's a video of the crash:
http://elpais.com/elpais/2013/07/25/vid ... 97773.html

It sounds like it was going too fast around that corner, and the momentum of the passenger cars caused them to jump off the track, pulling the front locomotive with them. Ironically, I wonder if using our heavy FRA mandated locomotives would have prevented this or made it not so serious, as the lightweight passenger cars wouldn't be able to pull the heavy ass locomotive off the tracks.

[mulad]

FRA standards make the whole train heavier, not just the locomotives, so I'm not sure it would have made much of a difference -- if anything, I'd imagine the train would have gone off the rails sooner. Trying to take a 50-mph curve at 120 mph is not going to end well no matter what...