DOCSLIB.ORG

LCRT Low-Clearance Rapid Transit

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
LCRT Low-Clearance Rapid Transit Generalized Feasibility Study LCRT (Low-Clearance Rapid Transit) Harald Buschbacher LCRT Low-clearance Rapid Transit Fast, reliable high-performance urban transport at moderate costs for the city budget Generalized Feasibility Study Generalized Feasibility Study LCRT (Low-Clearance Rapid Transit) Contents 1. Introduction and Initial Situation ............................................................................. 5 1.1. Basic Idea ................................................................................................... 5 1.2. Initial Situation: Average Speed of Different Tram and Metro Models ............................. 5 1.3. Application areas of LCRT ................................................................................ 8 1.4. Task and structure of this study ......................................................................... 9 2. Technical Feasibility and track / road geometry parameters ............................................ 9 2.1. Height difference between LCRT line and crossroad ................................................. 9 2.1.1 Inner height .......................................................................................... 10 2.1.2 Roof thickness and height of rooftop equipment ............................................... 10 2.1.3 Catenary height including electrical clearance ................................................. 10 2.1.3.1 Main variant with two pantographs at the vehicle’s ends ................................ 10 2.1.3.2 Alternative solutions ........................................................................... 10 2.1.4 Floor height according to applied running gear technology ................................... 12 2.1.4.1 Main variant ..................................................................................... 12 2.1.4.2 Alternative solution with running portal wheelsets ....................................... 13 2.1.4.3 Alternative solution with lateral aisles around running gear ............................ 13 2.1.5 Thickness of load-bearing structure, crest and road pavement .............................. 16 2.1.6 Thickness of the track structure .................................................................. 17 2.1.7 Summary: total height difference and cross-section of the underpass ...................... 17 2.2. Alignment parameters for the LCRT line .............................................................. 17 2.2.1 Vertical radii on crests and in hollows ........................................................... 17 2.2.1.1 Visibility ......................................................................................... 17 2.2.1.2 Vertical acceleration and ride comfort ..................................................... 18 2.2.1.3 Inclination change rate and stability for standees ........................................ 19 2.2.1.4 Vertical radii according to design speed .................................................... 20 2.2.2 Longitudinal slope ................................................................................... 20 2.2.3 Horizontal curve radii, superelevation and achievable speed ................................ 20 2.2.3.1 Excursus: Relevance of top speed and speed restrictions for total travel time ...... 26 2.3. Geometry parameters for crossing roads .............................................................. 28 2.3.1 Longitudinal and cross slopes ...................................................................... 28 2.3.1.1 Wheelchair accessibility ...................................................................... 28 2.3.1.2 Current regulation for road geometry ...................................................... 28 Generalized Feasibility Study LCRT (Low-Clearance Rapid Transit) 2.3.1.3 Considerations about safe and smooth traffic flow ....................................... 28 2.3.1.4 Comparative measurements .................................................................. 28 2.3.1.5 Slope parameters for the LCRT concept .................................................... 29 2.3.2 Vertical radii on crests and in hollows ........................................................... 29 2.3.2.1 Visibility on the crest .......................................................................... 29 2.3.2.2 Vertical acceleration .......................................................................... 29 2.3.2.3 Ground clearance on the crest ............................................................... 30 2.3.2.4 Comparative measurements .................................................................. 30 2.3.2.5 Vertical radius in the hollow ................................................................. 30 2.3.3 Elevation of traffic areas against the surrounding level ....................................... 30 2.3.3.1 Possible effect on cityscape and neighbouring buildings ................................. 30 2.3.3.2 Real examples of height and width in public space ....................................... 31 2.3.3.3 Limit values of elevation angle for the LCRT concept .................................... 36 2.3.3.4 Feasible elevation depending on available public space ................................. 36 2.4. Trench depth of pipes and cables below the road surface ......................................... 38 2.5. Standard dimensions of LCRT underpasses ............................................................ 39 2.5.1 Shallow underpass ................................................................................... 41 2.5.2 Deep underpass ...................................................................................... 44 2.5.3 Underpass with hairpin curve ...................................................................... 46 2.5.4 Completely sunken underpass ..................................................................... 47 2.6. Detailed considerations about traffic routing ........................................................ 47 2.6.1 Bidirectional traffic on both sides of the LCRT line ............................................ 47 2.6.2 Traffic signal cycle in case of missing turning lanes ........................................... 47 2.6.3 Application of roundabouts ........................................................................ 48 2.7. Level crossings for pedestrians and cyclists .......................................................... 48 2.8. Barrier effects on pedestrian flow and possible special solutions to overcome them .......... 51 2.8.1 Barrier effect of the standard solution ........................................................... 51 2.8.1 LCRT line without fences (in at-grade sections) ................................................ 52 2.8.2 Mechanical crossing aid (special design elevator) .............................................. 52 2.8.3 Retractable fences .................................................................................. 54 2.8.4 Shallow cut-&-cover construction with direct platform access ............................... 57 2.9. Effects of LCRT underpasses on the cityscape ........................................................ 57 2.10. Possible division of the street cross-section depending on its width ........................... 60 Generalized Feasibility Study LCRT (Low-Clearance Rapid Transit) 2.10.1 Street cross-sections for maximum use of the road width as traffic area .................. 60 2.10.2 Special aspects of LCRT lines in streets with vegetation ...................................... 66 3. Cost estimation ................................................................................................. 67 3.1. Preamble ................................................................................................... 67 3.2. Infractructure construction costs ....................................................................... 68 3.2.1 Methodology and input data ....................................................................... 68 3.2.1.1 Calculation scenarios .......................................................................... 68 3.2.1.2 Indexation and currency conversion ......................................................... 68 3.2.1.3 Costs for conventional tram and metro lines as cost base and for comparison ....... 68 3.2.1.4 Additional costs: Analogy calculation ....................................................... 71 3.2.1.5 Additional costs: compontents calculation ................................................. 72 3.2.1.6 Additional costs: Pedestrian overpasses, fences & compensations ..................... 75 3.2.2 Results ................................................................................................ 76 3.3. Vehicle costs ............................................................................................... 77 4. Costs and achievable speed depending on the surrounding urban structure .......................... 78 5. Further alternatives and design considerations ............................................................ 83 5.1. Rubber-tyred version ..................................................................................... 83 5.1.1 Minimization of pavement stress .................................................................. 83 5.1.2 Variants of radial adjustment of non-driven wheels ........................................... 86 5.1.3 Modified position of the guiding rail .............................................................. 87 5.1.4 Advantages and disadvantages of the rubber tyred version ..................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Appendix C3. Public Engagement Record: December 2019
    Appendix C3 Public Engagement Record: December 10, 2019 to September 16, 2020 Public Engagement Record: December 10, 2019 to September 16, 2020 • Website Screenshots Public Engagement Record: December 10, 2019 to September 16, 2020 • Ask-A-Question Submissions Ask A Question – January 23 to September 16, 2020 Comment title Comment body Response Future Is the western terminus of the line to be built so that it would be able to be We are currently advancing plans for the line between Exhibition/Ontario expansion extended north west at a later date? Thank you Place and the Ontario Science Centre. However, these plans don’t preclude future expansions that may be presented to improve access and meet demand. Thorncliffe Park Where is the station in relation to Overlea Blvd Teams are analyzing the 15 stations identified in the Initial Business Case to Station determine whether or not they should be built, looking at factors like the potential number of users, ease of construction, and cost, to name a few. Findings will be presented in the Preliminary Design Business Case, which we are aiming to complete by summer 2020.By using the GO corridor and building bridges across the Don River instead of tunneling underneath it, a route that is approximately twice the length of the Relief Line South can be built at a similar cost. Also, using the GO corridor will allow people to more easily connect between GO and TTC services that will both be accessible by street level, saving time compared to connections that would lead people into deep underground stations.
    [Show full text]
  • The Vision of Montreal's Downtown at the Core of a Polycentric City And
    Page 1 Montreal, November 3, 2016 Anton Dubrau The Vision of Montreal’s Downtown at the Core of a Poly­Centric City And How to Get there With Public Transit A Contribution to the Office de la Consultation Publique de Montreal on the “Strategie Centre­Ville”. Page 2 1. Intro 4 2. What is a Poly­Central City? 4 3. A Transit System for a Poly­Centric City: An S­Bahn 6 4. What would an S­Bahn look like in Montreal? 10 5. The REM ­ The North­South S­Bahn? 15 5.1. Intro 15 5.2. Low Capacity 17 5.4. Monopolization of Mount Royal Tunnel 20 5.4.1. A Second Tunnel? 25 5.4.2. A Solution: Shared System of REM, AMT, VIA 26 5.5. Bad Transfers At Gare Centrale 29 5.5.1. REM ⟷ Orange Line 29 5.5.2. Improving the transfer REM ⟷ Orange Line 30 5.5.3. Further Improving the transfer ­ Moving a Metro Station 31 5.5.4. REM ⟷ Reneve­Levesque 32 5.7. REM: bypassing Griffintown, the Old Port, Pt­St­Charles 35 5.8. Summary 35 5.9. Ridership 35 5.10. An Alternative: CN Rail Viaduct 36 5.11. A Note on Cost 40 6. Summary 41 7. APPENDICES 42 7.1. APPENDIX A: Description of a Shared System between AMT, VIA & REM 42 7.1.1. Frequency, Dwell times & Schedule 42 7.1.2. Track Layout and Station 47 7.1.3. The McGill Station 47 7.1.4. Signalling system / automation 48 7.1.5.
    [Show full text]
  • Time Is Not a Military Rank”: the Production of History and the Liberalization of the Spanish Railways by Natalia Buier
    “Time is not a military rank”: The production of history and the liberalization of the Spanish railways By Natalia Buier Submitted to Central European University Department of Sociology and Social Anthropology In partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Supervisors: Professor Don Kalb Professor Violetta Zentai CEU eTD Collection Budapest, Hungary 2016 Contents Introduction: In defense of a materialist anthropology of memory .................................................................... 5 i. Introduction .................................................................................................................................................................. 5 ii. Towards a materialist anthropology of memory ....................................................................................... 10 The production of history ......................................................................................................................................... 13 The production of history and historical memory ......................................................................................... 19 The production of history and hegemony .......................................................................................................... 25 The production of history and the anthropology of class ............................................................................ 29 A case in context ..........................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Minerva Plan a Rail Strategy for Southeast Queensland Foreword
    The Minerva Plan a rail strategy for Southeast Queensland Foreword The history of rail in Australia strategy since the Connecting Queensland will be addressed, is dotted with pivotal moments SEQ 2031 regional transport describing the envisioned which have had far-reaching plan was dis-endorsed. It is in development of the network implications. From Bradfield’s this absence of a rail strategy over the coming decades – vision and predominant that Cross River Rail has with a modified Cross River Rail realisation of his railway been allowed to come to its at its core. scheme for Sydney which has current form, with no guiding served our biggest city for framework with which to This document is the Minerva nearly a century, to the pre- measure its suitability in the Plan, a rail strategy for Federation break of gauge long term. Southeast Queensland. The debacle which took almost one Minerva Plan will revisit hundred years to resolve, the Major inner-city rail previous works, including long term implications – both infrastructure has a lifespan Connecting SEQ 2031, to good and bad – of railway extending beyond a century, present a rail strategy that planning decisions are clear with the potential to increase is ‘familiar, yet different’, to see. In 2020, Queensland is the efficiency and liveability and for which considerable facing its own pivotal moment of a city, and it is important investigation has already been with the design of the Cross that the project is designed undertaken. River Rail project. Cross River to deliver on these objectives. Rail has been approved, had Unfortunately, Cross River Rail This plan will set out the contracts signed, and early is not fit for purpose.
    [Show full text]
  • Incentivising Better Capacity Management in GB Rail: Case Study Evidence from Other Industries and Railways: ORR/CT/14-63
    Incentivising better capacity management in GB rail: Case study evidence from other industries and railways: ORR/CT/14-63 FINAL REPORT 27th March 2015 Prepared for: Prepared by: The Office of Rail Regulation Credo Business Consulting LLP One Kemble Street 12 Arthur Street London London WC2B 4AN EC4R 9AB Incentivising Better Capacity Management in GB Rail NOTICE This report has been prepared by Credo Business Consulting LLP (“Credo”) on the basis of the Agreement signed with the Office of Rail Regulation, One Kemble Street, London WC2B 4AN (“ORR”) on the 22nd January 2014. This report has been prepared solely for the benefit and information of the ORR and any parties mentioned in the Agreement. We will not accept responsibility or liability to any other party to whom the report may be shown or who may acquire a copy of the report. All interviews, observations, analysis and forecasts contained in the report have been made on the basis of the information available at the time of the assignment and have been prepared as at 27th March 2015. We have not undertaken to update our report for events or circumstances arising after that date. Credo cannot be liable for any subsequent changes. In preparing the report, Credo relied upon, and assumed the accuracy of, information obtained from a variety of sources, including but not limited to: interviews with selected TOCs, Network Rail staff, industry experts, representatives of international railways (specifically Vancouver SkyTrain, Eurostar International Limited and Kombiverkehr), and representatives of other industries (aerospace, telecommunications and highways). We have made selected use of financial, government and economic statistics and forecasts; management statements and estimates; published market research; published academic and economic research and public filings of financial information.
    [Show full text]
  • CB Tra D Pe Anspo Edestr Ort a Rian C Ccess Cong S Gestion – P Publ
    Tivendale Transport Consulting CBD Pedestrian Congestion – PPublic Transport Access City of Melbourne Melbourne January 2012 Version 3.0 This document is confidential and is intended solely for the use and information of the client to whom it is addressed. DM 7884999 This page is intentionally blank Date: 30 May 2014 Filename: COM_SERVICE_PROD-#8045493- Prepared for CLIENT NAME i v1-Walking_Plan_Technical_Report_- _Pedestrian_Congestion.DOCX Executive Summary The City of Melbourne currently attracts 800,000 people each weekday. This figure is expected to grow to 1.2 million people each weekday by 2030. A significant proportion of these additional trips will be made on the city’s rail networks. Having used the rail network (both metro and tram) most passengers then need to walk through the public realm to reach their final destination. This study is focused on areas of high congestion and access to transport nodes in peak periods. The aim is to ensure that the public realm which provides access to these transport nodes remains safe and functional as passenger demand and pedestrian volumes increase. In some locations, peak pedestrian demands on footpaths and pedestrian crossings are already outstripping supply of space for pedestrians to move. The City of Melbourne has identified eight transport nodes that generate pedestrian congestion points in weekday peak periods. These include all the City Loop Metro Stations and three platform tram stops (Federation Square, Melbourne University and Town Hall). In these locations there are concerns that overcrowding of pedestrians is not just detracting from the CBD economy and quality of transport but is also creating safety problems (for example when pedestrians resort to walking along the traffic lanes because there is no space remaining on the footpath).
    [Show full text]
  • Timeforavisiblehandbook.Pdf
    Time for a Visible Hand The Initiative For Policy Dialogue Series The Initiative for Policy Dialogue (IPD) brings together the top voices in devel- opment to address some of the most pressing and controversial debates in economic policy today. The IPD book series approaches topics such as capital market liberalization, macroeconomics, environmental economics, and trade policy from a balanced perspective, presenting alternatives, and analyzing their consequences on the basis of the best available research. Written in a language accessible to policymakers and civil society, this series will rekindle the debate on economic policy and facilitate a more democratic discussion of development around the world. OTHER TITLES PUBLISHED BY OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS IN THIS SERIES Fair Trade for All Joseph E. Stiglitz and Andrew Charlton Economic Development and Environmental Sustainability Ramo´nLo´pez and Michael A. Toman Stability with Growth Joseph E. Stiglitz, Jose´ Antonio Ocampo, Shari Spiegel, Ricardo Ffrench-Davis, and Deepak Nayyar The Washington Consensus Reconsidered Narcis Serra and Joseph E. Stiglitz Capital Market Liberalization and Development Jose´ Antonio Ocampo and Joseph E. Stiglitz Industrial Policy and Development Mario Cimoli, Giovanni Dosi and Joseph E. Stiglitz Time for a Visible Hand Lessons from the 2008 World Financial Crisis Edited by Stephany Griffith-Jones, Jose´ Antonio Ocampo, and Joseph E. Stiglitz 1 1 Great Clarendon Street, Oxford OX26DP Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers
    [Show full text]
  • Crossrail 2 Consultation Analysis | Report
    Crossrail 2 Consultation Transport for London Analysis Report Our ref: 22909201 March 2016 Client ref: Crossrail 2 Consultation Transport for London Analysis Report Our ref: 22909201 March 2016 Client ref: Prepared by: Prepared for: Steer Davies Gleave Transport for London 28-32 Upper Ground Consultation Delivery Team London SE1 9PD 4th floor, South Wing, 55 Broadway, London, SW1H 0BD +44 (0)20 7910 5000 www.steerdaviesgleave.com Version 7, reissued 29/09/2016. Steer Davies Gleave has prepared this work for Transport for London. This work may only be used within the context and scope of work for which Steer Davies Gleave was commissioned and may not be relied upon in part or whole by any third party or be used for any other purpose. Any person choosing to use any part of this work without the express and written permission of Steer Davies Gleave shall be deemed to confirm their agreement to indemnify Steer Davies Gleave for all loss or damage resulting therefrom. Steer Davies Gleave has prepared this work using professional practices and procedures using information available to it at the time and as such any new information could alter the validity of the results and conclusions made. Crossrail 2 Consultation Analysis | Report Contents Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................... 5 Background ................................................................................................................................... 5 Autumn 2015 Consultation
    [Show full text]