Transit
Fully wireless streetcars feasible soon, but not today
Are wireless streetcar technologies ready for DC to build a fully wire-free system? Not yet, but in a few years, they might be.
Primove. Image from Bombardier.
A panel of streetcar experts from Houston, Portland, and other cities gave a matter-of-fact, balanced overview of the state of streetcar technology last night at a forum sponsored by DC Surface Transit.
Based on the presentations, it appears that if DC wants an affordable streetcar system that isn't at great risk of breakdowns in extreme weather, it can't build streetcar lines today that don't use overhead wires for most of the length. The hybrid approach using batteries across key gaps can protect key viewsheds.
But wires might not last for that long. Battery and supercapacitor energy storage technology is evolving so quickly that in a few years, technologies will allow longer and longer distances without wires, and one day, complete wire-free operation. DC should move ahead with a wire line on H Street, then a battery and wire hybrid system closer to the monumental core, and continue evaluating systems to one day tear the wires down completely.
Overhead wires are overwhelmingly the most common power system for streetcars around the world. Alternative systems break down into three general categories: Ground-level power, on-board storage, and on-board generation.
Ground-level power
Ground-level power includes the conduit systems DC used prior to 1962, the Innorail system in Bordeaux, and experimental systems like the magnetic induction system Primove. The conduit system was the result of a wave of experimentation that happened from 1888 to 1895 when Congress banned overhead wires in the L'Enfant City and also anounced its intention to ban horse-drawn streetcars.
People tried cable cars, a "skate" that connected two distantly separated rails, and even pneumatic systems before settling on the conduit, which had a narrow channel in the road where a "shoe" reached down and connected to the live wires. Paris, London, New York, Bordeaux and other smaller cities used some conduit as well, but it was expensive to install and prone to breakdowns and problems with snow and debris getting in the channel.
It's safe to touch an Innorail third rail. Photo from APTA.
However, this is also expensive and has had maintenance problems. It adds about $130,000 to the cost of each vehicle, and track is 300% more expensive. Bordeaux also has a milder climate than DC. Still, a new system in Dubai (which has no snow at all) will use this system.
Other in-ground systems, like Bombardier's Primove which uses magnetic induction similar to electric toothbrush chargers, are still untested and also likely bring large extra costs. Another problem with in-ground systems is that they force the city to buy all tracks and cars from one vendor, keeping prices high.
On-board storage
A more promising possibility is on-board power storage: batteries, ultracapacitors, flywheels, and other more exotic storage methods. This technology is evolving very rapidly and improving at a speedy clip.
Most new streetcars already use some degree of batteries, including DC's, whose batteries allow about 100 feet of wireless movement, enough for moving around in maintenance facilities. Other vehicles are using batteries to store the energy from braking and to even out the load on the electrical systems through wires.
Savannah already has a 1-mile streetcar that can run without wires at all, but they also have overhead wires as a backup and currently are using the overhead wires. Those cars also don't have air conditioning or heat. For a system that has climate control, ½ mile is about the longest we can reasonably expect cars to travel without wires.
Kawasaki claims its experimental Swimo system will be able to go 10 kilometers on a single charge. That's been going through trials in Sapporo City, Japan, but no city is using this for real yet. There have been some reports of overheating, and the batteries need frequent replacement.
There are many different types of power storage technologies, all with different characteristics around capacity, cycle depth (how far it can be charged and discharged), cycle frequency (how often a unit is charged and discharged), voltage, rates of charge and discharge, shelf life, operating temperature and more.
Ragone chart. Image from APTA.
A "Rangone chart" shows how various systems trade off between energy density (how much energy they store for a given weight) and power density (how fast they can put out that energy). Basically, there's a tradeoff between the two, with fuel cells very powerful but slow, and regular capacitors fast but weak. Double-layer capacitors, also known as super- or ultracapacitors, occupy a large middle ground that shows a lot of promise.
It's very possible that within a few years, on-board storage systems might become good enough to run streetcars for long distances without recharging or only recharging at stations. Right now, however, that's not the case. As Scott Kubly pointed out to me after the meeting, battery technology is especially promising because the far larger auto industry is now working hard to create better power storage and regenerative braking, and they have far more R&D muscle than transit companies.
A big advantage of on-board storage systems compared to ground-level power is that there's no infrastructure in the tracks. Therefore, every time a city buys new cars, they can upgrade to better systems without having to replace all the tracks. They can also run multiple vendors' technologies side by side.
On-board generation
Some cities do use streetcars powered in some areas by diesel generators. These take up some room in the vehicle, emit clouds of pollution, and create noise and vibration, just like buses do. Fuel cells show some promise but are also still not commercially viable yet.
Risk
The biggest consideration in a power system is risk. The more untried the system, the more likely it is to break down. Houston's Thomas Hickey talked about BART versus PATCO, two transit systems built at the same time just before Metro. Both used state-of-the-art systems with automatic train operation. BART relied on it, while PATCO planned to use human operation for the first few years. As a result, PATCO was running at 75 mph from the start, while BART had to run at 35mph for 2 years while they dealt with problems that cropped up in the technology.
Therefore, Hickey recommended trying to be the second city to adopt a technology instead of the first, and to always have a backup plan. DC, for example, could build an overhead wire system on H Street and try out new cars that have batteries. For some distances, they could try lowering the pantograph and running on battery. If it fails, they can always put the pantograph back up.
Once that works smoothly and reliably, DC could proceed to operating a line on K Street that omits wires in a few areas, like from Farragut to McPherson Square and around Mount Vernon Square. Greg Baldwin of Zimmer Gunsel Frascal showed a design and video they'd made for the Downtown BID (which they promised to send out soon) showing a streetcar running on the K Street Transitway, dropping the wires in those areas.
Once the technology is ready, DC could start buying even more state-of-the-art battery systems that could run entirely without wires, and try operating those on K Street or other segments that have some wires and some gaps. Eventually, DC could switch entirely to wire-free vehicles and tear down most or all of the overhead wires that they had built.
Summary of streetcar power systems. Image from APTA.
After listening to the presentation, I came away convinced that one day, DC will have a great streetcar system and no wires, just like Committee of 100 advocates wish. However, we don't know exactly how long that will be. Maybe it's 2 years, maybe 20. The question is whether we go ahead with a system in the meantime, giving the technology time to develop and providing a "plan B" testbed for new vehicles that's not completely dependent on wireless technology, or wait what could be a long time.
Given the eagerness of H Street and other areas for streetcars, the opportunity to fund it now, and the availability of federal funds from Obama and LaHood's DOT for streetcars and urban mobility now, the smart path would be to build wires on H Street, wires with gaps in sensitive areas, and work hard toward the day when DC can tear out all the wires and run a clean, pleasant, modern transit system that's also wire-free.
 | David Alpert is the Founder and Editor-in-Chief of Greater Greater Washington and Greater Greater Education. He worked as a Product Manager for Google for six years and has lived in the Boston, San Francisco, and New York metro areas in addition to Washington, DC. He loves the area which is, in many ways, greater than those others, and wants to see it become even greater.   |
Comments
- Bikeshare is a gateway to private biking, not competition
- Judge denies injunction against closing schools
- Long-term closures: A solution to single-tracking?
- Metro policy for refunds after delays falls short, riders say
- M Street cycle track keeps improving, draws church anger
- Cyclists are special and do have their own rules
- O'Malley announces first projects using new gas tax money
How come people never talk about that idea?
by Tim on May 7, 2010 12:41 pm • link • report
by David Alpert on May 7, 2010 12:44 pm • link • report
by Kenf on May 7, 2010 12:49 pm • link • report
by Dan on May 7, 2010 1:18 pm • link • report
by aaa on May 7, 2010 1:41 pm • link • report
Did anyone else notice a clear bias at the meeting against the Bordeaux in-ground power system? It was the ONLY system that they presented numbers for (to support their argument that it was more expensive). They said Bordeaux's system was about $100k more expensive per train and 3x more expensive to install. It was not given fair consideration.
They also gave lipservice to the fact that the Bordeaux system is beautiful. You know, this city spends so much time and effort to keep the mall-part of the city looking beautiful, it should really spend some on keeping the rest of the city nice too.
Face it --- wires are ugly. There's no two ways about it. The Bordeaux -- trains, tracks, and power -- are beautiful, and you cannot put a price on that.
DC should choose the Bordeaux system. It will inspire the country to invest in the place we treasure as our nation's capital, and might encourage other cities to do the same.
(also if we're going to allow wires, they why not make the buses run on over-head wires too? and just wire up the whole damn city.)
by I was there on May 7, 2010 1:41 pm • link • report
See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Frankreich_2007.10.25_112329_.jpg
B-e-a-u-t-i-f-u-l!
by like the look of that on May 7, 2010 1:43 pm • link • report
Excuse me... but BWAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. First off, the city doesn't maintain the Mall, the NPS does. Second, many people (include myself) don't think they're doing such a great job. See also: http://www.nationalmall.org/
by Adam L on May 7, 2010 1:46 pm • link • report
I love metro and ride it to work a few times a week. I am also a fan of Circulator and otherwise a staunch public transit supporter, but "I" think catenary masts and wires are ugly as sin.
No one realistically thinks that if DC builds a catenary masts and wire system, than in 5, 10 or 20 years the city would ever dare rip it out and replace it with wireless. Not a chance.
It isn't as simple as "hanging wires". There is substantial infrastructure involved in catenary masts and wires. On top of the wires and masts, there are the dozens of electrical feeder and substations that would need to be built around the city. There is also the construction of the maintenance and repair infrastructure that can't be retasked later. Dubious? WMATA had to fund a new 100 million dollar bus garage last year because the facilities they had couldn't handle the repairs/maintenance on our new and growing nat gas/hybrid buses.
The SWIMO system has a few hundred thousand kilometers under its belt since its debut 4 years ago and works by the book. Kawasaki has rated it for 10 KM between 5 minute charges but that has turned out to be the minimal capabilites as its record is 37km between charges.
Despite all the gaff Bordeaux's system gets on this blog, Bordeaux celebrated 6 million km of APS operation in 2009. Three other French cities, Angers, Reims and Orleans decided in 2006 to install APS sections on their new light rail networks, and as we know, it was selected for Dubai's Al Safooh Tramway.
The technology is here, today and it is proven. If we are going to crazily spend billions of dollars on an uneeded trendy toy that we will forever be stuck with, there is no reason to do it half assed.
Go ahead and build your wired system in H Street and Anacostia. The money for those projects was wasted 5 years ago and it is outside the L'Enfant city anyway, but I there really isn't a debate about viability for wireless systems for anything that isn't.
by nookie on May 7, 2010 1:46 pm • link • report
"also if we're going to allow wires, they why not make the buses run on over-head wires too? and just wire up the whole damn city."
Because when you have trolleybuses, it requires a substantial increase in wire infrastructure over a streetcar. Since the streetcar runs on metal rails, the wheels and track act as the ground for the electricity. Since the trolleybus is on rubber tires, there needs to be a second wire to act as ground.
I mention this only because a lot of the images that people post complaining of overhead wires are more indicative of trolleybus wiring than a single streetcar wire.
by kidincredible on May 7, 2010 1:53 pm • link • report
I was there, too - and the impression I got was there are two reasons that Bordeaux was the only system with price numbers presented. First, the standard technology and the associated prices are fairly standard and uniform - lots of manufacturers, lots of standard parts, lots of competition. Second, the reason that none of the other alternative power supply systems had prices attached to them is because none of them are actually commercialized yet. Bombardier's Primove induction system is more of an idea than a marketable product.
Regarding the in-ground power options, proponents have still not managed to address the weather and climate. Each of those places that have or are planning to have such a system are in more arid locations with much milder winters.
Furthermore, the operational considerations from the gentleman from Houston were illuminating. You must have an operational plan B.
by Alex B. on May 7, 2010 1:58 pm • link • report
by nookie on May 7, 2010 1:59 pm • link • report
You're right, the cost for rolling stock is minimal. 3% isn't much.
What did concern me was the 300% increase in costs for laying track.
But I guess that's an improvement - they also mentioned that the old conduit system had 5-7x the capital costs and 3x the operating costs of a standard overhead contact system.
by Alex B. on May 7, 2010 2:06 pm • link • report
But
The pretzel logic of the Capitol Hill Restoration Society on this is laughable.
On the one hand, a single wire would destroy forever the "viewshed" [sic--their word and a made-up word at that].
On the other hand, Capitol Hill Restoration Society is the main proponent of a plan to rip up Pennsylvania Avenue SE between 7th St and 9th St SE, and put kids' water parks, statuary and/or shiny, skinny one-to-two-story spikes in the middle of the road...actually, really destroying the view of the Capitol approaching from the southeast.
Those with serious concerns about wires on this board, talk among yourselves. But the disingenuous Pennsylvania Avenue re-routers from Capitol Hill Restoration Society, keep it to yourselves until you decide which side you are on.
by Trulee Pist on May 7, 2010 2:06 pm • link • report
Anyone know offhand how much snow Dubai gets per annum?
Just curious.
by oboe on May 7, 2010 2:16 pm • link • report
The wire rules were put in place in a time of telegraph lines going everywhere, when power companies were just introducing electricity and had lines of varying non standard voltages (thus each had their own) going everywhere. That looked like garbage. I am glad NYC and DC put in rule getting that under control.
Next you will see Lance argue that it is in our planning 'Constitution' that we can never ever ever allow wires in DC, as if it is something that can never be changed. Our real Constitution once allowed slavery and denied women the right to vote. Overhead wires for a fixed line streetcar are so unobtrusive these days that this debate is silly and gives NIMBY's and easy canard to hide behind. Save the money, buy commercial off the shelf standard streetcars, string up that single wire and lets get this party started!
by NikolasM on May 7, 2010 2:19 pm • link • report
One curious bit I picked up in discussion after the presentation (with Timothy Borchers) was that Bordeaux still has tremendous difficulties with the APS system: apparently, it's been quite difficult to maintain physical contact between the pickup shoe on the streetcar and the center electrified rail. One of the principle ways that Bordeaux got their reliability up was to retrofit the streetcars with (more?) batteries, to let them keep moving when the APS pickup failed.
For Dubai, they've completely re-designed the pickup shoe, so there's a sense in which Bordeaux and Dubai aren't really using the same systems. How well Dubai's APS equipment performs, of course, remains to be seen.
If batteries and supercapacitors continue to get better, as many think they will, and considering that most APS installations being considered are only for small portions of the overall route structure, I wouldn't be surprised if APS fades away in a decade or so. Some combination of on-board storage might, in a few years' time, be obviously better performing and cheaper for short-distance wireless sections, and you'd be able to get competitive bids for any expansions, from several different companies each with its own way of doing on-board storage, instead of being locked in to the one manufacturer of APS or whatever other external wireless technology is bought.
by thm on May 7, 2010 2:33 pm • link • report
by J.D. Hammond on May 7, 2010 2:35 pm • link • report
I'd also disagree with the assessment that the conduit system has "no issues" with regards to proprietary technology or "proven reliability." I thought it was established that the system was proven to be unreliable, and that the cars would have to be custom-built, unlike the current cars which were essentially bought "off the rack."
The flywheel storage is one of the more interesting ideas, and warrants further exploration, given that flywheels are relatively mature from a technological standpoint. The flywheels could also be used as a gyroscope, which would let you do interesting things like riding on a single rail
by andrew on May 7, 2010 2:55 pm • link • report
by Transit User on May 7, 2010 3:07 pm • link • report
The ban on overhead wires only extends to the L'Enfant City: the area between the Potomac and Anacostia Rivers and Florida Ave.
DC is currently constructing a streetcar line in Anacostia, which is why DC bought those 3 streetcars. They will be running in 2012 - in the City of Washington.
by Matt Johnson on May 7, 2010 3:09 pm • link • report
Speaking of Bordeaux, the vast majority of its streetcar system uses overhead wires. Indeed, they recently converted several stretched from APS to overhead wires and all new extensions use overhead wires. Here is Avenue Thiers, just off of Place Stalingrad in Bordeaux:
View Larger Map
Such an ugly street. It so stifles stirring thoughts of democracy and open government............
by rg on May 7, 2010 3:16 pm • link • report
by LA on May 7, 2010 3:34 pm • link • report
by LA on May 7, 2010 3:37 pm • link • report
by bigger question on May 7, 2010 3:43 pm • link • report
by lobbyist on May 7, 2010 3:45 pm • link • report
And anyone who honestly says it would be a good idea to forgo the historic cast "acorn" street lamps in DC, or to substitute/replace them with highway cobraheads as displayed in this street view, has no taste or asthetic quality whatsoever.
by nookie on May 7, 2010 3:51 pm • link • report
by NikolasM on May 7, 2010 3:57 pm • link • report
Have you ever been to Alexanderplatz? The trams circulating there aren't ugly, and they've been there since Bismarck.
by J.D. Hammond on May 7, 2010 4:03 pm • link • report
Some people think wires are ugly. Flatly asserting that they are not ugly is not going to change anyone's mind. The only thing it accomplishes is to harden opposition. If you want to see streetcars in DC, you are far better off acknowledging that wires are, for some people, not ideal, but that the benefits of the streetcars outweigh the downside of the wires.
I don't like the wires. I can live with the wires. I suspect there are lots of people who would share my opinion, if you'd stop telling them they're wrong, and instead explained the benefits of the streetcar.
Sincerely,
jcm
by jcm on May 7, 2010 4:11 pm • link • report
Isnt H street inside of the L'enfant City and not outside of it ?
by kk on May 7, 2010 6:57 pm • link • report
Vibration and noise are principal passenger-experience failings of buses with onboard engines. Reading and murmered conversation are impractical, so passengers shout and misbehave. Therefore - if speculation may be permitted to intrude - nice people avoid the bus and it spirals into a third-world-worthy ridicule.
The electric rubber-wheel trolleybuses I have ridden were smooth-riding and quiet. The passengers were in the city, of the city, witnessing the city and fully present in it - not merely powering through it. Not only that, but those trolleybuses also had rip-snorting good acceleration!
Avoiding the diesel engine is a very sound idea.
by Turnip on May 7, 2010 7:09 pm • link • report
by Fred on May 7, 2010 11:23 pm • link • report
If you've ridden a trolleybus compared to a regular bus, you know this effect. Those electric buses can really take off from a stop.
by Michael Perkins on May 7, 2010 11:24 pm • link • report
I'm pretty sure every single option on the table would be electric traction - the only question would be supplying the electricity. The diesel options presented were all diesel-electric, if I recall correctly.
by Alex B. on May 7, 2010 11:50 pm • link • report
Well-said. I am one who disagrees with you about the visual impact of modern wires, but you've added to the conversation and I wish streetcar proponents here and elsewhere would heed your advice.
I also wish that the folks who oppose wires would acknowledge that the wireless options will all be less efficient and more expensive than wires. (If the Bourdeux system worked well enough to not rely on back-up batteries, I suppose it would be as efficient as wires, but clearly it costs a lot more). The supercapacitors and batteries will all be expensive, heavy, and will not deliver 100% of the power used to charge them. Some of this inefficiency is offset by regenerative braking, if that is used, but it is possible to use regenerative braking with wires anyways.
More expensive, less efficient, fewer wires. The longer the gaps between wires, the more expensive, and the less efficient.
I have not seen anyone who opposes wires acknowledge that basic tradeoff. Instead I see blanket assertions that technology will fix everything, as if there was no reason whatsoever to consider wires except for DC's infantile decision to purchase those three streetcars.
by DavidDuck on May 8, 2010 12:11 am • link • report
View Larger Map
The real eyesore is wiring at intersections and streetcars on such short stretches of wireless track don't need fancy wireless power technologies, they can rely on batteries/supercapacitors these days.
@Alex B: It doesn't matter how you transmit power from diesel to the wheels, acceleration is still limited by power of the prime mover.
by dejv on May 8, 2010 6:53 am • link • report
by Truth in Transit on May 8, 2010 10:52 am • link • report
The presentation from the folks at APTA offered a great deal of evidence against the old conduit system. The system was massively unreliable and extremely expensive - you'll note on the last summary matrix slide that David posted, the conduit system has two giant red marks on capital costs as well as operating and maintenance costs.
During the presentation, the APTA folks indicated that the capital costs for the conduit system were 500-700% greater than that of the overhead contact system, and operating costs that were 300% greater than the overhead contact system.
Even if the system was completely physically reliable (which it was not), that's not a sustainable financial operations cost.
by Alex B. on May 8, 2010 11:47 am • link • report
and 'giving away' the service for nothing, is?
Mass transit is rarely self sufficient. It hasn't been since the time the automobile came around and offered a cheaper (and more flexible) alternative to mass transit. A story that is analogous to when computing needs were met by a few mainframes situated here and there, and then PCs, laptops, and now SmartPhones came around and gave 'competition' by lowering the costs substantially and increasing the flexibility geometrically.
Back when streetcars were first introduced a century and a half ago, they were all privately funded, and obviously profitable ... else why would people have been putting them up. But in todays world we have to realize that because of the more versatile and relatively far cheaper automobile, streetcars (and mass transit) in general cannot 'compete' without public tax subsidies. I.e., It's a given that "a sustainable financial operations cost" applies to all aspects of mass transit. So here the question becomes 'how' do we pay for this system. Do we pay for it only in cash? or in a combination of cash ... and the ruining of our views? I'd personnaly opt for the first option since at least the costs there are quantifiable.
by Lance on May 8, 2010 1:57 pm • link • report
From a planner's point of view I'd add this spin:
1) $6 million per mile for a 120-year-old technology with a 20-year+ amortization life when the onboard power option is known to be progressing fast, driven by demand, can't be justified just because it exists and is proven.
2) Machiavelli's famous observations on the difficulty of change apply. If you ask the smartest honest experts on the current state of the art, all you can hope to get is a consensus view of the present looking backward. What happens will be equally driven by the emerging technology and future trends, including the public acceptance of aerial plant. Its no more reasonable to believe masts and wire will continue to be acceptable than to think the resurrection of utility poles, aerial transformers, insulators and guy-wires would go unremarked.
3) All external supplies saddle transit to maximum grid dependence during those rush hours when electric power is most costly and when the least clean generating capacity makes its largest contribution to on the grid.
4) Debate the timing, but hydrogen will emerge as a ubiquitous integrating infrastructure and urban hydrail transit is the easiest early application for it. The hydrogen bus fleets in British Columbia, Europe, Asia, Australia and the US all foreshadow it.
5) DC's options aren't limited to shopping among available options. The US DOT / FTA has an Office of Mobility Innovation is right there, whose role includes avoiding short-life investments in dying technologies by funding the demonstration of new ones.
The future of technology is the confluence of developing trends, not continual extrapolation of the past with the cheapest temporizing modifications.
DC, please bring the change agency the rest of us need—not the final bow of moribund transit tech.
by Stan Thompson on May 8, 2010 3:11 pm • link • report
Just awful.
In comparison, the streetscapes in downtown Portland have not be negatively impacted by the wires. Those streetscapes are not the wide open vistas of Pennsylvania Ave, though. Portland's streetcar line (at least the northern part of it that I'm most familiar) is through a streetscape that is quite intimate by virture of narrow streets and a pretty dense tree canopy. The wires are hardly noticeable because of the close proximity of the trees.
http://www.lightrailnow.org/images/por-lrtscar-psu-campus.jpg
http://downtowntrolley.org/uploads/images/12308_10T_221.jpg
I'm curious if trees be used on some of DC's streetcar corridors (K St.?) to preserve the "viewshed."
by youstreet on May 8, 2010 9:26 pm • link • report
by ignoratti on May 9, 2010 10:23 am • link • report
Back when streetcars were first introduced a century and a half ago, they were all privately funded, and obviously profitable ... else why would people have been putting them up. But in todays world we have to realize that because of the more versatile and relatively far cheaper automobile, streetcars (and mass transit) in general cannot 'compete' without public tax subsidies.
Actually, this is totally and completely false. First of all, streetcar systems were not really profitable institutions - most of them were propped up by other businesses (they were owned/operated by land developers, who made money on the developments they connected with the streetcar, or they were owned/operated by the electric utility companies).
The second falsity you have here is the idea that car travel is "relatively far cheaper." It may appear that way to the individual driver, but the reality is that car travel is highly subsidized. The government builds roads and other infrastructure - these costs are, contrary to popular belief, NOT completely covered by user fees like the gas tax - the subsidy might be around 50% of these costs. Factor in indirect subsidies (like the fact that individual cars pollute much more than transit, money spent by the government to keep our oil supply flowing, etc.) and car travel in cities is really not "far cheaper" than transit.
by MLD on May 9, 2010 11:00 am • link • report
What's that green stuff in the middle of the street? ;-)
by Chuck Coleman on May 9, 2010 2:46 pm • link • report
It's worth nothing that the streetcar line in Toronto pictured here, as well as the most iconic San Francisco streetcar lines, have so many wires because they deliberately use legacy technology. Modern streetcar systems use much fewer wires.
Also, here's a scenic viewshed in Prague despoiled by streetcars.
View Larger Map
by Phil on May 10, 2010 12:04 pm • link • report
My understanding of Tommy Wells' proposal is to repeal the wire ban altogether, giving the green light to not only street cars, but any overhead wires. Even if the provision is just an exclusion for streetcars, without a legislative fire under their butt, there's no reason for the DC Government to change technology. There will always be some other issue that will be more important. Maybe they'll frame it by saying "either remove the wiring, or get 10 more miles of track." Bottom line, there will always be some "better" option for the funds that would be used to convert the wired system to one without wires.
Now some absurb accusations, like that of NikolasM, equate this law to depriving women the right to vote. Just because a law is old or unique, doesn't mean there aren't good reasons to keep it. There are large car-free urban areas in some parts of the world (think Middle Eastern medinas) because of very old provisions that stood the test of time. I doubt very many people here would think that's an antiquated law that needs to be repealed and is tantamount to continuing slavery.
The L'Enfant city is unique because of that provision. Countless other technological developments could have used the same argument for its repeal: accelerating telephone access deployment to residents, accelerating broadband internet access, hastening the speed of electricity deployment when the city was first electrified, etc.. Surely, these are all beneficial public utilities that, at one time, could have made a case to repeal the existing law. I think we're all glad that it didn't. So, why does transit get the exception?
by SDJ on May 10, 2010 2:04 pm • link • report
And to those obsessed with "on-board generation" - if you go that route, burning diesel fuels, you're totally defeating the purpose of a light rail system and might as well just stick with dirty old buses! The entire premise behind this project is to free ourselves of carbon emissions and dependence on fossil fuels--in addition to providing a comfortable mode of transporting larger numbers of people than a bus can handle. The data is clear--wires are CURRENTLY the only way to go!
by Matt on May 12, 2010 1:09 pm • link • report
Nice hyperbole: "I really don't want urban transit development to come to a screeching halt"?
Yes, plans for both the Silver and Purple lines are now in shambles. The bike lane paint is being shelved. Performance parking is being removed. And cycle tracks are axed in favor of keeping car lanes.
"Screetching halt?" Gimme a break. (By your estimation, streetcars don't screetch anyway). No one is saying "no streetcars" - just "no streetcars with wires." As a twenty-something native (i.e., not "nostalgic old fart"), I value one of the assets that keeps central DC unique.
Go ahead, convince me why transit deserves higher regard compared to any other wired service - power, telephone, internet, cable. Why is transit that much more of a public service, when 100% of people in the District use electricity, and we still have the audacity (gasp!) to ask companies to underground their wires?
Captcha: something noisy
by SDJ on May 12, 2010 1:51 pm • link • report
Why is driving a car such a public service that it deserves to have above ground gas stations? Shouldn't all those stations be underground? They certainly ruin "the viewshed" for me. And shouldn't the gas for the stations be delivered by underground pipelines instead of large trucks?
by Brian White on May 12, 2010 3:57 pm • link • report
by David Alpert on May 12, 2010 3:58 pm • link • report
I agree. They do ruin the viewshed. Isn't that kind of where we're headed anyway with more and more parking garages being put underground instead of in flat lots? That's the trend - we're working toward that. Just like new developments are working towards putting ALL utilities underground, which DC has wisely done for the last century.
But to counter your point, there's a history of NOT having overhead wires in DC - why ruin our perfect season? If DC had a law that said ALL vehicular stations - gas stations, autobody shops, Jiffy Lubes - had to be underground. Then there was an exemption for, say, gas stations. Wouldn't you feel as though it had been unfairly favored? Wouldn't you be upset?
Even streetcar proponents elsewhere in the country recognize the uniqueness of DC's viewsheds (see Comment #1):
http://cincystreetcar.wordpress.com/2009/11/19/overhead-wire-singular/
The only people who don't seem to understand the concern are the people who want something "for me, right now, wah wah." Once it's done, it's done. Don't you get that this CAN'T be reversed? It will be financially and politically impossible to reverse it.
by SDJ on May 12, 2010 5:24 pm • link • report
DC used to have several hundreds of miles of trolley tracks. Where are they now? Gone. Ripped out and forgotten except for the occasional converted car barn. Financially and politically reversed. Nobody specifically wants overhead lines. They want the best solution, best being defined as most reliable, most cost effective, and least tied to a specific vendor. As soon as there's a proven Mr. Fusion unit out there that's as reliable and cheaper, slap it in there and take down the lines.
"The only people who don't seem to understand the concern are the people who want something "for me, right now, wah wah.""
I live a block and a half from H St. Where trolley tracks are in the ground. Where the entire street has been ripped up for the past year to put them in, causing massive disruption for the business and residents. Yes, I want them now. Or else I want the past year of H St's life back please.
" Isn't that kind of where we're headed anyway with more and more parking garages being put underground instead of in flat lots? "
More concerned with things like the massive raised Southeast-Southwest freeway and the dividing line it creates. Take a bajillion miles of trolley lines. Now multiply that by 15 googleplex more bajillions. Still not as disruptive as the Southeast-Southwest freeway. Auto transport is always the most disruptive form of transport
by Brian White on May 12, 2010 9:45 pm • link • report
:)
by Brian White on May 12, 2010 9:48 pm • link • report
your link says nothing about the DC wire ban and all about the unobtrusiveness of a single overhead wire. Your understanding of things, if one can call it that, is specious.
by NikolasM on May 12, 2010 10:49 pm • link • report
by Roger on May 13, 2010 9:35 am • link • report
You cite several examples of poor planning in the past as a reason to continue poor planning. That's like a thief pointing to a murderer saying - look, he did something worse! Comparison is NOT exoneration. Removing the trolleys to begin with was a stupid move. Building the SE/SW Freeway, that I live just a couple blocks from, was a stupid move. Building a wired streetcar, when all signs point to a different direction of technological progress, is a stupid move. To have the audacity to claim that one day existing wires will be swapped for a different technology is ludicrous. And if you believe that could actually happen, you've really been convincing yourselves that the moon is made of cheese.
Similarly an "in-too-deep" argument doesn't work either - how does that make anything more or less appropriate for the city? It's the same argument that stubborn husbands use when they're lost. It's the same argument that Presidents use when they start a...oh never mind.
@NikolasM
The link was to show that streetcar supporters (as I've countlessly been falsely attacked for not being) in other parts of the country recognize the exception of DC in the use of overhead wires. Commenter 1 says, "In some cities that have a history of burying their utilities (Washington DC, NYC) or hiding the overhead lines in alleys (Chicago, and to some extent Indy.) I can understand that it would seem to be a step backwards in visual pollution." Apparently, only stubborn-minded and selfish DC residents DON'T understand that.
by SDJ on May 13, 2010 12:16 pm • link • report
The word 'seems' is significant here. How often does someone say "I know it seems wrong.... and yes it is totally wrong!"? It's much more common to say "I know it seems wrong... but here's why it's not:..."
You asked above why transportation is so much more privileged than power supply that it deserves to have wires showing. It doesn't matter why. DC has shown that it considers transportation so important that it is allowed to do bad things. My question to you is why streetcars should be any less privileged than other forms of transportation? If cars are a murderer, why aren't streetcars allowed to be rowdy hooligans? The best way to reduce the impact of cars is to have other forms of transportation more available. To me the balance of the effects are favorable. "Perfect" is the enemy of "the good" in this case. I want a reliable, cost effective, non-experimental system for my tax dollars. Which doesn't make me stubborn-minded or selfish, but thanks for the gratuitous insult.
by Brian White on May 13, 2010 12:39 pm • link • report
If you want to parse a comment to the point of playing with semantics, fine, but that not is not indicative of anything other than wordplay. The commenter noted DC's difference in having wireless streets. The fact that that is noticeable to outsiders = point made.
In addition, I didn't mean to insult you, but if you look at your writing you said: "I live a block and a half from H St. [...] Yes, I want them now. Or else I want the past year of H St's life back please." As impartial as I can be, yes, that is a selfish sentiment. You want the streetcar for yourself despite other people's objections. The District-wide plan of streetcars proposes one for my very street, and I would no doubt benefit from it - but I do want to get this right and I am willing to wait. We don't get a do-over!
On your point of allowing cars to be murderers, I actually think the growing paradigm is shifting away from car-centric lifestyles. Consider Zipcar, consider (as I mentioned) the beautification of parking facilities (with underground lots and disguised above ground lots), consider the removal of traffic lanes in parts of downtown in favor of bike lanes, consider bikesharing facilities. Is there a hell of a lot left to do? Absolutely, but hey it's a start. Reversing a trend is a lot harder to do than continuing a good one - and the latter is what I hope we can do now.
I guess my point that has been lost in all of this is that those of us who are against this major push are consistently ridiculed for being transit neanderthals who are so far beyond the pail that we should be dismissed on grounds of insanity. Truth is, we have legitimate arguments and concerns that you might not agree with, but that are valid nonetheless. I don't disagree with you that there are transit transgressions committed constantly in other developments, but I don't see why we can't hold ourselves up to higher standards when the opportunity presents itself. You might view this entirely within a transit lens, but I see this also through a wires lens, where we're breaking with century-old established practice. The same practice that developing communities around the country are striving to attain - and something we have achieved naturally through DC's growth. I see that as a regression with regards to how electricity is wired around town. I realize this is a transit blog, but effective development is not JUST about how people move. It's about how water moves, it's how energy is used, it's how energy is provided, and it's about how it sets a precedent for future growth. All of these things MATTER. We may weigh them differently, but it doesn't mean my understanding (or my accused lack thereof) is "specious" or that I'm part of some underground conspiracy that surreptitiously wants to dash any hopes of effective streetcar system so that people must be forced to drive cars and choke on exhaust and then die a horrible and painful death while I kill babies and laugh at them for falling prey to our evil scheme.
by SDJ on May 13, 2010 2:24 pm • link • report
I want a return on investment rather than more open ended investment. So do the businesses on H St who have suffered lost patrons, worth it only for the eventual goal of having better transit. It is fine if you call me selfish, but I can equally call you selfish for valuing your viewshed over the objections of others who have already been waiting long enough. When was the last time you remember a municipality building a major road, and then once its built but before cars are allowed on it, deciding to completely rip it up and redo it?
by Brian White on May 14, 2010 12:16 am • link • report
Hmm...my understanding (anyone correct me if I'm wrong) is that the track is standard gauge. If/when a wireless technology is implemented, the entire tracks will not have to be replaced, only the power source (between the tracks if it's in-ground) would have to be inserted. Roger's suggestion above (if valid) shows an even less invasive way of doing it. The investment we've made on H Street and elsewhere would not be in vain. Admittedly, the investment in the cars themselves is another question (although they could be used in Anacostia with no problem...the socioeconomic fairness of that, though, is another can of worms altogether, which I won't comment on). As Lance has rightfully pointed out before, this entire process has worked backwards. Instead of having the conversation we're having now several years ago, vehicles were purchased and we were locked into this technology. It's unfair to place the blame on people who have serious concerns about the development style, when the development wasn't planned out thoroughly to begin with. If this ban on overhead wires was to be repealed, shouldn't have that been done BEFORE construction began? Why do we get criticized, but all the officials who are calling the shots get a free pass? You may call me selfish for advocating to hold up on this, but I wonder if you'd say the same thing about someone who tries to hold up the ICC on the grounds of it being a poor development choice...
(For the record, I'm very much against the ICC)
And lastly, not that we have iron wardrobes on the top of streetcars, but...shit happens:
http://tinyurl.com/23a35vq
by SDJ on May 14, 2010 10:41 am • link • report
Brian raises a valid point. There no fully wireless system as of now. Alstom's APS is untested in winter conditions and it had reliability problems in Bordeaux, so e.g. Nice decided to cancel it in favor of wire/battery hybrid. Bombardier tests it Primove since 2003 and it still isn't operation-ready.
Are you sure you want to turn DC to test facility?
by dejv on May 14, 2010 5:04 pm • link • report
One of the reasons I'm so enthused about Rapid Charged Hybrid buses, is that the infrastructure required is tiny compared to the alternatives, but you end up with practically the same thing - reliable electric transit. And in this case, no tracks or overhead lines.
Of course there are some people who say that tracks or overhead lines or both give a more "permanent" feel to the transit system, making people feel more secure. However how much is this secure feeling worth? You could build a lot of nice permanent, secure feeling bus shelters for the price of a tram...
Roger
by Roger on May 17, 2010 6:08 am • link • report
No one ever wants to turn their city into a proving ground, but thankfully some do. If no one did, then progress would never be made. I'm not advocating we take a risky gamble, but I don't see anything wrong with being the initiator of a coming trend.
If anything, DC has double the responsibility to do precisely that. For one, I think we should give our city a little more credit than it gets - we are the capital city of the world's only superpower. Shouldn't you EXPECT something better than average for that city? Secondly, with a law on the books, we have a valuable bargaining chip for getting additional federal funding. Virtually no other municipality can say "Well, we are legally required to implement this new kind of system." DC can. If compared side-by-side with any other American city as to who is more deserving of financial support for a wireless streetcar, DC comes out on top: both because of the strong public public support, and because of the legislative parameters that define development.
I honestly think this comes down to DC pride. I think there are a lot of proponents who think just slapping down a streetcar is enough, "we NEEEEEED it." But where's the pride that DC can have something truly revolutionary? Moreover, that we DESERVE something revolutionary? I think, as a city of revolving transplants, that DC sadly lacks that kind of engrained self-respect that New Yorkers or Chicagoans have - it's hard to generate when the majority of people you talk to don't say they are "from" DC, even if they've lived here 15 years. Hell, my mother has lived here 30 years and still doesn't. It doesn't mean residents don't care, but I do think it makes the average Washingtonian more likely to dismiss the city's assets and to settle halfway.
by SDJ on May 17, 2010 10:19 am • link • report
The operation in a stretch of line is active from march 2011, regular without any incident.
Near (before summer 2013), same system will be in passenger operation in Zaragossa installed in the complete fleet (21 trams) covering the non wire 1+1/2 miles into the city downtown in the line 1, with recharging passenger stops.
by salva on Jul 18, 2012 9:49 am • link • report
Add a Comment