Monday 31 March 2008

Ultra-Light Rail

Following the failure of ‘heavy’ light rail schemes in Liverpool and Bristol there is renewed interest in ultra light rail as a cheaper, lower tech more deliverable option.

Ultra light rail has been discussed in the past for Oxford, including during the OTS public inquiry in the mid 1990s when the Greens proposed it as alternative to the bus strategy. I think Craig Simmons was involved.

The attention then switched to ‘Guided Light Transit’ for a period, which was a scheme promoted by the then manager of the Oxford Bus Company to run parallel to the railway. It wouldn’t have served Oxford residents very well – it was mainly for P&R customers. It in any case proved to be impractical without major infrastructure and possibly also moving the railway station (which is now very unlikely to happen).

The Bristol-based company Sustraco is pursuing ULR for Bristol and is involved in delivering a scheme in Greece.

http://www.ultralightrail.com/Index.htm

And Parry People Movers have been promoting the technology since at least the beginning of the 1990s. Parry did try to interest the City and County Councils at one stage. Elsewhere there have been a number of on street and off street trials and a permanent public service now seems to be starting in the West Midlands on a former heavy rail branch line.

http://www.parrypeoplemovers.com/

The Sustraco site confirms my suggestion that ULR is about a tenth the cost of LR at around £2 million/km but as no permanent systems exist yet that may be open to debate.

I guess a big problem in Oxford is going to be how you introduce a system alongside the bus. It wouldn’t be possible to build the system everywhere at once, so for at least an interim period it would be necessary to squeeze the tram as well as buses through the available street space.

I picked up a leaflet about the Westgate meeting on Thursday 28th. Actually I am a North Hinksey Parish Councillor and we have our monthly full council meeting that night so I think I will need to prioritise that.

Best regards

Graham

Dr Graham Parkhurst
Reader in Sustainable Mobility
Faculty of the Built Environment
University of the West of England, Bristol
Frenchay Campus
Coldharbour Lane
Bristol BS16 1QY
United Kingdom

Wednesday 26 March 2008

Tom Philips on Jamie Lerner's 'Urban Revolution' in Brazil

Quiet revolution

Jaime Lerner's 'urban revolution' successfully transformed a congested, grimy, crime-ridden city into a world-renowned model of green living and social innovation. London can do it too, he tells Tom Phillips

This article appeared in the Guardian on Wednesday March 26 2008 on p3 of the Society news & features section. It was last updated at 00:02 on March 26 2008.

Jaime Lerner rarely leaves home without his little black book. In between meetings with Russian senators, European diplomats, Korean politicians or Brazilian governors, the 70-year-old architect and urban planner opens the notebook and scribbles down his latest ideas.

Inside, there are sketches of the "portable street", a plan to transform deserted, rundown city centres into bustling communities. There are blueprints for the Dock-Dock, a tiny, futuristic automobile intended to cut congestion and pollution levels. And there are rap lyrics.

"It's possible, it's possible! You can do it! You can do it," reads the most recent, entitled The Sustainable Song. "Make the transition. Cut carbon emissions!"

Leaf through the notebook and it is easy to get a sense of the audacious and often eccentric thinking that has made him a hero in his native Brazil and a reference point for architects and city planners the world over. He is celebrated as the mayor who oversaw the once-unthinkable transformation of his hometown, Curitiba, turning a grimy, congested state capital into an economically viable example of green living and social responsibility.

Increasingly, Lerner is hailed as an environmental hero whose notebooks may hold some of the solutions to the problem of climate change - a man on a crusade to improve living and environmental conditions for future generations.

Lerner, the son of Polish immigrants, was born in 1937 in Curitiba, a then small city in the south of Brazil, which is today home to around 1.8 million people. His fascination with the city began early. As a child, he remembers watching the impoverished immigrant workers pouring off trains in the city's central station outside his house, the politicians scurrying to work in the town hall, and the clowns larking around in the circus next door. "I did my course of both fantasy and reality on that street," he recalls.

It was a time of huge social change in Brazil, with immigrants from across the world streaming into the country in search of a better future. "I always felt a great connection with the street," he says. "My dream was to be an architect."

Fantasies

After dropping out of engineering school - his local university did not offer a course in architecture at the time - and then finally studying architecture, Lerner began putting his own fantasies into practice in order to confront the realities of his hometown. By the mid-1960s, the population of Curitiba had burgeoned to nearly 500,000 and the problems that all large cities face were starting to appear.

Frustrated by the responses of the authorities, Lerner and a group of young, idealistic architects and engineers began to set out their own designs for the city's future. "I saw things happening that I thought were wrong," he says. "They were destroying the city's history, opening up big roads that wiped out the whole memory of the city, planning the city just for cars."

In contrast, Lerner's masterplan for the city involved a mix of affordable, integrated transport as well as social and environmental programmes that would help break down social divisions and bring new life to the capital of Paraná state. In 1971, aged just 33, Lerner was "appointed" mayor by the military regime that ruled Brazil between 1964 and 1985. The Lerner revolution, which would later be replicated in cities from Colombia and Cuba to Russia, began.

"The city of Curitiba became a reference for doing exactly the opposite of what other cities were doing," he says. "Other cities were building big bridges and freeways, and we were making pedestrian streets. Many cities were building metro systems, and we started our own transport system."

Key to the transformation was stealth, Lerner believes. "I said: 'We have to do things quickly because next week we might not be here anymore [because of the dictatorship].' And you have to be quick to avoid your own bureaucracy. Bureaucracy is like a fungus that contaminates everything." Over the following 20 years, a period during which Curitiba underwent drastic, rapid changes, Lerner was mayor three times. "We built the opera house in two months, the botanical gardens in three months, Niemeyer's museum in five months. We transformed the city's main street into a pedestrian area in 72 hours. It wasn't that we were chasing after records - it was necessity."

In 1988 came Lerner's masterpiece , the Rede Integrada de Transporte (RIT), or integrated transport system. The network - later reproduced in Bogotá, Los Angeles and Panama City - involved the construction of futuristic-style "tubos", tube-like streetside bus shelters from which people could travel anywhere in the city for a flat fare. The RIT was, in effect, a low-budget overland subway.

Then there were the recycling projects. Under Lerner, Curitiba began a pioneering project, exchanging food for separated rubbish with the poor in the favelas (shanty towns) that surrounded the city. "Today, Curitiba has the highest level of rubbish separation in the world," Lerner points out with pride.

At that time, Lerner recalls,"Brazil was changing, but the population's income was dropping. We realised we had to enter more into the social field - education, health, paying attention to the children. It was a very rich period of innovation."

The signs of Lerner's urban revolution are everywhere: in the once-abandoned quarries and landfill sites that have become parks and recreation areas; in the Lighthouses of Knowledge, educational centres where the city's youth can study and socialise free of charge; in the cultural centres and theatres; and even in the signs hanging from car garages, proudly proclaiming how many tyres they have recycled since the year began.

Curitiba is not perfect, as the wooden shanties near the airport and the rising murder rate indicate, but it is a radically different city from most others in the continent. The city's GDP is the fourth highest among Brazil's cities, behind only São Paulo, Rio de Janeiro and the capital, Brasília. Curitiba also boasts some of the countries lowest illiteracy and unemployment rates. "I don't like the word 'model', but Curitiba is a reference point for the whole world," Lerner says.

Buoyed by his successes as mayor, Lerner was elected governor of Paraná state in 1994. And, with paltry resources, he was forced again to look to innovation. "We did a deal with the fisherman," he recalls. "If he fishes fish, the money goes to him. If he fishes rubbish, bottles, glass, cans, we will buy it from him. If the conditions are bad for catching fish, he'll catch rubbish. The more rubbish he gets, the more money he gets and the cleaner the bay gets. The cleaner the bay gets, the more fish he'll be able to fish. It's a win-win solution."

Such initiatives have earned Lerner many fans across the world, and his programmes are today a fixed part of many urban planning curriculums.

In 1975, he was appointed an urban planning consultant by the UN. Wally N'Dow, former head of the UN Centre for Human Settlements (Habitat), has described Curitiba as "a wonderful example, because cities that follow this lead can jumpstart the economies, assist the poorest of their poor, and clean up their cities."

Since giving up politics in 2002, Lerner has become a kind of international ambassador for sustainable planning. Virtually every week he receives an international delegation in Curitiba at his former home, which is insulated by a grass-covered roof.

Lerner speaks of his hopes for the world's cities with an evangelical passion. All cities are capable of solving problems, he believes, be they the slums of Rio de Janeiro or Caracas or the congestion of London and Paris. " I'm optimistic about cities," he insists. "Mayors that I talk to say, 'This can't be done in my city; it's very big; it has 10, 12 or 15 million people.' Or they say, 'Oh, our country is very poor, our city doesn't have the resources.' And I always say it is not a question of scale or of resources - any city in the world can improve, and improve a lot, in less than three years."

Lerner also believes that urban planning can be a key weapon against global warming and climate change. "As I'm a descendent of Jews, I have some commandments that we need to follow," he says. "First commandment: use your car less. Second commandment: separate your rubbish. Third: live near to your work, or work near your home. It needs to be about life, work and movement being all together."

The rest, he says, is a question of simplicity. "One of the things I have learned is that we have to be committed to simplicity. There is no need to be scared of simplicity. And we can't want to have all the answers in the world. Many cities end up putting off things because they want to understand everything. They don't understand that innovating is about starting. Taking care of a city is a process that you start, and then give the population space to respond. There is no place in a city that can't be better. There is no toad that can't be a princess, no frog that can't become a prince."

· Jaime Lerner will be speaking in London next Monday, one of a series of Exemplar Talks at Somerset House. For details email exemplartalks@somersethouse.org.uk

Tuesday 25 March 2008

Info on Trolleybuses

What is a Trolleybus?

The fundamental difference between trams and trolleybuses is that trams have flanged wheels and run on rails like a train [whether on reserved track like most railways or in streets on grooved track installed flush with the road surface]; whereas trolleybuses have conventional rubber tyres for ordinary road surface and are essentially electrically powered buses.

Artist's impression of modern Trolleybuses in LondonGraphics by Ashley Bruce Trolleybuses take their electric power from a pair of parallel overhead wires by means of a pair of booms fitted to the top of the vehicle. Trams normally take their power from a single, thicker overhead wire suspended from a centenary wire, by means of a pantograph fitted to the top of the vehicle.

The reason trams only use a single electric contact wire is that they use the running rails for the electrical return to complete the electric circuit to provide the power. Trolleybuses, having no rails, and indeed being insulated by the rubber tyres, need the second overhead wire to provide the electrical return and complete the circuit.

Trams are normally electrically powered but don't have to be, and indeed the earliest passenger tramways in the 19th Westminster Bridge century were horse-drawn and later steam powered, until replacement by electric power at the end of the 19th century, when the real boom in street tramways started in cities and towns in Britain and elsewhere.

Some early electric tramways didn't use overhead wires, but took power from a line of metal 'studs' in the road surface connected by electric cable buried in the road. This had disadvantages which were occasional electric shocks to unwary people or horses, and damage to other buried pipes and cables through stray electric currents leaking through the subsoil.

The need for expensive track replacement, or repair, through neglect in the war years together with the replacement costs for new trams lead to the rapid decline of tramway systems during the early 1930s with their replacement by cheaper and more flexible buses or trolleybuses. The investment in the undertakings tramway traction electrical supply systems remained viable in many British cities for replacement trolleybus and this factor created a booming market for these vehicles throughout the 1930s and 1940s.

There were a few new trolleybus routes or extensions built right up until the early 1960s but by then most trolley vehicles were in need of replacement. The limited market for UK trolleybuses saw an unhealthy price differential with diesel buses and this swayed many operators to close their trolleybus networks. London had by far the biggest trolleybus network in Britain, including the 607 route along Uxbridge Road which replaced the original tram route, and which many present or former Ealing residents remember with affection. London's trolleybus network had all gone by the early 1960s being replaced by diesel buses.

Trolleybuses have advantages over trams in that they can steer round obstructions such as parked vehicles or accident scenes, or in emergency swerve to avoid an accident themselves, within reason. The electricity pickup booms swivel so the trolleybus can deviate from the course of the wires. They can also be fitted with auxiliary power, such as a battery, so that they can go 'offline' away from the route of the wires if need - for example this could be done in instances such as the IRA bomb incident in Ealing Broadway last year.

Trams on the other hand are confined to their fixed track, and are stuck in the event of a blockage of the line for whatever reason. This is being represented by proponents of the proposed Uxbridge Road tramway scheme as an advantage of trams in that this dictates that other traffic has to be removed from the road, or is deterred from obstructive behaviour by the knowledge that they'll be blocking the tramline. [This did not stop the previous generation of trams being obstructed by other road users, however, nor the new trams in places such as Manchester, Sheffield and Croydon where the tramway runs on the streets].

Trolleybuses using segregated road lanesGraphics by Ashley Bruce In any case trolleybus routes can be given priority by means of bus lanes, or even concrete guided bus ways [such as have been introduced on some parts of bus routes in Ipswich, Leeds, Bradford etc] where road space permits, but this can be dispensed with where there really isn't space to provide an exclusive right of way for the trolleybus without swamping other, local roads with displaced traffic [as would be the case in Ealing and all the other town centres along the route of the proposed tramway].

The other disadvantage of trams is the high cost, construction time and disruption which installing tram lines on the road involves. Modern street tramways necessitate all the mass of underground pipes and cables [gas, water, electricity, telecom etc] to be relocated away from the route of a street tramway, so that the tram route is not forever blocked by these other 'statutory undertaker' companies digging up the road to get and repair their pipes or cables. This takes a long time and costs a fortune even before the tram track can be laid, which itself is very expensive. A trolleybus route can be installed for a fraction of the cost and construction time of a street tramway. Thus we could get a lot more trolleybus route [indeed a proper network] for the price of a single tram route, and get it a lot quicker.

For any more information then visit the website of the Electric TBus Group [www.tbus.org.uk] which contains a mine of information, technical and otherwise. The TBus group is a voluntary pressure group advocating introduction of modern trolleybus systems on suitable corridors, particularly in London. There is no shortage of pro-tram groups and websites to be found using a search engine.

Ealing Council is currently working with Transport for London [TfL] to work up and implement a street tramway along Uxbridge Road, despite the problems this will cause. Alex Williams is the senior Council officer involved in this, working with a team of transport for London officers and consultants in Perceval House headed by Tim Jones. Local resident's pressure groups led by Save Ealing's Streets are strongly opposing this tram scheme, because of the problems including displacement of other Uxbridge Road traffic into residential streets, and the poor public consultation before the Mayor for London made the decision to go ahead.

To sum up:
  1. Trolleybuses are twice as energy efficient as diesel buses;
  2. The operation of trolleybuses results in less common air contaminant emissions per km than are produced by internal combustion buses; trolleybuses are environmentally superior whereas diesel bus emissions cause cancer and are linked to asthma, chronic respiratory disease and heart disease; there is no safe level of diesel exhaust exposure;
  3. Excellent operational characteristics, such as quick acceleration even with full passenger complement;
  4. They perform well in stop-and-go traffic and on busy routes;
  5. Trolleybuses have lower health costs associated with their operation;
  6. Trolleybuses have greater potential to reduce greenhouse emissions in the long-term;
  7. It is possible to make trolleybuses totally emission-free with wind power technology;
  8. Trolleybuses produce markedly less noise, contributing to better communities;
  9. The additional cost of operating trolleybuses vs. diesels is negligible in the overall operating costs of transit;
  10. Electrically powered vehicles provides security against future price rises associated with the depletion of world oil reserves;
  11. The popularity of the trolleybus around the world has been growing strongly over the past five years;
  12. Users of trolleybuses feel that the vehicles contribute to community character;
  13. More attractive to passengers than diesel buses;
  14. Although cleaner than diesel buses, none of the existing and new alternative technologies [CNG, hybrid] can really compete with the trolleybus in terms of the overall toxic emissions profile, load capacity, reliability. Fuel cell buses are currently unproven, but are not likely ever to match the trolleybus in terms of energy efficiency.
Trolleybus on the Uxbridge RoadThis could be the scene in 2009Graphics by Ashley Bruce
Ealing Council could have trolleybuses passes their front door in three year's time
All of us would have to wait forevever for the next tram to arrive!

Thursday 28 February 2008

"All this will cost a lot of money"

We'd find the money: this is Oxford and we should be setting an example to the world and not succumbing to its fallacies. Let's get on with it.

If we come up with some good plans then through EU grants and fundraising I have no doubt whatsoever that we could raise enough capital, through investors or by generous donations (we could ask the Clinton Foundation to chip in!) to make the Eco Oxford idea work. This is an idea waiting to happen in so many capable people's minds and hands. Let's not let this opportunity slip through our fingers. Let's not roll over to the "inevitable" grinding of the machine. Let's short circuit it or find the 'Off' button and set Oxfordshire on the road to Zero Carbon in the UK.
Ox On!

Let's have TRAMS in Oxford


Do we really want to fill the city every day with as many cars as there are in Oxford during Christmas Week? Asthma levels are on the rise everywhere and while - according to Sir Richard Peto - it's difficult to prove that this is down to the pollution from cars, inviting in a lot of extra traffic is only going to exacerbate the respiratory problems many people already have. So why not have trams in Oxford? They've got one in Dublin and the people love it there. The air would be left cleaner and the trams could be powered by a wind farm..
In Dublin they took out the original tram and replaced it with a Parry tram that didn't have any cables overhead. This sounds like the one we could use in Oxford as we wouldn't want to obscure the views of its magnificent colleges and churches in any way.

The trams could head out to the Park and rides, down the Iffley road, up to Headington, up the Woodstock or Banbury road and down the Marston road. This would effectively negate the need for most of the cars entering Oxford.
There could be wagons on the back to take goods to shops, although some goods vans would certainly have to have space to enter.

Trams would leave the air cleaner, make it safer for cyclists and shorten the time it takes for the airport and London buses to reach their destination because they could leave from the tram stations on the ouskirts rather than winding slowly through the city centre, smogging up our streets with diesel fumes as they go.

The network could be extended into Oxfordshire or more efficient bus systems could bring people to the tram stations from the surrounding villages and towns, meaning even less cars.

Again, I'm just throwing these ideas up in the air. If you've got any ideas that link up with these in a positive ways or would even like to point out any drawbacks, please leave a comment.

Forum for an Ecobuilding refit of the Westgate Centre

It took a small team of us two days to put solar panels on the roof of the Globe pub in Jericho. A pub that many people were understandably upset about losing will now produce zero carbon electricity (plus the amount of energy used to make the panels which are guaranteed for 25 years).

We installed enough panels to produce 1,700kilowatt hours a year. The average house uses around 3,000 kilowatt hours per year. So with judicious choosing of low energy appliances (LED lightbulbs, low-energy-rated fridges etc), this ex pub should be able to live a carbon free existence for the next 25 years.

Obviously the outlay on these panels was expensive but with energy prices rising and set to rise further in this time, added to the fact that when nobody is in the house the owner will be able to get an increasingly better price for selling power back to the national grid, it will take a lot less than previously expected for the owner to make his money back. Should his panels continue to work after the guarantee runs out then he should be laughing.

Oxford has one of the highest concentrations of environmentalists in the world. We promote and support the environmental message around the world. We have the School for the Built Environment up at Oxford Brookes University. The Environmental Change Institute at Oxford University, thanks to Brenda Boardman, has produced the brilliant 40% House report (available to all) that shows how to bring our energy use in housing down to 40% of its current levels.
There are environmental conultancies like ERM, AEA and Best Foot Forward, that are all able to make studies of the problem of the present massive wastage of energy in the Westgate and do something about it.

The Norfolk Square area where the London Plane trees were tragically felled could, rather than be used for a massive expansion of the Westgate, to position a CHP Boiler room (Combined Heat and Power). This could heat the whole of the Westgate and the waste heat be used to power either turbines or engines to produce electricity, too. This would mean less outlay on solar panels on the roof.

These are just initial ideas. I'm not in any way saying that they are the best ones around. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of brilliant people in Oxford all with small slices of the best plan for the Westgate. Let's get in touch and build something we can be proud of rather than something we will have to endure until the next expansion...