Basics of Transporation Modeling in Hyperstructures

Basics of Transportation Modeling in Hypersturctures
William Minchin
A project submitted to the faculty of
Brigham Young University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Master of Science
Grant G. Schultz, Chair
Richard J. Balling
Mitsuru Saito
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
Brigham Young University
August 2010
Copyright © 2010 William Minchin
All Rights Reserved
ABSTRACT
Transportation Modeling in Hyperstructures
William Minchin
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
Master of Science
Hyperstructures, basically a city-in-a-box, have been proposed as an alternative to the
current Ground Access Skyscraper (GAS) model of individually built skyscrapers. Among the
most promising benefits of a hyperstructure is the improvements to the transportation network,
specifically the creation of a three dimensional transportation network by allowing horizontal
movement throughout (instead of just at ground level, as is typical of the GAS paradigm). It is
anticipated that a hyperstucture would be served mostly by walking trips, supplemented by an
efficient public transportation system for longer trips.
To the end of modelling such a transportation network, this paper is presented. First, a
discussion of the hyperstructure paradigm is presented and contrasted with the GAS paradigm.
Next, reviews of some systems that have begun to incorporate philosophies of the hyperstructure
paradigm are highlighted to provide some real world examples of how a hyperstructure might be
received in real life. Lastly, an outline of the various modes of transportation thought to be
important to the transportation system of a hyperstucture is presented, including both an
overview of the mode in question and the basic parameters required to model it. The modes
presented here are pedestrians, bicyclist, sub-compact cars, trams (including streetcars and light
rail), metros (including subways), and elevators, escalators and moving sidewalks.
Keywords : William Minchin, automobile, bicycle, Calgary +15, climate controlled walkways,
Edmonton LRT, elevator, escalator, grade separated pedestrian circulation systems, Hong Kong,
hyperstructures, light rail, metro, moving sidewalk, Parkview Green, pedestrian, pedestrian
networks, second level pedestrian walkways, streetcar, subway, tram, transportation,
transportation modeling
GRADUATE COMMITTEE APPROVAL
of a project submitted by
William G. Minchin
The project of William G. Minchin is acceptable in its final form including (1) its format,
citations, and bibliographical style are consistent and acceptable and fulfill university and
department style requirements; (2) its illustrative materials including figures, tables, and charts
are in place; and (3) the final manuscript is satisfactory and ready for submission.
This project has been read by each member of the following graduate committee and by majority
vote has been found to be satisfactory.
______________________________
Date
________________________________________
Grant G. Schultz, Chair
______________________________
Date
________________________________________
Richard J. Balling
______________________________
Date
________________________________________
Mitsuru Saito
Accepted for the Department
________________________________________
E. James Nelson
Graduate Coordinator
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
There are many who have helped make this report possible, and I would like to take a
moment to thank them. Thank you to Dr. Grant G. Schultz who has been my mentor and guide
throughout both my Master‟s degree and this project. Thank you to Drs. Mitsuru Saito and
Richard J. Balling for their instruction and assistance with this research. Thank you to my
parents, Don and Val, for their support of my dreams, my desire for an education, and my desire
to come to Brigham Young University. Thank you to my wife Marcy who has been a true friend:
a help and a support at every turn. Lastly, thank you to those too numerous to be named who
have served as teachers, guides, and supports throughout both my educational career and this
project.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1
Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 1
1.1
Hypersturctures and Transportation ........................................................................ 1
1.2
Inherent Limits and Application ............................................................................. 2
2
Hyperstructures ................................................................................................................ 5
3
Existing and Proposed Megastructures .......................................................................... 7
4
3.1
Hong Kong .............................................................................................................. 7
3.2
Parkview Green ..................................................................................................... 10
3.3
Pedestrian Networks in North American Downtowns .......................................... 12
3.3.1
Overview ................................................................................................... 12
3.3.2
The Calgary +15 ....................................................................................... 21
Operating Characteristics of Vehicles (Modes) ........................................................... 25
4.1
Pedestrian .............................................................................................................. 25
4.1.1
Pedestrian Modelling ................................................................................ 26
4.1.2
Designing Physical Facilities for Pedestrians ........................................... 27
4.2
Bicyclist ................................................................................................................ 28
4.3
Sub-compact Cars ................................................................................................. 30
4.4
Light Rail .............................................................................................................. 33
4.5
4.4.1
Overview of Trams (Streetcars) ................................................................ 33
4.4.2
Tram Trains ............................................................................................... 34
4.4.3
Major Manufactures .................................................................................. 35
4.4.4
Worldwide Tram Systems......................................................................... 36
4.4.5
Design Parameters from the Edmonton LRT System ............................... 38
Metro (Subway) Systems ...................................................................................... 42
v
4.6
4.7
5
Freight by Rail ...................................................................................................... 45
4.6.1
Non-motorized .......................................................................................... 45
4.6.2
Historic Urban Freight Railway Systems ................................................. 45
4.6.3
Contemporary Urban Freight Railway Systems ....................................... 48
Elevators ............................................................................................................... 49
4.7.1
Overview of Elevators .............................................................................. 49
4.7.2
Future Systems .......................................................................................... 52
4.7.3
Sizing Elevator Systems ........................................................................... 53
4.7.4
Elevator Control Systems ......................................................................... 55
4.7.5
Major Manufacturers ................................................................................ 56
4.8
Escalators .............................................................................................................. 56
4.9
Moving Sidewalks ................................................................................................ 59
Conclusion ....................................................................................................................... 63
vi
LIST OF TABLES
Table 4-1: Specifications of Select Sub-compact Cars ................................................................. 31
Table 4-2: Platform Heights.......................................................................................................... 34
Table 4-3: Tram Manufacturers and Series .................................................................................. 35
Table 4-4: Escalator Characteristics by Step Width ..................................................................... 58
vii
viii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2-1: New York City Skyline, and Example of the GAS Paradigm ..................................... 6
Figure 3-1: Hong Kong MTR Map (2009) ..................................................................................... 8
Figure 3-2: Entrance to the Central-Mid-levels Escalator, Hong Kong ....................................... 10
Figure 3-3: Parkview Green, Interior View .................................................................................. 11
Figure 3-4: Parkview Green, Exterior View ................................................................................. 12
Figure 3-5: Downtown Minneapolis Skyways ............................................................................. 16
Figure 3-6: St Paul Skyway Map .................................................................................................. 17
Figure 3-7: Des Moines Skywalk System Map ............................................................................ 18
Figure 3-8: Toronto's PATH System ............................................................................................ 19
Figure 3-9: RÉSO Map (Montréal) ............................................................................................... 20
Figure 3-10: Calgary +15 Network Map ...................................................................................... 21
Figure 3-11: Cross Section of Plus 15 Bridge .............................................................................. 23
Figure 3-12: +15 Access Point...................................................................................................... 24
Figure 4-1: Bicyclist Operating Space .......................................................................................... 30
Figure 4-2: USPS Grumman LLV ................................................................................................ 32
Figure 4-3: 2010 Ford Transit Connect XLT ................................................................................ 32
Figure 4-4: Bombardier Variotram in Helsinki, Finland .............................................................. 37
Figure 4-5: Relationship Between Average Schedule Speed and Station Spacing ...................... 40
Figure 4-6: Typcial LRT Cross Section: LRT in Arterial Median with Landscaping Buffer ...... 41
Figure 4-7: Deuwag U2 LRV: ETS #1028 ................................................................................... 41
Figure 4-8: Paris Metro: "Quai de la Gare" Station (Line 6) ........................................................ 44
ix
Figure 4-9: Chicago Tunnel Company Railway System .............................................................. 47
Figure 4-10: Map of the London Post Office Railway ................................................................. 48
Figure 4-11: World Trade Center Building Design with Floor and Elevator Arrangement ......... 51
Figure 4-12: Escalator Components.............................................................................................. 57
Figure 4-13: The Trottoir Roulant Rapide in Paris' Monparnasse-Bienenüe Métro station ......... 60
Figure 4-14: Le Trottoir Roulant Rapide ...................................................................................... 61
x
1
INTRODUCTION
“You have to learn from successes. You have to learn from things which
are working well. In anything, that‟s what you should be doing. Study what is
working somewhere else. Learn from what is a success. Look at the principles
that make a thing a success.”
Statement by Jane Jacobs during an interview just before she died in April
2006; Author of The Death and Life of Great American Cities (1, p. 1)
Engineering is an old and valued profession. Engineering represents the combination of
the knowledge of science of the scholar with the skills of a master artisan. Civil Engineering,
with its large projects that feature prominently in the lives of those whom they affect, has the
advantage of centuries of experience. The purpose of this paper is to guide the reader in
preparing to adapt this time-tested knowledge into the realm of future possibility; specifically
transportation planning and modelling as it applies to hyperstructures.
1.1
Hypersturctures and Transportation
A hyperstructure is, in effect, a city in a box. This new paradigm seeks to improve upon
the common contemporary Ground Access Skyscraper (GAS) paradigm of cities and replace the
paradigm with one that addresses several of the weaknesses of the GAS paradigm – namely
1
thermal inefficiency and transportation inefficiency. Only the latter will be addressed in detail in
this report.
The thermal inefficiency of contemporary city design is addressed by decreasing the
exposed surface area, and thus decrease the energy demands of heating and cooling the city. This
is accomplished by encasing the city with all the building on the inside and providing a
controlled microclimate.
Transportation inefficiency is the subject of this report. Firstly, to improve the efficiency
of the transportation network, a hyperstructure allows transportation at multiple horizontal
planes, rather than just at ground level. This would create, in effect, a three dimensional
transportation network. The increased densities afforded by a hyperstructure would allow a
greater proportion of trips to be completed on foot. The densities would also be such to support a
public transportation system that would allow travel to points beyond the limits of walking.
This report begins with a discussion of the hyperstructure paradigm, compares it to the
contemporary GAS paradigm, and highlights several projects that utilize part of the
hyperstructure paradigm today. Following is a discussion of the modes of transportation that may
prove useful in both developing a model of the transportation network within a hyperstructure
and its actual use. The modes detailed are: pedestrian, bicyclist, sub-compact cars, trams, metros,
and elevators, escalators, and moving sidewalks.
1.2
Inherent Limits and Application
The purpose of this paper is to provide the required parameters to model the
transportation system within a hyperstructure at the conceptual level. The goal of such modelling
2
is to determine the general layout and mode mix of the proposed transportation system. Refined
modelling to determine the precise network layout, headways, and transportation technologies is
beyond the scope of the present research and due to the number of possible permutations,
providing enough information to model all such options is not a feasible goal in any case. Rather,
the reader is advised at the stage of detailed transportation modelling to reconfirm all
assumptions and to select design vehicles and confirm their physical and operational
characteristics. At such time, it may be wise to construct a variability analysis as modelling
parameters can change between cities and even neighbourhoods in larger metropolitan areas.
“Human factor” design considerations are also not mentioned as they lie beyond the
author‟s area of expertise and are highly dependent on details of the transportation network that
are not easily determined at the connectional modelling stage. These design choices can have a
significant impact on how the finished hyperstructure is perceived to end users and so research in
the area is recommended in future work.
The transportation of the hyperstructure residents remains the focus of this report, and so
the movement of foodstuffs, potable water, refuge, grey water and the like are treated only
tangentially, as in the case of refuge (see Section 4.3). Furthermore, transportation links between
the hyperstructure-city and the surround area are not addressed but are expected to function in a
manner comparable to similar sized GAS cities in the region. The vast complexity of the
hyperstructure lends itself well to a variety of research topics, many of which will need to be
addressed in the future.
3
4
2
HYPERSTRUCTURES
Hyperstructures represent a paradigm shift from current city-building methods. While the
current paradigm, referred to here as Ground Access Skyscraper (GAS) (see Figure 2-1), which
tends to build up the urban area in a piecemeal fashion, has evolved due to the current and
historical legal and political structure, it contains several implied limitations that the
hyperstructre paradigm seeks to address. These include, in particular, thermal inefficiencies and
transportation inefficiencies. The former will be identified here briefly and the latter serves as the
reason d’être of this report. A hyperstructure seeks to redefine the urban planning paradigm by
replacing the GAS model with a „city in a building‟ where the entire city would be enclosed in a
controlled microclimate.
Massive thermal inefficiencies arise in the GAS model due the typical design of
skyscrapers – long, slender boxes reaching to the sky. Energy usage for heating and cooling is
significant in modern society – 39% of energy use is estimated to be used this way (2). This said,
the modern GAS city tends to resemble a radiator with the buildings as cooling fins. The
hyperstructure paradigm seeks to improve upon this by enclosing the city under a „skin‟ and
providing a controlled microclimate inside the structure, with the added benefit of greatly
reducing the surface area of the city.
5
Figure 2-1: New York City Skyline, and Example of the GAS Paradigm (3)
The GAS paradigm limits horizontal travel to the ground level. This is in spite of the fact
that travellers may thus require significant vertical travel at both the end and the beginning of the
trips. The hyperstructure paradigm seeks to improve upon this by providing transportation at
multiple levels of the structure. This would, in effect, create a three-dimensional transportation
network, greatly increasing the efficiency of the transportation network. It is anticipated that the
higher density of a hyperstructure (compared to a GAS city) will allow most trips to be
completed on foot, with an efficient public transportation system providing links to those points
in the city beyond walking distance. Chapter 4 provides an outline of the characteristics of
various modes of transportation that may be of particular use within a hyperstructure.
6
3
EXISTING AND PROPOSED MEGASTRUCTURES
Hyperstructures have yet to be built on the scale envisioned possible, however several of
the technologies and strategies required in a hyperstructure have been tested disjointedly at
various locations around the world. Highlighted here are the city of Hong Kong, Parkview Green
in Beijing, and urban pedestrian networks, common to North American downtowns. Not
explored here, but of potential interest to the reader are the proposed Shimizu TRY 2004 MegaCity Pyramid proposed for Tokyo Bay (4, 5, 6), the proposed (and cancelled) Seward‟s Success,
Alaska (7), Moscow‟s Crystal Island (8, 9, 10), and Dubai‟s proposed Ziggurat (11).
3.1
Hong Kong
Hong Kong, as a British colony in the years leading up to 1997, had a growing population
but limited space to develop (the physical territory of Hong Kong is small, and much of it is
water or mountains). In the 1960‟s, the territorial government, concerned about increasing
roadway congestion, commissioned a study to find a solution. Proposed was the development of
a heavy rail mass transit system, from which the Mass Transit Railway (MTR) was born. The
MTR opened in 1979 and in the years since MTR has continued to expand and to become a
major land developer, focusing on lands surrounding new stations. Today (2010), the MTR
7
network includes 212 km of rail with 150 stations (see Figure 3-1) (12). Hong Kong has a highly
developed public transportation systems which has a mode capture rate of more than 80%, one of
the highest rates in the world (13).
Figure 3-1: Hong Kong MTR Map (2009) (14)
8
Hong Kong has also started to develop an extensive grade-separated pedestrian network.
Some of this consists of pedestrian tunnels, such as those that join MTR‟s Tsim Sha Tsui and
Tsim Sha Tsui East stations with many of the local attractions (15, 16). Hong Kong has also
developed an elevated pedestrian network, particularly in the “Central” district. This has
developed, in part, due to the high traffic density in the district and thus the requirement, for
safety, to separate vehicles from pedestrian traffic (17). Another impressive part of the pedestrian
system is the Central-Mid-Levels escalator (see Figure 3-2), billed as the longest in the world at
800 m (2625 feet or a half mile) long and a 135 m (440 ft) vertical rise. The escalator runs
downhill from 6 to 10am and then uphill from 10:30am until midnight and carries an average of
55,000 people a day (18). The escalator, combined with the increased pedestrian traffic, has led
to significant gentrification (19). There have been concerns expressed, here as elsewhere, of what
effect this pedestrian network is having on street life (20).
Hong Kong is not what would typically be considered a hyperstructure, given its reliance
on the GAS model for development. However, with over 2.78 million people (over 41% of the
total population) and over 1.34 million workers (over 41% of the territory total) living within
500 m (1650 feet) of an MTR station (21), it serves as a demonstration of how a public
transportation system may be set up to deal with a dense population base. To support MTR‟s
success, both mixed-use, high density development centered around the stations and reducing
unnecessary trips (by placing amenities within walking distance) have been cited. MTR has also
taken the lead in developing the area surrounding several new metro stations in an effort to
ensure that the development and the metro station work together synergistically.
9
Figure 3-2: Entrance to the Central-Mid-levels Escalator, Hong Kong (22)
3.2
Parkview Green
Parkview Green is a building that is currently under construction in Beijing, China in the
embassy district and is expected to open Fall 2010. Parkview Green is actually comprised of four
towers – two 9 story towers and two 18 story towers, heights dictated by the roof slant –
10
interconnected with the space between them enclosed. The bottom four floors will be retail with
an „exterior‟ hallway that will allow circulation around the building, with the mid-level floors
being office space and the upper levels of the two taller towers as a hotel (see Figure 3-3). The
roof slant (approximately 27°) is actually the result of modelling to ensure that a minimum
amount of sunlight reaches the surrounding buildings (see Figure 3-4). This combination of a
controlled microclimate, multiple uses, and interior space gives it many of the characteristics of a
hyperstucture even if the scale is smaller than what is typically imagined. Parkview Green is a
good testbed for several of the technologies required to provide an enclosed microclimate.
Figure 3-3: Parkview Green, Interior View (23)
11
Figure 3-4: Parkview Green, Exterior View (23)
3.3
Pedestrian Networks in North American Downtowns
3.3.1 Overview
In a report produced in 1997 by Montgomery and Bean (24), the authors found such an
abundance of “climate controlled walkway (CCW) networks” that the report used the
12
development model of these networks to study opposing economic models relating to the supply
of such “public goods.” The report compared 55 large city-core systems in North America. An
earlier, 1992 report (25) noted that at least 85 North American cities have developed some form
of inter-block linkages; at least 30 have developed to a “significant level of maturity.” While
some systems have developed under the careful direction and mandate of municipal
governments, others have grown more organically at the bequest of the building owners linked
by these networks. Despite their relatively common natures, Bandara et al. note that “specific
studies on grade-separated pedestrian circulation systems are lacking in literature” (26, p. 59).
The information presented here comes from papers discussing other aspects of these pedestrian
networks and from media sources. This has also lead to the lack of a standardized term; such
networks are alternately referred to as skyways or skybridges if elevated, tunnels or souterrain
(underground) if below sidewalk grade, and walkways or pedways without reference to
placement.
Zacharias (27) notes that in Central London, 76% of trips under 10 minutes are
completed on foot, and so the demand for a downtown pedestrian network is present. He further
cites a survey of pedestrians in Montréal in which two-thirds claimed that they would prefer to
use the tunnel system (the RÉSO) in inclement weather and the ground-level sidewalks in good
weather; however, surveys of pedestrians at building exits do not line up with these numbers. It
seems that pedestrians are reluctant to increase their travel time, regardless of the weather.
There are several urban (downtown) pedestrian systems of particular renown.
Minneapolis/St. Paul have a combined system of about 110 skyways (28) linking at least 65 city
blocks (29) (see Figure 3-5 and Figure 3-6). Des Moines‟s Skywalks is a system of 32 bridges
that connect 21 downtown blocks (29) (see Figure 3-7). Toronto‟s PATH system is a 27 km
13
(17 mi) network of pedestrian tunnels and is considered the largest underground shopping
complex in the world with 371,600 m2 (4 million square feet) of retail space (30) (see Figure
3-8). Montréal‟s RÉSO has also been referred to as a “underground city:” it has 32 km of
tunnels, 190 access points from the surface, connects to 63 buildings and 8 métro stations (31)
(see Figure 3-9). Calgary‟s +15 system (detailed in Section 3.3.2) is considered the largest in the
world with 57 bridges connecting 16 km (10 mi) of tunnels (32) (see Figure 3-10).
There is not a generally accepted theory on why pedways developed, although it is noted
that the first appeared about the same time as the suburban shopping mall. Some have thus
declared that the pedway system is thus an attempt to recreate the climate controlled suburban
mall in downtown. Some have reasoned that the systems developed in response to the extreme
climates of cities such as Edmonton, Calgary, Minneapolis, and Houston. Survey data suggests
that the commercial advantages of the pedway system to the surrounding buildings (41%) and
ease of pedestrian movement (33%) represent the driving forces for the systems, with climate
control ranked at 11% and revitalization of the Central Business District (CBD) at 8% (25).
Support for these pedway systems is far from universal. Some cities, such as Cincinnati,
Denver, and Hartford, have seen their pedways systems fall into such disrepair that they become
eyesores, require being boarded up due to structural issues, and ultimately removed (33, 34).
Concern that pedway systems segregate on the basis of class or social standing has also been
cited (1). Connected to that and more difficult to ascertain is the concern that pedway systems
lead to the privatization of formerly public space, with those who cannot be commercially
exploited being ejected from the system (25). A concern that a pedway system kills street-level
life is among the most often cited concerns, and is often backed up with observations of busy
pedways and empty streets beneath (26, 28, 29, 35, 36, 37). Personal safety becomes a concern,
14
especially in longer tunnels (26). A concern regarding blocking of vistas and views is sometime
cited to limit the development of a pedway system (25, 37). Pedestrian safety on downtown
streets where a pedway system is present has also seen to suffer (1, 35).
Pathfinding has been identified as a serious concern by the users of several pedway
systems (26, 27, 37). Lynch (38) identified districts, paths, landmarks, edges, and nodes as a
mental organization system for pedestrians. However, paths, districts, and nodes remain hard to
define in the North American grid system.
15
Figure 3-5: Downtown Minneapolis Skyways (39)
16
Figure 3-6: St Paul Skyway Map (40)
17
Figure 3-7: Des Moines Skywalk System Map (41)
18
Figure 3-8: Toronto's PATH System (30)
19
Figure 3-9: RÉSO Map (Montréal) (31)
20
Figure 3-10: Calgary +15 Network Map (42)
3.3.2 The Calgary +15
The Calgary +15 (so named because the system is 15 feet (4.6 m) above street level) is
reputed as the largest pedway system in the world (30) and is the largest in North America (37).
21
The system has a total length of 16 km (10 miles) and has 57 bridges (32) (see Figure 3-10 for
system map).
The system was conceived and designed by Harold Hanen, who worked for the Calgary
Planning Department from 1966 to 1969. The system opened in 1970. New buildings, in the
intervening time, have been required to connect to the system. Where that is not possible, the
building developer pays into a “+15 fund” managed by the City to build missing links (43).
The Calgary +15 was designed with the intent to create a total pedestrian environment.
To this end, numerous indoor and outdoor plazas are a part of the system and not all walkways
are covered (open spaces are virtually unknown in American systems) (37). Planning documents
state, for example, that the choice of flooring should be such as to “contribute to the perception
of walkways [in the +15 system] as completely public” (44, p. 71).
To aid in access to the +15 system, the system is integrated with the C-Train, Calgary‟s
Light Rail Transit (LRT) system. The +15 also serves to provide parking to the downtown core.
The Calgary Parking Authority, operated by the City, collects funds in a cash-in-lieu program for
on-site parking and then uses the funds to build parking garages on the edge of downtown that
link downtown via the +15 (45).
The City of Calgary has outlined their access requirements for those with disabilities in
the aptly named “Access Design Standard.” It states “The minimum unobstructed width for +15
bridges, walkways and lane links shall be 4,500 mm [14 ¾ ft]. Widths up to 6,000 mm [19 ¾ ft]
should be encouraged only in locations where high pedestrian volume is anticipated (retail
areas)....The minimum unobstructed width for Plus-15 stairs shall be 2,000 mm [6 ½ ft]” (44, p.
70-71) (see Figure 3-11). Furthermore, it mandates a maximum grade of 1:12 within the system.
The guidelines require that “One elevator must provide access to both grade and Plus-15 levels”
22
and that “Access points should be located at both ends of every bridge” (see Figure 3-12). Lastly,
“The provision of sliding doors (wired to the building‟s smoke detector and emergency fire alarm
systems) or other such devices on Plus-15 bridges that reduce pedestrian barriers while maintaining
adequate fire protection should be encouraged” (44, p. 71).
Figure 3-11: Cross Section of Plus 15 Bridge (44)
23
Figure 3-12: +15 Access Point (46)
24
4
OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS OF VEHICLES (MODES)
Transportation modelling, like all modelling, is a simplified representation of the “real
world.” The goal of this section is to provide an overview of various modes of transportation that
could be applicable to transportation within a hyperstucture and the basics of modelling these
modes, such that the transportation system can be developed and alternatives compared at the
systems level. The modes covered here are pedestrians, bicyclists, sub-compact cars, trams or
streetcars (including light rail), metro and subway systems (including heavy rail), and escalators,
elevators, and moving sidewalks. These modes were selected because they are common in
GAS-style urban environments and, depending of hyperstructure design, are envisioned to be
incorporated into a large-scale hyperstructure. Lists of operating tram and metro systems are
provided to allow the reader seek out a system similar to the one proposed for purposes of
modelling.
4.1
Pedestrian
Pedestrian movement is believed to become the most popular and important mode of
transportation within future hyperstructures. While in all cities, trips almost universally begin
and end with travellers as pedestrians, it is anticipated that the high-density and mixed use nature
25
of the hyperstructure will lend itself the completion of many trips without the need of another
mode of transportation.
4.1.1 Pedestrian Modelling
Pedestrian modelling is often overlooked by contemporary city planners, who typically
focus on automobile travel. Pedestrian modelling can take several cues from automobile
modelling; however, pedestrians are known to behave differently based on context. Different
pedestrian behavior is associated not only with different physical characteristics but also the
differing purpose of pedestrians (47, 48). Studies have been carried out for crowds associated
with transportation systems (49, 50, 51), sporting and general spectator occasions (52), holy sites
(53, 54), political demonstrations (55), and fire escapes (56). At a modelling level, efforts have
been made to model pedestrians both macroscopically, which often compares pedestrians to
fluids (57), and microscopically (58, 59, 60, 61), with both seeing some success.
VISSIM is a multimodal, microscopic traffic simulator and among the market leaders in
the field of traffic simulation (58), which has recently implemented the „Social Force Model‟ of
pedestrian modeling as a module within the program (59). The Social Force Model was
developed by Dirk Helbing and Péter Molnár in at the Institute of Theoretical Physics,
University of Stuttgart in Germany and published in 1995 (62). The Social Force Model seeks to
measure the internal motivation of pedestrians to move towards a certain area with pedestrians
moving as if they were subject to external force. The model is made up of four terms (62):
26




The Acceleration towards the desire location,
Repulsive forces, which emanate from other pedestrians and the edge of the travelled
way,
Attractive forces, to things such as friends, street performers, and window displays, and
A „Fluctuations‟ term, which serves to cover situations where multiple alternatives are
equally valid (such as avoiding an object to the left or right) or deviations from the
standard rules.
The model also recognizes that events in front of the pedestrian are much more likely to
have an effect on them than events that are behind the pedestrian. The combination of the theory
and the software may bear further investigation.
4.1.2 Designing Physical Facilities for Pedestrians
Designing the physical facilities for pedestrians is a little different than the modelling of
them and requires a different set of considerations. For one, pedestrian traffic is a very broad
group, including those who have no other form of transportation. This group includes those that
are physically disabled, the visually impaired, the very young (who struggle with depth
perception and risk assessment), the very old (who struggle with reaction time and general
perception of their surroundings), and the 20% of American adults who cannot read English.
Thus the „design pedestrian‟ should include members of each of these groups (63).
Sidewalks should be a minimum of 4 feet (1.2 metres) wide and marked crosswalks
should be a minimum of 6 feet (1.8 metres) wide. If the sidewalk is less than 5 feet (1.5 metres)
wide, regular „passing zones‟ of that width (5 feet) should be provided (63).
Grades on sidewalks of more than 2% become a concern for wheelchair users (63).
Grades are generally assumed to be within ±3% (64). An upgrade of 10% of more will decrease
27
walking speed by 0.5 feet per second (0.5 km/h) (65). If more than 20% of the population is
elderly, that will also decrease walking speed by 1.0 feet per second (1.1 km/h) (65).
Free flow speed for pedestrians is 5.0 feet per second (5.5 km/h) and pedestrian speed at
capacity is 2.5 feet per second (2.7 km/h) (65). The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices
(MUTCD) (66) uses a speed of 4.0 feet per second (4.4 km/h). Capacity of a sidewalk is assumed
to be 23 pedestrians per minute per foot width (75 pedestrians per minute per meter width) (64).
The average space per pedestrians is 5 to 9 square feet (0.46 to 0.83 square meters), which flow
rates dropping of dramatically if less than 5 square feet (0.46 square meters) is available (65).
4.2
Bicyclist
Bicyclists are an interesting group as they occupy a space between pedestrians and
automobiles. Bicyclists are mobile enough to seek routes beyond prescribed bicycle lanes and so
will travel in general purpose lanes, on mixed use trails, or on sidewalks, depending on the path
availability and other traffic. Within a hyperstructure, it is anticipated that bicycling will
generally fill the role for trips that are beyond walking distance (typically given as 400 m
(1300 ft or a ¼ mile) for local amenities and 800 m (2600 ft or a half mile) for transit stops (67)).
It is also anticipated that bicycles will provide a means of transporting smaller personal loads
such as groceries and other such purchases.
Bicyclists typically travel at speeds of 15 to 20 mph (24 to 32 km/h), with a typical
assumed mean speed of 11.2 mph (18.0 km/h) and a standard deviation of 1.9 mph (3.1 km/h)
(68). Unlike cars, bicycle speed is not affected by traffic volumes until very near capacity levels
of service, but even as volumes near capacity, speed is often maintained as cyclists seek other
28
routes (68). Many familiar Measures of Effectiveness (MOEs) from modelling automobile traffic
are not well suited for bicyclists; „hinderances‟ serve as a much more important measure of
Level of Service (LOS) for cyclists than travel speed (65, 68). „Hinderances‟ are events that
hinder the free flow of a bicyclists, such as encountering cyclists travelling in the opposing
direction or slower moving user of mixed-use trails. Due to the nature of bicycle flows, temporal
peaks can be very sharp, with Peak Hour Factors (PHF) between 0.52 and 0.82 (68).
Bicyclists are particularly sensitive to delay, as they are exposed to the elements (65).
Bicyclists, if exposed to frequent delays, are prone to seek alternate routing or to disobey traffic
rules. Bicyclists are also more sensitive to grades than automobiles and so grades more than 3%
should be avoided (69).
In general, bicyclists are much more concerned about the condition of the running surface
than either automobiles or pedestrians; object height for stopping sight distance is assumed to be
zero inches. Grates and curb inlets are of particular concern for cyclists, especially large gaps
and gaps that run parallel to the travelled way (69). Where these are not easily fixed, it is
recommended to weld cross bars are 4 inch (10 cm) on center spacing.
The bicycle operating space is itself (for the bicycle and rider) 0.75 m (30 inches) wide,
but add 0.125 m (5 inches) clearance on each side, giving an operating width of 1 m (40 inches)
and a height of 2.5 m (100 inches) (69) (see Figure 4-1). Bicycle lanes should be at least 4 feet
wide (65). It should be noted that the designation of sidewalks as shared-use bicycle paths is
typically not appropriate. This is due to the conflicts arriving between cyclists and slowermoving pedestrians. As well, wider sidewalks typically do not increase safety as they encourage
higher bicyclist speeds (69).
29
Figure 4-1: Bicyclist Operating Space (70)
4.3
Sub-compact Cars
The density envisioned for a hyperstructure does not lend itself to providing the space
necessary to support a large fleet of private automobiles. However, private and non-fixed
guideway vehicles may be required for a number of uses such as cargo delivery, garbage pickup,
moving resident‟s large personal and household goods, and emergency transportation of
residents. Table 4-1 provides the technical specifications of several sub-compact cars (the Smart
fortwo, the Mini Cooper S, and the VW Beetle) that may be of interest for modelling and
30
corridor design purposes. Other options that may be appropriate include Grumman Long Life
Vehicle (LLV), best known for its use by the United States Postal Service (see (71) and Figure
4-2), or its replacement, the Ford Transit Connect (see Figure 4-3 and Table 4-1), a compact
panel cargo van designed by Ford Europe. Similar sized vehicles are used in Europe in a variety
of roles such as cargo delivery and garbage pickup.
Table 4-1: Specifications of Select Sub-compact Cars
Smart fortwo
Mini Cooper S
2009 VW Beetle
2010 Ford
Transit Connect
XL Van
Length
106.1 in
(2.7 m)
3,714 mm
(146 in)
161.1 in
(4.1 m)
180.7 in
Width
61.4 in
(1.6 m)
1,683 mm
(66.3 in)
67.9 in
(1.7 m)
70.7 in
(1,795 mm)
Height
60.7 in
(1.5 m)
1,407 mm
(55.4 in)
59.0 in
(1.5 m)
79.3 in
31
Power
52 kW (70hp)
@5,800 rpm
184 hp (137 kW) @
5,500 rpm
112 kW (150 hp) @
5,000 rpm
136hp () @
6,300rpm
Curb
Weight
1,852 lbs
(842 kg)
1,205 kg
(2,650 lbs)
3,248 lbs
(1,475 kg)
3,360 lbs
Source
(72)
(73)
(74, 75)
(76)
Figure 4-2: USPS Grumman LLV (77)
Figure 4-3: 2010 Ford Transit Connect XLT (78)
32
4.4
Light Rail
4.4.1 Overview of Trams (Streetcars)
Trams, also referred to as „Streetcars‟, are becoming an increasingly important
component of urban public transportation systems. Their capacity lies between that of a diesel
bus and a metropolitan railway, or between 3,000 and 30,000 passengers per directions per hour
(79). Trams are few enough in number that it remains hard to determine a „typical‟ or „design‟
vehicle, although some generalizations can be made. The upside of the small number of deployed
vehicles is that most manufactures advertise the ability to adapt existing tram platforms to
specific local conditions. Many tram vehicle platforms are designed in a modular fashion to
reduce the cost of such adaptations. Trams run on rails installed at street level, either in right-ofways that can allow or prohibit other vehicles to travel in the same space. Standard gauge (the
distance between the inside of rails) is 4 foot, 8 ½ inches (1435 mm). Trams are typically 20 to
50 m (65 to 165 ft) long, and 2.3 to 2.65m (7 ½ to 8 ¾ ft) wide. Many new trams are 70 – 100%
low floor (see Table 4-2), designed to provide easy access for both wheelchairs and strollers. A
single tram can thus provide space to transport as many as 500 people. Trams typically have a
maximum speed of 70-80 km/h (45-50 mph). Trams are typically electric powered by means of
an overhead catenary or powered third rail, which means that there are no point source
emissions. Trams are preferred over busses because they have swifter acceleration and lower
operating costs. However, trams, like all systems that run on a fixed guideway, can be shut down
by isolated incidents if these occur on the tracks (80).
33
Table 4-2: Platform Heights (81)
Designation
Metric
Imperial
Ultra Low Floor (tram)
180 mm
7.1 in.
Low Floor (tram)
300-350 mm
11.8-13.8 in.
High Floor (tram)
> 600 mm
> 23.6 in.
Train (United Kingdom)
800-1200 mm
31.5-47.2 in.
Train (North America)
1351 mm
51 in.
Trams are included in the broader category of “light rail” which also includes fully
segregated systems. The vehicles on fully segregated systems are typically called “trains” (82).
LRT systems typically run on segregated right-of-ways and have a capacity between that of
trams and metro systems. Such distinctions between “trams” and other light rail operations are of
limited value because the technology is flexible and adaptable and many countries do not make a
legal distinction between “tram” and other light rail systems (83).
4.4.2 Tram Trains
Tram-trains are also being put into service by several cities – these vehicles travel on
both the inner city rail network and the interurban rail network typical of trams. These systems
are typically designed to allow commuters to travel to their downtown locations. These vehicles
are designed to railroad safety standards and can typically reach top speeds of 100 km/h (62
mph) (84).
34
4.4.3 Major Manufactures
There are four major manufacturers of trams worldwide – Alstom, AnsaldoBreda,
Bombadier and Siemens. A summary of their main tram series under production is listed in Table
4-3.
The Edmonton LRT system (detailed in Section 4.4.5) was originally provided with the
Duewag U2. Duewag AG was a German manufacturer of rail vehicles that held a near monopoly
on light rail vehicle in Western Germany. The company was sold to Siemens in 1999 and
dissolved in 2000 (85). Hence, the U2 is sometimes referred to as the “Siemens-Duewag U2”.
The U2 was originally developed for the Frankfurt U-bahn (“underground railroad” or metro)
and was adapted for use by the Edmonton LRT (light rail), Calgary C-Trail (light rail) and San
Diego Trolley (light rail) (86).
Table 4-3: Tram Manufacturers and Series
Manufacturer
Nationality
Series
Deployed
Introduced
Source
Alstom
France
Citadis
1140 trams
28 cities
1999
~ 500 trams
16 cities
1996
(87, 88, 89,
90)
(91, 92)
Siemesns
Germany
Combino
Avenio or S70
190 trams
8 cities
2004
(93, 94)
Ansaldobreda
Italy
Sirio
260 trams
7 cities
2002
(95, 96, 97)
Bombadier
Canada
Flexity Swift
> 860 trams
14 cities
1995
(98)
Flexity 2
16 trams
2010
(99, 100)
Flexity Classic
Blackpool,
England
> 11 cities
2006
(101)
Flexity Outlook
14 cities
35
(102, 103)
4.4.4 Worldwide Tram Systems
Modern tram systems can be found worldwide; a list of systems (as found on Wikipedia
(82)) includes:


Europe :
o Belarus : Minsk
o Belgium : Antwerp – Brussels – Charleroi – De Panne – Ghent – Knokke-Heist
o Croatia : Osijek – Zagreb
o Czech Republic : Prague
o Finland : Helsinki (see Figure 4-4) – Turku
o France: Bordeaux – Grenoble – Lille – Lyon – Marseille – Montpellier –
Mulhouse – Nantes – Nice – Paris – Rouen – Saint-Étienne – Strasbourg –
Valenciennes
o Germany : Berlin – Bremen – Dresden – Düsseldorf – Frankfurt am Main –
Freiburg
o Greece : Athens, construction in Patras, Ioannina, Volos. There are projects for
Rhodes and Kavala
o Ireland : Dublin
o Italy : Florence – Milan – Rome – Turin
o Netherlands : Amsterdam – Den Haag – Rotterdam– Utrecht
o Norway : Oslo
o Poland: Poznań – Warsaw
o Romania (104): Arad – Botoşani – Brăila – Bucharest – Cluj-Napoca – Craiova –
Galaţi – Iaşi – Oradea – Ploieşti – Sibiu-Răşinari – Timişoara
o Russia : St Petersburg – Volgograd
o Serbia : Belgrade
o Slovakia : Bratislava – Košice
o Spain : Alicante – Barcelona – Bilbao – Madrid – Seville – Valencia
o Sweden : Gothenburg – Norrköping
o Switzerland : Basel – Zürich
o United Kingdom : Blackpool – Edinburgh – London – Manchester – Midlands –
Nottingham – Sheffield
The Americas :
o Argentina : Buenos Aires
o Canada : Toronto
o United States : Baltimore – Boston – San Diego – Denver – Kenosha, Wisconsin
– Philadelphia – Portland, Oregon – Seattle
36


o Venezuela : Valencia
Asia and Oceania :
o Australia : Adelaide – Melbourne – Sydney
o Hong Kong : Hong Kong
o India : Calcutta
o Japan : Tokyo
Africa :
o Egypt: Alexandria
A list of light rail systems is also available on Wikipedia (105), including tram systems
and those that are fully segregated.
Figure 4-4: Bombardier Variotram in Helsinki, Finland (106)
37
4.4.5 Design Parameters from the Edmonton LRT System
In 1984, Robert Clark, Supervisor of Special Projects with the Edmonton Transit System
(ETS) published a series of guidelines on the construction of light rail transit (tram) facilities
(79). The reader is invited to read his report for recommendations and guidelines for such issues
as integration of the LRT with the city bus system and corridor selection, station location, train
reversing locations and procedures, special event service, signalling and communication
concerns, track geometry, station design, sharing of right of way (ROW), interfacing with other
modes (including pedestrian crossings), construction procedures, and required ancillary facilities.
In regards to technical considerations, Clark notes that there has been a near cease of light rail
technology development since World War II in North America, and so mainline railway
practices are often substituted, with limited success, inflated costs, and inferior operations. This
is in contrast to Europe where light rail has continued to develop separate from mainline
railways.
Clark notes that unlike buses, LRT operating costs are not proportional to capacity, thus
they are good candidates for lines that have decent ridership at the present time (typically at least
5,000 passengers per direction per hour in existing bus service) and that that traffic is forecast to
grow in the coming years. Clark notes that on a per passenger basis, buses, trolley buses (electric
powered buses), and the LRT are approximately equal in per passenger energy consumption (12
miles per gallon) and about a third of that of private automobile use (79).
Station spacing has an effect on operating speed with lower segregation from the
surrounding areas and greater station spacing increasing average operating speed (see Figure
4-5). Clark has defined the ROW classifications as follows (79):
38
A. Completely segregated, no intersections with other modes, all junctions grade separated;
B. Segregated except for barrier protected grade crossings and/or level junctions;
C. Segregated in road right of way except at roadway intersections which are protected by
light signals with or without transit priority;
D. Sharing right of way with pedestrians in transit malls or with other transit modes e.g.,
buses, and possibly with emergency vehicles and/or taxis; and
E. Sharing right of way with other road traffic.
Edmonton typically operates on a “B” corridor (see Figure 4-6). In Edmonton, stations are
typically 500 m (1650 ft) apart in the Central Business District and 800 m (2600 ft or a half mile)
in suburban settings (79).
The Edmonton LRT was originally put into service in 1978 with the Duewag U2 light rail
vehicle (LRV) (see Figure 4-7) and so the following operation data is based on that vehicle. The
LVR is 24.4 m (80 ft) long and 2.65 m (8 ft 8.3 in) wide. This provides seating for 64 and room,
based on 0.25 m2 (2.7 sq. ft) per passenger, for 97 standees, giving the vehicle a capacity of 161,
or 256 passengers under crush loading. The vehicles weigh 32.6 tonnes (35.9 tons) (dead weight)
and have a maximum payload of 17.7 tonnes (19.5 tons) (107).
Clark notes that on type “A” ROW (fully grade separated) that the practical minimum
interval between trains is 90 seconds or 40 trains an hour. Assuming a train length of 5 cars
(based on existing platform length), each train would have a capacity of 850 passengers. This
would mean the line could move 34,000 passengers per hour per direction. For type “B” ROW,
typical of the Edmonton LRT, surface crossing with traffic can be signaled to give 150 second
headways between trains (24 trains an hour), giving a line capacity of 20,000 passengers per
hour per direction. For timetable purposes, station dwell times of 15 to 30 seconds are usually
given (79).
39
Figure 4-5: Relationship Between Average Schedule Speed and Station Spacing (79)
40
Figure 4-6: Typical LRT Cross Section: LRT in Arterial Median with Landscaping Buffer (79)
Figure 4-7: Deuwag U2 LRV: ETS #1028 (108)
The Deuwag U2 has a maximum speed of 80 km/h (50 mph) and average service
acceleration and breaking rates of 1.32 m/s2 (4.33 ft/s2), allowing top speed to be reached from a
standing start in 18 seconds or 190 m (625 ft); deceleration distances and times are the same
(79).
41
Station platforms and pedestrian transport facilities (exits, stairways, passageways, and
escalators) should be designed such that the peak 15 minute loading due to arriving trains can be
cleared from the platform in 4 minutes (79).
4.5
Metro (Subway) Systems
Subways or “Metros” (short for “Metropolitan Railways”) are heavy rail public
transportation systems designed to transport travellers within an urban area. The line between
“metro,” “light rail” systems, and “commuter rail” is poorly defined as all three share the
common characteristics of providing public transit by use of rails. Metros are of particular
interest as they are most like the transportation system likely to be introduced in a hyperstructure.
Due to their low numbers, average values for modelling are hard to come by (beyond that most
systems operate on standard gauge track - 4 foot, 8 ½ inches or 1435 mm) and working with
either a train manufacturer or metro system operator is suggested to generate these numbers.
Modern metro systems number approximately 140 and systems can be found worldwide;
a list of systems (as found on Wikipedia (80)) includes:

Europe :
o Austria : Vienna
o Belarus : Minsk
o Belgium : Brussels
o Bulgaria : Sofia
o Czech Republic : Prague
o Denmark : Copenhagen
o Finland : Helsinki
o France: Lille – Lyon – Marseille – Paris (see Figure 4-8) – Rennes – Toulouse
o Germany : Berlin – Frankfurt – Hamburg – Munich – Nuremberg
o Greece : Athens
42
Italy : Catania – Genoa – Milan – Naples – Palermo – Rome – Turin
Netherlands : Amsterdam – Rotterdam
Norway : Oslo
Poland: Warsaw
Portugal : Lisbon
Romania : Bucharest
Russia : Kazan – Moscow – Nizhny Novgorod – St Petersburg – Samara –
Yekaterinburg
o Spain : Barcelona – Bilbao – Madrid – Palma de Mallorca – Seville – Valencia
o Sweden : Stockholm
o Switzerland : Lausanne
o Ukraine : Dnepropetrovsk – Kharkov – Kiev
o United Kingdom : Glasgow – London – Newcastle/Sunderland
The Americas :
o Argentina : Buenos Aires
o Brazil : Belo Horizonte – Brasília – Porto Alegre – Recife – Rio de Janeiro – São
Paulo – Teresina
o Canada : Montréal – Toronto – Vancouver
o Chile : Santiago – Valparaíso
o Colombia : Medellín
o Dominican Republic : Santo Domingo
o Mexico : Mexico City – Monterrey – Guadalajara
o Peru : Lima
o United States : Atlanta – Baltimore – Boston – Chicago – Cleveland – Los
Angeles – Miami – New York City – Philadelphia – San Francisco – San Juan,
Puerto Rico – Washington DC
o Venezuela : Caracas – Los Teques – Maracaibo – Valencia
Asia and Oceania :
o Armenia : Yerevan
o Azerbaijan : Buka
o China : Beijing – Chongqing – Dalian – Guangzhou – Hahjing – Shanghai –
Shenyang – Shenzhen – Tianjin – Wuhan
o Georgia : Tbilisi
o Hong Kong : Hong Kong
o India : Delhi – Kolkata
o Iran : Tehran
o Japan : Fukuoka – Kobe – Nagoya – Osaka – Sapporo – Sendai – Tokyo –
Yokohama
o North Korea : Pyongyang
o
o
o
o
o
o
o


43

o South Korea : Busan – Daegu – Daejeon – Gwangju – Incheon – Seoul
o Malaysia : Kuala Lumpur
o Philippines : Manila
o Singapore : Singapore
o Taiwan : Taipei – Kaohsiung
o Thailand : Bangkok
o Turkey : Adana – Ankara – Bursa – Istanbul – Izmir
o United Arab Emirates : Dubai
o Uzbekistan : Tashkent
Africa :
o Egypt: Cairo
Figure 4-8: Paris Metro: "Quai de la Gare" Station (Line 6) (109)
44
4.6
Freight by Rail
Although it does not typically receive the same focus as moving people, moving freight is
an important part of the functioning of any city and thus should be considered in the design of a
city‟s transportation network.
4.6.1 Non-motorized
All personal freight (items such as groceries, personal effects, and letters) will end their
travels being carried on foot. In many cases, being carried by a pedestrian may be sufficient to
complete the entire journey. Such trips are limited by the pedestrian‟s willingness to walk,
limited to about 800 m (a half mile or 2625 ft) (67), and the pedestrian‟s physical ability to carry
the freight. The use of a bicycle can considerably up those limits to as much as 10 miles (16 km)
(110) and greater load carrying capacity of a bicycle, especially if a bicycle trailer is used.
However, for items travelling further than 10 miles, more cumbersome than can be readily
carried on a bicycle, or originating from outside the neighborhood will require another mode of
transportation. It is anticipated that private motor vehicles will be limited within the
hyperstructure and among the most promising is rail transport.
4.6.2 Historic Urban Freight Railway Systems
Among the most extensive urban freight railway systems was the Chicago Tunnel
Company‟s system that at its height at 60 miles of 2 foot-gauge (610 mm) track. The tunnels
45
were built 40 ft (12 m) under the roads in Chicago and eventually the network almost mirrored
the entire above ground road network within the Loop (see Figure 4-9). The system opened in
1906 and operated until 1959 (111) and was estimated to do the work of 5000 trucks (112). The
system would connect to the various buildings within the Loop if the basements were deep
enough or via elevator otherwise. The system eventually went bankrupt due to a number of
factors, including the Subway cutting the network in two, the switch of many customers to coal
delivered by truck due to ease in unloaded, and eventually the switch of many of its customers to
gas for power (ash hauling was the primary business for the railroad in its last ten years of
existence) (113, 114).
The London Post Office Railway, inspired by the Chicago Tunnel was a narrow-gauge (2
foot or 610 mm) system used to move mail between sorting offices. It was in operation from
1927 to 2003. At its height, it operated 19 hours a day, 286 days a year. The system had 23 miles
(37 km) of track and served 9 stations (see Figure 4-10) (115). It was eventually shut down
because of cost concerns – it was estimated that moving letters by the train cost five times as
much as using surface vans (116).
Various tram lines have been used for freight service, sometimes even running standard
railway running stock, due to the fact that the tram network provided direct access to the central
city. However, this appears to have faded with the general popularity of tram systems in the
1960‟s and 70‟s (117).
46
Figure 4-9: Chicago Tunnel Company Railway System (118)
47
Figure 4-10: Map of the London Post Office Railway (119)
4.6.3 Contemporary Urban Freight Railway Systems
The only contemporary urban freight tram in operation today is the CarGo Tram in
Dresden, Germany. It runs along the public tramway and delivers materials to the Volkswagen
factory located in Dresden (120, 121). Vienna and Zurich have both used the tram network to
setup mobile recycling stations (122).
A system, called CityCargo, was demonstrated in Amsterdam in 2007 and 2008 in an
effort to reduce tracks in the city center through the use of a cargo tram riding on the city‟s
passenger tram lines and using electric vehicles for the final portion of transportation to the
destination. The system was successful, but floundered due to lack of available funding (123,
124). Similar systems have been proposed for Glasgow (117), Gothenburg, Sweden (125), and
Amsterdam (revive the CityCargo system) (123).
48
Modern urban freight networks seem to suffer from many of the problems that doomed
the Chicago Tunnel Company, namely the expense of building a complete network and limited
appropriate goods to be transported. The Chicago Tunnel Company tried to build the network to
each potential customer and struggled to make a return on this capital investment. CityCargo in
Amsterdam tried to get around this by providing electric vehicles to make deliveries from a
neighborhood delivery point, however this adds both cost to the operator and time to transit time,
which can lead shippers to question the benefits of a tram based system over a standard delivery
truck. Most goods are not as time sensitive as tram passengers and those that are (such as letters)
tend to be small enough to be transported on the carrier with ease. Competition from delivery
trucks may not be an issue in a hyperstructure but the layout of pickup locations will have a
significant impact on how such a system would function.
4.7
Elevators
Elevators, escalators, and moving sidewalks are sometimes grouped for while they
represent different technologies having different histories, for modelling purposes they are very
similar – a linear connection between two points that a pedestrian can transverse.
4.7.1 Overview of Elevators
Elevators have existed for centuries, but it was only with the introduction of the clutch,
pioneered by Elisha Otis in 1952, that would stop an elevator from an uncontrolled fall, that
49
elevators would be accepted for personal transportation by the general public (126). Elevators
were quickly accepted by building developers as elevators allowed the developers to build and
rent floors that most would otherwise be rendered inaccessible due to the number of flights of
stairs required to reach them (127). In modern skyscrapers, elevators remain the most important
form of vertical transportation.
One problem with elevator systems is that they tend to take up disproportionally more
floor space as the building grows taller. A classic example of this is Frank Lloyd Wright‟s mile
high (1610 meters) “The Illinois,” that was first proposed in 1956 and that would accommodate
100,000 people (128). The building was envisioned to have “76 atomic-powered, rack and
pinion, quintuple-deck elevators. Even with this novel, futuristic design, the lower portions of the
project still had nothing but elevator shafts” (129). Applied solutions to this floor space problem
in constructed buildings have included double decker elevators and skylobbies. Skylobbies
function with a system of express elevators from the ground floor to the skylobby levels, and
“local” elevators to serve intermediate floors (see Figure 4-11). Both double decker elevators and
skylobbies are designed to allow higher passenger throughput per elevator shaft.
The World Trade Center (WTC) towers, constructed in New York City and opened in
1970 and 1971 (130), were among the first buildings to utilize skylobbies, with skylobbies
located on the 44th and 78th floors (see Figure 4-11), halving the number of required elevator
shafts (131). Indeed, the use of skylobbies is considered to be what made the height of the WTC
towers (417 m and 415 m or 1368 ft and 1362 ft (130)) possible (132). This design of skylobbies
was later repeated in the construction of the Sears Tower (now the Willis Tower) in Chicago
(442 m or 1451 ft (133)), although the Sears Tower made use of double decker express elevators
(134). On a design note, double decker elevators seemed to work more efficiently as opposed to
50
a single level larger design of the same capacity; passengers tend not to fill the larger space,
apparently for physiological reason (132).
Figure 4-11: World Trade Center Building Design with Floor and Elevator Arrangement (134)
Expanding further, the 450 m high Petronas Tower in Kuala Lumpur, completed in 1996,
has 88 floors served by 29 double-deck elevators (126). The Petronas Towers are the first to use
51
skylobbies and with exclusively double decker elevators for both express and local service (132).
Double decker systems are estimated to save about 30% in required core floor space (135).
Present elevator systems allow travel up to 10 m/s (2000 ft/min) vertically. Direct descent
from 100 stories at this speed is the approximate maximum speed that can be maintained without
causing passengers significant aural discomfort due to pressure difference (132).
4.7.2 Future Systems
Future solutions to decreasing required building core space as building heights increase
include ropeless elevator systems that would allow multiple elevator cars to travel within the
same vertical shaft at the same time. However, much of the efficiency of elevator systems in use
today is due to the use of a counterweight which moves in opposition to the elevator. It is
estimated that counterweight-less elevator systems would consume three to eight times the
energy of contemporary, counterweighted systems (132). Another alternative is proposed by Otis
in the form of their Odyssey system (see (135)). The Odyssey system essentially separates the
elevator car from the hoisting mechanism. This allows the same elevator car to move both
horizontally and vertically. This in turn allows high vertical lifts to be done in steps, eliminating
several of the issues of very high vertical lifts, and also allowing the efficiencies of the
counterweight system to be maintained. This also allows loading and unloading to take place
outside of the hoistway, allowing greater capacity in the hoistways provided in the building core.
Such a design is estimated to reduce core space requirements by 25 to 30% over double decker
elevator systems at today‟s building heights (70% over single decker elevator designs) and by
40% in extended height systems proposed for the future. This increase in rentable space due to
52
lowered space requirements for the elevator system could quickly offset any additional cost
associated with such a system. Another potential advantage of the separation of the elevator car
from the hoisting mechanism is it creates the potential to combine both horizontal and vertical
transportation systems, which could prove particularly useful in situation where pedestrian
transportation includes a large horizontal leg, such as in large airports, shopping centers, or
transfers from parking garages to a building.
4.7.3 Sizing Elevator Systems
In modern buildings, sizing elevator systems, including the number of elevators, their
size, and their travel speed, remains a balance between available budget, available building
space, and desired service levels (126). Technically, four criteria are typically used in designing
elevator systems: Handling Capacity, Interval, Travel Time, and Hall Call Time (see (126)). Uppeak typically occurs during the morning rush in office buildings and is when the most is
demanded of the elevator system as people enter the building en masse. This is typically used as
the design criteria for elevator systems.
4.7.3.1 Handling Capacity
Handling Capacity refers to the ability to move passengers. Typically this is set at a
percentage of the building population that must be moved within 5 minutes, based on filling
time. Filling time varies from 20 to 100 minutes, depending on building type. Typical values for
53
minimum handling capacity for residential buildings are 5 to 7.5% and for commercial buildings
are 11 to 13% (136).
4.7.3.2 Interval
The interval refers to average time between elevator departures from the lobbly. Up peak
interval values are standardized. In commercial buildings, average interval times should be 20 to
30 seconds, in institutional buildings, between 30 and 50 seconds, and in residential buildings,
between 40 and 100 seconds (137).
4.7.3.3 Travel Time
The third criterion sometimes used is travel time. In its simplest form, this is the time it
takes to run the elevator, without any stops or passengers, from the lobby to the highest floor.
This should be below 32 seconds in office buildings and below 50 seconds in residential
buildings (138).
4.7.3.4 Average Hall Time
The fourth criterion used is average waiting time, or in practice, average hall time. This
represents the time that passes between when an elevator is called and when the elevator arrives
54
at the desired floor. Excellent service requires that 98% of hall call times be less than 60 seconds
(139).
4.7.4 Elevator Control Systems
Further complicating efforts to model elevator systems is the effect that the elevator
control system will have on the operation of said elevator system. Originally, elevators systems
employed operators that would take passengers to their requested destinations. With
improvements in elevator levelling technologies (allowing the elevator to better line up with the
floor level), electronic control became possible. The first electronic controls were relays where
the system would be frequently polled (for example, every 100 milliseconds, or every 1/10 of a
second) to determine if the call button was depressed. Registered calls were then served by the
first elevator to pass the floor in question in the desired direction. Advances in electronics
allowed the first microprocessor controlled elevators systems to be developed in the 1970‟s.
Assigning elevators to serve the various floor calls can quickly become a complicated process,
but is effectively limited to what can be accomplished in real time. Modern microprocessor
systems are increasing making use of advances in the field of Artificial Intelligence such as
fuzzy logic, neural nets, seek algorithms, and optimization algorithms. Furthermore, the fact that
elevator traffic tends to follow a consistent pattern (often weekly or daily) is increasingly being
considered in elevator assignment programs (140).
Upon installation of a microprocessor control system, an improvement in hall call times
of 40% is typical, when compared to a relay-based system. About half of this improvement is
due to the new doors and drive system and about half is due to the new control system (140).
55
Attempts have been made to improve elevator car assignment systems by having
travellers „dial in‟ their destination when they first call the elevator. These systems suffer from
several problems, the first of which is the lack of familiarity by most users. Furthermore, these
system will sometime cause frustrations for users or general inefficiencies as the result of typical
user behavior: a user may repeatedly press the call button, thinking it will decrease his waiting
time and thus be assigned an empty car by the system because it believes there to be many users
waiting on the floor, or alternately, the elevator is called once for a group and the elevator
assigned shows up half full and thus unable to serve the entire group (141).
4.7.5 Major Manufacturers
There are a number of manufacturers of elevators, escalators, and moving walkways,
with most companies manufacturing all three products. Major manufactures include Otis
(American), Thyssen-Krupp (German), KONE (Finnish), Mitsubishi (Japanese), and Schindler
(Swiss).
4.8
Escalators
Escalators were originally introduced to the public as an amusement park ride, unveiled
by inventor Jenne Reno in 1892 at Coney Island, New York (142). Modern escalators are used to
move people over short vertical distances. Figure 4-12 outlines the basic components of a typical
modern escalator. A modern escalator is effectively a series of aluminum or steel steps (#5),
56
guided in a continuous loop by two rails (#5 and #7). Moving at the same speed is a rubberized
handrail (#4). Also noted in the diagram are the electric drive motor (#1), the handrail drive (#3),
and the drive (#2) and return wheels (#6) for the steps. Escalators typically move at speeds of 0.3
to 0.6 meters per second (1 to 2 feet per second). The maximum angle for an escalator is 30°
with a standard maximum rise of 18 m (60 feet, or about five stories) (143). How many people
an escalator can move is determined by its width and travel speed. For example, a single width
escalator travelling at 0.45 m/s (1.5 ft/s) can move 170 people in a 5 minute period. A wider
model, travelling at 0.6 m/s (2 ft/s) could move as many as 450 people, or two and a half times as
many, in the same five minute period (144). Table 4-4 gives typical escalator sizes, capacities,
applications, and energy usages.
Figure 4-12: Escalator Components (143)
57
Table 4-4: Escalator Characteristics by Step Width (145)
Width (between
balustrade
panels)
400 mm
(16 in)
600 mm
(24 in)
Size
Very
Small
Small
Medium
800 mm
(31 in)
Large
1000 mm
(39 in)
Single-step Capacity
One passenger, with
feet together
One passenger
One passenger plus
one package or piece
of luggage
Two passenger – one
may walk past the
other
Applications
Rare historic design; mostly found
in older department stores
Low volume sites; Uppermost
levels of department stores; Where
space is limited
Shopping malls; Department
stores; Smaller airports
Mainstay of metro systems, larger
airports, train stations, some retail
usage
Energy
Consumption
3.7 kW
(5.0 hp)
3.7 kW
(5.0 hp)
7.5 kW
(10.1 hp)
7.5 kW
(10.1 hp)
Energy use by escalators has become a concern in recent years. In 2004, there was
estimated to be 30,000 escalators in use in the United States (146), and due to the weight of the
steps (they are typically solid aluminum or steel), the energy usage is considerable. A group of
students from Rowan University in Glassboro, New Jersey determined that a passenger
weighting 170 lb (77 kg) riding up a 30 step escalator would increase the energy cost by one
thousandths of a percent (142). The escalators across the United States are estimated to use 2.6
billion kilowatt hours of electricity a year, costing roughly $260 million (146).
From an accessibility point-of-view, escalators are typically not suitable for those who
are physically disabled, and so an elevator is usually required to be supplied parallel to the
escalator. This is also typically true of a flight of stairs (147).
58
4.9
Moving Sidewalks
Moving sidewalks are less common than either elevators or escalators, but are not
uncommon in situation where large horizontal expanses need to be traversed on foot, such as in
airports or metro stations. The first moving walkway was unveiled in 1893 at the World‟s
Columbian Exposition held in Chicago. They quickly became the stuff of science fiction with
H.G. Wells imagining a city connected by a system of moving walkways travelling at up to
180 km/h (148). Moving walkways have never taken off in the manor imagined by Wells; most
moving walkways today travel no faster than a brisk walk.
Today, moving walkways come in two basic construction styles – pallet type, which is a
continuous series of flat metal plates joined together, not entirely unlike an escalator, and moving
belt style that works as a sort of conveyor belt, underpinned by rollers (148).
One of the most major installations of a faster moving walkway was that of the trottoir
roulant rapide (TRR) (see Figure 4-13) at the Paris Métro station of Montparnasse-Bienvenüe in
2002. This walkway travels at a speed of 3 m/s (11 km/h or 9.8 ft/s). The number of falling
passengers necessitated a speed decrease to 9 km/h (2.5 m/s or 8.2 ft/s). This compares to 0.8 m/s
(3 km/h or 2.6 ft/s) of the „regular‟ moving walkways beside it (149). The TRR, as installed, had
a length of 180 metres (590 feet) and a capacity of 110,000 people per day (150). To allow users
to travel at these speeds, the TRR provides an acceleration zone at the start and a deceleration
zone at the end of the walkway (see Figure 4-14). In 2009, the RATP, the operator of the
Montparnasse-Bienvenüe station, announced that the TRR would be removed and replaced with
a „classic‟ moving walkway (149).
59
Figure 4-13: The Trottoir Roulant Rapide in Paris' Monparnasse-Bienenüe Métro station (151)
In the intermediate time, it was announced that another high-speed walkway was installed
at the Person Airport in Toronto, Canada. This walkway is of pallet-style construction, with an
initial speed of 2 km/h (0.6 m/s or 1.8 ft/s), an acceleration zone, a main speed of 7 km/h (1.9 m/s
or 6.4 ft/s), a deceleration zone, and a final speed to 2 km/h (148).
60
Figure 4-14: Le Trottoir Roulant Rapide (150)
61
62
5
CONCLUSION
This report has described the hyperstructure paradigm, highlighted some of the major
difference between it and the GAS paradigm, and covered the basics needed to model the
transportation network within a hyperstructure. In specifics, Hong Kong, Parkview Green, and
the Calgary +15 (and broader, downtown pedestrian networks) have been highlighted as having
included several of the characteristics of a hyperstructure and provided and jumping points to
understand how a hyperstructure might function on a larger scale. In terms of modes,
pedestrians, bicyclist, sub-compact cars, trams, metros, and elevators, escalators, and moving
sidewalks have all been detailed. It is hoped that with this information, the reader will feel
comfortable embarking on the process of modelling the transportation network to be found with
a hyperstructure, and bringing that dream one step closer to reality.
63
64
REFERENCES
1. Hill, K. J. Preserving Life on the Street. Utah Stories, May 2006. http://
www.utahstories.com/graphics/Preserving%20Life%20on%20the%20Street[1].pdf.
Accessed July 16, 2010.
2. Theodore, B. W. The Economic and Social Benefits of Hyperstructures. Project Report,
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Brigham Young University, Provo,
UT, 2010.
3. Jleon. File:Panorama Skyline Manhattan Empire State Building.jpg. Wikipedia Commons,
March 20, 2010. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
File:Panorama_Skyline_Manhattan_Empire_State_Building.jpg. Accessed July 22, 2010.
4. Wikipedia contributors. Shimizu Mega-City Pyramid. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia,
June 24, 2010. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shimizu_MegaCity_Pyramid&oldid=369963686. Accessed July 22, 2010.
5. Discovery Communications. Extreme Engineering: City in a Pyramid. Discovery Channel,
2010. http://dsc.discovery.com/convergence/engineering/pyramidcity/interactive/
interactive.html. Accessed July 22, 2010.
6. Shimizu TRY 2004 Pyramid. Geekwidget, March 29, 2010. http://www.geekwidget.com/
shimizu-try-2004-mega-city-pyramid-346. Accessed July 22, 2010.
7. Wikipedia contributors. Seward's Success, Alaska. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, July
17, 2010. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/
index.php?title=Seward%27s_Success,_Alaska&oldid=374006154. Accessed July 22,
2010.
8. Yergaliyev, K. World‟s Biggest Building Coming to Moscow: Crystal Island. inhabitat,
Dec 26, 2007. http://www.inhabitat.com/2007/12/26/tallest-skyscraper-in-the-worldcoming-to-moscow/. Accessed July 22, 2010.
9. Foster + Partners. Foster + Partners presents a new mixed-use destination for Moscow.
Foster + Partners, Dec 21, 2007. http://www.fosterandpartners.com/News/324/
Default.aspx. Accessed July 22, 2010.
65
10. Gourlay, C., and R. Watts. Foster plans world‟s biggest building. Times Online, December
23, 2007. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/article3087365.ece. Accessed July
22, 2010.
11. Lee, E. ZIGGURAT: Dubai‟s Carbon Neutral Pyramid Will House 1 Million. inhabitat,
August 25, 2008. http://www.inhabitat.com/2008/08/25/ziggurat-dubai-carbon-neutralpyramid-will-house-1-million/. Accessed July 22, 2010.
12. Wikipedia contributors. MTR. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, June 17, 2010. http://
en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MTR&oldid=368590684. Accessed June 17, 2010.
13. Wang, L. H. In Search of a Sustainable Transport Development Strategy for Hong Kong.
http://www.hkpri.org.hk/bulletin/5/l-h-wang.html. Accessed May 12, 2010.
14. Sameboat. File:Hong Kong Railway Route Map en.svg. Wikipedia Commons, September
27, 2009. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/
File:Hong_Kong_Railway_Route_Map_en.svg. Accessed June 17, 2010.
15. Wikipedia contributors. Tsim Sha Tsui. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, July 28, 2010.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tsim_Sha_Tsui&oldid=375972775. Accessed
August 3, 2010.
16. Wikipedia contributors. Underground city. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, July 31,
2010. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Underground_city&oldid=376352838.
Accessed August 3, 2010.
17. Urban Tours by Rental Car. Hong Kong II: Freeways, Suburbs & Junkyards. August 20,
2005. http://www.rentalcartours.net/rac-hkfreeway.pdf. Accessed August 3, 2010.
18. Wikipedia contributors. Central-Mid-Levels escalators. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia,
July 8, 2010. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Central-MidLevels_escalators&oldid=372372565. Accessed August 3, 2010.
19. Bowman, M. Hong Kong: Traditional markets and walkways in the sky. Spacing Toronto,
February 1, 2010. http://spacingtoronto.ca/2010/02/01/hong-kong-traditional-markets-andwalkways-in-the-sky/. Accessed August 3, 2010.
20. Public Affairs Committee. HKIP's Position on Planning for Pedestrians in Hong Kong.
Position Paper, Hong Kong Institute of Planners, Hong Kong, November 19, 2002.
21. Tang, B. S., Y. H. Chiang, A. N. Baldwin, and C. W. Yeung. Study of the Integrate RailProperty Development Model. 2004.
66
22. 78kachiu. File:Esculator.JPG. Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia, March 1, 2004. http://
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Esculator.JPG. Accessed August 3, 2010.
23. Key Development in Beijing, China. e-architect, December 2009. http://www.earchitect.co.uk/beijing/parkview_green.htm. Accessed July 22, 2010.
24. Montgomery, M. R., and R. Bean. Market failure, government failure, and the private
supply of public goods: The case of climate-controlled walkway networks. Public Choice,
Vol. 99, 1997, pp. 403-437.
25. Maitland, B. Hidden Cities: The irresistable rise of the North American interior city. Cities,
Vol. 9, No. 3, August 1992, pp. 162-169.
26. Bandara, S., S. C. Wirasinghe, D. Gurofsky, and P. Chan. Grade-Seperated Pedestrian
Circulation Systems. Transportation Research Record 1438: Safety and Human
Performance: Reseach Issues on Bicycling, Pedestrians, and Older Drivers, 1994, pp. 5966.
27. Zacharias, J. Planning for pedestrian networks in North American downtonws. Journal of
Advanced Transportation, Vol. 28, No. 2, 1994, pp. 141-156.
28. Clements, B. People of the Skyway. Secrets of the City, October 19, 2004. http://
archives.secretsofthecity.com/magazine/reporting/features/people-skyway. Accessed July
21, 2010.
29. Andersen, K., and M. Hequet. Design: Fast Life Along the Skywalks. TIME, August 1,
1988. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,968019,00.html. Accessed July
21, 2010.
30. Victoria Transport Policy Institute. Pedwyas: Indoor Urban Walking Networks. TDM
Encyclopedia, January 26, 2010. http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm128.htm. Accessed July 19,
2010.
31. Ville de Montréal. RÉSO. Ville de Montréal - Arrondissement de Ville-Marie, http://
ville.montreal.qc.ca/portal/page?_dad=portal&_pageid=87,51995651&_schema=PORTAL.
Accessed July 21, 2010.
32. The City of Calgary. Plus 15. The City of Calgary, August 20, 2008. http://www.calgary.ca/
portal/server.pt/gateway/PTARGS_0_0_771_203_0_43/http;/content.calgary.ca/CCA/
City+Hall/Business+Units/
Development+and+Building+Approvals+and+Land+Use+Planning+and+Policy/
Land+Use+Planning/Centre+City/Downtown+Planning/Plus+15.htm. Accessed July 21,
2010.
67
33. O'Gilfoil Healy, P. Rethinking Skyways and Tunnels. The New York Times, August 3, 2005.
34. Steers, S. Bridges to Nowhere. Denver Westword, March 14, 1996. http://
www.westword.com/1996-03-14/news/bridges-to-nowhere/. Accessed July 21, 2010.
35. Alpert, D. Skybridges don't make the connection. Greater Greater Washington, Feb 28,
2008. http://greatergreaterwashington.org/post.cgi?id=654. Accessed July 17, 2010.
36. McKeen, S. Pedways killing street ambience. Edmonton Journal, December 28, 2008. http:/
/www.canada.com/edmontonjournal/columnists/story.html?id=21c01ab7-c819-44a2-8a9e967fb29c7ac2. Accessed July 21, 2010.
37. Robertson, K. A. Pedestrian skywalks in Calgary, Canada: A comparision with US
downtown systems. Cities, Vol. 4, No. 3, August 1987, pp. 207-214.
38. Lynch, K. The Image of the City. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1960.
39. mapsof.net. Minneaplis Skyway Map. mapsof.net, 2010. http://mapsof.net/minneapolis/
static-maps/png/minneapolis-skyway-map. Accessed July 21, 2010.
40. Cook Hill Girard Associates. Skyway Map for Cook Hill Girard Associates. Cook Hill
Girard - Gov't Relations and Grass Roots Management, 2007. http://
www.cookhillgirard.com/skywaymap.html. Accessed July 21, 2010.
41. havenworks.com. Des Moines Skywalks Map. Mappery, April 23, 2009. http://
mappery.com/Des-Moines-Skywalks-Map. Accessed July 21, 2010.
42. The City of Calgary. +15 Walkway System. The City of Calgary, http://www.calgary.ca/
docgallery/BU/engineering_services/emaps/plus_15_network_map.pdf. Accessed July 21,
2010.
43. Wikipedia contributors. +15. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, June 20, 2010. http://
en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%2B15&oldid=369150336. Accessed July 21, 2010.
44. Access Design Standards. Advisory Committee on Accessibilty, The City of Calgary,
Calgary, AB, 2010.
45. Hubbell, J., and D. Colquhoun. Light Rail Transit in Calgary: The First 25 Years. In Joint
International Light Rail Conference, St. Louis, MO, 2006.
46. Drhaggis. File:Plus 15 sign and walkway Calgary.jpg. Wikipedia Commons, September 18,
2005. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Plus_15_sign_and_walkway_Calgary.jpg.
Accessed July 22, 2010.
68
47. Polus, A., J. L. Schofer, and A. Ushpi. Pedestrian flow and level of service. Journal of
Transportation Engineering, Vol. 109, No. 1, 1983, pp. 46-57.
48. Pushkarev, B., and J. M. Zupan. Capacity of walkways. Transportation Research Record,
Journal of the Transportation Research Board 538, 1975, pp. 1-15.
49. Daly, P. N., F. McGrath, and T. J. Annesley. Pedestrian speed/flow relationships for
underground stations. Traffic Engineering and Control, Vol. 32, 1991, pp. 75-78.
50. Toshiyuki, A. Prediction system of passenger flow, in Engineering for Crowd Safety, Smith,
R. A., and J. F. Dickie. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 1993, pp. 249-258.
51. Smith, R. A., and J. F. Dickie. Engineering for Crowd Safety. Amsterdam, 1993.
52. Bradley, G. E. A proposed mathematical model for computer prediction of crowd
movements and their associated risks, in Engineering for Crowd Safety, Smith, R.A., and
J.F. Dickie. Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp. 303-311.
53. Al Gadhi, S. A.H., and H. Mahmassan. Simulation of crowd behavior and movement:
fundamental relations and application. Transportation Research Record, Journal of the
Transportation Research Board 1320, 1991, pp. 260-268.
54. Selim, S. Z., and A. H. Al-Rabeh. On the modeling of pedestrian flow on the Jamarat
bridge. Transportation Science, Vol. 25, 1991, pp. 257-262.
55. Surti, V. H., and T. J. Burke. Investigation of the capacity of the white house sidewalk for
orderly demonstrations. Highway Research Record 355, 1971, pp. 16-25.
56. Tanaka, T. A study for performance based design of means of escape in fire, in Fire Safety
Science – Proceedings of the 3rd International Symposium, Cox, G., and B. Langford.
Amsterdam: Elsevier, 1991, pp. 729-738.
57. Hughes, R. L. A Continuum Theory for the Flow of Pedestrians. Transportation Research,
Part B, Vol. 36, No. 6, 2002, pp. 507-535.
58. Wikipedia contributors. VISSIM. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, July 20, 2010. http://
en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=VISSIM&oldid=374479995. Accessed July 22, 2010.
59. PTV AG. Pedestrian Simulation with VISSIM. http://www.ptvag.com/software/
transportation-planning-traffic-engineering/software-system-solutions/vissim/pedestriansimulation/. Accessed April 29, 2010.
69
60. Teknomo, K. Pedestrian Research. Kardi Teknomo's Page, 2006. http://
people.revoledu.com/kardi/research/pedestrian/index.htm. Accessed July 26, 2010.
61. Teknomo, K., Y. Takeyama, and H. Inamura. Review on Microscopic Pedestrian
Simulation Model. In Proceedings Japan Society of Civil Engineering Conference,
Morioka, Japan, March 2000.
62. Helbring, D. Social Force Model for Pedestrian Dynamics. Physical review. E, Statistical,
nonlinear, and soft matter physics, Vol. 51, No. 2, 1995, pp. 4282–4286.
63. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO).
AASHTO Guide for the Planning, Design, and Operation of Pedestrian Facilities. 2004.
64. Transportation Research Board. Methodology, in Highway Capacity Manual., ch. 18, 2000.
65. Transportation Research Board. Concepts, in Highway Capacity Manual., ch. 11, 2000.
66. Federal Highway Administration. Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. United
States Department of Transportation, http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/pdfs/2009/pdf_index.htm.
Accessed April 29, 2010.
67. Pikora, T. J., B. Giles-Corti, and R. Donovan. How Far Will People Walk to Facilities in
Their Local Neighbourhoods. In Australia: Walking the 21st Century, Perth, Western
Australia, Australia, 2001.
68. Transportation Research Board. Methodology, in Highway Capacity Manual., ch. 19, 2000.
69. AASHTO. AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities., 1999.
70. Rodegerdts, L. A. Signalized Intersections: Informational Guide. US Department of
Transportation: Federal Highway Administration, FHWA-HRT-04-091, 2004.
71. Wikipedia contributors. Grumman LLV. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, July 29, 2010.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grumman_LLV&oldid=376022123. Accessed
August 4, 2010.
72. smart USA Distributor LLC. passion cabriolet technical specs. http://www.smartusa.com/
passion-cabrio-specs.aspx?model=passion_cabriolet. Accessed May 10, 2010.
73. BMW AG. MINI Cooper S – Facts & Figures. http://www.mini.co.uk/html/model_range/
mini_cooper_s/techSpec.html. Accessed May 10, 2010.
70
74. Automobile Magazine. 2009 Volkswagen Beetle Specifications. http://
www.automobilemag.com/am/2009/volkswagen/beetle/specifications.html. Accessed May
10, 2010.
75. Automobile Magazine. 2009 Volkswagen Beetle Aerodynamics & Exterior Features. http://
www.automobilemag.com/am/2009/volkswagen/beetle/specifications/
aerodynamics_exterior.html. Accessed May 10, 2010.
76. 2010 Ford Transit Connect Specs. Aol Autos, 2010. http://autos.aol.com/cars-FordTransit+Connect-2010/specs/. Accessed August 3, 2010.
77. IFCAR. File:USPS-Mail-Truck.jpg. Wikipedia Commons, March 11, 2007. http://
commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:USPS-Mail-Truck.jpg. Accessed August 4, 2010.
78. IFCAR. File:Ford Transit Connect -- 08-25-2009.jpg. Wikipedia Commons, August 8, 2009.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ford_Transit_Connect_--_08-25-2009.jpg.
Accessed August 4, 2010.
79. Clark, R. R. General Guidelines for the Design of Light Rail Transit Facilities in Edmonton.
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, 1984.
80. Wikipedia contributors. List of metro systems. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, June 17,
2010. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_metro_systems&oldid=368658114.
Accessed June 17, 2010.
81. Wikipedia contributors. Railway platform height. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, July
21, 2010. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/
index.php?title=Railway_platform_height&oldid=374724554. Accessed July 26, 2010.
82. Wikipedia contributors. Tram. Wikipedia contributors, June 28, 2010. http://
en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tram&oldid=370628356. Accessed July 2, 2010.
83. Wikipedia contributors. Light rail. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, July 31, 2010. http://
en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Light_rail&oldid=376346459. Accessed August 3,
2010.
84. Wikipedia contributors. Tram-train. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, April 6, 2010. http:/
/en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tram-train&oldid=354399985. Accessed May 5, 2010.
85. Wikipedia contributors. DUEWAG. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, July 4, 2010. http://
en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=DUEWAG&oldid=371758698. Accessed July 15,
2010.
71
86. Wikipedia contributors. Siemens–Duewag U2. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, April 18,
2010. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/
index.php?title=Siemens%E2%80%93Duewag_U2&oldid=356773727. Accessed July 15,
2010.
87. Wikipedia contributors. Alstom Citadis. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, April 18, 2010.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alstom_Citadis&oldid=356765234. Accessed
May 5, 2010.
88. Alstom Transport SA. Urban Creativity (Technology and Aestetics). 2007. http://
www.transport.alstom.com/_eLibrary/brochure/upload_45953.pdf. Accessed May 5, 2010.
89. Alstom Transport SA. CITADIS Dualis. 2010. http://www.transport.alstom.com/home/
elibrary/technical/products/_files/file_32031_30182.pdf. Accessed May 5, 2010.
90. Alstom Transport SA. CITADIS: The spirit of your city. 2010. http://
www.transport.alstom.com/home/elibrary/technical/products/_files/file_32035_41030.pdf.
Accessed May 5, 2010.
91. Wikipedia contributors. Combino. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, March 19, 2010.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Combino&oldid=350867640. Accessed May 5,
2010.
92. Siemens AG Transportation Systems. Combino Plus. 2010. http://krup.sinotech.com.tw/
krup/6191c/data/KaohsiungBrochure_chi.pdf. Accessed May 5, 2010.
93. Wikipedia contributors. Siemens S70. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, March 20, 2010.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Siemens_S70&oldid=351022552. Accessed May
5, 2010.
94. Siemens AG. Avenio. 2010. http://transportation.siemens.com/en/data/pdf/ts_internet/ts_tr/
avenio_a19100-v520-b452-x-7600.pdf. Accessed May 5, 2010.
95. Wikipedia contributors. Sirio. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, March 12, 2010. http://
en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sirio&oldid=349436333. Accessed May 5, 2010.
96. Ansaldobreda SpA. Cleveland LRV. 2010. http://www.ansaldobredainc.com/PDF/
CLEVELAND%20light%20rail.pdf. Accessed May 5, 2010.
97. AnsaldoBreda. Technical Description of the SIRIO Platform Vehicle. 2010. http://
www.ansaldobredainc.com/PDF/Sirio%20Technical%20Specifications.pdf. Accessed May
5, 2010.
72
98. Wikipedia contributors. Flexity Swift. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, April 30, 2010.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Flexity_Swift&oldid=359324914. Accessed May
5, 2010.
99. Wikipedia contributors. Flexity 2. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, April 24, 2010. http://
en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Flexity_2&oldid=357952947. Accessed May 5, 2010.
100. Bomberdier Transportation. Flexity 2. 2010. http://www.bombardier.com/files/en/
supporting_docs/FLEXITY2.pdf. Accessed May 5, 2010.
101. Wikipedia contributors. Flexity Classic. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, November 22,
2009. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Flexity_Classic&oldid=327367947.
Accessed May 5, 2010.
102. Wikipedia contributors. Flexity Outlook. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, March 21,
2010. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Flexity_Outlook&oldid=351075738.
Accessed May 5, 2010.
103. Bombardier Transport. The Olympic Line: Vancouver‟s 2010 Streetcar. 2010. http://
www.bombardier.com/files/en/supporting_docs/Vancouvers_2010_Streetcar.pdf. Accessed
May 5, 2010.
104. Wikipedia contributors. List of town tramway systems in Romania. Wikipedia, The Free
Encyclopedia, April 8, 2010. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/
index.php?title=List_of_town_tramway_systems_in_Romania&oldid=354778070.
Accessed May 10, 2010.
105. Wikipedia contributors. List of tram and light-rail transit systems. Wikipedia, The Free
Encyclopedia, July 30, 2010. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/
index.php?title=List_of_tram_and_light-rail_transit_systems&oldid=376178833. Accessed
August 3, 2010.
106. Jonik. File:ModernFinnishTram.jpg. Wikipedia Commons, August 25, 2004. http://
commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:ModernFinnishTram.jpg. Accessed July 6, 2010.
107. Parsons, M., M. Dasher, and K. Baker. Edmonton Transit System's LRT History. Barp.ca,
April 24, 2009. http://www.barp.ca/bus/lrt/edmonton/history.html. Accessed July 15, 2010.
108. Parsons, M. Edmonton Drawings. Barp.ca, 2001. http://www.barp.ca/bus/ets/ets-1983-u21028wcr.gif. Accessed July 15, 2010.
109. Pline. File:Ligne-6-Quai-de-la-Gare-2.jpg. Wikipedia Commons, October 2006. http://
commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ligne-6-Quai-de-la-Gare-2.jpg. Accessed July 6, 2010.
73
110. Oswald, F. Bicycle Commuter's Guide. Bicycling Life, 1999. http://www.bicyclinglife.com/
PracticalCycling/commuteguide.htm. Accessed August 4, 2010.
111. Delaitre, F. Chicago Freight Subway. Frédéric Delaitre's Lost Subways, June 24, 2001.
http://fdelaitre.perso.sfr.fr/Chicago.htm. Accessed August 5, 2010.
112. Chicago's Freight Subway Does the Work of 5000 Trucks. Modern Mechanix, November
1929, p. 131.
113. O'Keefe, P. The History of Chicago's Freight Tunnels. http://users.ameritech.net/
chicagotunnel/tunnel1x.html. Accessed August 5, 2010.
114. O'Keefe, P. The History of Chicago's Freight Tunnels (Continued). http://
users.ameritech.net/chicagotunnel/tunnel1y.html. Accessed August 5, 2010.
115. Karslake, C. Mail Rail: London's Post Office Railway, http://homepage.ntlworld.com/
c.karslake/mailrail/html/home.html. Accessed August 5, 2010.
116. London Post Office Railway. Slider, 2008. http://enc.slider.com/Enc/
London_Post_Office_Railway. Accessed August 5, 2010.
117. Freight trams envisaged for Glasgow. Railnews, February 9, 2010. http://
www.railnews.co.uk/news/metro/2010/02/09-freight-trams-envisaged-for-glasgow.html.
Accessed August 5, 2010.
118. O'Keefe, P. Chicago Tunnel Company System Map. The Chicago Tunnel Company
Railroad, http://users.ameritech.net/scalemodel/tunnel6.html. Accessed August 5, 2010.
119. Karslake, C. PO Railway Map. Mail Rail: London's Post Office Railway, http://
homepage.ntlworld.com/c.karslake/mailrail/html/po_map.html. Accessed August 5, 2010.
120. Wikipedia contributors. CarGoTram. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, June 11, 2010.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=CarGoTram&oldid=367462613. Accessed
August 5, 2010.
121. zweisystem. CargoTram – Taking Commercial Trucks Off the Road. Is TransLink planning
for the future? Can TransLink plan for the future? Rail For The Valley, October 22, 2009.
http://railforthevalley.wordpress.com/2009/10/22/cargotram-taking-commercial-trucks-offthe-road-is-translink-planning-for-the-future-can-translink-plan-for-the-future/. Accessed
August 5, 2010.
122. Moglestue, A. Cargotram Zurich. Tramcars, Tracks and Terminii, February 13, 2006. http://
www.proaktiva.ch/tram/zurich/cargotram.html. Accessed August 5, 2010.
74
123. Levitt, J. Worldchanging update: CityCargo. Worldchanging, July 4, 2009. http://
www.worldchanging.com/archives/009513.html. Accessed August 5, 2010.
124. Witt, C. E. Overlooked Tram Offers Revolutionary Transportation Solution. Material
Handling Management, May 1, 2008. http://mhmonline.com/news/mhm_imp_6202/.
Accessed August 5, 2010.
125. Driessen, A. Cargo trams to relieve clogged streets? Minds in Motion, February 26, 2010.
http://www.mindsinmotion.net/index.php/mimv34/themes/diverse/features/
niklas_arvidsson_cargo_trams. Accessed August 5, 2010.
126. Siikonen, M.-L. Planning and Control Models for Elevators in High-Rise Buildings. KONE
Corporation, Helsinki, Finland, 1997.
127. Rose, D. Otis Elevator Co. RitchieWiki, October 19, 2009. http://www.ritchiewiki.com/
wiki/index.php?title=Otis_Elevator_Co.&oldid=33879. Accessed July 2, 2010.
128. Kirk, K. The Illinois: The Mile High Building. Easter Eggs in Eposide One, October 16,
1999. http://www.fortunecity.com/lavender/atkinson/948/milehigh.html. Accessed July 2,
2010.
129. J.W. Fortune, Lerch, Bates & Associates, Inc. Revolutionary Lift Designs For Mega-HighRise Buildings. Elevator World, Inc., April 27, 1998. http://www.elevator-world.com/
magazine/archive01/9805-003.html-ssi. Accessed June 28, 2010.
130. Wikipedia contributors. World Trade Center. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, June 28,
2010. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=World_Trade_Center&oldid=370512870.
Accessed June 28, 2010.
131. Willis, C. The World Trade Center. The Skyscraper Museum, http://www.skyscraper.org/
TALLEST_TOWERS/t_wtc.htm. Accessed June 28, 2010.
132. Barker, R. Is 2,000 Feet Per Minute Enough? In International Conference on High
Technology Buildings, Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat, São Paulo, Brazil,
1995, http://www.elevator-world.com/magazine/archive01/9703-001.HTM. http://
www.elevator-world.com/magazine/archive01/9703-001.HTM.
133. Wikipedia contributors. Willis Tower. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, July 5, 2010.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Willis_Tower&oldid=371901207. Accessed July
6, 2010.
75
134. MesserWoland. File:World Trade Center Building Design with Floor and Elevator
Arrangment.svg. Wikipedia Commons, March 4, 2007. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/
File:World_Trade_Center_Building_Design_with_Floor_and_Elevator_Arrangment.svg.
Accessed June 28, 2010.
135. Barker, F. H. A Technical Primer: The Otis Odyssey System. In 2nd International
Conference on High Technology Buildings: Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat,
São Paulo, Brazil, 1997.
136. Strakosch, G. R. Improve your elevatoring capability - Part I. Elevator World, No. 11, 1983,
pp. 3-4.
137. Barney, G. C., and S. M. dos Santos. Elevator Traffic Analysis, Design and Control. Peter
Peregrinus Ltd., UK, 1985.
138. Roschier, N.-R., and V. Virkkala. Planning of lift systems. Internal Publication, Kone
Corporation, 1971.
139. Fortune, J. W. Elevatoring high rise buildings. In International Conference on Tall
Buildings, Singapore, 1984.
140. Roschier, N.-R. Modern elevator traffic planning methods. KONE Elevators Research
Center,.
141. Sun, J., C. Zhao, and P. B. Luh. Optimization of Group Elevator Scheduling With Advance
Information. IEEE Transactions on Automation Science and Engineering, Vol. 7, No. 2,
April 2010, pp. 352-363.
142. Hill, J. Taken for a Ride. Next American City, Summer 2008. http://americancity.org/
magazine/article/taken-for-a-ride-the-inanity-of-escalators/. Accessed June 28, 2010.
143. New World Encyclopedia contributors. Escalator. New World Encyclopedia, June 20, 2008.
http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/p/index.php?title=Escalator&oldid=738590.
Accessed June 28, 2010.
144. Schueller, R. Escalator. How Products Are Made, Volume 3, http://www.madehow.com/
Volume-3/Escalator.html. Accessed June 28, 2010.
145. Wikipedia contributors. Escalator. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, June 14, 2010. http://
en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Escalator&oldid=367945073. Accessed June 24, 2010.
146. House of Representatives of the United States of America. House Resolution 4995. July 22,
2004. http://thomas.loc.gov/home/gpoxmlc108/h4995_ih.xml. Accessed August 3, 2010.
76
147. ADA Accessibility Guidelines for Buildings and Facilities (ADAAG). September 2002.
http://www.access-board.gov/adaag/html/adaag.htm. Accessed August 4, 2010.
148. Wikipedia contributors. Moving walkway. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, May 30,
2010. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Moving_walkway&oldid=365050296.
Accessed June 24, 2010.
149. AFP. La RATP décide de supprimer le trottoir roulant rapide de Montparnasse. May 20,
2009. http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/
ALeqM5gDGIeKun7UI16ORwOdtwMr2IzA7g. Accessed June 28, 2010.
150. BBC. Walkway propels Paris metro into future. July 4, 2003. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/
europe/3001182.stm. Accessed June 28, 2010.
151. Rosen, Z. Montparnasse Station's trottoir roulant rapide (fast rolling pavement). Flickr,
March 1, 2006. http://www.flickr.com/photos/zacha/242324990/. Accessed June 28, 2010.
77