Interesting transportation things

[Aylmer]

I don't think you can take a boat from Moncton to Toronto. Driving is excessively long, even with a new highway. I'll give you air, but rail could definitely compete for cost.

The Ocean is a tourist train which takes 2 DAYS to get from the Maritimes to Montreal using the most indirect route possible at a frequency of three trains per week.

What I would propose is a no-frills trip done in less than half the time of a car with several departures every day at low prices. The only thing in common is the rails. Moreover, by upgrading existing track instead of expropriating, grading and constructing four lanes over 600km of difficult terrain, I'm certain it could be done for much, much less than the ~$13B (at $20M/km, a bargain considering the topography) needed for a new highway.

[northbay]

Why are we still building freeways? Freeways cut up the landscape and make rural land accessible/available to development. We should be focusing development around existing cities and urban centers. They also do nothing to alleviate traffic. I guess we have different values here in Nor Cal.

I like the idea of a train though.

[SHiRO]

Heavy rail, trams and subway/lightrail in Randstad Holland


http://www.nrcq.nl/2015/01/12/dit-is...oor-windmolens

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by northbay

Why are we still building freeways? Freeways cut up the landscape and make rural land accessible/available to development. We should be focusing development around existing cities and urban centers. They also do nothing to alleviate traffic. I guess we have different values here in Nor Cal.

I like the idea of a train though.

Just to clarify, the Maine proposal has nothing to do with development patterns or urban areas it would mainly be a trucking route (that non commercial travelers could also use) between the Maritimes and central Canada since having to go around Maine takes a long time.

And I like the idea of the train too. But I don't think the savings would be that significant with a train since they're so much more fuel efficient than moving goods via road and requires much fewer man hours compared to all the truck drivers that would be needed to carry a train's worth of goods.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by Aylmer

I don't think you can take a boat from Moncton to Toronto. Driving is excessively long, even with a new highway. I'll give you air, but rail could definitely compete for cost.

The Ocean is a tourist train which takes 2 DAYS to get from the Maritimes to Montreal using the most indirect route possible at a frequency of three trains per week.

What I would propose is a no-frills trip done in less than half the time of a car with several departures every day at low prices. The only thing in common is the rails. Moreover, by upgrading existing track instead of expropriating, grading and constructing four lanes over 600km of difficult terrain, I'm certain it could be done for much, much less than the ~$13B (at $20M/km, a bargain considering the topography) needed for a new highway.

There's already a rail line connecting the maritimes to Ontario and Quebec moving both passengers and freight. It's not overloaded with business. Neither are the highways, but the proposed turnpike would cut hours off the driving time.
No doubt a new rail line would also save hours over the existing line, but will it have sufficient business?

Northern Maine is very, very rural, where highways make more sense than urban rail.

[Aylmer]

But it's precisely because rail is 'urban' that it has the potential to be such an asset for Maritime cities: If the fastest link is via highway or plane, it makes more sense for a company to install themselves on the edge of town behind seas of parking. But if their clients, talent and markets arrive by train, it makes more sense to set up shop downtown and stimulate growth which can only occur with concentration.

Not only that, but rail could be miles faster than cars will be for a long, long time still. With upgrades to the existing tracks, I'd wager you could clear Montreal-Halifax in under 6 hours on upgraded rails vs. about 13h with a new highway.

If the aim is to dramatically reduce travel times and stimulate development at the lowest cost, there's no contest. And I think those are decent aims.

[Innsertnamehere]

The distances we are discussing here are generally too great for rail to work well. There are so many issues with rail to small cities hundreds of kilometers away with absolutely no intermediate stops, its simply not feasible. Never mind the fact that the main recipients of this highway is supposed to be shipping, not passenger rail, and the time saving arguments for rail evaporate. Rail based freight isn't time sensitive, and there already exists a strong connection for freight operated by private rail companies. The time savings (and therefor savings on very expensive gasoline and wages) is what will drive demand for this new highway for road based shipping. If you were to replace it with a rail connection, rail freight companies would continue to use their mainlines as gasoline and especially wage costs are much lower and play a smaller role than the maintenance of the physical infrastructure. Then you get policies of avoiding other rail network use unless necessary for risk mitigation (Abandon their existing mainline in exchange for a fee based use of this new rail line, new rail line goes under and closes, left with no access to east coast), the need for a complete rearrangement of rail yards, etc. and it becomes absurd. rail based transport for freight is operating as required right now.

Passenger based demand from the Maritimes to mainland is very small, especially by rail. The demand that is there is primarily met by flights, which is what rail would primarily compete with due to the high ticket prices required by it to run a profit (this would be a private company, remember), and you would end up with a completely unfeasible proposition.

Opposition due to the highway "slicing up" a chunk of Maine, but support for a new rail line on the same alignment is absolutely absurd. Both will "slice up" the environment equally. The area this runs through is also economically depressed and essentially depopulated, it could do with a bit of economic development.

As for property concerns, this is a private company. They are free to purchase land and construct a highway if they so wish, provided it meets the typical checkpoints that any other business needs to meet. No expropriation, no public money, etc.

Provided that the highway avoids environmentally sensitive areas, I see no reason for opposition. It is a private company that is free to do its will.

You have to stop looking at this project in the typical DOT highway project lens, as it isn't such a project. Its a private company doing its will, which is the fundamental base of both Canadian and American society. It is not the governments place to tell it whether or not it should build a rail line or not, but rather to simply ensure its proposal does not negatively impact the environment or create undo stress on existing infrastructure. Thus the example of clearing land for a new house, this is essentially the same thing, with private interests doing what they wish on their land. Ensure it does not do badly on its neighbours and environment, and continue on.

[M II A II R II K]

Ten Ways to Improve Bus Transit

Read More: http://archplanbaltimore.blogspot.ca...s-transit.html

.....

1. Break long routes into shorter pieces. Connect the route ends in transit hubs for easy transfer. (Reliability)

2. Get rid of cash payments in favor of collaboration with convenience stores that sell chip cards that can be loaded via cash or credit cards. There would still be farecard readers on the buses. Vancouver and Seattle want to do this in North America, London does it already in Europe. There is really no good reason why such a system couldn't be implemented in short order even in populations that have a strong cash economy. In the long run, with additional fare card readers, all-door boarding would allow even shorter dwell times. (Speed)

3. Eliminate about 25% of bus stops, especially in areas where stops are located in each block. The selection of stops to be eliminated needs to be based on public input and on boarding data. If the stop selection is based on a transparent set of metrics it is easier to defend eliminations and removes this topic from being a political football for local politicians and lobbyists. (Speed)

4. Negotiate with the local government about signal priority, queue jumpers and dedicated bus lanes in strategic areas. This, too should be based on clear metrics i.e. focused on areas where the other improvements still leave the bus travelling with a below average speed. It is easier to get those improvements in a few areas with a high return on investment than trying to make this happen as a general policy change. (Speed)

5. Implement an app for smart phones combined with a call-in service that allows real time bus information for each line and every stop. This isn't rocket science since most transit vehicles in the US are already equipped with GPS and transponders that emit the actual bus location. Knowing when the bus will actually arrive is possibly the biggest advance for riders even if it doesn't make the bus faster or more on time. But it gives riders certainty and allows users to manage their time avoiding unproductive excessive wait times. (Convenience)

6. Larger cities should tier their services into clearly differentiated and branded service types such as local bus, rapid bus, circulator or shuttle, and commuter bus. Within each type, simplicity should rule and the entire confusing thicket of variations be eliminated in which buses with the same line designation run as express or take different loops on the route depending on the time of day or their schedule time. The services on top of the hierarchy need to have the biggest ridership and run the fastest. (Convenience)

7. Clean and maintain buses well, and buy higher end models that are quieter, have a smooth ride and are fuel efficient. Recent model hybrid buses have finally caught up with the European Standard City bus in design and ride comfort, and most agencies have dispensed with dark tinted windows and unsightly advertising wraps. Good bus, good service equals better image and more riders. (Convenience)

8. Provide good information on paper, online, on the bus, and on the route about where buses go to and where transfers are located. (Convenience)

9. Provide some basic amenities at bus stops. With fewer stops this will be less costly to do, especially when amenities such as shelters are sponsored by private industry. Generally, as the need for amenities decreases, the more reliable and predictable the service (Convenience).

10. Finally, a set of things not seen by the rider: Staff "back of house" operations with qualified people. Use clear quantifiable metrics to gauge progress. Provide impeccable customer service and allow riders immediate and simple feedback about each service. Use that feedback to steadily refine and improve the service. In spite of union rules try to implement performance bonus payments based on customer satisfaction.

.....

[dubu]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fiEJPbxL2hI

car shar with vending machines for cars in big buildings

[Eightball]

I'm sorry, but I like longer bus routes. I know they are the bane of transpo planners, but deal with it. Transfers suck and a lot of bus routes have poor frequencies, exacerbating the problem. Plus there is something to be said for a one seat ride.. seriously.

[ssiguy]

^ I totally agree.

People don't mind taking transit but they hate waiting for it and the more transfers the more time waiting.

[Muji]

Originally Posted by M II A II R II K

Ten Ways to Improve Bus Transit

Read More: http://archplanbaltimore.blogspot.ca...s-transit.html

I really wish that more cities would prioritize all-door boarding, especially those where most passengers pay with contactless fare cards. LA's Metro has a big fleet of articulated buses on its busiest routes, and we lose a silly amount of time to boarding bottlenecks that could largely be avoided if passengers could board from all 3 doors. Are there any US systems other than SF's Muni that have any all-door boarding? (here's a nice blurb on it by Human Transit)

I have to agree with ssiguy and Eightball on the transfers. As much as short routes and grid networks make for way more efficient systems, having to transfer between buses is one of the worst transit experiences you can have.

[fflint]

Originally Posted by Muji

I really wish that more cities would prioritize all-door boarding, especially those where most passengers pay with contactless fare cards. LA's Metro has a big fleet of articulated buses on its busiest routes, and we lose a silly amount of time to boarding bottlenecks that could largely be avoided if passengers could board from all 3 doors. Are there any US systems other than SF's Muni that have any all-door boarding? (here's a nice blurb on it by Human Transit)

I have to agree with ssiguy and Eightball on the transfers. As much as short routes and grid networks make for way more efficient systems, having to transfer between buses is one of the worst transit experiences you can have.

All door boarding has completely changed the bus- and train-riding experience in San Francisco (above ground). Faster, easier, less conflict.

[fieldsofdreams]

First time here (even though I've registered a long time ago)...

Originally Posted by fflint

All door boarding has completely changed the bus- and train-riding experience in San Francisco (above ground). Faster, easier, less conflict.

Absolutely. I've been very pleased that Muni has allowed such a policy to exist, especially that if everyone crowds through the front door, it will take a significantly long time to let everyone board. That problem can be exacerbated further if someone needs the wheelchair lift to get on board the bus, and I have encountered, first hand, a lot of boarding problems prior to the All-Door Boarding.

And by the way, speaking of Muni, it will also test-run Free Muni service for seniors and the handicapped, which, according to the Operations and Customer Service Committee Meeting I attended lately, will benefit roughly 24,000 regular riders (most of which having their own Senior and Disabled Passes)... the main thing of concern, in my opinion, though, is that the Lifeline Pass, the one where you can get an Adult Pass for a discount, is not yet fully integrated into the Clipper card network.

From the same meeting, a Clipper bigwig told the committee that there are "over 12,000 possible combinations to choose from with over 4,000 different ticketing zones", which can be mind boggling (yet true), especially that it has expanded to even more transit operators in the North Bay lately.

[M II A II R II K]

The Unique Genius of Hong Kong's Public Transportation System

Read More: http://www.theatlantic.com/china/arc...system/279528/

.....

The Mass Transit Railway (MTR) Corporation, which manages the subway and bus systems on Hong Kong Island and, since 2006, in the northern part of Kowloon, is considered the gold standard for transit management worldwide.

- In 2012, the MTR produced revenue of 36 billion Hong Kong Dollars (about U.S $5 billion)—turning a profit of $2 billion in the process. Most impressively, the farebox recovery ratio (the percentage of operational costs covered by fares) for the system was 185 percent, the world's highest. Worldwide, these numbers are practically unheard of—the next highest urban ratio, Singapore, is a mere 125 percent.

- In addition to Hong Kong, the MTR Corporation runs individual subway lines in Beijing, Hangzhou, and Shenzhen in China, two lines in the London Underground, and the entire Melbourne and Stockholm systems. And in Hong Kong, the trains provide services unseen in many other systems around the world:

- Stations have public computers, wheelchair and stroller accessibility (and the space within the train to store them), glass doors blocking the tracks, interoperable touch-and-go fare payment (which also works as a debit card in local retail), clear and sensible signage, and, on longer-distance subways, first-class cars for people who are willing to pay extra for a little leg space.

- Like no other system in the world, the MTR understands the monetary value of urban density—in other words, what economists call "agglomeration.” Hong Kong is one of the world’s densest cities, and businesses depend on the metro to ferry customers from one side of the territory to another.

- As a result, the MTR strikes a bargain with shop owners: In exchange for transporting customers, the transit agency receives a cut of the mall’s profit, signs a co-ownership agreement, or accepts a percentage of property development fees. In many cases, the MTR owns the entire mall itself. The Hong Kong metro essentially functions as part of a vertically integrated business that, through a "rail plus property" model, controls both the means of transit and the places passengers visit upon departure.

- Two of the tallest skyscrapers in Hong Kong are MTR properties, as are many of the offices, malls, and residences next to every transit station (some of which even have direct underground connections to the train). Not to mention, all of the retail within subway stations, which themselves double as large shopping complexes, is leased from MTR.

- The profits from these real estate ventures, as well as that 85 percent farebox surplus, subsidize transit development: proceeds pay for capital expansion as well as upgrades. The MTR’s financial largesse means that the transit system requires less maintenance and service interruptions, which in turn reduces operating costs, streamlines capital investments, and encourages more people to use transit to get around.

- And more customers means more money, even if fares are relatively cheap: most commutes fall between HK $4 and HK$20 (about 50 cents to $3), depending on distance. (In London, by comparison, a Tube journey can cost as much as $18). Fare increases in Hong Kong are limited by regulations linking fares to inflation and profits, and the territory’s government recently started giving a HK $600-per-month travel stipend to low-income households, defined as those earning less than HK $10,000 a month.

- This model of transit management works partly because Hong Kong is a closed system: There are no suburbs from which people can commute by car, so there are strong incentives for everyone within the territory to use the system. This feature, combined with other regulations, has kept car ownership low: 6 of every 100 vehicles in Hong Kong are for personal use, whereas the number in the U.S. is closer to 70.

- And while the NYC subway was built over a century ago and was neglected during much of the 20th century’s suburban sprawl, Hong Kong’s metro was only developed in the late 1970s. As a result, it doesn’t have to rely on signals technologies from the 1930s that are only slowly being upgraded (hence the track closures in New York).

- As an independent corporation with the government serving as majority shareholder (rather than a public agency, ministry, or authority), the MTR has the freedom to develop real estate, to hire and fire who it will, and to take business-minded decisions—whereas other transit systems, including the one in New York, must deal with union contracts and legal restrictions. In Hong Kong, these value charges are often displaced onto consumers, causing real estate prices to go up a little faster than they otherwise might.

- Still, value capture is a powerful idea for transit management. New York has tested the waters of this approach with its $2 billion 7-train extension to the Hudson Yards project, working with the state’s Metropolitan Transportation Authority and the project’s developers to fund the extension with property taxes from the newly served area.

- Dedicated taxes, too, serve a similar purpose. But fundamentally, Hong Kong’s metro succeeds because it understands that a subway system is more than just a means of transportation—it is also essential to the well-being of a city’s population and economy.

.....

[M II A II R II K]

A Kitty Hawk moment for transportation in Georgia

Read More: http://politics.blog.ajc.com/2015/01...on-in-georgia/

Late Wednesday, House Speaker David Ralston and I bumped into each other on the way to our gasoline-powered rides home. Two hours earlier, the Blue Ridge Republican and his team had unveiled the House plan for raising $1 billion new dollars, available every year, for transportation funding – and I congratulated him on the venture.

Somebody had to do something, the speaker shrugged, or the Capitol would have lost control of an important conversation. Our exchange quickly shifted to what may be, in philosophical terms, the most important aspect of H.B. 170: An endorsement of mass transit – long the racially charged punching bag of Republicans in Georgia. --- Ralston conceded that attitudes were shifting. He attributed his own change of heart to his offspring, who often shelter with him in the Atlanta apartment he keeps for the legislative session. His kids don’t drive. They take MARTA, or Uber. ---“It’s part of their way of life now, to take transit. It’s not a big deal. They like that,” Ralston would add the next day. “I’m not a millennial. But I live with two, and they like being able to hop on a train or a bus. I kind of think that’s where we’re headed.”

.....

[M II A II R II K]

Five people injured after London double decker bus gets its roof ripped off by a tree

Read More: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...pped-TREE.html

Five people were injured after a London double decker bus had its roof ripped off by a tree in a 'freak accident' today. Two passengers were taken to hospital when the Number 91 clipped the overhanging tree on Kingsway in Holborn, Central London, as it travelled on the southbound side of the road, sending the roof crashing into the road behind it.

.....

[M II A II R II K]

New vision for railway, but 'there is much more to do'

Read More: http://www.railnews.co.uk/news/2015/...ilway-but.html

PDF: http://www.raildeliverygroup.com/wp-...y-brochure.pdf

THE Rail Delivery Group has unveiled its vision of tomorrow's railway, but has admitted that there must be improvements to performance and how tickets are explained and sold to passengers. The RDG said its plans formed 'an ambitious blueprint' for better services, journeys and value.

‘Britain’s Future, Britain’s Railway’ sets out how train operators and Network Rail plan to provide a better network for passengers, freight customers and the country by working even more closely together and with UK, Welsh and Scottish Governments, local authorities and other stakeholders to meet the challenges the industry faces. --- The RDG said: "Rail plays a vital role in keeping Britain competitive in a global economy and the industry has already seen significant success. After two decades of growth in people and goods travelling by train, our nation leads the way on rail in Europe. Satisfaction amongst passengers is higher here than in other European countries on a number of counts including punctuality, frequency of services and the provision of information to passengers.

.....

[Hatman]

Watch Jet-Powered 'Snowzilla' Clear Boston's Trolley Line
(Title is the link)

[Cirrus]

Ugh, what a loss, never building this. Apparently Pittsburgh proposed a 5th Avenue subway in 1951, that would've connected downtown to Oakland.


Pittsburgh Post Gazette via Transit Maps blog