SkyscraperPage Forum
Viewing Page 26 of 83
Show 50 post(s) from this thread on one page

SkyscraperPage Forum (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/index.php)
-   Transportation (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=25)
-   -   Interesting transportation things (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=199389)

Nouvellecosse Aug 5, 2014 1:52 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wizened Variations (Post 6674800)
The key IMO to making what GO is trying to do work without electrification would be for smaller DMUs to run the same route during non-rush hours.

The out-of-hours GO train should address the need to serve a smaller number of passengers more frequently. Problem is, with double deckers being pulled by huge locomotives, that the for fewer passengers who use such trains, the resulting higher ratio of diesel consumption per unit passenger becomes "uneconomic."

While running passenger trains on mixed freight and passenger sections requires robust strengthening of locomotives and cars, even in the tank train US, the SMART project in California is looking at smaller than Budd like diesel cars with multiple dual door exits.
They have addressed the off peak need already. When the trains aren't running the GO buses (motor coaches) fill the role acting as express buses on the freeways. This works because the smaller number of passengers off peak can be served by the smaller, more economic vehicles, the highways aren't as congested off-peak so the trips are just as fast on GO bus, and it doesn't require using the rail corridors off-peak so it frees slots for intercity and freight traffic.

Odd why they would be focusing on adding rail service instead.

M II A II R II K Aug 5, 2014 3:26 PM
A Transit Plan To Make a Less-Stressful Zoo for Animals

Read More: http://www.citylab.com/design/2014/0...nimals/375550/

Quote:
Bjarke Ingels Group, the architecture firm responsible for some of the most playful designs in the built environment, is getting serious about the animal kingdom. The firm is looking to design a zoo that makes for a less stressful experience for animals while still serving up a cohesive master plan—one that makes sense for gorillas, bears, lions, elephants, and tourists alike. Right now, the firm's solution is transit.

BIG just revealed new renderings for Zootopia, the firm's tentative expansion plan for the Givskud Zoo in Givskud, Denmark. The scheme features three loops, each focused on one of three continental themes: Africa, America, and Asia. Each loop will be designed around a different mode of transportation: Visitors will sail through Asia, bike through Africa, and fly through America. Since a gondola lift isn't exactly the quietest way to travel through a natural habitat, BIG—in a characteristically simple solution to a design challenge—suggests covering the cable cars, with mirrors.

The plan for Zootopia involves shelters and paths that more closely resemble the habitats that animals know from the wild. The transit vision doesn't have too much to do with the continent it accommodates (there is nothing especially American about the gondola lift). The Asia loop will be designed to be accessed by mirrored boats, whereas the African loop is made for mirrored bicycles. Everything is mirrored in an attempt to soothe the animals.

.....



http://cdn.citylab.com/media/img/cit...lead_large.jpg




http://cdn.theatlantic.com/newsroom/.../444cc4ff0.jpg




http://cdn.theatlantic.com/newsroom/.../90ce7cfdb.jpg




http://cdn.theatlantic.com/newsroom/.../ae3cd3d7a.jpg




http://cdn.theatlantic.com/newsroom/.../92e3313e1.jpg

Wizened Variations Aug 5, 2014 6:22 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse (Post 6680315)
They have addressed the off peak need already. When the trains aren't running the GO buses (motor coaches) fill the role acting as express buses on the freeways. This works because the smaller number of passengers off peak can be served by the smaller, more economic vehicles, the highways aren't as congested off-peak so the trips are just as fast on GO bus, and it doesn't require using the rail corridors off-peak so it frees slots for intercity and freight traffic.

Odd why they would be focusing on adding rail service instead.
Frequently run trains beat any alternative. The question is how cheaply can each train be run? The huge locomotive with double decker cars just does not cut it.

A particularly attractive DMU alternative. Not quite a tank, but, certainly an "armored car."

http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/u...-dmu-cars.html

M II A II R II K Aug 6, 2014 6:16 PM
Why trams are a waste of money

Read More: http://www.economist.com/blogs/econo...ist-explains-2

Quote:
.....

Fans say streetcars are great tools for creating jobs and sparking urban investment. Developers like them because they run on fixed tracks, ensuring an official commitment to a secure route.

- Many point to Portland, Oregon, which launched America’s first streetcar line with modern vehicles in 2001. The service has helped contribute $778m in local development, against a project cost of around $95m. Plans in Atlanta and Tucson have similarly generated hundreds of millions in private investment and raised neighbouring property values.

- In DC, the long-anticipated streetcar network is expected to inspire between $5 billion and $8 billion in development within ten years, according to a study last year by the DC Office of Planning. The pending line along H Street in the city’s north-east has already lured a number of chic new restaurants there in anticipation.

- But for all this bullishness, there is no empirical link between streetcars and development. A 2010 survey of these systems in America by the Federal Transit Administration offered little evidence of concrete cause and effect. In the cities where streetcars have launched a wave of renewal, it is mainly because they are part of a larger, heavily subsidised development plan, with changes in zoning, improvements to streets and other benefits.

- Streetcars are also incredibly expensive to build and maintain, with huge up-front capital costs in laying down rails and buying cars. Tucson’s project ultimately cost nearly $200m and opened years late, in part because the city needed to clear utilities from under the tracks, install overhead electrical connections and repave much of the four-mile route. A 3.6-mile line in Cincinnati, Ohio, now under construction is expected to cost at least $133m.

- Federal grants have gone some way to help pay for these projects, but cash spent on streetcars displaces spending on other, more cost-effective forms of public transport like buses, which offer cheaper and more-efficient service but are considerably less sexy.

- All this investment might make some sense if streetcars offered an efficient way to move people around. But here, too, the evidence is flimsy. Riders—and especially tourists—may find streetcars less intimidating than buses, but these vehicles tend to offer slow journeys across walkable distances. European tramlines tend to be fairly long and isolated from other traffic, which ensures a swifter journey. But in America streetcars travel shorter distances along rails that mix with other traffic, so streetcars invariably inch along.

- And while these tracks may be reassuring to developers, they make it impossible to navigate busy streets: buses can ride around obstacles but trams must stay put and wait. Indeed, their slow speeds and frequent stops mean they often add to congestion. This may not bother tourists keen on a novelty ride, but it is no solution to America’s public transport problems.

.....



http://cdn.static-economist.com/site...809_blp502.jpg

M II A II R II K Aug 6, 2014 6:19 PM
Vast profits that push up our train fares yet again

Read More: http://www.theguardian.com/money/blo...ail-price-hike

Quote:
Britain's rail companies have designed a fares system aimed at bleeding dry three types of travellers: commuters who have to travel in the rush hour; anyone who needs to catch an inter-city train urgently; and foreign tourists. And in no other industry are the customers who pay the most treated with such disregard.

In a few weeks we'll find out just how bad the next round of ticket increases will be. The train companies have been given the freedom to raise prices using a formula based on RPI for the past decade on "regulated" fares (such as many commuter routes) and charge whatever they like for "unregulated" fares, which include many long-distance tickets.

That the train companies are still allowed to use RPI as the basis for pushing up fares is scandalous in itself. You might think inflation is 1.8%, because that's the last figure reported by the Office for National Statistics. But that was the CPI measure. The train companies use the RPI figure each July to set the following January's increases, and given that it was 2.6% in June, we can expect fares to go up by double the current rate of wage growth in the UK.

It will push the price of annual season tickets past £5,000 a year for growing numbers of travellers. For example, the cost of a Tunbridge Wells to London zone 1-6 ticket is likely to rise from £4,900 to around £5,025. Continental Europeans will (rightly) be staggered at what are now some of the highest fares in the world. The French pay a third of this for commuting, the Italians a tenth.

It's worth noting just how much fares have risen under this otherwise anodyne-looking formula. In January 2011 they went up 6.2%, in 2012, 5.9%; in 2013, 4.2%, and last year, 2.8%. Throughout that period, many workers have been lucky to get a pay rise at all.

In the unregulated part of the market, where no price caps apply, the train companies have nakedly adopted "yield management" techniques akin to a tout outside a gig screwing you for as much as possible.

.....



http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/...et-to--006.jpg

Innsertnamehere Aug 6, 2014 10:03 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wizened Variations (Post 6681094)
Frequently run trains beat any alternative. The question is how cheaply can each train be run? The huge locomotive with double decker cars just does not cut it.

A particularly attractive DMU alternative. Not quite a tank, but, certainly an "armored car."

http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/u...-dmu-cars.html
I do know that it is costing GO $7 million additional a year in subsidies to run the 30 minute service each day, I think its around 40 additional trips made each day. So its costing around $600 a trip in subsidy.

Before the service upgrade off peak trains averaged around 300 passengers, I think it has dropped to the 200 range now. Average fare of $6, and its costing roughly $1800-$2000 a trip to run. I wouldn't be surprised if a smaller 3 or 6 car EMU (compared to the 10 car bi-level locomotives used today) could run that trip for a third of the cost.

rough numbers of course.

shadowbat2 Aug 7, 2014 3:55 AM
Australian commuters tip train cars to rescue man trapped in station gap

http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/08...n-station-gap/

Quote:
SYDNEY, Australia — Dozens of people helped rescue a fellow commuter in Australia by pushing against train carriages to free the man whose leg had slipped between the platform and the train.

Closed-circuit footage released by the Western Australia State Public Transport Authority showed the man lost his footing while boarding the train at a station in the city of Perth on Wednesday.

A passenger alerted railway staff who stopped the train from leaving, local media said. When railway workers realized the man was stuck, they called on other passengers to help.

The footage showed dozens of people rushing to help tilt the carriages to free the man’s leg.

“It’s really heartwarming I think, to find an incident like this where everyone pitched in,” transport authority spokesman David Hynes said.

The man wasn’t named, but local media reported that he was believed to have escaped injury and caught the next train.
http://wpmedia.news.nationalpost.com...ters.jpg?w=620

Nouvellecosse Aug 7, 2014 4:31 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere (Post 6682712)
I do know that it is costing GO $7 million additional a year in subsidies to run the 30 minute service each day, I think its around 40 additional trips made each day. So its costing around $600 a trip in subsidy.

Before the service upgrade off peak trains averaged around 300 passengers, I think it has dropped to the 200 range now. Average fare of $6, and its costing roughly $1800-$2000 a trip to run. I wouldn't be surprised if a smaller 3 or 6 car EMU (compared to the 10 car bi-level locomotives used today) could run that trip for a third of the cost.

rough numbers of course.
Buying and maintain two sets of rolling stock - one for peak and one for off-peak - would negate any savings from fuel economy. The only solution would be to replace all the rolling stock with DMUs due to their better scalability and either run them much more frequently at peak, or have really long, double deck DMUs with capacity as great as the current trains and run smaller consists off-peak.

But then having enough DMUs to meet peak capacity when most of them will be idle for most of the day is still very costly since 12 DMU railcars is much pricier than a consist containing 12 unpowered carriages and one locomotive - both in startup cost and in maintenance.

Ultimately if you want frequent, all-day service in a route thats primarily commuter oriented, you simply need to purchase stock that best serves the largest number of customers and simply accept that this typically means taking a loss outside peak travel times.

Nouvellecosse Aug 7, 2014 5:32 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wizened Variations (Post 6681094)
Frequently run trains beat any alternative. The question is how cheaply can each train be run? The huge locomotive with double decker cars just does not cut it.

A particularly attractive DMU alternative. Not quite a tank, but, certainly an "armored car."

http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/u...-dmu-cars.html
You first need to provide support for your first assertion before you can use it as the foundation for any additional conclusions.

You haven't made your case as to why, in this scenario, frequently run trains beat frequently run motorcoaches.

The benefits often attributed to a train include its higher capacity which is by far #1, but in this situation higher capacity isn't needed.

- Reduced noise is often cited when comparing buses with electric services like a streetcar or LRT, but a DMU isn't any quieter.
- Trains tend to have a smoother ride, but motorcoaches are much smoother than a regular city bus, and would drive primarily on high quality expressway. And still this is but one small advantage.
- The permanence of the route may also be cited, but the coaches can stop at the same stations.
- Trains may have lower fuel consumption per passenger due to lower rolling friction, but as mentioned in my previous post, that isn't an advantage when it requires buying and maintaining additional stock.
- Its theorized that trains have a psychological draw over buses in terms of attractiveness to passengers, but according to a study discussed on streetsblog.org, "...the researchers pointed out that negative perceptions faded as familiarity with better bus systems increased." and "The more comfortable and useful a bus system becomes, the more the preference for rail disappears..."

Yet in GO's case, the buses have the advantage of already being part of the operator's fleet since it also provides express bus service to places not actually on a train route. And as frequency drops off on those routes off-peak, the buses can simply be rerouted to provide off-peak service elsewhere. And they also help take traffic off the rails off peak, which frees up space for other rail traffic providing a similar advantage to what the trains offer during peak by taking traffic off congested roads.

It appears that your assertion is either dogma or a knee-jerk assumption rather than one reflected in the situation. If we were talking about electrified service on dedicated tracks, then many of the factors I mentioned wouldn't apply. But is this case you need to demonstrate why we should assume the trains would automatically be better. :shrug:

electricron Aug 7, 2014 1:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse (Post 6683114)
Buying and maintain two sets of rolling stock - one for peak and one for off-peak - would negate any savings from fuel economy. The only solution would be to replace all the rolling stock with DMUs due to their better scalability and either run them much more frequently at peak, or have really long, double deck DMUs with capacity as great as the current trains and run smaller consists off-peak.

But then having enough DMUs to meet peak capacity when most of them will be idle for most of the day is still very costly since 12 DMU railcars is much pricier than a consist containing 12 unpowered carriages and one locomotive - both in startup cost and in maintenance.

Ultimately if you want frequent, all-day service in a route thats primarily commuter oriented, you simply need to purchase stock that best serves the largest number of customers and simply accept that this typically means taking a loss outside peak travel times.
Hogwash! Transit agencies can run two different types of equipment efficiently. Here's two examples:
(1) GO runs BiLevel trailers for commuter trains, and UP will be running DMUs for all day regional trains. Both GO and UP are owned by the same transit agency.
(2) TRE has ran BiLevel trailers and RDCs for all day commuter trains. Additional maintenance expenses have been met with reduced fuel costs. TRE data shows 3 BiLevel trailers are cheaper to run than 4 RDCs, but RDCs are cheaper to run below that capacity, meaning 3 RDCs are cheaper to run than 2 BiLevel trailers and 2 RDCs are cheaper to run than 1 BiLevel trailer.

Fitting rolling stock to the expected demand is an effective way to reduce costs.

Nouvellecosse Aug 8, 2014 3:23 AM
The issue isn't with an agency having more than one type of stock for totally separate routes or services; it's with buying more than one type of stock for the same route for different times of day. The UP route will be using the DMUs exclusively.

As far as the Dallas situation, remember the main issue isn't just the maintenance cost, it's the purchase cost. We don't know how their equipment procurement works and it may have been some quirk in terms of funding loop holes for the stock in which they were able to get funding for the stock during startup more easily than operational subsidies, But this scenario is rare and not applicable to other services. You can look to commuter routes around the world and find few if any other examples of dual peak/off-peak stock whereas there are countless examples of the same stock being used all day despite low demand off-peak.

electricron Aug 8, 2014 7:49 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse (Post 6684395)
The issue isn't with an agency having more than one type of stock for totally separate routes or services; it's with buying more than one type of stock for the same route for different times of day. The UP route will be using the DMUs exclusively.

As far as the Dallas situation, remember the main issue isn't just the maintenance cost, it's the purchase cost. We don't know how their equipment procurement works and it may have been some quirk in terms of funding loop holes for the stock in which they were able to get funding for the stock during startup more easily than operational subsidies, But this scenario is rare and not applicable to other services. You can look to commuter routes around the world and find few if any other examples of dual peak/off-peak stock whereas there are countless examples of the same stock being used all day despite low demand off-peak.
Except for a short distance getting to the airport, GO and UP trains will be sharing the same mainline.
Other examples I could add is North County Transit in San Diego with Coaster trains using BiLevel trailers and Sprinter trains using DMUs - on different lines.

BART will be using DMUs on its eBART extension in Contra Costa County, different line

DCTA using DMUs as an extension of DART's green light rail line, different transit agency, same line, different tracks.

NJT using DMUs on its Riverline service, EMUs on NEC, BiLevel and single level trailers on NEC, and light rail in Newark and Bergen, same and different lines.

Transit agencies using different rolling stock is more common than you suggest. But I will admit not all of them do.

Nouvellecosse Aug 8, 2014 12:55 PM
Not sure why this is so hard to understand. This has nothing to do with whether or not they use the same track; ut's whether or not it's the same service. Two different services will each have its own exclusive rolling stock dedicated to that service which it uses 100% of the time that service it's being operated. eBART for instance is not going to be buying locomotive and coach consists like GO or Caltrain to use at peak times AND DMUs for off-peak, it will only have the one type of stock. Same for all the other situations. Unless they've won the lottery, an agency buys one type of rolling stock to use for a specific service - regardless of whether the service shares any of its tracks with any other service.

The question here is duplication.. If one set of stock is (or could be) going to be sitting totally idle at all times that the other is being used, then it cannot justify the purchase of the 2nd stock. If the stock will be operated simultanously because the two different services will be operated at the same time, then it has no choice but to have enough stock to operate both services.

M II A II R II K Aug 11, 2014 4:07 PM
Transit Projects Shouldn't Take Longer to Finish in 2014 Than They Did in 1925

Read More: http://www.citylab.com/commute/2014/...n-1925/375851/

Quote:
.....

Not every modern transit project takes longer than one from a century ago, of course, and there are plenty of acceptable explanations for those that do. Construction technology is better today, but there are far more people, buildings, and interests to navigate. At their best, planning processes and environmental reviews both protect and involve the public in the projects that will affect the place they call home.

- Meanwhile, the federal government wants to speed up the planning-to-completion timeline for transit, too. In a virtual town hall last week, DOT Secretary Anthony Foxx urged lawmakers (multiple times) to help reduce delay for major infrastructure projects. Some means to achieving this end—conducting concurrent rather than sequential review, for instance, and eliminating duplicative processes—were outlined in the Grow America act that Foxx recently sent to Congress.

- Such calls are a step in the right direction (if not exactly new), but local planners don't need to wait for state or federal governments to reduce project delay. By harnessing data analytics and borrowing the concept of "lean production" from the tech industry, local planners and officials can implement and improve small projects on the fly—from better bus queues to smarter street designs. The mindset can shift from years to months, days, or even hours.

.....



http://cdn.citylab.com/media/img/cit...lead_large.jpg

M II A II R II K Aug 13, 2014 5:34 PM
Open data and driverless buses: how London transport heads to the future

Read More: http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2...us-oyster-data

Quote:
When 19th-century engineers decided their new-fangled locomotives could be driven underground beneath London's crowded streets, they began a tradition for technological innovation that the capital's transport system has never lost. Today the cutting edge has moved from steam to cyber, but the driving force is the same as it was for the Victorians – how can more people be moved more quickly and efficiently through the capital's jumbled, crowded streets?

- At the heart of this is no nimble tech startup, but the capital's transport authority, Transport for London, which vaunts its record as an innovator in the field with some justice, according to the experts. --- "It's a tradition that goes right back into the beginnings of London Transport," said Professor Stephen Glaister of the RAC Foundation. "One reason they are so important is simply that they are so big. For example, what London buses does tends to influence what the manufacturers do ahead of anyone else."

- That scale, he says, has helped the city take a lead in everything from adopting diesel-electric hybrid buses, to revolutionising ticketing systems, he said, pointing to integrated travelcards in the 1980s, through to the Oyster card in 2003 and now contactless payments. "With London being so big and so dense, the economics of public transport have been much more favourable. It's worth spending money on new technology."

- Although the hard engineering continues to develop, with the major east-west link Crossrail claiming to have pioneered new techniques in construction of its stations and tunnels below the city, nowadays new capacity is being unleashed by less tangible developments: sharing information, networking signals and simplifying travel for customers.

- Christian Wolmar, the transport historian and prospective Labour mayoral candidate, gives qualified approval to the idea that TfL is a hotbed of innovation. "Their record's not bad in this respect. But they are a massive organisation in one of the biggest and most successful cities in the world. If they weren't at the leading edge of technology it would be going badly wrong." He cites ticketing and traffic control systems as "fantastic" but believes there remain areas badly in need of an update – namely the congestion charge cameras.

- "Photographing number plates is not leading edge technology. They should be looking at a more sophisticated system. In other countries you get an in-car device. This is just about policing a frontier: it's time for something better." Glaister concurs that London still requires upgrades, pointing to road signals that were pioneering but "very much of their day". He adds: "That's always a problem with early adoption - you then have the oldest equipment."

- Wolmar agrees that TfL's scale makes it well placed to take advantage of the possibilities opened up by new technology. "Innovations normally can't be self-financing: whether it's building underground lines or developing car clubs, innovation often comes from the public sector that takes the risk in the early stages before the private sector starts making money. That's happened throughout history."

Areas of ongoing innovation include:

• Contactless payments

• Access to bus seating

• Automatic operation

• Open data

• Managing the traffic

• Managing the pedestrians

.....



http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/...uildin-008.jpg

Eightball Aug 15, 2014 2:03 PM
High ridership for Phoenix light rail

http://usa.streetsblog.org/2014/08/1...or-wants-more/

M II A II R II K Aug 27, 2014 5:23 PM
Helsinki’s Plan to Make Private Cars Obsolete

Read More: http://www.navigantresearch.com/blog...-cars-obsolete

Quote:
Helsinki, Finland, has proposed a strikingly ambitious mobility on demand system that presents the logical extension of current innovations in passenger travel. The city plans to create a subscriber service that would let users choose from, and pay for, a range of transportation options through their smartphones. The options will include conventional public transit, carsharing, bikesharing, ferries, and an on-demand minibus service that the city’s transit authority launched in 2013.

- Globally, carsharing membership has grown around 28% since 2010, with Europe as the leader in this sector. Navigant Research’s report, Carsharing Programs, forecasts that global carsharing members will surpass 12 million in 2020. The rise of on-demand ride services, such as Uber, Lyft, and Sidecar, are also transforming the way city dwellers use taxi services. Taking on the highly regulated taxi business, these companies face considerable opposition, but at this point, it will be hard to put the genie back into the bottle. Bikesharing and even scooter share services are also spreading. Today’s young urban dwellers expect to be able to use an array of transportation options to suit an array of needs, at the touch of an app.

- Helsinki’s program has the potential to tie into other transportation innovations, such as the rise of electric vehicles (EVs) – more carsharing programs are deploying EVs as a selling point for their service – and autonomous vehicle technology. Wireless charging would also support schemes like Helsinki’s by ensuring that shared EVs are recharging when parked, rather than relying on the driver to remember to plug in. --- Faced with dwindling demand in mature markets like North America and Western Europe, automakers are exploring a range of new services to offset lower demand and to gain a competitive edge. Farsighted companies will look to begin selling mobility as well as vehicles, changing transportation as much as the IT and energy sectors have changed.

.....



http://www.navigantresearch.com/wp-a.../Bikes_web.gif

ssiguy Aug 28, 2014 4:17 AM
Transit projects touted by every environmentalist often come in way over budget and late or don't get built at all due to the endless environmental reviews. I still don't know why you need huge environmental reviews when going down current streets or currently operated rail corridors. What if they find something small..............are you going to indefinitely close the rail line or street?

The environmental lobby for transit infrastructure almost unanimously does more harm than good. They often take so long and cost so much money that they give the NIMBYs time to get organized and put an end to the potential lines.

The environmental lobby is just that, another lobby that lives off government largess. They are just as hungry for money as the oil companies they love to hate.

M II A II R II K Aug 29, 2014 5:49 PM
Conservatives Learn to Love Infrastructure

Read More: http://www.bloombergview.com/article...infrastructure

Quote:
.....

In general, American air travel is terribly annoying. Anytime someone we know comes thorough either airport, the conversation invariably touches on the sad state of U.S. infrastructure. Vice President Joe Biden compared LaGuardia to a third-world country. There are improvements coming, but it has been ever-so slow.

- Repeated calls for improvements -- and recent stimulus spending -- are starting to have an impact. Of the four major terminals at LaGuardia, two have seen big improvements. Delta Terminal D is a fairly new construction, and its interior was recently updated. Terminal C is still being renovated, and from what I have seen they're doing a nice job. Even on the dreaded Long Island Expressway, resurfacing has been accomplished from the city to Roslyn. It was started and completed quickly.

- Even conservative groups are starting to drop their irrational fear of everything government does to call for specific infrastructure projects. The American Enterprise Institute is pulling back from its dalliance with a fabricated fantasy world to focus on the real world. Michael R. Strain, a resident scholar at the AEI, argues in a Washington Post op-ed for more infrastructure spending. Ignore the partisan debate within and instead focus on the repair and improvement portion.

- Strain advocates for more state and local control. And he argues that the focus should be on “identifying high-social-value projects — upgrading shipping ports and airports; repairing power grids, bridges, roads, and schools; working to shorten commute times; upgrading everything with 21st-century technology.”

.....



http://www.bloomberg.com/image/iGKlrdq7LvJ0.jpg

M II A II R II K Sep 6, 2014 2:24 PM
Toronto lags other Canadian cities in building transit: Pembina report

Read More: http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2014...na_report.html

PDF Report: http://www.pembina.org/reports/fast-cities-report.pdf

Quote:
.....

A new report released Friday by the Pembina Institute shows that much of Toronto’s success in attracting people to transit is based on old investments in subways and streetcars.

- But our continuing devotion to those subways is not cost-effective, and it threatens Toronto’s success in attracting riders that other cities are trying to emulate, according to the report. The study compares Toronto transit to four other Canadian centres: Montreal, Vancouver, Calgary and Ottawa. It shows that Toronto still has the most transit and the most ridership. But, as the city’s election campaign kicks into high gear, the report suggests politicians step back and look more broadly at how other cities are building transit, said Pembina’s Ontario director, Cherise Burda.

- It points to the perils of dithering over yet another round of subway plans. --- “It’s not to say we shouldn’t build subways. Of course we need to keep doing, that but the subways we’re going to be building are for the next generation, and this generation is stuck in traffic,” she said. --- In the past 20 years, Vancouver built 44 kilometres of SkyTrain and bus rapid transit (BRT). Calgary built 29 kilometres of light rail and BRT. Toronto opened only 18 kilometres of new rapid transit in the same period. Those cities moved ahead by diversifying their systems, building transit that can be realized faster and serve more communities, said Burda.

.....



http://www.thestar.com/content/dam/t...arge.promo.jpg


All times are GMT. The time now is 2:50 AM.
Viewing Page 26 of 83
Show 50 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.