SkyscraperPage Forum

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)

Aylmer Mar 26, 2014 12:12 PM

I was wondering the same thing.
Also, they forgot Kitchener-Waterloo, which just approved a 20-km LRT line. Not bad for a city of 300 000.

amor de cosmos Mar 26, 2014 4:30 PM

Quote:

An Electric Spring: 3 Strong Trends in the EV Market
David Reichmuth, senior engineer, Clean Vehicles
March 25, 2014

Springtime is the time of year where we start to see the first signs of growth; the green shoots of what will turn into a verdant garden or a bountiful harvest. As the first quarter of 2014 comes to a close, we are seeing some encouraging signs that both electric sales, and their benefits, will continue to grow this year.

1) Fuel cell vehicles are coming!

2) EV sales doubled in 2013 and more plug-in models are on the horizon

http://blog.ucsusa.org/wp-content/up...es-300x180.jpg

http://blog.ucsusa.org/wp-content/up...es-300x178.jpg

3) The benefits of electric vehicles are growing
http://blog.ucsusa.org/electric-vehicle-trends-458

Quote:

Mass Transit, Roy L Hales
Siemens to Build 32 next generation diesel-electric Locomotives in California
March 25, 2014
By Roy L Hales

Siemens obtained a $225 million contract, to build 32 “Charger” diesel-electric locomotives, in its Sacramento CA rail manufacturing facility.

Five states are ordering locomotives. The Illinois Department of Transportation’s order is connected to an overhaul of their Chicago to St Louis route. California, Washington, Michigan and Missouri have joined the deal, which includes options for an additional 75 locomotives for regional use and another 150 locomotives for mainline transportation. The locomotives are scheduled to be delivered between fall of 2016 and mid-2017.

“For Siemens this order marks our entry into the U.S. diesel-electric locomotive market and strongly underscores our long-term vision for the U.S. passenger rail market”, Jochen Eickholt, CEO of the Siemens Rail Systems Division, emphasized.

“The new Charger locomotives represent the next-generation of equipment advancing high performance intercity passenger rail in the Midwest, California and Pacific Northwest,” said Federal Railroad Administrator Joseph C. Szabo. “This state of the art equipment will accelerate and brake more quickly, reducing trip times for passengers, as well as being more fuel efficient and burning cleaner than previous locomotives for the benefit of the environment.”

The lighter weight locomotives can operate at speeds up to 125 mph. A diesel version of the “Charger” is currently pulling some 1,600 passenger and freight trains through-out Europe. The electric version was introduced in the US last year and already at work in the Northeast.



Some of the other features described in the Siemens press release include:
A state-of-the-art microprocessor control system manages the performance of the locomotive and performs self-diagnosis of technical issues, takes self-corrective action and notifies the locomotive engineer and the remote maintenance facility of any required corrective action. In addition, there are redundant systems to ensure optimal performance and availability such as a totally redundant auxiliary power supply for the passenger coaches to keep primary systems such as lighting, communications, heating and cooling systems working. The locomotives meet the latest federal rail safety regulations, including enhanced carbody structure safety with crash energy management components.

In total, this new rail equipment can help operators achieve cost savings by enabling reduced trip times, while improving reliability and efficiency for its passenger rail service. The lighter weight of these locomotives ensures the ability to safely operate the locomotives at speeds of up to 125 mph more efficiently, requiring less maintenance for both the locomotive and the infrastructure.

http://www.theecoreport.com/green-bl...in-california/

jodelli Mar 27, 2014 3:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LMich (Post 6512298)
I'm trying to see what that thing is that gets Windsor to show up on the map. Is there a an active streetcar proposal or something?

That's a misprint. It should read Waterloo, with K and C included.

initiald Mar 27, 2014 11:26 AM

This is what all the signs and symbols at the airport runway mean

http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/...0e0euvirll.jpg

Source

M II A II R II K Mar 27, 2014 4:52 PM

In a new set of data visualizations, Seth Kadish from Portland, Oregon, compares the street grids of two dozen urban centers across the U.S. and Europe.

http://vizual-statistix.tumblr.com/p...-actually-born

http://25.media.tumblr.com/a056c6999...n7vo1_1280.png

amor de cosmos Mar 27, 2014 5:58 PM

Quote:

Report finds each Marcellus gas well costs thousands in road damage
March 27, 2014 | 9:58 AM
By Marie Cusick

Each shale gas well in Pennsylvania causes between $5,400 and $10,000 in damage to state roads, according to a recent report by researchers at the Rand Corp.

From EnergyWire:
The damage is largely unseen and may shorten the life span of the highway system.

The report comes as the state Legislature is looking for ways to offset the impact that gas drilling produces in Pennsylvania, which has become the third-biggest gas-producing state thanks to drilling in the Marcellus Shale.

While the costs are significant, “they look like they’re manageable with the right policies,” said Constantine Samaras, who led research as a senior engineer at Rand and now teaches engineering at Carnegie Mellon University.
Researches assumed there were between 625 and 1,148 one-way truck trips per well, using data from the New York Department of Environmental Conservation.

The report only focused on the cost to state-maintained roads and excluded smaller local roads, where gas drillers typically have agreements requiring them to pay for visible damage. According to the gas industry trade group, the Marcellus Shale Coalition, companies have spent more than $500 million to repair roads since Pennsylvania’s gas boom began.

The state’s impact fee on natural gas drillers is meant to help pay for costs– like road repair– associated with natural gas development. Over the past two years the fee has brought in about $200 million per year.
http://stateimpact.npr.org/pennsylva...n-road-damage/

Quote:

More than Half of Light Duty Vehicles Sold Worldwide Will Have Stop-Start Capability by 2021
March 25, 2014

Restrictions on fuel consumption and emissions are driving the market’s growth, report concludes

Stop-start vehicles incorporate a simple yet valuable feature: they eliminate idling by shutting off the engine when the vehicle is stationary, and then restart it automatically when the driver releases the brake. Stop-start technology, which offers some of the fuel economy benefits of hybrid vehicles at a fraction of the cost premium, is being incorporated into new light-duty vehicle models at a rapid pace. Click to tweet: By 2021, according to a recent report from Navigant Research, more than half of all light-duty vehicles sold worldwide will incorporate stop-start capability.

“The newest stop-start systems coming to market incorporate some drive assistance, which classifies the models that use them as true micro hybrid vehicles,” says David Alexander, senior research analyst with Navigant Research. “Micro hybrid technology enables large vehicles to be designed to run leaner without sacrificing drivability, and small vehicles to be set up for limited electric-only operation.”

The primary driver for manufacturers to incorporate stop-start technology is tightening restrictions on fuel consumption and emissions in most countries, according to the report. Vehicle manufacturers must achieve specific average fuel economy targets in order to avoid financial penalties in many countries. Automakers are also responding to consumers who increasingly want better fuel efficiency in the vehicles they buy.
http://www.navigantresearch.com/news...bility-by-2021

Quote:

Volkswagen Announces Plans to Work on Lithium-Air Batteries

It has been confirmed that Volkswagen is working on a powerful new battery for its EV fleet. Speaking at the Geneva motor show, Dr. Heinz-Jakob Neusser said that “an 80kWh unit is under development using our own technology. It would provide between three and four times the battery power in a given package.” This means that a battery of equivalent physical size to that used in the new 2015 Volkswagen e-Golf could hold the amount of energy in a top-end Tesla Model S.

Neusser refused to name the specific battery chemistry, but didn’t deny it’s a lithium-air unit. Lithium-air has been a battery holy grail of sorts since the 1970s, but obstacles such as electrolyte degradation, manufacturability, and high cost have prevented the lithium-air takeover that would truly catapult EVs into the mainstream. But improvements on lithium-air technology continue to move forward with recent work by researchers from Mie University in Japan.

The primary distinction between lithium-ion and lithium-air batteries is that lithium-air batteries replace the cathode with air — which results in a notably lighter battery, with the potential to hold in a great deal of energy. Some researchers have stated that these “breathing” batteries could result in EVs with ranges greater than 300 miles a charge.

“Our system’s practical energy density is more than 300 Wh/kg,” Nobuyuki Imanishi, PhD stated. “That’s in contrast to the energy density of a commercial lithium-ion battery, which is far lower, only around 150 Wh/kg.”
http://gas2.org/2014/03/19/volkswage...air-batteries/

amor de cosmos Mar 28, 2014 4:41 PM

Quote:

Low Parking Costs May Encourage Automobile Use
PHILADELPHIA, March 24, 2014

The low cost of parking in many American cities may contribute to urban development that relies on automobile use and undercuts planners’ efforts to increase public transport, according to a new baseline study of comprehensive public parking costs led by the Drexel University School of Public Health. The article, “Public parking fees and fines: a survey of US cities,” is now published online ahead of print in the journal Public Works Management and Policy. It reports on downtown public parking costs after surveying public parking agencies in 107 U.S. cities.

“The role of policies in regulating the supply and cost of parking in inducing automobile use has been understudied,” said lead author Amy Auchincloss, PhD. “Indeed, the lack of systematic large scale data on parking costs has prevented researchers from even looking at this question.”

Along with Auchincloss, an assistant professor in the Drexel University School of Public Health, the study was co-authored by Alexa Namba, MPH, and Andrew Ricchezza, MS (who performed the research as master’s students at Drexel’s School of Public Health), Rachel Weinberger, PhD, who currently works at Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, and Semra Aytur, PhD from the University of New Hampshire.

During the past 25 years, the number of miles Americans drive has grown three times faster than the U.S. population. The predominant form of development, low-density sprawl, has encouraged automobile use and has worsened the challenges of providing convenient and low-cost public transportation. In the U.S., relatively low user fees in the form of road pricing, tolls and gas prices have been cited as important reasons for increased automobile travel.

“The zoning regulations and price distortions that induce high automobile use have serious consequences for urban environments,” said Weinberger. “They degrade air quality, imperil safety and use a lot of land that could be used for parks, schools, stores and other things. By understanding the role of parking and how parking rules are enforced, policymakers are more likely to improve everyone’s mobility.”
http://drexel.edu/now/news-media/rel...utomobile-Use/
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0324133246.htm

Quote:

Toyota TS040 Hybrid Le Mans Racer Debuts
Published on March 28th, 2014 | by Christopher DeMorro

Faster, better, and more powerful, the Toyota TS040 Hybrid race car is ready to do battle with Audi and Porsche on the Circuit de la Sarthe for the 2014 24 Hours of Le Mans. Making just shy of 1,000 horsepower with its small V8 and hybrid drivetrain, could this be the year Toyota unseats Audi’s domination of the world’s oldest endurance motor race?

The Toyota TS040 is all-around an improvement over the car it replaces, the TS030, which debuted back in 2012. The 3.7 liter V8 engine is rated at a whopping 513 horsepower, while electric motors fitted to both the front and rear axles provide an addition 473 horsepower, for a combined output of 986 horsepower. That’s a lotta powah, as Toyota has opted to stick with a naturally-aspirated V8 this year over competing designs, like the Porsche turbo four-banger and the championship-winning Audi turbodiesel V6.

Toyota can do this thanks to a change in rules that regulates the flow of fuel and use of energy, rather than power output, which was regulated in previous years. This is promoting a lot of diversity within the competitors, and Toyota is defnitely going down a different route. The TS040 uses supercapacitors instead of batteries or flywheels, allowing the hybrid race car to fully recharge after just a few second of braking, and discharge the stored energy in a snap.
http://gas2.org/2014/03/28/toyota-ts...-racer-debuts/

Quote:

When will electric vehicles provide grid storage?
By Kristian Handberg on 28 March 2014

Close your eyes and picture yourself in a sleek new electric car – powered by clean electricity, emitting no pollution, silent and cheap to run. Parked in your garage, it stores energy from your solar PV system to provide mobility and power your home.

But is it going to happen?… And if so, how and when?

The vision of parked vehicles being used for grid storage has captivated people since EVs began (re)emerging as a viable transport option – wind and solar variability could be solved through intelligent application of an underutilized asset! Now with solar uptake booming in the U.S. and over 180,000 plug-in vehicles on the roads providing 4 GWh of potential storage capacity, the time has surely arrived to pull the pieces together?

The good news is that the technology is here or not far away. Advanced vehicle/grid control systems can protect the battery and manage energy flows in line with network needs. Interoperability across the various technology interfaces is advancing through the evolution and application of recognised standards. These developments will provide enhanced visibility and control for network and vehicle operators, allowing them to cooperate easily, conveniently and for shared benefits.

The story from here will reflect the realities of car use, the insights from Big Data, and the power of visual association.

Experience has shown that vehicle owners are largely, but not entirely, predictable – most use their car during the day and charge overnight. While charging tends to happen when it is cheapest, drivers manage charging in line with the primary use of the vehicle as transport. For energy service providers this translates to uncertainty – not a great foundation for business success. When viewed alongside the relatively small storage capacity of individual vehicles relative to stationary batteries, the focus for the foreseeable future will be on the alternative.
http://reneweconomy.com.au/2014/when...-storage-51220

amor de cosmos Mar 30, 2014 5:09 PM

Quote:

Tesla’s $5B Giga Battery Factory and Deep Politics in AZ, TX, NV and NM
Which state will win? Secret meetings, political shifts and a $5 billion bet on lithium-ion battery technology.

Eric Wesoff
March 30, 2014

The yet unnamed location of Elon Musk's outrageously ambitious $5 billion Tesla battery factory has been narrowed down to Texas, Arizona, New Mexico or Nevada for a while now. Construction potentially starts this year.

Electric vehicle pioneer Tesla Motors has suggested it will be building 500,000 cars per year by 2020 and hitting a scale that will drive down the cost of its 60 kilowatt-hour battery-pack by 30 percent to about $10,000. The project aims to disrupt battery costs enough to impact the distributed storage industry.

Tesla's Giga factory will sprawl across 500 to 1000 acres of land situated near highways and rail, with space for a few hundred megawatts of solar panels and some wind turbines.

The state that wins the factory gets billions in direct investment as well as a potential 6,500 jobs. Politicians in these states are looking to attract the world's largest lithium-ion battery factory with the only tools at their disposal: tax payer money and promises.

Luring Tesla with incentives at secret meetings

Texas: The San Antonio Express-News reports that unnamed Tesla executives met on Wednesday with the mayor of San Antonio as well as with "the county's top elected official, economic development folks, and someone from the local utility company."

Texas, despite banning the direct sales of Tesla vehicles in its state, is a contender in the race for the factory. It appears that the state's leadership might be inclined to change what Governor Rick Perry referred to as "antiquated" car dealer franchise laws, in an appearance on Fox Business News.

The city of San Antonio remains under consideration as does Lubbock with its access to West Texas windpower, according to numerous reports.

Arizona: Despite opposition from auto dealers, Arizona's state legislature is considering a bill to allow direct sales, according to Phoenix Business Journal.

Tucson Mayor Jonathan Rothschild told The Arizona Daily Star that a potential site has been selected by the city. A state and city tax incentive package will be offered. The same article reported that the city of Mesa's Mayor Scott Smith, now running for Arizona Governor, sent Tesla CEO Elon Musk an invitation to visit.

According to the Phoenix Business Journal, Tesla could benefit from the same state incentives offered to Apple's new plant in Mesa, AZ, namely, "Gov. Jan Brewer and business groups support a new bill that would eliminate taxes on energy used by manufacturers." Arizona’s offer could include a 5 percent property tax rate as well. "State lawmakers are also considering another new bill that would give income tax breaks for companies whose manufacturing facilities are powered by solar and renewable sources," according to the report.

New Mexico: Albuquerque Journal reports that New Mexico Governor Susana Martinez, a Republican, was "considering a special legislative session to work up an economic package for a possible Tesla factory." According to the report, "Democratic legislative leaders said a special session to woo Tesla would be unprecedented, and appropriate only if New Mexico has evidence that it was Tesla’s pick." In 2007, Albuquerque was close to being the site of the Tesla Roadster factory.

Nevada: Last month the Reno Gazette reported that Tesla execs have been looking at sites around the northern part of Nevada. This month, Northern Nevada is the "front runner" according to Phoenix Business Journal. The Journal goes on to report that "the Reno area in northern Nevada is the odds-on favorite to land the Tesla plant," citing multiple business and political sources in Phoenix. The Reno-Stead Airport has been suggested as a possible site with its thousands of acres for development and rail access.

Three reasons why Tesla should choose Texas

As GTM's Katie Tweed reported, there is a legislative effort in a number of states to shut down Tesla from selling directly to the consumer through its own stores and forcing the company to follow laws that prohibit factory-owned dealerships. New York has agreed to allow the electric vehicle maker to keep its five company-owned outlets open, but permits no further expansion. There's a deal being made in Ohio to limit the number of Tesla outlets to three. There is still an acrimonious conflict in New Jersey. Tesla has had favorable court decisions in Massachusetts and the EV pioneer has also won a round of court skirmishes in Minnesota.

If direct sales are banned in a state, customers can visit Tesla "galleries" but aren't allowed to talk price or take a test drive.

Texas went through a two-month effort to pass bills in its legislature that would allow Tesla Motors to sell electric cars directly to consumers. The effort died last summer after lawmakers failed to vote on the issue before adjourning. The legislature will not meet again until 2015.

Texas Gov. Rick Perry, a recipient of more than $300,000 in traditional car dealer campaign contributions, bucked his donors a bit and said in an interview with the Fox Business channel that "Tesla's a big project. He told Maria Bartiromo, "The cachet of being able to say we put that manufacturing facility in your state is hard to pass up." Perry added that he thinks "the pros of allowing this to happen outweigh the cons, and that doing away with the ban on direct sales is a “conversation that is worth happening.”
http://www.greentechmedia.com/articl...Z-TX-NV-and-NM

Quote:

Cleaner than electric? Mazda talks up gasoline engine fuel economy ambitions for SkyActiv 2
18 hours ago by Nancy Owano

(Phys.org) —Auto-focused sites are buzzing over a recent report in Autocar, reporting Japanese automobile manufacturer Mazda's future gasoline engine technology, which will reduce carbon dioxide emissions below the amount generated to power electric cars.

As Geek.com noted, while electric cars do not pump out CO2 as they travel, they have a carbon footprint created when the electric power they run on is produced. Though not due for some years to come, the very idea of a gasoline engine efficient enough to release less carbon dioxide than an electric car was tantalizing enough to make the numerous blog and car site headlines. Specifically, the spotlight is on advances in Mazda's SkyActiv engine technology. Mark Tisshaw, writing in Autocar, said "So efficient is its latest internal combustion engine technology, the Japanese firm claims that it could even eclipse pure electric cars for well-to-wheel CO2 emissions, without adding expensive and heavy hybrid or plug-in hybrid components."

At Mazda, the engine of the future is called the SkyActiv-G Generation 2, a follow-up to Mazda's SkyActiv-G Generation 1. For SkyActiv-G Generation 2, Mazda will adopt homogeneous charge compression ignition (HCCI) and an even higher compression ratio of 18:1 over SkyActiv-G Generation 1 high compression ratio of 14:1. Mazda said on its site that increasing the compression ratio considerably improves thermal efficiency. According to Autocar, it is likely SkyActiv-G Generation 2 technology could arrive in production before the decade is out.

For SkyActiv-G Generation 2, Mazda will adopt homogeneous charge compression ignition (HCCI) and the higher compression ratio of 18:1. Autocar said The HCCI system works in a way similar to a diesel engine, using piston compression rather than a spark plug to ignite the mixture in the chamber.
http://phys.org/news/2014-03-cleaner...line-fuel.html

amor de cosmos Apr 1, 2014 4:54 PM

Quote:

Hybrid Vehicles More Fuel Efficient In India, China Than in U.S.
Berkeley Lab researchers find hybrids use less fuel and mitigate emissions more effectively in India, China than in U.S.

March 31, 2014
Julie Chao

What makes cities in India and China so frustrating to drive in—heavy traffic, aggressive driving style, few freeways—makes them ideal for saving fuel with hybrid vehicles, according to new research by scientists at the U.S. Department of Energy’s Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab). In a pair of studies using real-world driving conditions, they found that hybrid cars are significantly more fuel-efficient in India and China than they are in the United States.

These findings could have an important impact in countries that are on the brink of experiencing an explosion in the sales of personal vehicles; the government of India has already taken note of the findings. “Currently greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector in India and China are a smaller piece of the pie compared with other sectors,” said lead researcher Anand Gopal. “But vehicle ownership is going to skyrocket in these countries. That is why we decided to focus on this area. Hybrid and electric vehicles can significantly reduce carbon emissions and other pollutants.”

What’s more, hybrids in India are also more fuel-efficient than they are officially rated for. “With the official fuel economy test procedure currently used in India, fuel savings for hybrids are fairly grossly underestimated, showing only a 29 percent savings over conventional vehicles,” Gopal said. “The test cycle is not representative of driving conditions in India, so that’s sending the wrong signal to the consumer.”

Their results were reported in two papers, “Understanding the fuel savings potential from deploying hybrid cars in China,” published in Applied Energy, and “Understanding fuel savings mechanisms from hybrid vehicles to guide optimal battery sizing for India,” accepted for publication in the International Journal of Powertrains, also co-authored by Berkeley Lab battery scientist Venkat Srinivasan. The studies are believed to be the first of their kind.

About 50 percent fuel savings over conventional cars

Gopal, working with Berkeley Lab scientists Samveg Saxena and Amol Phadke, used a powertrain simulation model called Autonomie to create a hypothetical hybridized version of the top-selling conventional car in each country—in China it was the Buick Excelle and in India the Maruti Alto. The reason for creating a hypothetical version was to isolate the improvement from hybridization and measure only that benefit.

For the India analysis the researchers simulated drive cycles in two Indian cities (New Delhi and Pune) taken from published studies and also used the Modified Indian Drive Cycle, the test for the official fuel economy rating. In China they simulated drive cycles in 11 cities and with three types of hybrid powertrains (start-stop, parallel and power-split). In both cases they compared it to drive cycles used for U.S. fuel efficiency ratings, which include about 55 percent city driving and 45 percent highway driving.
http://newscenter.lbl.gov/news-relea...n-india-china/
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0331144139.htm

Video Link

M II A II R II K Apr 1, 2014 8:39 PM

Yelp and TripAdvisor users weigh in on the best and worst of the world's metros.

Interactive: http://mashable.com/2014/03/30/subway-reviews/

Quote:

.....

Looking at 10 of the world's largest and most well-known systems, it becomes clear that traveling communities cannot agree whether certain subways are the saving grace or utter downfall of their host city. The reviews serve as a reminder that everything has its ups and downs, and sometimes those downs involve "permanent crap stains" and rats the size of small dogs. Check out our interactive map below and see if you agree with the public transportation enthusiasts of the Internet.

.....




Nashville Plans to Solve Its Traffic Woes With … a Monorail

Read More: http://www.wired.com/2014/03/nashvil...ting-monorail/

Quote:

Lawmakers looking to relieve traffic congestion in Nashville have hit upon an improbable solution: a monorail. The stretch of I-24 between Nashville and Murfreesboro is one of the most congested in the state, and it’s projected to get even worse as the population grows. So State Senator Bill Ketron, a Murfreesboro Republican, proposed building a monorail along the highway median. While it may sound ridiculous at first, the idea is getting some traction.

In fact, the Tennessee Senate voted 31-0 to conduct a monorail feasibility study. If it passes the state House of Representatives, the Tennessee Department of Transportation will have to determine whether it makes economic sense to build a 30-mile elevated monorail for suburban commuters. --- Yes, we saw two monorails torn down this year, and the concept hasn’t caught on in the U.S. outside of Seattle and Disney World. But hold the Lyle Lanley jokes, because the Nashville monorail might just make sense.

See, there are two major costs when it comes to building a brand new public transit system from scratch. First, there’s the cost of construction. Building a monorail can be extremely pricey–it’s a lot harder to put up an elevated track than to lay one on the ground. --- But monorails can come out ahead when it comes to the second major cost, and that’s land acquisition. You can’t just put a train through a built-up area without buying up land first, and that can get extremely expensive. The Nashville monorail would be built on the median of I-24, so the state wouldn’t have to acquire land from private owners.

......
http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/au..._b-660x442.jpg

Busy Bee Apr 1, 2014 10:53 PM

http://thezipdownlow.files.wordpress...3/monorail.jpg
@

vid Apr 1, 2014 11:53 PM

Vancouver's SkyTrain is awesome to ride, being above ground is a lot better than being underground. I don't really see why a monorail is so much worse than elevated light rail. Does one less rail really make that much of a negative impact?

GlassCity Apr 1, 2014 11:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vid (Post 6522207)
Vancouver's SkyTrain is awesome to ride, being above ground is a lot better than being underground. I don't really see why a monorail is so much worse than elevated light rail. Does one less rail really make that much of a negative impact?

I don't know, I love underground subways and I wish we built that more here instead of elevated.

But I'd like to know too. What's the stigma with monorail exactly? Is it because Las Vegas' was broken for so long?

zilfondel Apr 2, 2014 5:02 AM

Vancouver's skytrain is not a monorail.

The problem with monorails is that there is really no benefit to use a monorail rather than a normal tracked rail vehicle. In fact, they are generally more expensive.

GlassCity Apr 2, 2014 5:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zilfondel (Post 6522597)
Vancouver's skytrain is not a monorail.

The problem with monorails is that there is really no benefit to use a monorail rather than a normal tracked rail vehicle. In fact, they are generally more expensive.

Sorry for the confusion, I know it's not a monorail, those were separate points.

LMich Apr 2, 2014 8:10 AM

I'm not familiar with the freeway, but my question is why it'd need to be elevated for such a long distance to begin with? I don't think the question is "why not a monorail?" but what geographic limits make it so that one is needed over more conventional rail?

Eightball Apr 2, 2014 12:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by M II A II R II K (Post 6521854)
Nashville Plans to Solve Its Traffic Woes With … a Monorail

Read More: http://www.wired.com/2014/03/nashvil...ting-monorail/



http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/au..._b-660x442.jpg

Tennessee Senate Tries to Cripple Nashville BRT
http://usa.streetsblog.org/2014/03/2...nashville-brt/
http://usa.streetsblog.org/wp-conten...p5-300x259.jpg
Quote:

UPDATE: Though none of the coverage we saw mentioned it, the final law includes an amendment to ban all dedicated transit lanes — not just in the center — “on any state highway or state highway right-of-way unless the project to do so is approved by the legislative body of the metropolitan government and by the commissioner of transportation.”

The Tennessee Senate voted overwhelmingly to prohibit the Amp's center-lane design. Image: ##http://nashvillepublicradio.org/blog...kers/##Transit Alliance/Nashville MTA##
The Tennessee Senate voted overwhelmingly to prohibit the Amp’s center-lane design. Image: Transit Alliance/Nashville MTA
In an act of extreme short-sighted stupidity, the Tennessee Senate yesterday voted 27-4 to ban any transit project in Nashville that would run in the center lane. Coincidentally, the proposed Amp BRT line would run in the center lane. The House is working on a similar, though reportedly less horrible, bill.

Even most Nashville-area senators voted for the bill, which takes aim squarely at the Amp, a proposed 7.1-mile bus rapid transit line that would run along the congested Broadway/West End corridor. The line would connect East Nashville’s Five Points neighborhood with Saint Thomas West Hospital near Belle Meade, passing Vanderbilt University, which supports the project. President Obama put $27 million for the Amp in his proposed FY 2015 budget.

If you have any questions about why a center-running alternative matters, check out the viral Lego-man rap video Detroit transit advocate Joel Batterman made in favor of the Woodward Avenue line. In short, whether the buses run down the median or on the right is the difference between getting stuck in traffic and a smooth, fast ride.

Though the Amp is the bill’s primary intended victim, it would broadly ban on center-running transit anywhere in the city. Bill sponsor Jim Tracy “worries not only about congestion but also about the safety of people boarding buses in the center of the road,” according to the Tennessean.

Thanks but no thanks for the “concern” for transit riders’ safety, says David Fox, a spokesperson for The Amp Coalition. He told the Tennesseean that Amp riders would only cross half the street, while riders of right-lane-running buses must cross the entire street if they’re not already on the right side.

Besides, if your city’s streets are too dangerous to cross on foot, you’ve got bigger problems.

Sen. Tracy admits he’s also concerned that parking spaces might be sacrificed for the BRT route.

Nashville Mayor Karl Dean has gotten nothing but opposition from the state as he’s tried to advance the project. The usually enlightened TDOT has been unwilling to support it. Governor Bill Haslam, to his credit, opposed the Senate bill, but that doesn’t mean he’s in favor of the Amp — he still hasn’t decided.

The Koch brothers’ Americans for Prosperity group has loudly opposed the project. Local opponents include car dealers and real estate brokers.
More "small government" at work.

M II A II R II K Apr 2, 2014 7:59 PM

American Cities Are Haunted by Too Many Parking Spaces

Read More: http://www.businessweek.com/articles...tudies#r=hpf-s

Quote:

.....

“In the ’50s and ’60s, cities did things like subsidize garage parking, and they condemned buildings so the lots could be used for parking,” says Norman Garrick, associate professor of civil and environmental engineering at the University of Connecticut. Many, he adds, still require a minimal number of parking spots to be added for each new development. But it turns out that all the parking doesn’t pay off.

- A pair of forthcoming studies by Garrick and several of his UConn colleagues examine the economic and sociological impacts of parking trends in six U.S. cities from 1960 to 2000. They conclude that some car-centric cities forfeit more than a thousand dollars per parking space per year in potential municipal revenues by using land for parking rather than more lucrative alternatives. The researchers also found that minimum parking requirements inhibit development and exacerbate traffic by placing incentives on car use rather than on walking and cycling.

- Parking-centric cities also sacrifice income. In all six cities studied by UConn’s researchers, land devoted to buildings provides at least 88 percent of tax revenue and sometimes as much as 97 percent; parking contributes very little. In other words, cities that turn themselves into car lots relinquish tax money in the bargain. --- Hartford loses an estimated $1,200 annually per parking space, a subsidy of more than $50 million per year, according to Garrick. The city is no anomaly: “We pick on Hartford because it’s our state capital.” Cities such as Cambridge, where parking is kept in check and more heavily taxed, don’t lose money.

- Garrick suggests that cities suffering from the Hartford syndrome revisit their tax incentives and minimum-parking requirements. He also recommends improving public transportation and installing bike lanes. Cars, he points out, take up more space than any other mode of transportation. “For each person, a car takes up 10 times more space than a bike, 15 times more than a train, and 30 times more than a pedestrian,” Garrick writes via e-mail. “Space equals money in one way or the other.”

.....



http://images.bwbx.io/cms/2014-03-31...70-630x420.jpg

vid Apr 3, 2014 1:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zilfondel (Post 6522597)
Vancouver's skytrain is not a monorail.

The problem with monorails is that there is really no benefit to use a monorail rather than a normal tracked rail vehicle. In fact, they are generally more expensive.

Then why does the technology exist and get promoted? You can put a double-tracked conventional LRT on a Y shaped pillar, so why not just do that instead of a monorail?

electricron Apr 3, 2014 3:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vid (Post 6524051)
Then why does the technology exist and get promoted? You can put a double-tracked conventional LRT on a Y shaped pillar, so why not just do that instead of a monorail?

Because costs alone isn't always the ruling factor. Disney, Las Vegas, and Seattle chose monorails mainly to attract tourists. Rubber wheels don't squeal as much as steel wheels on steel rails over sharp curves. Nashville also attracts many tourists - maybe they think they can attract tourists to increase ridership and reduce local taxpayer subsidies?

I'll agree that traditional track with two rails could work as well as a monorail as far as daily commuters are concerned and at a lower cost. The first step along the way to initiate future federal funding is to identify a corridor, and commence a study using several modes to transit, commuter rail, light rail, heavy rail, monorail, rapid bus, express bus, including doing nothing. At the completion of the study, they'll answer which is the preferred solution. That's when the traditional rail transit usually wins over exotic rail lines like monorails.


All times are GMT. The time now is 6:24 AM.

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