HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Transportation


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #401  
Old Posted Jan 20, 2020, 11:22 PM
SkahHigh's Avatar
SkahHigh SkahHigh is offline
More transit please
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Montreal
Posts: 3,785
Quote:
Originally Posted by plutonicpanda View Post
That is very easy to explain. London de facto priced the poor out of their cars leaving only with those with means to be able to continue to drive. Not only is this ironic as many advocating for public transportation usually do so under the pretense of supporting the poor, but it represents bad policy as it is unsustainable to use it to fund transit and requires makeshift solutions like the Stockholm 'solution' in order to keep it going. Congestion pricing is a horrible practice and it is very sad NYC plans to go that route.

A better example would be Seattle as they have considerably increased their infrastructure building both new freeway lanes and new rail/active transit infrastructure and their modal share has seemingly moved towards people using the latter. SLC has been widening freeways like mad, adding tons of people, building new rail and BRT and they have seen almost no increase of congestion in the metro.
How can you say it's "very easy to explain" then post some unsourced, uncorroborated claims like these?

Maybe the congestion tax just convinced more people to use public transit because it was now a cheaper option? History has shown that when you facilitate driving either by policy or financially, people will always choose it as a way of getting around. In a place like London where congestion was becoming out of control, it's a great way to discourage people from driving, especially when the regional public transportation network is so developed.

Given that "the poors" are often the ones who drive the least because of the prohibitive costs of owning a car, I don't see why you automatically associate a modal shift from driving to public transit to poor people being priced out. What if they're middle/upple middle class people? Such a lazy, simplistic explanation to a complex situation.

I get it dude, you're for public transit, but as long as it doesn't come to the expense of freeway expansion. Which is sad really, because it has been proven that highway expansion coupled with transit expansion has a cancelling effect due to the induced demand principle (which you don't believe in, for some reason). Expanding roadway capacity whilst expanding your transit system is the best way to double your expenses while not improving mobility in your city.

Like I said, you don't seem to understand much of what I'm saying, so I don't really feel like pursuing the discussion. You're just like most Americans, not willing to give up your precious car to save the environment and make cities better.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #402  
Old Posted Jan 20, 2020, 11:57 PM
plutonicpanda plutonicpanda is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 623
Quote:
Originally Posted by SkahHigh View Post
How can you say it's "very easy to explain" then post some unsourced, uncorroborated claims like these?

Maybe the congestion tax just convinced more people to use public transit because it was now a cheaper option? History has shown that when you facilitate driving either by policy or financially, people will always choose it as a way of getting around. In a place like London where congestion was becoming out of control, it's a great way to discourage people from driving, especially when the regional public transportation network is so developed.

Given that "the poors" are often the ones who drive the least because of the prohibitive costs of owning a car, I don't see why you automatically associate a modal shift from driving to public transit to poor people being priced out. What if they're middle/upple middle class people? Such a lazy, simplistic explanation to a complex situation.

I get it dude, you're for public transit, but as long as it doesn't come to the expense of freeway expansion. Which is sad really, because it has been proven that highway expansion coupled with transit expansion has a cancelling effect due to the induced demand principle (which you don't believe in, for some reason). Expanding roadway capacity whilst expanding your transit system is the best way to double your expenses while not improving mobility in your city.

Like I said, you don't seem to understand much of what I'm saying, so I don't really feel like pursuing the discussion. You're just like most Americans, not willing to give up your precious car to save the environment and make cities better.
Ah, the classic you aren't agreeing with me thus you must not be understanding my superior intellect tactic. Take that rubbish elsewhere. If you don't want to respond to me then don't. Quit telling me about I am unworthy of your responses.

The induced demand principle has no numbers to back it up, has no real data distinguishing it from latent demand, and no one can even provide a number for how much traffic accounts for induced demand at any given time.

Elon Musk describes it perfectly:

"Induced demand is one of the most irrational theories I’ve ever heard. Correlation is not causation. If the transport system exceeds public travel needs, there will be very little traffic. I support anything that improves traffic, as this negatively affects almost everyone."

Has the congestion pricing "encouraged" people to use mass transit more? Maybe. I am not ruling that out like you are ruling out the poor being priced out... But I suspect the latter is happening more often than for reasons other posters have also made clear in this thread with numbers and sources to back it up.

You are correct I am for public transit though the last part of your assumption is only a half truth. I am not for the mentality that wants to build mass transit and views this issue like you do as a zero sum equation for car commuters. What is even more ironic is you made an argument that car drivers do not pay for their roads--completely ignoring it when you were proven wrong but not before you accuse me of ignoring points you made--and then go on to admit drivers also
pay for mass transit lines like they have in London with the congestion charge.

So where is the data showing income disparities, cross referencing that data with increase in ridership, and providing the entire picture of exactly who is using the London metro, who was affected by the congestion taxes, and what the ultimate outcome will be once the funds from congestion diminish as traffic dies down to eventually being priced out or the city needing makeshift solutions to keep income from flatlining.

But yet there are cities like SLC that have expanded their freeways and mass transit systems, are growing at a massive rate, and not experiencing much traffic congestion increases. Then there are cities like Portland(OR) that has traffic comparable or arguably worse than Dallas(a city 3x its size). I'll let you draw conclusions from that statement.

You also act is if the middle class is immune from being priced out due to higher user fees/car ownership costs made higher by those who want it that way. You act as if the middle class has so much more disposable income than the poor simply because their income is higher. I could respond to that with unnecessary remarks like "Such a lazy, simplistic explanation to a complex situation." The middle class, just like the poor, are often at a tipping point and increasingly so.

To me, it isn't very hard to see why London charging an arm and a leg to drive into the city centre resulted in a decrease of cars going there but it sure is easy to twist things to support biased agendas.

Here some links to back up various comments I've made since you are insinuating I am pulling this stuff out of my ass. You seem like a smart guy that can put the pieces of the puzzle together since these links are in no particular order. Admittedly I am just being lazy here.

http://theconversation.com/london-co...hat-next-92478

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine...-shame/476415/

https://www.sltrib.com/news/politics...udy-says-salt/

https://www.udot.utah.gov/main/f?p=100:6:0::::V,T:,1

https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publication...p_prim5_03.htm

http://depts.washington.edu/trac/bulkdisk/pdf/721.1.pdf

The data is out there that shows tolls affect the poor the most. I am reading what you are saying and responding to it. Once again if there is something I didn't address and you think I am doing that on purpose, point it out and I will address it. But cut the Weisenheimer shit. It is rude and doesn't help your points. I will always be happy to point out my sources, admit when I have a theory that isn't well backed up, admit when I am wrong, and be happy to address any problems you have with the way I post. I am very busy, have issues like ADHD, and sometimes make these posts in a hurry. So if your issue is with my posts, than say it but constructive criticism helps with you being specific and not making asinine statements like this:
Quote:
Like I said, you don't seem to understand much of what I'm saying, so I don't really feel like pursuing the discussion
.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #403  
Old Posted Jan 21, 2020, 12:06 AM
dubu's Avatar
dubu dubu is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: bend oregon
Posts: 1,439
im not sure whats going on in this thread but i just want to know what this bus or train will look like. or is it just a car tunnel that a couple cars can use?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #404  
Old Posted Jan 21, 2020, 12:15 AM
plutonicpanda plutonicpanda is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 623
Quote:
Originally Posted by dubu View Post
im not sure whats going on in this thread but i just want to know what this bus or train will look like. or is it just a car tunnel that a couple cars can use?
Elon musk has stated his proposed tunnels are for zero emissions cars and the goal behind his project is to advance tunnel construction and make it cheaper. This ultimately would trickle down to allowing rail tunnels to be built as well. But the anti-car crowd which claims support rail in favor of giving people "options" screams and whines every time an option they don't like is improved or otherwise simply exists.

Simply put: these tunnels are
Quote:
just a car tunnel that a couple thousand cars can use
and possibly many more.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #405  
Old Posted Jan 21, 2020, 12:47 AM
dubu's Avatar
dubu dubu is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: bend oregon
Posts: 1,439
so this is a huge project? i was thinking it was like the tunnel in la that was just one tunnel that only a couple cars could go through. it will have on and off ramps?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #406  
Old Posted Jan 21, 2020, 12:48 AM
SkahHigh's Avatar
SkahHigh SkahHigh is offline
More transit please
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Montreal
Posts: 3,785
Quote:
Originally Posted by plutonicpanda View Post
Ah, the classic you aren't agreeing with me thus you must not be understanding my superior intellect tactic. Take that rubbish elsewhere. If you don't want to respond to me then don't. Quit telling me about I am unworthy of your responses.

The induced demand principle has no numbers to back it up, has no real data distinguishing it from latent demand, and no one can even provide a number for how much traffic accounts for induced demand at any given time.

Elon Musk describes it perfectly:

"Induced demand is one of the most irrational theories I’ve ever heard. Correlation is not causation. If the transport system exceeds public travel needs, there will be very little traffic. I support anything that improves traffic, as this negatively affects almost everyone."

Has the congestion pricing "encouraged" people to use mass transit more? Maybe. I am not ruling that out like you are ruling out the poor being priced out... But I suspect the latter is happening more often than for reasons other posters have also made clear in this thread with numbers and sources to back it up.

You are correct I am for public transit though the last part of your assumption is only a half truth. I am not for the mentality that wants to build mass transit and views this issue like you do as a zero sum equation for car commuters. What is even more ironic is you made an argument that car drivers do not pay for their roads--completely ignoring it when you were proven wrong but not before you accuse me of ignoring points you made--and then go on to admit drivers also
pay for mass transit lines like they have in London with the congestion charge.

So where is the data showing income disparities, cross referencing that data with increase in ridership, and providing the entire picture of exactly who is using the London metro, who was affected by the congestion taxes, and what the ultimate outcome will be once the funds from congestion diminish as traffic dies down to eventually being priced out or the city needing makeshift solutions to keep income from flatlining.

But yet there are cities like SLC that have expanded their freeways and mass transit systems, are growing at a massive rate, and not experiencing much traffic congestion increases. Then there are cities like Portland(OR) that has traffic comparable or arguably worse than Dallas(a city 3x its size). I'll let you draw conclusions from that statement.

You also act is if the middle class is immune from being priced out due to higher user fees/car ownership costs made higher by those who want it that way. You act as if the middle class has so much more disposable income than the poor simply because their income is higher. I could respond to that with unnecessary remarks like "Such a lazy, simplistic explanation to a complex situation." The middle class, just like the poor, are often at a tipping point and increasingly so.

To me, it isn't very hard to see why London charging an arm and a leg to drive into the city centre resulted in a decrease of cars going there but it sure is easy to twist things to support biased agendas.

Here some links to back up various comments I've made since you are insinuating I am pulling this stuff out of my ass. You seem like a smart guy that can put the pieces of the puzzle together since these links are in no particular order. Admittedly I am just being lazy here.

http://theconversation.com/london-co...hat-next-92478

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine...-shame/476415/

https://www.sltrib.com/news/politics...udy-says-salt/

https://www.udot.utah.gov/main/f?p=100:6:0::::V,T:,1

https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publication...p_prim5_03.htm

http://depts.washington.edu/trac/bulkdisk/pdf/721.1.pdf

The data is out there that shows tolls affect the poor the most. I am reading what you are saying and responding to it. Once again if there is something I didn't address and you think I am doing that on purpose, point it out and I will address it. But cut the Weisenheimer shit. It is rude and doesn't help your points. I will always be happy to point out my sources, admit when I have a theory that isn't well backed up, admit when I am wrong, and be happy to address any problems you have with the way I post. I am very busy, have issues like ADHD, and sometimes make these posts in a hurry. So if your issue is with my posts, than say it but constructive criticism helps with you being specific and not making asinine statements like this: .
I'm not trying to sound intellectually superior by pulling out, I'm just tired of having this argument (this isn't the first time we talked about this). We're clearly not agreeing on the car argument so let's just cut our losses, agree to disagree and move on. Sorry if I sounded arrogant, things can get misinterpreted in a message forum.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #407  
Old Posted Jan 21, 2020, 2:33 AM
plutonicpanda plutonicpanda is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 623
Quote:
Originally Posted by dubu View Post
so this is a huge project? i was thinking it was like the tunnel in la that was just one tunnel that only a couple cars could go through. it will have on and off ramps?
I do not see it as that big of a project. A small(ish) tunnel to show off the concept of allowing Tesla's in tunnels. I am skeptical of what will happen but am hopeful a breakthrough in cheaper tunnel could result.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SkahHigh View Post
I'm not trying to sound intellectually superior by pulling out, I'm just tired of having this argument (this isn't the first time we talked about this). We're clearly not agreeing on the car argument so let's just cut our losses, agree to disagree and move on. Sorry if I sounded arrogant, things can get misinterpreted in a message forum.
Fair enough and my apologies if I came across as an asshole. Not trying to be that way.

I went back and looked and what started this whole thing was another poster claiming Elon had no vision which I could not disagree with more. I could even agree with nearly everything you said(which I may not sound like it but I do think you make good points) before I would agree with Elon not having any vision.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #408  
Old Posted Jan 21, 2020, 5:19 AM
SkahHigh's Avatar
SkahHigh SkahHigh is offline
More transit please
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Montreal
Posts: 3,785
Quote:
Originally Posted by plutonicpanda View Post
Fair enough and my apologies if I came across as an asshole. Not trying to be that way.

I went back and looked and what started this whole thing was another poster claiming Elon had no vision which I could not disagree with more. I could even agree with nearly everything you said(which I may not sound like it but I do think you make good points) before I would agree with Elon not having any vision.
I would say his vision is very car-oriented (albeit electric cars) but at least he’s trying to change things. You can say his vision is a bit misguided (relying too much on electric cars) but difficult to say he has no vision indeed.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #409  
Old Posted Jan 21, 2020, 3:54 PM
plutonicpanda plutonicpanda is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 623
Quote:
Originally Posted by SkahHigh View Post
I would say his vision is very car-oriented (albeit electric cars) but at least he’s trying to change things. You can say his vision is a bit misguided (relying too much on electric cars) but difficult to say he has no vision indeed.
True but if he can find a way to make tunnel construction cheaper even if he plans on using it for freeways it would undoubtedly benefit subway construction, IMO.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #410  
Old Posted Jan 21, 2020, 9:11 PM
accord1999 accord1999 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,021
Quote:
Originally Posted by SkahHigh View Post
Maybe the congestion tax just convinced more people to use public transit because it was now a cheaper option? History has shown that when you facilitate driving either by policy or financially, people will always choose it as a way of getting around.
Why is that? It's because for the vast majority of trips, the private car is simply the best ground transportation method and well-worth the extra cost because you can make more trips and it will take you less time.

Quote:
Given that "the poors" are often the ones who drive the least because of the prohibitive costs of owning a car,
Costs of car usage is only "prohibitive" if you choose to buy new, or in many cases because governments make so much money of car drivers by taking 60% or more of the proceeds of fuel purchases and charging huge use and purchase fees on vehicles. But in many parts of North America, buying a heavily depreciated vehicle is very cheap to operate, especially given its utility.

Imagine how much affordable driving would be in the UK if drivers only had to pay for public expenditure of roads (UK fuel tax revenues are around £28 billion), rather than subsidizing all other forms of public transport, including the disastrous HS2.

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #411  
Old Posted Jan 21, 2020, 11:06 PM
SkahHigh's Avatar
SkahHigh SkahHigh is offline
More transit please
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Montreal
Posts: 3,785
Quote:
Originally Posted by accord1999 View Post
Why is that? It's because for the vast majority of trips, the private car is simply the best ground transportation method and well-worth the extra cost because you can make more trips and it will take you less time.
Of course it is, and the billions of dollars that congestion costs every year in the U.S. alone as well as 35-40% of your country's CO2 emissions say that the private car isn't working out as a way of commuting in cities.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #412  
Old Posted Jan 21, 2020, 11:47 PM
jtown,man jtown,man is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Chicago
Posts: 4,101
Quote:
Originally Posted by SkahHigh View Post
Of course it is, and the billions of dollars that congestion costs every year in the U.S. alone as well as 35-40% of your country's CO2 emissions say that the private car isn't working out as a way of commuting in cities.
It says a lot that we are all willing to face those billions of dollars for the ease of car usage. You are from Canada, right? Stop acting like its a Mecca of environmentalism up there. Most of the people I know that are "environmentalists" love to drive like my friends that aren't. They don't continue to use their cars because they hate the environment(obviously), they do it because its supremely more useful than anything else in probably 97% of the USA.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #413  
Old Posted Jan 22, 2020, 4:17 AM
SkahHigh's Avatar
SkahHigh SkahHigh is offline
More transit please
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Montreal
Posts: 3,785
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtown,man View Post
It says a lot that we are all willing to face those billions of dollars for the ease of car usage. You are from Canada, right? Stop acting like its a Mecca of environmentalism up there. Most of the people I know that are "environmentalists" love to drive like my friends that aren't. They don't continue to use their cars because they hate the environment(obviously), they do it because its supremely more useful than anything else in probably 97% of the USA.
You'll notice that I didn't say once that Canada was a great model to follow.

Although you can look at PT mode shares in major Canadian cities and see for yourself how we are doing:

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1overcosc View Post

Last edited by SkahHigh; Jan 22, 2020 at 12:44 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #414  
Old Posted Feb 25, 2020, 7:34 PM
M II A II R II K's Avatar
M II A II R II K M II A II R II K is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Toronto
Posts: 51,726
State House passes Hyperloop bill

https://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/...loop-bill.html

Quote:
.....

- Feb. 13 --- Missouri lawmakers on Tuesday gave initial approval to a bill that would make a Hyperloop test track eligible for state grants, according to the Associated Press. Lawmakers last week advanced the legislation, needed to clarify that a tube transportation system is a permissible use under state public-private partnership rules. The technology, which utilizes magnets, could whisk passengers at up to 640 mph. --- St. Louis has made the second round in a competition to land a 12- to 15-mile test track and research center. Information is due to Virgin Hyperloop One, the Los Angeles company looking to commercialize the technology, by Feb. 28. A third round could include three to five cities. The test track could cost $30 million to $40 million per mile.

.....



__________________
ASDFGHJK
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #415  
Old Posted Mar 21, 2020, 7:23 AM
aquablue aquablue is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 1,741
^^ Haha, Mecklenborg.. you never did know what you were talking about did you (regarding hyperloop)?

I bet when musks idea is in operation, you'll be like "oh, i'tll never happen, musk is a fraud".

Methinks there is some irrational anti-musk sentiment involved here, hmm...

Last edited by aquablue; Mar 21, 2020 at 8:01 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #416  
Old Posted Mar 21, 2020, 2:30 PM
Busy Bee's Avatar
Busy Bee Busy Bee is offline
Show me the blueprints
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: on the artistic spectrum
Posts: 8,510
Just a con to get taxpayers to pay for a private ventures test track. Unreal state pols would fall for this.
__________________
Only if you're looking can it find you

No, it's not pronounced "Keeve."
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #417  
Old Posted Mar 21, 2020, 4:55 PM
Nouvellecosse's Avatar
Nouvellecosse Nouvellecosse is online now
Volatile Pacivist
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 7,316
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtown,man View Post
It says a lot that we are all willing to face those billions of dollars for the ease of car usage. You are from Canada, right? Stop acting like its a Mecca of environmentalism up there. Most of the people I know that are "environmentalists" love to drive like my friends that aren't. They don't continue to use their cars because they hate the environment(obviously), they do it because its supremely more useful than anything else in probably 97% of the USA.
People are willing to face the costs because the costs are largely a combination of externalized (the people generating the cost not being the ones to pay) and indirect (the costs coming at at later time or in other ways such as tax dollars, higher consumer prices etc.) That's the main point of congestion pricing. That the true cost of vehicle usage in congested areas be imposed directly on those who choose to do it.

Let's think about it for a moment. Even without considering externalities such as pollution, general taxes on car usage such as fuel tax licensing/registration fees are not specific to where the vehicle is used. But using a vehicle in a high cost city centre is not the same as some suburb or rural area. If you were to park in a central city during peak business hours you would incur high parking fees to occupy that space. yet when you're driving, you're still occupying the same amount of space on public roads and that space still has a very high value being in a central area. It might even have more value since roads are necessary for the movement of people and goods and high traffic volumes that cause congestion disrupts that. But as long as you're moving, there are no extra costs for the use of that valuable space. Why?

The short answer is, because it's public space and the government has chosen not to implement any user fees for it even though it charges them for other public spaces such as public parking. That's just a government decision not to charge the true market value for use of that space and one that results in huge numbers of vehicles operating in high value areas due to consumer surplus creating a shortage. That would be fine if there weren't affordable alternatives that people could use to allow them to move around these areas. But in most cities considering congestion pricing there are, so there's no reason that the costlier, less space/energy efficient mode shouldn't be priced as exactly what it is: a luxury.

The idea that congestion pricing is bad because poor people are being priced out is ridiculous. Let's be honest here. The vast majority of people (if not all) who car commute in high value areas are on the more affluent end of the spectrum. Obviously they don't want to bear any additional costs - not because they can't afford it, but because nobody likes increased costs. So they invent ideas of poor people suffering and being excluded because they know that tugs on people's emotions and might trick and manipulate many people who care about fairness and equality. But fact remain, it is just a trick and a clever rhetorical device. There's no substance to it whatsoever and it's understandable that people such as SkahHigh would eventually get tired of engaging with it.
__________________
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man." - George Bernard Shaw
Don't ask people not to debate a topic. Just stop making debatable assertions. Problem solved.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #418  
Old Posted Apr 11, 2020, 8:42 PM
M II A II R II K's Avatar
M II A II R II K M II A II R II K is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Toronto
Posts: 51,726
Amsterdam to Paris in 90 minutes? Dutch tout hyperloop as future of travel

https://www.theguardian.com/technolo...ture-of-travel

Quote:
.....

- Plans are being drawn up for Amsterdam to be connected to other European cities by the futuristic high-speed mode of transportation comprising a magnetic hovertrain in an air-free tube able to travel at speeds of over 600mph due to the lack of friction and drag. A study carried out by a Dutch technology startup, Hardt Hyperloop, in collaboration with the province, has found the hyperloop could reduce commuting times from Amsterdam to Paris, Brussels, Düsseldorf or Frankfurt from “hours to minutes”, boasting that “borders would, quite literally, become blurred”. Commuters stepping into a hyperloop pod in Amsterdam could arrive in Brussels in under 30 minutes or in Paris in 90 minutes rather than the current three and half hours, the study suggests.

.....








__________________
ASDFGHJK
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #419  
Old Posted Jul 25, 2020, 3:07 PM
M II A II R II K's Avatar
M II A II R II K M II A II R II K is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Toronto
Posts: 51,726
Elon Musk reveals Las Vegas Convention Center Loop station, and its private shuttles

https://www.archpaper.com/2020/07/el...n-center-loop/

Quote:
.....

- The Boring Company founder revealed a first look at its Las Vegas Convention Center Loop station, only stocked full of modified Tesla Model 3 cars instead of the larger shuttles Musk teased back in 2018. The Las Vegas Loop is located directly below the Las Vegas Convention Center, and upon its completion in January 2021, will ferry upwards of 4,400 passengers per hour from the West Hall to the South and North halls (and vice versa). Comprising twin 0.83-mile-long, 14-foot-wide tunnels wedged side-by-side, the $52.5 million transportation system will cut the 15-minute jaunt across the convention center campus down to just one friction-less minute.

.....



__________________
ASDFGHJK
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #420  
Old Posted Aug 1, 2020, 7:28 PM
M II A II R II K's Avatar
M II A II R II K M II A II R II K is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Toronto
Posts: 51,726
Hyperloop projects are now eligible for federal funding in the US

https://www.engadget.com/hyperloop-f...151657647.html

Quote:
.....

- The Department of Transportation and the NETT Council have issued a federal regulatory framework guidance document for hyperloop and other emerging forms of transportation tech. It gives hyperloop a designation under the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), the same umbrella as high-speed rail. --- "Except for self-contained urban rapid transit systems, FRA's statutory jurisdiction extends to all entities that provide nonhighway ground transportation over rails or electromagnetic guideways, and extends to future railroads using technologies not yet in use," the broad document reads.

.....



__________________
ASDFGHJK
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Transportation
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 5:20 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.