|
Cichlidae posted:Oh my god, how could I have forgotten the best part? Making the maps! What in the world is that moon language?
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2012 01:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 03:09 |
|
|
Volmarias posted:What in the world is that moon language? Oh, I see you're not familiar with Exampleville's native tongue! It's a good thing we design maps and signs to be at least somewhat understandable if you don't speak the language. Really, I just wanted to show how much information you could convey without words, because it is a very valid topic for any traffic engineer. While the literacy rate in the US is officially 99.99% according to the CIA factbook, 20% of the population is functionally illiterate. There's been a huge push to abandon text-based messages and move to diagrammatic messages, which are perfectly legible to those who don't speak English, or don't speak it well.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2012 01:25
|
|
|
Is there a law that prevents people from building brick bunker mailboxes right up against the edge of a road? Just seems incredible dangerous and stupid, but I see them all over the place.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2012 01:30
|
|
|
grover posted:Is there a law that prevents people from building brick bunker mailboxes right up against the edge of a road? Just seems incredible dangerous and stupid, but I see them all over the place. The town's zoning board would have something to say about that, but I don't think it explicitly breaks any law. Happens plenty around here, too, because mailboxes will get plowed over if they're within a few feet of the road. I can go and plant a tree right next to the road, even in the public ROW if I choose, and there's nothing illegal about that. Of course, if someone were to crash into one and die, you'd better believe there would be one hell of a lawsuit, if not a criminal investigation for endangerment or something. Caveat: I am not a lawyer or a police officer. Cichlidae fucked around with this message at 01:40 on Sep 15, 2012 |
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2012 01:37
|
|
|
I saw a one light signal in Chengdu, China. There was some discussion back on P71.  It appeared to work well (i.e. all the traffic I saw obeyed the signals). They also have a seperate signal for just cyclists. How many cyclists would a road need to carry before you'd consider giving them their own signal? Or would it be better to just have cyclists obey the normal signals regardless of the number of cyclists?
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2012 02:24
|
|
|
mamosodiumku posted:I saw a one light signal in Chengdu, China. There was some discussion back on P71. That is actually a topic in the new AASHTO guide! Bicycle signals seem to be a good idea, though it's tricky to get bicyclists to obey them, and cars to realize the signals aren't for them. A green light at night will look the same regardless of whether it's a ball or a bicycle symbol.  They're definitely useful on bicycle boulevards, which is another emerging bicycle strategy (but I haven't done those webinars yet, check back in a month).
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2012 02:30
|
|
|
grover posted:Is there a law that prevents people from building brick bunker mailboxes right up against the edge of a road? Just seems incredible dangerous and stupid, but I see them all over the place. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2012 02:31
|
|
|
C'mon now, you know that poo poo's bannable.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2012 03:04
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:Oh my god, how could I have forgotten the best part? Making the maps! If you had to build just one or two lines first how would you do it? Also, I remember reading somewhere that parallel / gridded lines worked a lot better than loops/circular bits. Is that true at all?
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2012 05:13
|
|
|
Mandalay posted:If you had to build just one or two lines first how would you do it? In many ways, it's just like freeway design - if the placement and capacity of alternate routes is insufficient, an accident that shuts down a critical section of roadway will royally gently caress things up. Cichlidae's layout is as professional as you'd expect it to be. The interlinings across the system create paths that can be used to detour trains in an emergency situation - this is how a GOOD loop/grid hybrid setup is constructed. Varance fucked around with this message at 08:49 on Sep 15, 2012 |
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2012 08:02
|
|
|
Mandalay posted:If you had to build just one or two lines first how would you do it? The stuff Varance says are legitimate concerns, but a big problem with completely circular lines is punctuality. If a train on a circle line starts becoming late, it'll delay everything behind it and never have a chance to recover any time back, destroying any possibility of sticking to a timetable. Of course, if you're running a regular metro service without any real timetable it's not too bad from a passenger point of view, but still causes "clumping" and other operational problems, particularly if there's shared track or junctions with other lines that trains need to hit at the right time to avoid holding up other trains. Circular lines cause such problems that the London Underground's Circle Line was recently reconfigured to be a sort of spiral shape, giving it a terminus like a normal line. This means passengers have to change trains on certain journeys round the circle, but has improved reliability and reduced journey times as there's now less need for recovery time built in to the timetable round the circle.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2012 13:48
|
|
|
How does the Tokyo subway deal with delays on their Oedo Line loop? I've ridden it many times (always the eastern half) and always thought it continued in a loop at Tochomae, but now I'm wondering.  Legible copy: http://www.tokyometro.jp/en/subwaymap/pdf/routemap_en.pdf
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2012 14:00
|
|
|
Varance posted:Ultimately, it depends on how the system is laid out. If the grid/loop only crosses paths in the CBD, you're going to run into some pretty serious problems. What happened in Toronto yesterday is a drat good example of this - there was an incident at track level that resulted in the death of a maintenance employee. The investigation locked out yard access on their busiest subway line (the Yonge-University-Spadina subway), leaving them with 15 out of 60 scheduled trains on route for the morning rush - what they had staged at a smaller yard and in pocket tracks for beginning of service. If the line were a loop, or there were some way to get to the other leg of the line from the north end of Wilson yard, things would have been fine. Same thing happened about 17 years ago after the Russell Hill subway accident - they had to shut down the entire Spadina section of the YUS subway for WEEKS because they had no alternative and no way to get trains in and out of the (same) yard. Yeah the ideal is to have something like the NYC subway where you have a shitload of lines, most of them interconnected, and you can make all kinds of alternate routings without having to follow a loop.  A while ago I saw some thing that showed all of the valid re-routing combinations in the NYC subway, across all the lines and such. It was mindboggling.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2012 14:29
|
|
|
Mandalay posted:If you had to build just one or two lines first how would you do it? Highly situational, but this is what I had suggested, based on density:  Mandalay posted:Also, I remember reading somewhere that parallel / gridded lines worked a lot better than loops/circular bits. Is that true at all? I think this has been adequately answered by other posters, but here is one bit I'd like to address. Jonnty posted:The stuff Varance says are legitimate concerns, but a big problem with completely circular lines is punctuality. If a train on a circle line starts becoming late, it'll delay everything behind it and never have a chance to recover any time back, destroying any possibility of sticking to a timetable. Of course, if you're running a regular metro service without any real timetable it's not too bad from a passenger point of view, but still causes "clumping" and other operational problems, particularly if there's shared track or junctions with other lines that trains need to hit at the right time to avoid holding up other trains. My intent in laying this out was not to have all trains do a full circle. You don't need 5 minute headways in the suburbs, and you'd be wasting a lot of capacity on empty cars during periods of directional flow, but I'm not sure how to fully rectify that. Let's look at just the blue line, and name the stations:  At A and J, there are turnoffs and depots. Let's look at a sample timetable.
So now you've got 5-minute headways downtown, and 20-minute headways in the 'burbs. If one downtown train is running late, a later train can just be skipped, because the headways are so small. If a loop train is running late, let's say the 6:35 train is going to finish its loop at 7:25 instead of 7:15, just have the 7:10 train continue through the loop instead of turning around, and turn the loop train around when it comes in so it becomes a downtown train. A bit confusing if you're on it, sure, but very few people would take a loop train more than halfway in one direction to begin with.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2012 14:58
|
|
|
Jonnty posted:The stuff Varance says are legitimate concerns, but a big problem with completely circular lines is punctuality. If a train on a circle line starts becoming late, it'll delay everything behind it and never have a chance to recover any time back, destroying any possibility of sticking to a timetable. Of course, if you're running a regular metro service without any real timetable it's not too bad from a passenger point of view, but still causes "clumping" and other operational problems, particularly if there's shared track or junctions with other lines that trains need to hit at the right time to avoid holding up other trains.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2012 17:20
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:My intent in laying this out was not to have all trains do a full circle. You don't need 5 minute headways in the suburbs, and you'd be wasting a lot of capacity on empty cars during periods of directional flow, but I'm not sure how to fully rectify that. Clever stuff! You're right that it'd be confusing, but yeah I guess that's the beauty of high-frequency timetables. Nobody really minds having to wait five minutes to continue their journey so you can make it as complex as you like, and regular commuters will quickly become familiar with the system anyway I suppose. Varance posted:To be fair, that's any subway operation. Turnbacks and gap trains are a daily reality for any light/heavy rail operation, especially in the US post-9/11 environment. Careless person falls on tracks or leaves package in station, careless driver t-bones an LRV, etc.. Yeah, but the circle/linear distinction is mainly apparent with "routine" delays caused by things like signal failures, train faults and busy platforms. It's much easier to restrict the impact of these delays on a linear line as opposed to a circular line - in most cases, it just happens naturally through recovery time at termini. As we've seen, it's doable on a circular line too, just in a more complicated and potentially less effective way.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2012 18:10
|
|
|
Jonnty posted:Clever stuff! You're right that it'd be confusing, but yeah I guess that's the beauty of high-frequency timetables. Nobody really minds having to wait five minutes to continue their journey so you can make it as complex as you like, and regular commuters will quickly become familiar with the system anyway I suppose. Hell, the transit system I work for runs buses on a moving block system with anti-bunching measures. We do this because all of our routes are setup as loops: 8-12 min headway with zero dwell time.The same system is used by LADOT and a bunch of other major systems that have significant circulator systems. Varance fucked around with this message at 18:36 on Sep 15, 2012 |
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2012 18:23
|
|
|
Varance posted:Most signal systems these days have AI that adjusts signal timing to space out bunched vehicles automatically. Hell, the transit system I work for runs buses on a moving block system with anti-bunching measures. That still has to have an impact on journey times though right? All that stuff you mentioned in the edit sounds very clever though and probably mitigates it a lot. Unfortunately, in the UK we generally don't have any of that. As far as I know the only working moving block system we have right now is the DLR with sections of other London lines moving onto something similar soon. Incidentally, we tried to introduce it on the nation's busiest mainline (along with upgrading the maximum speed to 140mph.) Unfortunately, it was a massive failure.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2012 18:35
|
|
|
Jonnty posted:That still has to have an impact on journey times though right? All that stuff you mentioned in the edit sounds very clever though and probably mitigates it a lot. Unfortunately, in the UK we generally don't have any of that. As far as I know the only working moving block system we have right now is the DLR with sections of other London lines moving onto something similar soon. Incidentally, we tried to introduce it on the nation's busiest mainline (along with upgrading the maximum speed to 140mph.) Unfortunately, it was a massive failure. Of course, mixed traffic is a whole different ballgame. For safety reasons, bus block isn't enforced at the vehicle level - all it takes is one driver not paying attention to the signals to cause bunching. And it's next to impossible to pin that on a driver, because personal vehicles and traffic signals are part of the equation Varance fucked around with this message at 19:06 on Sep 15, 2012 |
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2012 18:41
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:Subway network design As far as building connections between major destinations is concerned, which ones are prioritized? The central business district seems like an obvious place to start, but what about connections to the airport? The train station? Major suburbs? Universities? Areas that the city is looking to redevelop?
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2012 02:56
|
|
|
Hedera Helix posted:As far as building connections between major destinations is concerned, which ones are prioritized? The central business district seems like an obvious place to start, but what about connections to the airport? The train station? Major suburbs? Universities? Areas that the city is looking to redevelop? I'm sure there are a lot of schools of thought on the matter, but I'd probably start by trying to serve the biggest number of trips possible. If you're looking to minimize operating losses, you might try targeting mainly high-income neighborhoods. If you're looking to provide mobility to disadvantaged groups, you'd do the opposite. Universities are great anchors for any transit system; look at the T in Boston to see how many stops it devotes to the colleges there. As for the train station and airport, those are key to developing a solid multimodal network. If you don't connect them, then your subways are mostly useless, as most trips will still need to use a motor vehicle at some point. Commuter rail should link solidly to your subway lines, or act as an extension of them. For suburbs, that really depends on the situation. For a city like Phoenix, it won't be remotely cost-effective, because the densities are low and the distances are high. For something like NYC, on the other hand, connecting all the boroughs via subway is a necessity. You could use the Parisian model, where the suburbs are all linked, but at higher fares than in-town trips. And your last category, urban renewal, can be a mixed bag. If the TODs show up, you've got a great system, but that can also end up with abandoned stations or a zone of perpetual construction if the development doesn't work out. So, in conclusion, if you're going to build a subway network, make sure to hit all those big intermodal hubs within the area, and cover as many trips as you can. The rest is up to the designer. Cichlidae fucked around with this message at 03:11 on Sep 16, 2012 |
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2012 03:05
|
|
|
How many truly designed HRT networks do we have in America? Atlanta and Washington are the only that come to mind. Most of the cities on the east were privately built 100 years ago, same with Chicago and San Francisco. So while it's an interesting thought exercise and ends up not being very relevant. The way most everything in the US is funded is that the federal government pays at most 50% (as opposed to 80%-90% for some highway projects). To get that money there are requirements you have to meet for the FTA, and the biggest is that you're project is below a certain Cost Effectiveness Index (CEI). I'm a bit saddened that there's no wikipedia page on it, but there's a page that describes it fairly well: http://www.americandreamcoalition.org/transit/ftanewrider.html The only part that's important is this: quote:incremental cost divided by transportation system user benefits So basically this is putting an emphasis on new riders, and those new riders are generally in the suburbs. Looking at the possibility of new lines, I don't really agree with the analysis (though those all make sense in terms of human sanity). I think the blue line that goes purely through the low density suburbs is a pipe dream. I think what might be likely is the green line between the stadium and CBD, and possibly a stub to the airport (which, if that was all that existed, might be run as a single line, though that might require extra tunneling and switching in the core). The blue line between the stadium and CBD doesn't provide much extra service or attract new riders, just improves existing green line service, so I'm doubtful that would ever be built in our current climate. To attract new riders, the green line to the west is fairly likely, though it might be built such that there are level street crossings (is this even done anywhere with HRT?). The red line makes too much sense, so I don't think it would every be built. The blue line might make it to the point where the red and blue intersect in the suburbs, and maybe a LRT would replace the red line between the blue and green line (and the eastern leg wouldn't be built, because the eastern green line wouldn't ever be built). I think overall we'd see a lot more of this replaced with LRT or other modes rather than HRT. That business corridor to the far west may be nearly as dense as the CBD and that second business core on the coast, but since it was built around a freeway, it'll be too sprawling in its current form to be served by something as intense as a subway, LRT or BRT are far more likely there, which would transform that area in the long term (though funding wouldn't take into account that possibility). The yellow line and green line east of the CBD would be great for bringing residential into what is probably a dying industrial area, but transit funding doesn't do that, so those won't be built. With nothing for the eastern red line to connect to, it would never be built, except maybe as higher frequency bus route to provide service to those commercial areas. tl;dr: Ugh, that's a lot of words about pessimism. The good news is that the funding formulas may be changing, to account for things like improved mobility for existing transit passengers and potential for economic development.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2012 05:08
|
|
|
FISHMANPET posted:How many truly designed HRT networks do we have in America? Atlanta and Washington are the only that come to mind. Most of the cities on the east were privately built 100 years ago, same with Chicago and San Francisco. So while it's an interesting thought exercise and ends up not being very relevant. Man, you can tell I spend too much in trans-related discussions that I misread that as "hormone replacement therapy". Anyway, I love reading this thread Cichladae. One of my friends did her degree in geography and transport studies and it's really fun to discuss with her transport-related stuff. I find this sort of stuff interesting but I don't know if I could ever properly do it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2012 05:42
|
|
|
Ask me about being a TRANSportation engineer.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2012 06:15
|
|
|
grover posted:How does the Tokyo subway deal with delays on their Oedo Line loop? I've ridden it many times (always the eastern half) and always thought it continued in a loop at Tochomae, but now I'm wondering. Here's a picture of the marquee and people waiting: 
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2012 07:02
|
|
|
FISHMANPET posted:How many truly designed HRT networks do we have in America? Atlanta and Washington are the only that come to mind. Most of the cities on the east were privately built 100 years ago, same with Chicago and San Francisco. So while it's an interesting thought exercise and ends up not being very relevant. Boston Orange Line: Originally a streetcar to HRT conversion. Approx 70% or so of the post-conversion line was later demolished from the 1970s onward and rebuilt specifically for HRT along new alignments. Boston Red Line: Privately-built HRT absorbed into a state agency and expanded along new ROWs on both ends. LA Red Line: HRT from Day 1.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2012 08:47
|
|
|
mamosodiumku posted:When I was in japan, they just let the trains run late. A train was 20 min late on the Osaka loop line when I went. The station staff made an announcement about this then updated the marquee to say how late the train would be. Those signs are invaluable. I really wish I'd had one when the aforementioned Boston Red Line was half an hour late (and then broke down so we had to walk 2 miles), and I ended up getting to a Blue Man Group show late. Do you know what Blue Man Group does when someone comes in late? Having electronic signs dramatically cuts the perceived wait time, and lets people plan ahead. They're useful for construction, too; I put them on one of my recent projects. The heavy construction is done, but if you visit http://arrigonibridge.com/ in the next month or so, you can see all the infrastructure we installed to monitor traffic and get that information to motorists. Those signs will stay blank until there's delay, so don't expect to see a message.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2012 15:14
|
|
|
Crackpipe posted:Boston Orange Line: Originally a streetcar to HRT conversion. Approx 70% or so of the post-conversion line was later demolished from the 1970s onward and rebuilt specifically for HRT along new alignments. Those aren't really systems. In Boston those were both privately built, which means they weren't really designed in any sense other than to make money. LA is basically just one line, not a system, pretty much proving my point.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2012 17:10
|
|
|
I'm having a hell of a time trying to search for the meaning of HRT from this context, it pretty much just brings up stuff like Hampton Roads Transit. What's it mean?
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2012 17:17
|
|
|
HRT = Heavy Rail Transit. Electrified systems that use railway-style vehicles, usually with a third rail. NYC Subway, DC Metro, Miami Metrorail, Chicago L, etc. In addition, NYC's Metro-North and LIRR commuter lines are commonly (but not exclusively) HRT. North American cities are in general not dense enough to support heavy rail - bottom line. The short list is NYC, LA, Miami, San Francisco, Boston, Philly, Chicago, Washington DC, Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver, Guadalajara and Mexico City. Everywhere else, you'd be better off designing LRT - lower cost, lower capacity rail that can be run out into the sprawl for the same cost as a city limits-only heavy system. Baltimore is a good example of overbuilding, as any extension of the green line is likely going to result in a partial or whole conversion from HRT to LRT due to ridership not justifying more heavy rail. Varance fucked around with this message at 18:12 on Sep 16, 2012 |
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2012 17:32
|
|
|
I'm using it in this sense: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passenger_rail_terminology#Heavy_rail Also known as rapid transit, but I was always taught to call it Heavy Rail Transit rather than rapid transit.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2012 18:10
|
|
|
In that case I'd say at least the former IND portions of the NYC Subway count as designed HRT; being always city owned and city designed. And certain portions of the former IRT and BMT segments may count because of being built by city government orders; although operated and built by the private companies for about 20 years or less. I've always seen HRT referred to as just rapid transit or metro, and light rapid transit be referred to as "premetro" or simply not given a name distinct from plain light rail.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2012 18:51
|
|
|
Install Gentoo posted:I've always seen HRT referred to as just rapid transit or metro, and light rapid transit be referred to as "premetro" or simply not given a name distinct from plain light rail. Historically, light rail precedes heavy rail, hence premetro. Not true everywhere thanks to the "Great American Streetcar Scandal," but the subways in Toronto, Montreal, New York City, etc. started out as streetcar/interurban lines. About half of the NA metros were indeed built by for-profit companies, either as private ventures or 3Ps. Even Vancouver's Skytrain falls into that latter category (built/operated by the for-profit Translink in partnership with BC Transit). Edit: I forgot to mention Atlanta in the previous post. MARTA is way overbuilt, just like the Baltimore green line. And the "rich" counties of the Atlanta metro area don't see the need for such a system - in other words, they don't want "Moving African-Americans Rapidly Through Atlanta" pulling down their property values. Southern racism at its finest. Varance fucked around with this message at 19:36 on Sep 16, 2012 |
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2012 19:19
|
|
|
I guess the broad point I'm trying to make that while designing a rapid transit/heavy rail transit network (I don't want to call it a subway because it'll probably be elevated outside the core like the Silver Line in DC) from scratch is fun exercise, it's not really useful anywhere in North America or Europe because the places that can support that level of transit already have it, and it'll be awhile before any cities intensify enough to warrant a brand new line. And even then if it would just be a single starter line that would transfer to light rail rather than an entire heavy network (the way LA and east coast cities that aren't NYC are doing). I don't know if we'll see any major new subway construction in our lifetimes, unless something seriously changes, either tunneling becomes a lot cheaper, or some peak oil stuff happens and city population and construction surges.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2012 19:58
|
|
|
FISHMANPET posted:I guess the broad point I'm trying to make that while designing a rapid transit/heavy rail transit network (I don't want to call it a subway because it'll probably be elevated outside the core like the Silver Line in DC) from scratch is fun exercise, it's not really useful anywhere in North America or Europe because the places that can support that level of transit already have it, and it'll be awhile before any cities intensify enough to warrant a brand new line. And even then if it would just be a single starter line that would transfer to light rail rather than an entire heavy network (the way LA and east coast cities that aren't NYC are doing). Edit: working right now, will post more later. Varance fucked around with this message at 21:47 on Sep 16, 2012 |
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2012 21:21
|
|
|
FISHMANPET posted:I don't know if we'll see any major new subway construction in our lifetimes, unless something seriously changes, either tunneling becomes a lot cheaper, or some peak oil stuff happens and city population and construction surges. London's building Crossrail and heavily upgrading Thameslink - do they count?
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2012 21:30
|
|
|
A little something for the public transport geeks in here, courtesy of the Danish "Midttrafik". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=snKbU5r0pBo
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2012 21:30
|
|
|
Jonnty posted:London's building Crossrail and heavily upgrading Thameslink - do they count? No, because every time I said line I meant system. London is just expanding their existing system. New York City is doing the same, as is Washington DC (though most of it is above ground). LA is trying to build a subway extension, and I think San Francisco may as well. But I don't think we'll be seeing anything new in places that don't already subways. I'll agree with Varance that any brand new construction will at best be underground LRT (so that it can cheaply be run out to the suburbs) and even expansions of existing cities will be like this (Washington DC and NYC are both looking at light rail).
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2012 21:46
|
|
|
FISHMANPET posted:I don't know if we'll see any major new subway construction in our lifetimes, unless something seriously changes, either tunneling becomes a lot cheaper, or some peak oil stuff happens and city population and construction surges. We've probably already hit peak oil, at least as far as conventional oil goes. These next ten years are going to be extremely rocky. Even when you consider unconventional oil, which is pretty much a Faustian bargain, urban density and the need for transit will skyrocket sometime in the near future. Hippie Hedgehog posted:A little something for the public transport geeks in here, courtesy of the Danish "Midttrafik". This is amazing! Thanks for sharing
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2012 22:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 03:09 |
|
|
Cichlidae posted:We've probably already hit peak oil, at least as far as conventional oil goes. These next ten years are going to be extremely rocky. Even when you consider unconventional oil, which is pretty much a Faustian bargain, urban density and the need for transit will skyrocket sometime in the near future. On the subject of rising oil prices, I'm curious what this means for mass transit per se. Right now, I ride commuter rail into Newark on a diesel engine; the route I take (Raritan Valley Line) isn't electrified. If we continue to see rising oil prices, I'm assuming that we'll see significant investments in mass transit, but I'm curious what form that will take. Will we be expanding busing, despite the gas prices? Will we electrify existing tracks where possible at an accelerated pace? Will we expand our light rail? Or will things get worse; rising gas prices raises the prices of construction, causing improvements and new projects to be cancelled as "temporary" cost saving measures while things implode, fares rise on existing lines as ridership increases, lines are cancelled due to no longer being remotely feasible despite high demand?
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2012 23:13
|
|