|
kefkafloyd posted:Man, I would have loved to have picked his brain. Talk about rad stories. Yeah, even until the end he was very lucid. We talked in depth about the design of the inner belt when he was on his death bed. He said that the big dig would have just been a teardown project and boulevard if the inner belt had been built. As he explained it, the biggest challenge was the number of left turns off of the ramps even with the relatively low 1960s volume projections. The off ramps simply didn't have enough capacity. kefkafloyd posted:
Cichlidae posted:
He was also involved with Connecticut infrastructure. I'm not sure to what degree, but my mom was born there in 1961 during much of the planning for work that was never completed. If the highway revolts hadn't happened I think that Boston as a region would be much more cohesive without a lot of the provincialism that continues to this day. Brookline, Somerville, Medford, and many of the other inner belt cities, towns, and neighborhoods would be a quick drive instead of 30+ minutes away from eachother. The gentrification of much of the city would have happened decades earlier because the north end wouldn't have been pocketed off, reverse commutes would have been possible sooner, etc. A lot of people don't discuss it, but there were massive proposals to expand public transit with the highways. The red line I believe was going to go out to Lexington, and orange line would have had park and rides out at 128 both north and south of Boston. Again, more and easier transportaion in the region would absolutely have created a more cohesive region. I have a physical copy of these books. I bought them at a rare bookstore for about $150 or so. They are really awesome to look at: https://archive.org/details/innerbeltexpress00mass https://archive.org/details/masterhighwaypla00char There's also a 1968 Recommended Highway and Transit Plan that had a ton of more proposed roads, but it never gets much attention. Here are pictures I took at the MA Transportation Library https://plus.google.com/photos/112423049425522620880/albums/5693120183953497265?authkey=CMm9pNLmqbj5gAE
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2016 23:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 10:37 |
|
|
Speaking of Melbourne, the design for elevated rail and level crossing removal on one (two) trainlines came out today. 50 level crossings around Melbourne earmarked for removal, no priority listing on this map (blue circles are the names (and terminus) of the trainlines):  List of crossings on the Level Crossing Removal Authority website with information for each project: http://levelcrossings.vic.gov.au/crossings quote:Over the next eight years the Level Crossing Removal Authority will oversee the removal of 50 dangerous and congested level crossings across Melbourne. I live nearby one of the segments and I much prefer the elevated proposal, better use of land at ground level (bike paths etc) and it doesn't cut suburbs in half with a trench with limited crossing points. A few locals are all up in arms about the 'skytrain' because noise and views and whatever, although it should be quieter than a trench option anyway. They've come out saying increased crime, devalued housing along the trainline etc. All the usual arguments. This major project will remove 9 level crossings on the busiest train line and they'll leave room in the design for extra tracks, as the line has had quadruplication proposals for decades for express trains, plus if a proposed new port is to be built to the east this line will require four tracks for the extra freight trains. Not to mention the currently under design & geo-technical survey of the Melbourne Metro Tunnel in the city will feed trains onto these two trainlines, with longer trains running & terminating at Oakleigh Station. I really like the design of the stations too, although I hope proper plans are released soon. Animation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYT5F-gcr40 Proposed design website with pictures for all 9 crossing locations: http://levelcrossings.vic.gov.au/news/proposed-designs-unveiled-for-caulfield-to-dandenong-corridor No ground work has been done at any of these locations (no geotechnical drilling anyway) and they aim to have it completed in two years, big challenge. Although I suspect it'll be completing the elevation sections and then another year of pulling up the older tracks and constructing the bike paths and 'gardens' underneath the length of the elevated sections.  This was an early proposal, split, Road under rail, while still having the 'service' lanes in shopping strips as not to block off shopfronts from the road. It was panned quickly and never really considered. http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/vicroads-kos-lite-rail-changes-on-dandenong-line-20140515-38cws.html#ixzz31obaXpnI  Then community consultation began after this proposal was released. Trenching the crossings and building stations ontop, although the trains would be going up and down between some stations as there would be multiple trenches, not entire segments.  The current state government came to power campaigning to removing 50 level crossings by 2022. One already funded level crossing was removed over the past year and opened last month which counted as the first of 50 to go. Burke Road, Glen Iris: This one was needed and could have been done in the 90s when the Monash Fwy was grade separated, but they left the trainline crossing the road instead of an easy fix back then. It was finally removed and opened to traffic mid January 2016. https://www.google.com.au/maps/@-37.8528529,145.0521446,303m/data=!3m1!1e3 Pre removal:   Post:  Timelapse of removal: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJy-76z0T4g There are three other crossings on another line that are being worked on now. They are all rail under road and quite near eachother, all requiring station rebuilds. I'll post about them later though. And 9 all up that are under construction/in preparation already, with these new 9 crossings at tender. http://levelcrossings.vic.gov.au/crossings
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2016 07:18
|
|
|
Kahta posted:I have a physical copy of these books. I bought them at a rare bookstore for about $150 or so. They are really awesome to look at: These ARE awesome, thanks! The more things change, the more they stay the same. This is funny because it's exactly what I spent half of Thursday doing: picking out zones for O-D analysis.  Except back then, they actually stopped cars and asked them about their travel habits. Today, we just buy their cellphone data. Here's their travel demand modeling process:  We don't use punchcards anymore, and most of this is automated, but it's pretty similar. But a lot has changed.  We don't have this kind of stylism anymore, which is too bad. I think it's classy as heck.  And we don't design interchanges like this anymore, thank gently caress. This is the Mass Pike in Kenmore, AKA right next to Fenway Park (The Green Diamond, for those of you who play Fallout 4). Can you imagine the weaves?!
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2016 15:14
|
|
|
I'm really interested in how the straightening out of the MassPike through Allston is going to go down, now that the big CSX rail yard is completely shut down. For those who aren't familiar with the area, you can see how the pike kinda domes out to go around the perimeter of the railyard currently: And I wonder if they're going to be able to make a more sensible ramp layout for the interchange there.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2016 16:43
|
|
|
fishmech posted:I'm really interested in how the straightening out of the MassPike through Allston is going to go down, now that the big CSX rail yard is completely shut down. For those who aren't familiar with the area, you can see how the pike kinda domes out to go around the perimeter of the railyard currently: Ahh, we talked about that four years ago. I came up with something pretty sensible. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2016 17:13
|
|
|
Directly linking Soldiers Field Road/Storrow Drive to the MassPike for all directions of travel is an interesting proposition, but I wonder whether that would overall worsen or better traffic most of the day. It'd obviously take a sizable amount of traffic off of Cambridge St that currently uses it to get between the two roads, but I wonder on ramp delays that might back up to the main roads.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2016 17:27
|
|
|
Unfortunately, even though the rail yard is going away, there's going to be a new West Station built there, as well as some other developments. Not all that area may be usable to reconfigure the highway. With the elimination of cash tolls coming next year (Mass. is installing AET equipment in 2016, to go live in 2017), the movements can be greatly simplified. The toll barriers will be gone, and there will be two mainline readers in that area, one in Allston and the other in Brightron. Plus a new reader is going in Newtonville,b ringing tolls back inbetween exits 16 and 17. http://www.massdotinnovation.com/Pdfs/Session1D-AllElectronicTolling.pdf
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2016 18:37
|
|
|
Here's a dude that has some information about (including his own suggestions for) replacing the Allston viaduct. http://amateurplanner.blogspot.com/2015/07/what-if-allston-viaduct-was-rebuilt.html
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2016 21:33
|
|
|
Interesting proposal. I really like it a lot. But what about Amtrak and MBTA trains that need to make movements from South Station to North Station? Currently, trains that have to move between North and South Station have to make a series of complex moves to go from the Worcester mainline to Grand Junction to head to North Station. Any future reconfiguration of that area needs to allow for an easier movement between the Worcester tracks and the Grand Junction tracks, because the N-S Rail Link has about .001% chance of happening.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2016 22:47
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:These ARE awesome, thanks! The more things change, the more they stay the same. You're welcome. Also, insanely low traffic estimates.... Was this ever mentioned in the thread? http://www.thesunchronicle.com/vip/opinion/bureaucracy-run-amok-on-route-in-plainville/article_70cd0e9f-d7bd-50a8-b1ed-8edca784ce6a.html plainville-town-official-says-new-bike-lane-is-unsafe I can't imagine a worse place for bikes than on Route 1 right next to 495.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 03:16
|
|
|
Is there at least going to be a rumble strip between the bike lane and traffic? Are there no other parallel routes? It is not that uncommon to have half assed bike routes where there are no frontage streets. The highway 12 update in California between Fairfield and Napa included bike lane paint. But to get to the bike lane you have to make a left turn across a steady stream of traffic traveling 70mph without any sort of signal. CopperHound fucked around with this message at 13:59 on Feb 8, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 13:53
|
|
|
https://nextcity.org/daily/entry/st.-louis-painted-crosswalks-violate-federal-guidelines This is ridiculous, specially since marked crosswalks are mostly decorative to begin with.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 23:26
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:https://nextcity.org/daily/entry/st.-louis-painted-crosswalks-violate-federal-guidelines Truly the hottest take People ignore yield signs, let's ignore the MUTCD on those too
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 23:35
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:https://nextcity.org/daily/entry/st.-louis-painted-crosswalks-violate-federal-guidelines Saint Louis messed up. They should've made the white stringers retroreflective and left the rest matte, and they'd have had a fair shot at keeping their custom markings. If it's not retroreflective, you can argue that it's not a traffic control device, and therefore not subject to the MUTCD.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 00:12
|
|
|
We've got a bunch of these where I live. Same standard white bars on the outside, then decorative stuff in the middle. It's just a 100% normal crosswalk with maybe some rainbows or stencil work on the inside.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 00:28
|
|
|
Kahta posted:
Finally had a chance to look through this. Never heard of that proposed middle circumferential highway. Whoever proposed that was really smoking one, since it goes right through Weston and a bunch of other super rich suburbs. Even in the 60s they were admitting that 128 would be inadequate no matter how much they widened it and that a second highway was a solution. You wonder what 128 could have been if it had local/express splits. "Since eight lanes is presently thought to be the maximum width of an expressway"  The extra spurs are interesting, none of them were built. Looking at the list of projects and proposals, there's a whole lot of things that keep coming around again. The Woonsocket connector wound up being built as 295. Some good reading material here. Edit: also the first time that I've seen actual drawings for where the Route 3 extension to Arlington would have gone. Imagine the traffic nightmare that the merge onto route 2 would have been! kefkafloyd fucked around with this message at 02:28 on Feb 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 01:47
|
|
|
CopperHound posted:Is there at least going to be a rumble strip between the bike lane and traffic? Are there no other parallel routes? It is not that uncommon to have half assed bike routes where there are no frontage streets. I've been planning a sacramento-napa ride and google maps wanted to route me through hwy 12. (Strava was smarter). Looked at that and said gently caress no. It does look like there is some bike path coming off the side streets to go west and there is a big loop via red top you could take. But seriously, they might as well have put a sign up that says "gently caress you bikers." That would be extremely miserable. Even a lovely separated bikeway (see: yolo causeway) would be a million times better. I'm 99% sure that the average planner here (CA) has never ridden a bike on a street and thinks "I put a bike lane there, problem solved."
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 03:47
|
|
|
Does it seem strange to anyone else that the project's lead traffic engineer has no say in the width of lanes, the design of bike and ped facilities, or the design speed of a roadway? The going philosophy is to design all the (downtown urban) roads for 35mph with big curves and 11-12' lanes. Why's that? Because that's what the DOT highway design manual says. It hasn't been updated in ages, and it's not legally binding, but sure, let's just follow it blindly. I wanted 10' lanes (Hartford already has tons of 9' lanes, so it's not a stretch) to slow traffic and reduce crossing distances, as well as make room for bike paths, but nope! Gotta take those extra 5 feet because the book says so. And then they say they're going to put in traffic calming everywhere so cars don't drive 35. What's the loving point? Why don't you just design for 20 in the first place? It makes your job EASIER! Hell, design for 25 and I'll put in 10' lanes and everyone will drive 20. Then you don't need street trees or speed bumps or on-street parking (yes, they're really going to put in unneeded on-street parking as a traffic calming measure) or anything else that endangers motorists and bicyclists and emergency vehicles. But nope, gotta blindly follow the book, because that's all we've done for the last 70 years, and that's all we know how to do. Cichlidae fucked around with this message at 22:35 on Feb 12, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2016 22:32
|
|
|
But but what if you put in 10' lanes instead of 12' and there's an accident and someone somewhere says it was because the lanes were narrow. What if there's legal action or even the threat of it? What if change scares someone ? Why change, change is scary and opens us up to risk.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2016 22:40
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:But but what if you put in 10' lanes instead of 12' and there's an accident and someone somewhere says it was because the lanes were narrow. What if there's legal action or even the threat of it? What if change scares someone ? Why change, change is scary and opens us up to risk. I know you're being facetious, but I'd legit stake my career on it. I just don't get the chance. Watch, the year it's complete, the State is going to come up with revisions to the HDM and push narrow lanes and low design speeds.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2016 22:43
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:I know you're being facetious, but I'd legit stake my career on it. I just don't get the chance. Watch, the year it's complete, the State is going to come up with revisions to the HDM and push narrow lanes and low design speeds. I think the problem is most of the very very very many people all these projects pass through do not have the passion you have. They are the worst engineer stereotype that just wants to look up a number in a table in a book without any thought as to how that table was generated, or the context. Lanes should be 12' because it says so on this table. Any thought beyond that is dangerous thinking. Going outside those sacred tables gets people killed or worse, opens your department or career up to risks. And the fact that you're not just a mindless table-reading drone and actually understand the long term effects of your work and why things need to change is what probably pushes you to hopeless depression at your job  I know it sounds dramatic, but I think history will look at those of you who pushed for important change within these massive stubborn organizations in a very positive light and appreciate the maddening kafka-esq nightmare of rigid institutional idiocy you'd come up against every day. Or you know, minor enemy agitators that were fruitlessly trying to destroy america via agenda 21 but were stopped by the bible-like infallibility of the highway code manual and patriot-engineers that had faith in its holy tables.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2016 22:56
|
|
|
Speed bumps on a bike are also loving bullshit. One street I take has these bullshit plastic speed bumps that taper off in the bike lane. So I can either go into the traffic lane and use the annoying speed bumps, go on the slanted part and risk falling, or slow the gently caress down and thread the tiny part without speed bumps.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2016 23:25
|
|
|
nm posted:One street I take has these bullshit plastic speed bumps that taper off in the bike lane. Are they those ones that are flat on top and about 2ish feet wide? I hate those ones, they drat near break your back if you aren't doing about 10. e: sort of like a tiny speed table
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2016 00:33
|
|
|
sleepy.eyes posted:Are they those ones that are flat on top and about 2ish feet wide? I hate those ones, they drat near break your back if you aren't doing about 10. I think so (though maybe a foot wide?). If I was riding a full squish mtb I'd try to use them as jumps, but no bueno on the road bike.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2016 00:38
|
|
|
In Amsterdam I ran into this nonsense: https://goo.gl/maps/6tfUphBweHG2 They're hardly visible in the dark, and they didn't put up any warning sign. On a bike, these basically launch you at any speed. Why? And further down the same street there are beautiful speed bumps that cars can't pass at over 15 mph, but bikes have no problem with even at higher speeds... How they managed to get that through in such a bike-friendly country, I have no idea. While you can somewhat avoid these, more recently they placed another one right at the underpass further ahead in the picture, which is pretty much unavoidable on a bike. Entropist fucked around with this message at 03:24 on Feb 13, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2016 03:22
|
|
|
As a car driver (and not a bicyclist) the speed bumps that really irritate me are the ones that have gaps in the middle of them. I can understand having gaps for water, or gaps near the curb/in the bike lane for bikes but these are a series of 5-7 humps across the road (often in a "square" shape with flat tops in my experience). They always seem spaced just wide enough apart that I can never get across them comfortably. Any way I hit them it just feels weird as my car drives over at an angle.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2016 03:36
|
|
|
I think those are for busses and fire trucks. They have a lot of ground clearance, so they can clear the bump but a lot of overhang, so they'd scrape if with a high entry\approach angle. They also have wider tracks than cars.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2016 05:08
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:Does it seem strange to anyone else that the project's lead traffic engineer has no say in the width of lanes, the design of bike and ped facilities, or the design speed of a roadway? No one ever got yelled at for following the status quo. And once you've built the curbs for 10-foot lanes, you're hosed if you need to add a bus route later, or you have sideswipe crashes from trucks or any of a ton of other things that are all running through their head. I assume your department has the same dichotomy between traffic (the vehicle volumes, number of lanes, signals, signage and pavement markings) and roadway (typical sections, plus everything else, and coordinates all the other disciplines). And for us, no, the traffic engineers have never tried to weigh in on typical section issues. If one of them did raise it as an issue, we'd consider it and then do what we wanted to do anyway. I mean, we're all engineers on our teams, but it's very unusual for someone to make a strenuous argument outside their silo, and we would take it with a grain of salt if they did.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2016 14:43
|
|
|
Devor posted:No one ever got yelled at for following the status quo. And once you've built the curbs for 10-foot lanes, you're hosed if you need to add a bus route later, or you have sideswipe crashes from trucks or any of a ton of other things that are all running through their head. I'm glad to know it's not just my situation then. I mean, I have a PE in transportation engineering as a whole, I'd be just as qualified as a highway engineer, but I don't have the experience they do. I don't think anyone's brought up the bus route thing, though; that would legitimately be a problem in many cases here. I'm not sure how they handle the 9' lanes currently. Could be worse, I guess - the Kane Street station on the Busway was designed with 7' bus pull-outs 
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2016 15:33
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:I'm glad to know it's not just my situation then. I mean, I have a PE in transportation engineering as a whole, I'd be just as qualified as a highway engineer, but I don't have the experience they do. I don't think anyone's brought up the bus route thing, though; that would legitimately be a problem in many cases here. I'm not sure how they handle the 9' lanes currently. Could be worse, I guess - the Kane Street station on the Busway was designed with 7' bus pull-outs If it's a four lane road with narrow lanes, buses probably straddle the dashed white line and stress a bit watching their side mirrors for the inevitable car that just has to go fast on this narrow stretch of downtown road. Speaking of narrow lanes, I would like to make a request that left turn lanes not be made significantly narrower on busy arteries. Trying to make a left while watching your right mirror so your tailswing doesn't collide with another vehicle because you only just fit in the turn lane is not an amusing experience.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2016 18:30
|
|
|
Entropist posted:In Amsterdam I ran into this nonsense: https://goo.gl/maps/6tfUphBweHG2 There's a warning sign at both ends of the road that indicates there are three speed bumps ahead. It's a cheap alternative to putting in a full speed bump (like further down the road). And it looks like you can just cycle past it on the side?
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2016 19:12
|
|
|
Speaking of the US being way behind the curve on things strictly due to stubborn traditionalism http://www.slate.com/articles/business/metropolis/2016/02/subways_should_have_open_gangway_cars_why_does_the_u_s_resist_it.html I've never ridden a metro in the US, I had no idea they still used cars like that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2016 20:46
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:Speaking of the US being way behind the curve on things strictly due to stubborn traditionalism You had no idea cars that are like the vast majority of in-use rapid transit cars globally are still used? Really?
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2016 20:53
|
|
|
Yeah, about 75% of the metro system I've been on were just like huge open tubes you could freely walk from one end of the other. I'm sure old systems might use it, but it seems weird to outright resist whats become a new standard.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2016 21:00
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:Yeah, about 75% of the metro system I've been on were just like huge open tubes you could freely walk from one end of the other. I'm sure old systems might use it, but it seems weird to outright resist whats become a new standard. Those things are a minority as far as actual in-use rolling stock goes worldwide. They tended to be popular for a short time in the past in flimsy forms that got removed in favor of self-contained cars around the same time other systems were moving from wooden cars to full metal/plastic for safety, and they've only slowly come back in newer forms. And I don't really see any resistance to using them, just the fact that no transit system has gobs of money to spend, and they often have to get their build orders going years or decades in advance of when the delivery will finish. Plus there's no guarantee that common designs already implemented elsewhere will work in a given system's constraints. Many systems have also only recently switched to running full-length consists throughout the service day, which means less need to split up consists - for obvious reasons you can't split up a complete through-hall train for revenue service. fishmech fucked around with this message at 21:11 on Feb 13, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2016 21:08
|
|
|
Not quite traffic engineering, but bridge engineering is close, right?  See the far left of this bridge? Why would they end it so abruptly, rather than bringing the truss back to the road deck level? It seems like it would both be stronger and more aesthetically pleasing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 21:43
|
|
|
So the Cape Cod Traffic Plan is this never-actually-tested-in-real-life traffic plan that can turn the upper end of Cape Cod into a thunderdome-esque disaster. It's not an evacuation plan because that would be about the worst thing possible and I think folks would just rather pretend that evacuation would never happen. Well somebody finally realized that maybe it's not ideal so they brought in an outside firm to re-do the whole thing. For a while they threw counterflow around, but I wonder if they'll go back to it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 23:06
|
|
|
The thing with open gangway cars, they *are* used all over the place, but they still tend to be split into 2 or 3 consists for maintenance purposes (you don't need 4-6 car trains on a Sunday in most North American cities, ridership is typically 1/3 of a weekday). For example, LA Metro's LRT stock is open gangway in married pairs and has been since day one. Most airports that have moved to crystal movers also run open gangway rolling stock these days. The numbers are heavily skewed in the US because the majority of the country's rolling stock belongs to agencies like WMATA, SEPTA, MARTA, NYCMTA and CTA, which are indeed stuck in the past. Edit: The other problem with long permanently married pairs, which holds said agencies back, is that you need specialized maintenance facilities to maintain them. Some designs, you have to lift the entire 500+ foot long consist to perform maintenance. If you're building or retrofitting a maintenance facility to deal with that, you'll be asking the Feds for a large capital grant - and they won't give you poo poo if your current maintenance arrangements are working just fine. This is also why many mid-sized agencies that desperately need 60 foot articulated buses, like the one I work for, don't have them. Facilities need to be modified to handle them, but there's no money to do it. Varance fucked around with this message at 23:34 on Feb 14, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 23:07
|
|
|
Counting light rail vehicles as open gangway in this sense seems like a bit of a stretch. Like sure, the Green Line cars here in Boston are open from front to back through the articulation, but you can't walk between the two or three separate vehicles in a consist, and each vehicle's just 74 feet long from front to back. Some of the single subway cars in NYC are 75 feet long, and even the Red Line cars in Boston are 69.5 feet long. Looking at the LA Gold Line cars for instance, sure, they're 90 feet long for each vehicle, but you can't walk through the whole ~180 foot train. And that's like 3 typical subway system cars.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 23:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 10:37 |
|
|
fishmech posted:Counting light rail vehicles as open gangway in this sense seems like a bit of a stretch. Like sure, the Green Line cars here in Boston are open from front to back through the articulation, but you can't walk between the two or three separate vehicles in a consist, and each vehicle's just 74 feet long from front to back. Some of the single subway cars in NYC are 75 feet long, and even the Red Line cars in Boston are 69.5 feet long. With how little FTA is willing/able to fund, that's the best we're going to get for a while in this country.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 23:50
|
|