![]() | Big NYC Sustainability Plan Announced | The Oil Drum: Local | Integrating Energy, Transportation and Land Use | ![]() |
31 comments on Thinking Politics on Congestion Pricing
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
31 comments on Thinking Politics on Congestion Pricing
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Blogroll
NY Blogs
- Gothamist
- Starts & Fits
- Aaron Naparstek
- Baloghblog
- One Atlantic
- bikeblog
- Curbed
- Urban Digs
- OnNYTurf
- Daily Gotham
- StreetsBlog
Local Organizations
- NYC Peak Oil Meet-up
- Peak Oil NYC
- Transportation Alternatives
- Time's Up
- Straphanger's Campaign
- Regional Plan Association
- Green Homes NYC
- Tri-State Transportation Campaign
- Harbor Rail Tunnel
- Auto Free NY
- Walk NY
- Bridge Tolls Advocacy
- Vision 42nd Street
- Car Free
- Right of Way
- Upper Green Side
Local Media
National Peak Oil Sites
Webrings
|
|
|
|
User login
Personnel
Classic posts
Archives
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
- February 2006
- January 2006
- December 2005
- November 2005
- October 2005
- September 2005
PONYC Archives
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.




GAIA Host Collective
I suspect the labour unions issues with the New York subway would need to be fixed as well, to meaningfully increase the thruput without a big expansion of cost.
The real problem has been that the MTA hasn't been willing to either adjust the signal system to allow faster speeds, or install a normal ATC system of the kind that, say, the LIRR has. Instead what they had was CBTC, which is all fancy and computer controlled and works by radio, and they're going to put it in service on the L train sometime in Spring 2005. Which came and went with no CBTC. And the MTA just doesn't seem to realize that running trains faster is possible, or that it is useful and important both for increased productivity and making the system a more attractive option. Oh, and if you want to see trains that go fast, just take a trip to Philadelphia. Ride the Broad Street Subway, especially the express, and the Market-Frankford El, and if you have time, PATCO and the Norristown line are also worthwhile. The subway and PATCO has a speed limit of 70, and the El gets up to 40mph between 11th and 13th street station. For comparison, the typical NYC subway express train on level track can get up to 35-40 mph depending on the train and how long it has to accelerate, and local trains can hit 30 right before starting to brake coming into a station.
The Jubilee Line extension was supposed to be on a 'moving block' signalling system, rather than the 'fixed block' that the Victorians invented. The software never worked properly.
Based on the British experience, the safety cost of one bad accident, in terms of what the rest of the network is forced to spend, is so large that I can understand why operators are cautious about increasing speeds.
Oh, and please don't bring out that "technology that the Victorians invented", because after all, most transportation uses "wheels" which were invented by cavemen.
Oh yes, it did cost a lot of money to build, but the operating costs are low.
The platforms are open, so you can easily fall onto the tracks. This happens on occasion and has led to several deaths. There are track intrusion system at station that are supposed to stop an approaching train, but I'm sure how well they work. The older stations use touch pads, while the newer ones use laser beams.
There has never been any collisions between trains, except some minor fender benders in the yard where the trains sometime run on manual.
The weird thing about riding an automated rail car is the consistent ride. The train stops a precicely the same spot at a particular station, and speeds up and slows down at exactly the same spot on the track everytime you ride it.
The system is somewhat like a sideways elevator. The train won't move if someone is jammed in a door. Passengers often take gross advantage this safety system by forcing the doors open to stop a train that is just about move. This is why the design frequency of 1 train every 90 seconds has not been sustained in practice.
I think that it's very difficult to design a system that is both frequent and fast. You can increase the frequency by simply going slower, but this doesn't sound a good thing.
Despite its many detractors, I would judge the Vancouver Skytrain system a resounding success. It has created several attractive, high density neighborhoods that would otherwise not exist.
Another automated rail system is currently being build that will connect downtown to the airport and a southern suburb. The control system will use moving blocks, but the vehicles won't be powered by linear induction motors like Skytrain. It's supposed to be ready by the time we host the 2010 winter olympics.
The problem is the middle management layers have been decimated by redundancy, early retirement and 'reorganisation'. The people at the top don't know the technology, don't know what works. And they are selling to politicians who want fancy solutions.
Also there is a fundamental disrespect of technological people and technical solutions: nerds, boffins, dweebs, trainspotters... pick your epithet. This is a very British thing, but I've seen it in Canada, too.
I've seen this in the power generation sector. Virtually any heavy industry, the 80s and 90s devastated the human capital-- no one young and bright went into them.
Countries like France still have that technical capability, one of the reasons the French nuclear system performed so much better than the British.