Interesting vid about why the US doesn't have a high-speed rail like the Shinkansen and the TGV.
Just got finished watching that, actually.
Frankly, I'm of the opinion that catching up to the rest of the world in high-speed rail is a pipe-dream. We're simply starting too late, and it's unclear if we'll even finish.
Been some accidents on the Yokohama Metro.
Investigators from the safety board think that they’re either due to faulty equipment used for the driverless trains or the one with a driver struck something on the rail.
Hiccups in Singapore's plans to have automated public buses:
Passengers found themselves almost outnumbered by bus stewards checking their seatbelts were tightly fastened as ST Engineering began testing four vehicles in the coastal district of Sentosa.
Singapore, ranked second behind the United States in its preparedness for wide-scale driverless transport in a recent KPMG report, plans to deploy autonomous buses in three districts of the island from 2022.
The latest trial, due to run until November 15, is being closely watched by tech firms and automakers around the world following a series of mishaps.
"Public safety is our top priority," Singapore's transport ministry said in a joint statement with ST Engineering.
Tan Nai Kwan, chief robotics engineer at ST Engineering's Land Systems arm, said the test was "nerve-wracking", but stressed the safety precautions taken.
Those included a human driver hovering over the self-rotating steering wheel, ready to snatch back control in an instant.
On the first day of the trial on Monday, roadside bushes lightly buffetted by the wind and wandering beachgoers were enough to trigger the bus' many sensors, bringing it to a juddering halt as it trundled along quiet roads.
Tan said the most "dangerous beasties" encountered so far were the roaming peacocks which fly unexpectedly into the road.
A similar test is underway on roads around a university campus in the center of the island. Tan said with advances in technology, the plan is for safety drivers to eventually retreat to remote control centers although he did not put a timeframe on that happening.
In 2016, a self-driving car being tested in the island state collided with a truck as it was changing lanes. The were no injuries but similar accidents in the U.S. have been fatal.
Still, the few intrepid tourists who managed to navigate the on-demand service on the trial's first day in Singapore did not seem fazed by their robotic navigator.
"It's pretty cool but at the same time it feels similar to a normal bus," said Stephen Byrne, a 20-year old student from Ireland. "I suppose that is a good thing, it's not too much of a shock. It's probably more safe than being in some human's hands."
For those who use the Shinkansen and have the unfortunate time/task of having big luggages.
CNBC doc for electric buses in China/America.
With my folks in Bangkok. They’ve been here before, but this is my first time ‘side from a stopover.
We did have the chance to use a non-metered taxi since my folks bought a lot of supermarket food and stuff from Siam Paragon.
They learned their lesson.
Strange that the guy has official id.
——
https://chefleez.com/bangkok-taxi-information/
But the driver had no problem with 200 Baht.
Edited by Ominae on Nov 1st 2019 at 4:36:50 AM
The state of Virginia struck a deal with CSX to vastly increase VRE and Amtrak service there.
In the biggest boost in decades to train travel in the D.C. area, Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam and CSX announced a $3.7 billion agreement Thursday for the state to buy 225 miles of track and build new passenger rail improvements.
Virginia will buy half of the CSX rail line from L’Enfant Plaza in D.C. to downtown Richmond, which will allow for many more daily Amtrak and Virginia Railway Express trains, and, for the first time, provide weekend service on VRE’s Fredericksburg Line.
“We’re going to be able to dramatically increase Amtrak and VRE service. We’ll be able to get hourly service between Richmond and D.C.,” said Jennifer Mitchell, director of the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation.
To start, a new round-trip Amtrak train will be added late next year between Norfolk, Richmond and D.C. that continues on to Baltimore and New York.
Also around the end of 2020, VRE could add one new round trip each on the Fredericksburg and Manassas lines. More trains would be added between 2026 and 2030 as additional construction work on new tracks and the new Long Bridge over the Potomac is completed — eventually doubling the number of Northeast Regional trains running in and out of Virginia.
Under the terms agreed to by CSX and the state, VRE’s Fredericksburg Line will eventually run as frequently as every 15 minutes on weekdays between Spotsylvania, Alexandria, Arlington and the District during a slightly longer rush-hour period than the service currently runs, including later trains in the evening.
The Fredericksburg Line is projected to go from eight round trips today to 13 round trips each weekday in 2030.
The commuter trains would also run on weekends for the first time, providing a long-requested option to avoid terrible Interstate 95 traffic.
Initial VRE weekend service would include at least two trains northbound from Spotsylvania in the morning, and two trains southbound in the afternoon and evening.
The changes could also pave the way for future MARC trains continuing across the river into Virginia, although that idea remains farther off. What the proposal looks like for Amtrak service. Click to enlarge. (Courtesy Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation)
The plan would double the number of longer-distance Amtrak regional trains each day between D.C. and Richmond as part of six additional round trips by 2030. Those trips would also be much more consistent and reliable, since there would be less interference from freight trains.
The changes could effectively extend Amtrak’s busy and popular Northeast Corridor 100 miles south, since trains between Newport News or Norfolk, Richmond and D.C. continue on to Baltimore, Philadelphia, New York and Boston.
Funding for Virginia’s $3.7 billion plan is expected to include about $944 million from Amtrak and a similar amount from existing state rail and other transportation funds, with the remainder covered by regional funds, such as I-66 toll revenue; potential D.C. government contributions for the work in and impacting the city; potential Northern Virginia transportation funds for specific projects, such as a flyover for passenger trains near Franconia-Springfield; and VRE dedicated capital funding.
The VRE Operations Board is expected to endorse the plan Friday.
Virginia does not need any new taxes, fees or special appropriations from the General Assembly to pay for the project, Mitchell added.
The $3.7 billion estimated cost over the next decade includes about $525 million for CSX’s land under current or future tracks, about $1.9 billion for Long Bridge construction, and the remainder for other new track construction and related work.
A recent state study estimated adding a lane to I-95 from the Fredericksburg area to the Capital Beltway would cost more than $12 billion, with traffic backing up again soon after the lanes opened, so the project provides significant benefits to the state, Mitchell said.
If Virginia earns additional federal grants for key projects — such as the Long Bridge, since that is an overcrowded chokepoint today for passenger and freight traffic up and down the East Coast — some other pieces of the upgrades could happen more quickly.
The state estimates a new Long Bridge project alone between D.C. and Arlington will provide about $6 billion in annual economic benefits to the D.C. region through a number of benefits, such as improved access to jobs, reduced traffic on the roads and improved freight flow, Mitchell said. The proposal for future VRE service. Click to enlarge. (Courtesy Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation)
Financial pieces of the deal between CSX and Virginia are expected to close by the end of 2020, which would trigger the first additional trains — one new Amtrak round trip from D.C. through Richmond to Norfolk, one new VRE Fredericksburg Line round trip to and from Spotsylvania, and potentially one new daily Manassas Line round trip to and from Broad Run.
The next service boosts would be scheduled in 2026, when the new, second two-track Long Bridge span over the Potomac River between Arlington and D.C. is finished as part of a total of 19 miles of new tracks and sidings that will go along with station improvements.
The District Department of Transportation recently completed environmental reviews of the Long Bridge project, and Virginia has now taken the lead on getting that project built.
The new purchase of half of the CSX tracks and agreement on additional slots for passenger trains in the network explains why those involved in the Long Bridge project have said for several months that the new span is expected to be designated primarily for passenger service.
Part of the funding for that project could come from I-66 toll payments, since the bridge would also allow for a significant expansion of VRE’s Manassas Line trains.
Manassas Line service increases, including up to three more round trips starting around 2026, would still require separate agreements with another freight rail company, Norfolk Southern. Those negotiations are ongoing.
Still, Virginia’s ownership of some of the tracks along the I-95 corridor, specifically for public passenger services, would allow for trains to run at levels similar to the Long Island Railroad, New Jersey Transit or SEPTA Regional Rail in the New York and Philadelphia area, frequencies that had been significantly limited by CSX’s need to run its own freight services on the tracks.
Virginia and CSX will continue a partnership to maintain the tracks and dispatch trains.
Future work contemplated after 2030 includes extending additional tracks in Northern Virginia to potentially allow for even more VRE and Amtrak service, possibly including all-day VRE service.
“We will be able to build out a third track eventually between Washington and Spotsylvania, and we will have right of way for the future, should there be any need to expand to a fourth track,” Mitchell said.
Plans for the specific third-track additions (fourth-track near the Potomac River) have been developed over the last few years through a DC 2 RVA rail study. The purchase presumes the work over the next decade will conform to those plans, including leaving the current two tracks running through Ashland.
The landmark deal announced Thursday afternoon by Northam and CSX also includes an additional purchase that could pave the way for future rail service beyond Richmond to North Carolina, and another that could provide for east-west rail service in the future between the Richmond and Charlottesville areas.
Virginia will get permanent passenger train rights on CSX tracks between Richmond and Petersburg, and take ownership of a 75-mile abandoned CSX rail line between Petersburg and Ridgeway, North Carolina.
North Carolina would need a similar plan to connect that line to Raleigh.
Between Doswell, Charlottesville, Staunton and Clifton Forge, Virginia will also purchase the 173-mile Buckingham Branch Line, which could be used for future east-west passenger rail service. For now, the tracks will remain in use for freight services.
Vox on why public transit is bad in the US
Edited by Ominae on Apr 2nd 2021 at 5:11:34 AM
Greyhound Canada is dead now.
Ottawa is now trying to step in on helping the provinces in figuring out an alternative mode of transport that they can use.
There's been a fire in a Keio-manned subway train. Police arrested someone who's been using a knife out in the open.
Alrighty. Looks like the Circle Line 6 tunnel works is done in Singapore.
Can't wait to use that part of the MRT one day.
I just realized, Literally the only public transport I know I have in my city is a train.
I've seen bus stops here, but the only busses I've ever seen are for school.
Cornelius, but do not waste in useless pity the few moments left in which to escape from the hands of the enemy.
I wish Trondheim had more trams.
"Listen up, Marina, because this is SUPER important. Whatever you do, don't eat th“ “DON'T EAT WHAT?! Your text box ran out of space!”
Anka Aquila
Ok, this spun out from the General Economics thread and I'll move it here. The matter at hand was the concept of the Boring Loop, that is, a system of tunnels in which cars can move underground, and the discussion spun out on the merits of the concept and the dangers a system of tunnels could run into in areas like California, which are prone to earthquakes.
First off, I have explain the concept of the Peak Ground Acceleration (or PGA in short) to explain whether underground tunnels are safer or not than surface buildings in seismic areas. Broadly speaking, this can be true because during a quake a tunnel will move with the ground so the maximum acceleration it will face will be the PGA. Surface buildings however will face two accelerations: the ground component and its own acceleration, and depending on the frequency of the building, it can enter in resonance and face a greater acceleration than the PGA.
Now, with this out of the way, let's tackle the Boring Loop proper. Given the way that traffic works around the world and not just the USA, the concept seems like a waste of money overall considering that tunneling is already expensive. The better and more simple alternative would be to create a subway system and couple this system with a better bus network to allow people to move around the city without having use a car.
I can't stress this enough, a more efficient system of transportation is not one that tries to enable the car in various ways but instead tries to replace it with more cost-saving options in terms of energy consumption and transportation potential. The car has its uses, yes, but on a macro level a city is better off with trains and buses instead of highways and, dare I say it, is much more open to the poor since those without much money can move around with greater ease and without having to pay for fuel all the time.
Edited by raziel365 on Apr 15th 2022 at 2:15:12 AM
Instead of focusing on relatives that divide us, we should find the absolutes that tie us.
Visiting from the Hoag Galaxy
![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]"){kind=icon}
That's basically my thoughts on it. A parallel underground road system isn't a solution to congestion and traffic. Every single time a city or country has expanded highways to try and manage congestion, the traffic has just increased to cause effectively the same level of congestion.
The answer to traffic and congestion isn't anything special or unique or new or complicated. Encourage working from home, reduce the need to commute to a minimum and massively increase existing and tested public transit infrastructure. Los Angeles used to have a streetcar network that was the envy of the world, but it was taken down to encourage the use of highways and cars, in a real conspiracy by gas companies and car manufacturers. Seriously, that thing from Who Framed Roger Rabbit was a real thing that happened.
Every major city in the US and Canada has people pushing really hard for robust, useable and low-cost public transit designed in intelligent ways. There is no reason to ignore that over a weird proprietary approach that requires years of testing and isn't actually going to solve the problem anyway. Especially since even if a tunnel is safer from earthquakes...what happens if someone crashes a car? Or a tire blows out? Hell, what if someone forgot to charge or fuel their car? The potential for disaster is very high and any disaster is likely to shut down entire chunks of any potential network for significant periods of time.
It is safer, more cost effective and more environmentally friendly to just focus on fixing public transit. This is why I don't trust Musk with anything. He invariably goes for ludicrously overengineered solutions that don't actually address the real problem, and he's super willing to charge in well before things are anywhere near what he wants to do being viable.
Edited by Zendervai on Apr 15th 2022 at 5:25:35 AM
Not Three Laws compliant.
nvm
Edited by PhysicalStamina on Apr 15th 2022 at 6:50:12 AM
Figure of Hourai
I think the advantage proposed by Musk (or used by others), whenever this comes up, is that rather than being constrained by public transit schedules, point-to-point transport is an option. Except... for that to be practical, you'd basically need an entire secondary road network; and if you're going to limit the number of routes, then you're better off just making it a subway system anyway. A well-developed public transport system doesn't involve large walking distances, that's the entire point.
Avatar Source
Visiting from the Hoag Galaxy
It also does absolutely nothing to solve the parking problem. Someone uses public transit, their space footprint in the city is minimal. They use a car, that car has to go somewhere.
And self-driving cars are still too behind the curve to be considered a reliable option at this point. I mean...sure, by the time anything like this is actually built large scale they might be viable, but that's still years or decades worth of time where nothing is being done to solve the actual problems.
There's also cities where it flat out isn't an option. I've seen proposals of doing it in London and it's like...where? The Underground already occupies a ton of the space it would need to use. It's only viable in cities without major subway networks, which points towards the creation of major subway networks as a more tried and true and tested approach.
Edited by Zendervai on Apr 19th 2022 at 8:16:13 AM
Not Three Laws compliant.
Lost in Space
All of these objections are about specific situations and circumstances, but do nothing to discredit the general idea. If London isn't a suitable place for automobile tunnels, then don't build them there. Simple.
People want to drive cars, and they want to drive those cars end-to-end, not park them somewhere and get on a train. These tunnels would serve that purpose. Of course, in cases like the Las Vegas Loop, it is a self-contained operation: the cars never park so it's not an issue.
Really, we're looking at two different scenarios:
- You drive your car into a tunnel instead of on a surface road, exiting at or near your destination. This doesn't increase the total amount of traffic; it diverts it onto additional roads, relieving one source of congestion. It doesn't solve parking because it's not meant to.
- This could interact with parking, however. The tunnel could take you to a drop-off lane, whereupon your vehicle is picked up by one of those automated systems that we've seen in places like Japan. It would be fairly expensive to build, but it would solve this problem.
- You enter a mass transit system, but rather than boarding a train or tram and sitting through multiple stops, you board a smaller vehicle that takes you directly to the stop you want.
Self-driving comes into play (and it's coming sooner than many people think) differently in these situations. In the first scenario, your car is driving itself anyway, so which road it takes doesn't matter. In the second, the vehicle is fully automated so there's no human driver, but the experience for the passenger is identical.
As I've said before, the main reason why traffic tunnels are so expensive is that they have to accommodate internal combustion engines, which (a) require lots of air circulation, (b) catch fire a lot (estimated to be ten times more frequently than batteries). If we restrict tunnels to electric vehicles, we can make them much smaller and thus much less expensive. Self-driving is just a bonus because it reduces the risk of driver error causing a crash inside one of the tunnels.
As for emergency vehicles, they can go in the far end. Any such tunnel would need equipment for responding to and clearing up crashed/disabled vehicles; the dynamics of this don't change just because the tunnel is made for EVs.
Edited by Fighteer on Apr 19th 2022 at 9:59:28 AM
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Figure of Hourai
People want to drive their cars end to end, and people wanting to drive their cars end to end (and 80+ years of the US fanatically building around the idea of everyone having their own tiny metal box) is the entire reason there's a congestion problem to start with. Making tunnels doesn't reduce congestion any more than adding roads normally would, except that you've put them in a really awkward place, and maybe someone might finally consider making above ground more friendly to things that aren't cars. But it doesn't solve the pedestrian problem.
The other idea, of "let's make a mass transit system only instead of any actual mass transit we basically have cars underground instead" runs into the aforementioned problem of either needing to duplicate largely the entire road network underground (if you want to maximise point to point options), which is incredibly inefficient, or you're just making a bad subway.
And we've been over this before, in how making tunnels smaller is a safety disaster in the making.
Edited by RainehDaze on Apr 19th 2022 at 2:58:59 PM
Avatar Source
Lost in Space
"Let's get rid of passenger vehicles" is a utopian ideal that is simply not going to happen. It's like telling everyone to stop eating meat. So if you axiomatically reject any solution that involves passenger vehicles because "cars bad", you are not actually helping.
making tunnels smaller is a safety disaster in the making
Says you. [citation needed] and all that. I'm going to listen to actual experts on this one, thanks.
Edited by Fighteer on Apr 19th 2022 at 10:01:18 AM
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Figure of Hourai
Do you really need an expert opinion for "if something breaks in a small space and blocks it, that's going to be a problem"? We've had this argument before, and "but the company with an investment in pushing tunnels into every place they can says it's fine" is far too biased. Vehicle tunnels as it is already have problems when things break in them, making the tunnels even smaller because that's convenient for making more tunnels is not going to change that fundamental notion for the better. >_>
Fortunately, that's not what I said. Or what anyone said.
Edited by RainehDaze on Apr 19th 2022 at 3:05:42 PM
Avatar Source
Visiting from the Hoag Galaxy
This literally does not work. At all. Adding new roads or lanes is the first response everyone has to excessive congestion and it actually just results in the traffic increasing slightly and hitting the exact same level of congestion, it just might be rearranged a little. A tunnel network exclusively for electric vehicles will create a situation where everyone with electric vehicles would use it, congesting the tunnel network, and then a lot of people with gas cars who wouldn't otherwise have commuted might start because of the perception of less traffic. And no, we have no reason to expect there will be anything different here, and building the whole network just to discover that, no, an extension to the road network does not actually avoid the problems that all extensions to road networks have is a ridiculous waste of money.
And that's before what fees might be levied for use of the tunnel network. Because it won't be free. So the result might very well be that the tunnel network is the rich people roads and the existing road network is mostly for poor people. So the cities would give even less of a shit about maintaining the roads.
And yeah, I don't think getting rid of passenger vehicles is at all viable. I do think that massive investments into public transit infrastructure and making cities walkable again and encouraging people to do that would be significantly cheaper, easier, long-term sustainable, and less likely to create huge cost overruns or construction quagmires.
Not to mention that I straight up don't trust Musk to know what the basic road safety rules are. That hideous Tesla truck? It broke a bunch of the really basic rules (like, there's a reason mirrors are mandated and cameras can only supplement them and not replace them) which means it would need to be very heavily overhauled to be road safe. A good engineer would have checked what the rules were first before putting all the time and investment into making a glorified doorstop of a truck.
Edited by Zendervai on Apr 19th 2022 at 10:15:53 AM
Not Three Laws compliant.
I once saw a sign posted at a level crossing which had warning lights but no barriers. It read: "Maybe you can beat the train - or maybe you're dead wrong."
This Space Intentionally Left Blank.