From the pinnacle of Amsterdam Central station, as seen from my hotel room last month. I’m guessing it’s from the Deco era, early 20th century. There’s an exuberant optimism about European rail architecture of that era that needs to find new expressions.
Note: I’m back in Sydney, but detritus of the just-completed round the world will probably continue showing up here for a while.
Canada’s Frontier Centre for Public Policy just published a paper by my colleague Stuart Donovan on the case for road pricing. The gist:
Accurate transport pricing not only reduces congestion, it also generates additional revenue to fund investment in additional capacity when and where it is justified by demand. Most importantly, accurate transport pricing is mode-neutral in that it neither discriminates against nor favours any transport mode, although it does favour high-value vehicles, such as buses and emergency vehicles. Accurate transport pricing also allows people the freedom to manage their travel needs in the way that best suits them. Some workplaces, for example, may allow their employees to work flexible hours in order to reduce their transport costs.
PDF here.
(Update: Welcome, Andrew Sullivan readers! Please have a look around, including the welcome and manifesto. We do fun stuff here.)
US parodies of San Francisco as leftist and socialist may soon need some revision. San Francisco will soon have the most libertarian, free-market parking policy in the nation. And it should become easier to find parking. Continue Reading →
This just had to happen: Portland’s TriMet has removed eight parking spaces from the Park-and-Ride at its Sunset Transit Center light rail station, and replaced them with secure space for 74 bikes. From the Oregonian coverage: Continue Reading →
Now and then, someone mentions that a particular public transit project did not reduce traffic congestion, as though that were evidence of failure. In fact, the relationship between transit and congestion is indirect. It is not always wise to claim congestion reduction as a likely result of your proposed transit project. Continue Reading →
A New York Times article today highlights the perennial misunderstanding embedded in how transit agencies typically measure on-time performance.
By official accounts, 2009 was a banner year for the commuter railroads that serve New York City. Of all the trains that ran last year, the railroads said, nearly 96 percent were on time — one of the best performances since they began keeping records.
But the reality, as nearly any rider would tell you, can be considerably different, and vastly more frustrating. Continue Reading →
This is an old version of this post, which I’ve retained to save its comments. See the updated version here.
Now and then, someone mentions that a particular transit project did not reduce traffic congestion, as though that was evidence of failure. Years ago, politicians and transit agencies would sometimes say that a transit project would reduce congestion, though most are now smart enough not to make that claim. Continue Reading →
This Los Angeles Times article will be helpful to anyone wanting to grasp the rough contours of transit debates there. As I’ve argued before, Los Angeles has emerged as a national leader in transit development, and probably offers the most hopeful models for how car-oriented cities can begin to refit themselves to shift demand to transit, with all the social, economic, and sustainability benefits that can imply. Here’s the nub of of the remaining argument:
“Overall, the push for rail has forced transit ridership down,” said Tom Rubin, a veteran transit consultant and former chief financial officer for the MTA’s predecessor. “Had they run a lot of buses at low fares, they could have doubled the number of riders.” Continue Reading →
My Munich transit notes will take a while to settle, but meanwhile, Munich’s U-bahn station Münchner Freiheit is a must-see for all visitors.
U-bahn lines have associated colors that are reflected in both mapping and signage. (See U-bahn map here). This station is an interchange between lines 3 (orange) and 6 (blue). So the architects had a field day exploring all the ways that orange and blue can converse, or clash. And as if orange weren’t garish enough, they invented a peculiar pea green to dance with it.
This is, by the way, a weaved station: U3 and U6 northbound on one platform, and both southbound on the other, to maximize cross-platform transfers. U6 is toward the center of the station in both directions. To express that, you have the blue pillars down the center, with the curious orange+olive on both outside walls, where the (orange) U3 runs.
A mirrored ceiling festooned with semi-protruding panels of fluorescent light amplifies the dissonance.
This may well the the brightest underground station I’ve ever seen, bright not just with brute-force flourescents but with a mirror-intensive design that recycles light. The photons can bounce around pretty much forever.
Munich has several recent U-bahn stations that show some real architectural panache, but this is the only one that’s truly fun. Would it get old looking at this every day? I don’t think so.