The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
This is more a question of tight budgets and priorities than old vs. new. The time it takes to build a new line should not grow, unless money is taken from the new project in the same tight budget.
In Madrid, there was already a major subway system, but new construction in recent years quadrupled that. What's more, in the same timeframe, there was money for major upgrades on old lines, too: many stations were lengthened, some tunnels were entirely rebuilt for a wider gauge [cross-section].
As for NY, the lines can't be much older than London or Moscow, can they?
Older than Moscow, more like London or Paris. But, much of the tunnel and track infrastructure is depreciated, ripe for an upgrade, and AFAIK this situation is worse than in Moscow or Paris (but maybe not London). *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
That's presumably the oldest lines you are talking about. But some of the London and Paris systems are much newer (I'm not sure what proportion). On the other hand, I can't think of anything recent in NY apart from the Archer station extension in Queens.
After WWII, Paris, Moscow and New York kept extending old lines and building an entirely new one every few decades, and even London built a new line into the nineties. But New York more or less stopped in the early seventies. The one big project today is the Second Avenue Subway, put on hold repeatedly since the early fourties(!), but now in construction at last. To be fair, New York also built less spectacular but capital-intensive connectors and track quadruplings, the last one being the 63rd Street Connector. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
How large of an impact can geology have?
At the end of the day, my question is how fast can demand for mobility channelled to new public transportation. If anyone has any idea... Rien n'est gratuit en ce bas monde. Tout s'expie, le bien comme le mal, se paie tot ou tard. Le bien c'est beaucoup plus cher, forcement. Celine
...and you get averages for the entire Faido tunnels (including weeks-long stops for vacations and maintenance) of 9.44 resp. 9.04 m/day. (So the final holing-through can be expected in the first half of 2011.) *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
That slow would be possible across a problem zone, and even then only with long stops. 100m in 3 weeks would be more like it under a city like Paris, or even multiples of that.
Nowadays, unless facing unexpected geological problems (see the ill-fated North-South metro across Amsterdam), tunnel boring itself is not even the majority of the time of construction: there is surveying before, and elaborate tunnel fitting afterwards, and then track commissioning. For example, Paris's line 14 was dug for two years (at a rate of 350m/month), but opened three and a half years after tunnel boring was finished.
how fast can demand for mobility channelled to new public transportation
That's too broad a question... always depends on local circumstances, and what you mean by "channelled to new public transportation". (Do you mean how long it takes for inhabitants to switch to a new project? Or how long it would take to get a majority of them to switch to public transport? Or 100%?) *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
Since we know that demand for mobility is unlikely to decrease, the only solution a shift towards vastly more efficiency transportation systems -- public transportation. But then the time constraint kicks in, hence my earlier remark on subway/tramway line construction times.
I don't know what to think about this, given, as you said, how central political commitment is. The point is not really to forecast what may take place but to understand what is actually possible if there is a strong political will. Madrid, seems to be a clear case. What impact can we expect overall? Rien n'est gratuit en ce bas monde. Tout s'expie, le bien comme le mal, se paie tot ou tard. Le bien c'est beaucoup plus cher, forcement. Celine
Now, 10% renewables in transport? How exactly is that spelled out in the directives? On the face of it, that would require (1) a much more than 10% share of electric public transport in overall transport, and/or (2) a rather significant share of RE in the generation of that electricity. Now, in some countries, hydro takes a major part of railway electricity generation, don't know about the whole EU though. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
10% renewables in transport? How exactly is that spelled out in the directives?
an agreement that up to almost a third of the EU's 10 percent goal would be met not through biofuels but through electric cars and trains
That's a quote from a report on last-minute negotiations between the EP and the Commission a year ago. So two-thirds of the 10% are still supposed to come from biofuels.
See also Shifting The Biofuel Goalposts.
by gmoke - Nov 28
by gmoke - Nov 12 7 comments
by Oui - Nov 2829 comments
by Oui - Nov 278 comments
by Oui - Nov 2511 comments
by Oui - Nov 24
by Oui - Nov 22
by Oui - Nov 2119 comments
by Oui - Nov 1615 comments
by Oui - Nov 154 comments
by Oui - Nov 1319 comments
by Oui - Nov 1224 comments
by gmoke - Nov 127 comments
by Oui - Nov 1114 comments
by Oui - Nov 10
by Oui - Nov 928 comments
by Oui - Nov 8
by Oui - Nov 73 comments
by Oui - Nov 633 comments
by Oui - Nov 522 comments