August, 2010

24
Aug

2010

Six Common Uses For Steel Cables (That Are Perfectly Safe)

What if the cable snaps?

It’s as common a question as how does cable handle winter?

I can somewhat understand the concern about a snapping cable. After all, not only would it endanger those online, it could be devastating to the people on the ground.

And yet, it’s a concern that history judges to be somewhat invalid. The cables used in aerial ropeways almost never snap. It is such a rare and uncommon occurrence, it’s barely worth noting. That doesn’t mean they’re invincible, it means that proper care, maintenance and replacement scheduling will eliminate virtually all such concerns.

Nevertheless (and just to reassure everyone) here are six fairly common everyday uses for industrial-strength cables. They’re uses we think nothing of and all are perfectly safe:

Suspension Bridges. Image by law_keven.

Construction Cranes. Image by Samuel Stocker.

Elevators. Image by Thomas Hawk.

Roof Supports. Image by howzy.

Cargo Derricks. Image by Sebastian W.

Tightrope Walking. Image via flickr user, Perrenque.

So why again, should we be so concerned about gondolas? (Okay, maybe tightrope walking between the World Trade Center Towers isn’t exactly safe, but that has nothing to do with the tightrope itself. Incidentally: If you haven’t seen the documentary Man on Wire, where that photo comes from, you absolutely must.)

23
Aug

2010

What Happens When Lightning Strikes?

That was the question: What happens in the event of lightning?

I recently had lunch with a group of individuals that included a cable engineer and lightning was was the topic of conversation. I asked him about the issue and what solutions had been engineered to avoid service disruptions due to it.

Much to everyone’s reassurance, he listed a variety of methods to ground and eliminate the effects of lightning on ropeway systems. None were very new or expensive and most were rather straightforward.

In other words: Gondolas, when designed properly, will function perfectly fine in the event of lightning.

“Why then,” I asked, “do you not make those solutions better known?”

I hear worries about lightning constantly. Urban dwellers (or at least their planners, bureaucrats and elected officials), it seems, are worried that these electrical discharges could compromise a system. As lightning is a fairly common occurrence, a public transit technology that cannot deal with it effectively would be virtually useless as mass urban transit. Hence my question.

The cable engineer paused, thought it through and answered with a fascinating (and eye-opening) response:

“We just think no one would let us build these things if they couldn’t handle lightning. I mean, they must be able to handle lightning. We wouldn’t build them if they couldn’t. And because we do build them and are allowed to build them, then we assume people know that they can handle lightning… I guess we must think differently.”

Indeed.

22
Aug

2010

Sunday Morning Statshot

A QUICK LOOK AT SOME OF THE STATISTICS THAT MAKE YOUR CITIES WORK (OR NOT):

Number of Montrealers using a bicycle as a principal or occasional method of transportation: 241,000

% of total population: 18

Average cycling deaths in Montreal between 2005-2009: 3.6

Average cycling deaths in Toronto between 2005-2009: 2.5

MTA’s (New York’s) primary funding sources for transit investments: 1) Mortgage Recording Tax; 2) “Urban Subsidy Tax”

Amount of money brought in by both taxes in 2007: $1.563 billion

Year of global economic recession: 2008

Amount of money brought in by both taxes by 2009: $393 million

% decrease in funding: 75

Tonnes of plastic garbage floating in middle of Pacific Ocean: 100 million

Size of garbage pile: 1.5x US landmass

Size of New York City: 800x size of ancient Greek city

Amount more jobs a vehicle-owning Los Angeleno has access to when compared to a non-vehicle owning Los Angeleno: 59

Average transit commute time: 2x longer than average automobile commute

Nation with lowest percent of inter-city train riders in the developed world: USA

Nation with highest percent of inter-city train riders in developed world: Japan

Cost – in today’s dollars – of US Transcontinental Railroad in 1863: $7 billion

Length of Transcontinental Railroad: 1776 miles

Cost: $3.9 million per mile

Construction costs for rail projects in Spain: $37-53 million per mile

Construction costs for rail project in Japan’s Takasaki to Nagano rail route: $143 million per mile

Money spent on war in Middle East: $1 trillion

Money spent to bailout AIG and Citibank: $460 billion

Money spent to build Three Gorges Dam: $25 billion

Money to be spent on building High Speed Rail in US: $13 billion

Average time it takes to plan and build a new highway in US: 13.1 years

Best place to lose a $200,000 cheque: Vancouver’s Sky Train

Best site for dating when you’re single and senior: Charlottetown Bus

Cost to watch UFC pay-per-view: $44.95

Cost to watch Pacquaio vs. De La Hoya: $54.95

Cost to watch 70 man brawl on Washington subway: Free

21
Aug

2010

Ngong Ping 360

The Ngong Ping 360. Image by Scott Burling.

A while back I asked readers to help find information about 9 virtually unknown cable systems around the world. Regarding the Ngong Ping 360 in Hong Kong, Scott Burling contributed this guest post (with pictures):

The Ngong Ping 360 connects Tung Chung MTR (Hong Kong Mass Transit Railway) station with Ngong Ping village, and the nearby Po Lin Monastery and Tian Tan Buddha. The Ngong Ping Gondola completes its 5.7km journey in 25 minutes, a substantial time saving over the hour long road trip that would otherwise be required.

Read more

20
Aug

2010

A Minute Is Not A Minute

In yesterday’s post I put forth the idea that maybe there is a psychological impact caused by how we design public transit. That there is a kind of Emotional Transit Planning that doesn’t occur but should. That maybe having sunlight and a view would be psychologically more beneficial to the average commuter than being stuck in a tunnel, underground.

The comments which followed that post were in general agreement with each other: A room with a view would be nice, but speed is most important. Most said they would want or choose the fastest option.

But how do you know what you want?

The logical, rational man might call that a stupid question. After all, it’s rather simple matter. If you want the shortest, fastest travel time possible you will opt for that which provides you with the shortest, fastest travel time there is.

Or will you?

The Transportation Research Board’s Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual states that studies show wait times to be on average 2.1 times more onerous than in-vehicle time. That number increases to 2.5 times when the waiting occurs at a transfer point.

To the rational, logical mind that makes no sense. A minute is a minute whether you are riding a subway, waiting for a subway or waiting to transfer from a subway to a bus. A minute is a minute and not 2.1 minutes or 2.5 minutes. And yet, despite what the rational models wish you to believe a minute is not a minute.

As Einstein once said, “put your hand on a hot stove for a minute and it seems like an hour. Sit with a pretty girl for an hour and it seems like a minute.”

In other words: Our perception of time changes depending on the situation. It’s relative.

Like time, what one wants is relative. When what we want is time, even more so. It all depends upon the situation and your perception of reality. You can say you want something, but your mind has other ideas. Or like the restaurant that always ensures chicken is the medium-priced menu item in order to boost profits, what you want can easily be manipulated by anyone with the wherewithal and inclination to do so.

Unless you time and record your daily commute meticulously (which is no way to live a life), you’re unlikely to notice the difference between a 25 minute commute and a 35 minute commute. In the mind of the average commuter, they’re likely the same: Half an hour to get to work each day.

When you are, however, likely to perceive a difference is when the difference in comfort and pleasantness diverges greatly. If the 35 minute long commute was more pleasant than the 25 minute long commute, the former is more likely to be perceived as shorter than the latter.

And yet that 10 minute difference would represent a huge premium to a transit planners model. To those models a 25 minute commute is clearly superior to the 35 minute commute, but would have no connection to the reality that the user actually experiences.

Like yesterday’s post, this is not to advocate for one transit method or technology over another. It’s to put forth the idea that when we put ourselves in the shoes of the user, we quickly see that our models may not be as relevant as we’d like to believe.

This is to suggest that maybe we should consider the hearts and minds of transit users rather than just the models and stopwatches of transit planners.

19
Aug

2010

In The Dark, Underground (Emotional Transit Planning)

I’m fond of subways, but I don’t like riding them. They’re fast and efficient and they make a statement. They’re also ridiculously expensive. But that’s not the point. The point is this:

What is the psychological impact of traveling to and from work every day underground, in the dark?

In my own life, if I have the chance to stay above ground instead of using the subway, I do so. I’d rather look at the world passing me by even if it means a few minutes longer commute. It’s more pleasant and that’s important. It makes me feel good to see the sun, people and buildings rather than simply the armpit of some guy in front of me.

In Toronto, when the subway bursts out from underground for a precious few minutes on the Bloor Street Viaduct you can feel a certain relief within the subway which only collapses back on itself the moment it plunges back underground.

So again, what is the psychological impact of commuting underground? I know of no study that asks that question and I doubt our current transit planning regimes would even consider it remotely important. But shouldn’t they? Shouldn’t it be important?

Economists are quickly learning a similar thing. A new branch of the discipline called Behavioral Economics is teaching policy-makers that humans make most economic decisions based on emotion and psychology not the cold, hard reality of logic and rationalism that standard economics takes for granted.

Shouldn’t the way transit makes you feel factor into your equations and models? Wouldn’t more people ride your transit lines if they actually enjoyed it? How about it?

Emotional Transit Planning anyone?

18
Aug

2010

Speed Is Not Dependent Upon Technology

The Toronto Star reports today that the Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) and a waterfront development agency are at loggerheads over a planned new streetcar corridor.

The essence of the conflict is this:

The Toronto Transit Commission wants to experiment with track design on a new streetcar route to speed up Toronto’s failingly low streetcar speeds (between 10 and 12 km/hr, on average). Their solution is to place both track directions on the North side of Queens Quay (a major waterfront boulevard), and place both directions of vehicular traffic on the south side.

(Note: Traditionally, streetcars are placed in the center of a roadway with – say – eastbound streetcars moving on the same side of the street as eastbound traffic and westbound streetcars moving on the same side of the street as westbound traffic).

Neither the TTC nor the article offered an explanation as to how, why, or if this plan would increase average streetcar speeds. Nevertheless, TTC officials quoted in the article claim that according to their plan streetcars would experience average speeds of 13 – 15 km/hr, a significant speed premium.

Waterfront Toronto (the development agency), however, envisions a 3 km long stretch of Queen’s Quay  with up to 20 separate traffic lights to contend with the myriad of developments they have in the area. Of course this 3 km long stretch of roadway is the same as that which is to be used for the TTC’s new streetcar line.

For those who are counting, Waterfront Toronto’s plan would result in 1 traffic light every 150 meters.

TTC officials state that so many traffic lights would result in a streetcar line “even slower” than other Toronto streetcars (those within the 10 – 12 km/hr range).

Waterfront Toronto officials, however, contend that their plan for having extended greens and transit signal priority (TSP) schemes along the stretch would result in average speeds of 16.6 – 19.5 km/hr.

As I’ve argued before, transit signal priority schemes have a very dubious track record and there is little consensus about whether the technologies actually work (at least in a North American sense). At best, TSP seems to reduce travel times (and increase travel speeds) by around 6 – 10%. At worst, it actually increases travel times and reduces speed.

Waterfront Toronto, however, is convinced that their TSP plan would result in an increase in travel times of roughly 65%. This speed increase, meanwhile, would be realized in a corridor with 43% more traffic lights than some of the most congested sections in all of downtown Toronto.

The TTC accurately described the plan as “death by a thousand cuts.”

Something doesn’t make sense here. Both Waterfront Toronto and the TTC cannot be right. Both could however be wrong. That they differ in their opinions so widely suggests someone’s (or both’s) forecasting models are severely flawed.

At the end of the day, what this quibble shows is this: Road based transit speed has almost nothing to do with technology choice. Speed and travel times is dependent almost entirely on how the technology is implemented in relation to its surrounding environs.

Transit enthusiasts, advocates, planners and researchers need to get out of the habit of saying their technology preference is the fastest. After all, as the above demonstrates, your technology preference could be the fastest but it could also be the slowest.

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...