From Chuck Shepherd's The News of The Weird:
... two proposed, marginally useful bridges for the state that will eventually cost taxpayers more than $2.2 billion. One, almost as big as the Golden Gate bridge, would connect Ketchikan (pop. 7,800) with a 50-resident island and the town's modest airport (and would replace a five-minute ferry boat ride), and the other, a two-mile-long span, would connect Anchorage, according to the Times, to "a port that has a single regular tenant and almost no homes or businesses."
An article in the New York Times discusses the poor integration of Houston's new light-rail into the street. Car drivers keep colliding with the light-rail cars, which build up speed over the long flat stretches bedtween stops in Houston. (San Francisco's MUNI does not have this problem, as it stops as frequently as twice each block above-ground, and rarely achieves speeds greater than 11 kph. I write in kph because it's a bigger number than the mph, which seems impossibly slow: 9 mph.)
The article does not mention that a recent surface extension of Barcelona's TMB light-rail had similar problems; not does it explore why other cities, such as Sacramento, have successful (and relatively accident-free) surface-grade light rail.
Happily, the article quotes Metro officials as saying:
there are other reasons to build a train on street grade. It is more accessible and easier to use, and it fosters what Houston lacks: street-level development and pedestrian culture.
Houston Finds Some Pain in Car-Rail Coexistence
June 25, 2004
By SHAILA K. DEWAN
HOUSTON, June 18 - For a quarter-century, the debate over
whether Houston should have a light rail system pitted a
vision of environmentally friendly mass transit against the
fossil-fueled love affair between Houstonians and their
cars.
Last year, when Houston finally got a rail line, the
culture clash became physical. Since testing began in
November, the silvery electric-powered train, which slides
north and south along the street on a 7.5-mile route, has
collided with more than 40 cars.
The accidents have marred what was to be a moment of
rejuvenation for the city. The opening of the rail line was
timed to coincide with a major spruce-up of downtown,
complete with a fountain that flanks the tracks and sends
water leaping high into the air each time a train
approaches.
So far, 15 motorists have driven into the fountain.
None
of the train-versus-car accidents have been fatal, and more
than half have simply been fender benders, according to the
Metropolitan Transit Authority's statistics.
Still, experts say that while it is hard to compare light
rail lines - each has its own length and configuration -
Houston's accident rate is extraordinarily high.
Sacramento, by comparison, where that part of the light
rail line that shares the street is about the same length
as Houston's line, has had just four collisions this year.
The situation has quickly become part of Houston lore. At
an annual sand castle competition this month, no fewer than
11 entries depicted trains and crashed cars, with titles
like "Metrozilla" and "Weapons of Mass Destruction."
And residents are keeping score.
"I was No. 6,'' said
Joseph D. Kittrell, a 64-year-old hairdresser who suffered
a couple of broken ribs and whose Nissan truck was totaled
when he turned left over the tracks while a train was
coming. Mr. Kittrell, given a ticket for an illegal turn,
said the signage was confusing.
"I wrote the mayor, I wrote The Houston Chronicle," he
said. "I feel like I've been had by the city, and I don't
think it's fair."
The train, which opened for business on Jan. 1, carries
passengers from the new Reliant Park football stadium north
through the Texas Medical Center complex, the museum
district and downtown, where it cruises down the center of
Main Street, past the baseball stadium, to the University
of Houston's downtown campus. It is intended to be the
spine of a much larger system to come, which voters
approved by referendum in early November.
That was before they knew what it would be like to share
their streets with a 99,000-pound train that travels at 40
miles an hour and is separated from cars only by little
bumps known as traffic buttons. Many people now question
the wisdom of the transit agency's decision to wedge the
train into the streetscape instead of above or below
ground, an option that could have increased costs tenfold.
Officials of the transit agency, known as Metro, do not
come right out and say so, but their explanations for the
accidents boil down to this: Houstonians are bad drivers.
All the collisions, they say, can be attributed to driver
error: illegal turns, failure to yield and disregard of
signals.
There is plenty of support for that argument. The accident
rate in greater Houston, train or no train, is well over
double the national average, and it is particularly bad at
the medical center. Last year the police issued 8,000
traffic citations along what has become the train's route.
"Unfortunately we lead the state in every conceivable type
of crash," said Ned Levine, the transportation program
coordinator for the Houston-Galveston Area Council, the
region's planning group .
Thirty-nine percent of serious accidents here are caused by
speeding, compared with 13 percent nationally, Dr. Levine
said, adding, "I would call that aggressive driving.''
But the transportation agency's efforts to defend itself
have not gone over well. "It's not just the media," said
Frank J. Wilson, who became chief executive of Metro two
months ago. "It's the general perception, people in the
street, elected officials. They say: 'What's wrong with
Metro? Why is it blaming these motorists?' As if it's a
God-given right in Houston to run red lights."
It did not help matters that the first driver to collide
with the train was a local television reporter.
To be fair to Houston drivers, they have had to master six
new and complex traffic signs, including an icon that shows
a train track, over which is superimposed a left-turn
arrow, over which is a circle with a slash through it. The
signs are symbols only, without words like "warning."
At the medical center, the train's path doubles as a
left-turn lane. At other points, driveways exit right onto
the tracks. In Mr. Kittrell's case, the traffic lights were
green, but centered above them was a new signal forbidding
a left turn.
"I said, 'Well, who's going to look up there when there's
two green lights?' " he recalls telling the police.
Metro has since moved no-turn signals to make them more
visible.
Some drivers complain that the train comes without the
typical warnings.
"Are you from America?" Benny Delgadillo Sr. said
indignantly. "I'm from America, 49 years. Here, you're
taught as a kid that flashing lights, arms come down -
train's coming."
Mr. Delgadillo admits, however, that he should not have
turned left where he did, off Main Street. He made a common
mistake: he and the train in the lane to his left were
traveling in the same direction, so he did not see it when
he made the turn.
"It's just even by the grace of God that I should be
talking to you now, it hit me that hard," he said.
Metro has made numerous adjustments: changing and moving
signs, adding flashing lights and more flashing lights. In
February, it commissioned the Texas Transportation
Institute, at Texas A&M University, to do an independent
study. The study concluded that the route met national
traffic standards, but suggested 161 "enhancements," many
involving signals and their timing.
Since the agency began adopting those changes, the rate of
accidents has been declining, and transit experts say it
will continue to drop as Houston and the train grow
accustomed to each other.
For now, safety engineers have determined that trains and
cars are too hostile to even share an intersection. In the
most accident-prone part of the route, red lights halt cars
from all directions when a train is passing through, a
signal pattern called "pre-emptive red."
Though Metro strongly disagrees, some drivers point to the
improvements as evidence that the city was at first
negligent.
Maria Lewis-Sterling, a 46-year-old nurse, says her car was
not even moving when its license plate was torn off by a
passing train. Her car was protruding into the roadway,
though, and she was charged $450 for damage to the train.
Her accident was the first of six at one intersection,
which has since been given two rail crossing signs.
Ms. Lewis-Sterling said she had no hard feelings, and even
rode the train to work this week. "Just give me my $450
back,'' she said, "and admit that you didn't do a perfect
job.''
Metro's ridership is averaging 24,000 on weekdays and
continues to increase. Now, in part because of continuing
concern over the accidents, its board has asked the agency
to re-examine the planned routes for the light rail
expansion.
But besides cost considerations, Metro officials say, there
are other reasons to build a train on street grade. It is
more accessible and easier to use, and it fosters what
Houston lacks: street-level development and pedestrian
culture.
"I'm trying to decide what the balance is: safety versus
accessibility, ease of mobility versus changing culture,"
said Mr. Wilson, Metro's chief. "Some people would say, 'If
you do it again, would you do it the same way?' My guess is
that after a lot of deliberation and hammering, we probably
would."
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/25/national/25rail.html
Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company
In San Francisco, some MUNI stops have absolutely no indication of where to board to catch which train in which direction.
I was getting off the inbound J at Church and Duboce, and heard a grandmotherly woman with a young kid in tow ask the driver where to catch the N; he said, "There, across the street." A moment later, the J had turned away and the woman was standing on the corner, confused.
Platforms on either side of the street beckoned; one read "N, J lines outbound"; at the far end of another, a ragged sign read "Proof-of-Purchase line." But no clear signs, no direction indicators, nothing.
The MTA will automate the L train.
Reminiscent of the Alcatel / MUNI fiasco. BART and DC's trains have been automatically-controlled since their inception.
Next Stop for the Subway, a Fully Automated Future
By MICHAEL LUO
The subway of the future was rumbling back and forth on the Canarsie line in Brooklyn the other day. Not sleek or silent, it seemed no different from any other train. But its innards set it apart, making it groundbreaking for a transit agency long dogged by a Luddite image.
After several years of installation work and testing, New York City Transit is finally close to unveiling its first computer-controlled train line. A rollout of the $287 million system will begin in October and continue through next spring on an overhauled L line. At first, train operators will remain in control, but when the computer-based system becomes fully operational, probably sometime in May, trains will essentially drive themselves from station to station in fully automatic mode.
The spacing of trains, their speeds and when they start and stop will be entirely controlled by a complicated system of onboard and remote computers that communicate with each other via radio signals. Operators will continue to ride in the front cab in case of emergency, but their only job will be to push a button in front of them periodically to alert the rail control center that they are paying attention.
And if all goes according to plan, in a few decades hence, all New York City subway trains will run in the same way, without human help.
"This is a revolution," said Nabil N. Ghaly, chief signal engineer for the transit authority.
Although the system's benefits mainly center on being able to run more trains at higher speeds, the most important advancement will be in safety, supporters said.
"The whole idea is to eliminate human error," said Joe Bauer, a train operator instructor who has been helping test the new system.
More than a decade ago, a subway train with a drunken motorman aboard barreled through a railroad switch in Union Square and derailed, killing five people and pushing transit officials to begin exploring options for automating their aging system.
Automated trains are by no means new. In San Francisco, Bay Area Rapid Transit trains have been completely automated since the 1970's. And New York City had a fully automated train between Grand Central and Times Square for two years in the early 1960's. More recently, driverless, computer-controlled train lines have emerged in Paris, London, Vancouver, Kuala Lumpur, Singapore and elsewhere. The New York City subway, however, continues to depend on the same antiquated system of signal lights, caution flags and speed limits.
"We are seriously behind," Mr. Ghaly said.
The current system dates to the late 19th century. Tracks are divided into blocks, usually about 600 feet long, energized by an electrical current. When a train runs over a block, it interrupts the current and triggers a signal light behind it indicating that that section of track is occupied. Trains following behind will be stopped by a red light. The problem is, it is impossible to know where exactly the train is within a block of track, so it has to be assumed when coordinating traffic flow that the train is at the beginning of a block. If engineers want to run more trains through a stretch of track, more signals have to be installed, but this is possible only up to a certain point. Right now, the least amount of space between signals is about every 300 feet, except in special instances, like curves.
Another drawback of the system is that if a signal is broken, which happens from time to time, the transit authority depends on train operators following guidelines that say they can travel no faster than 10 miles per hour.
"When a signal fails, we are really depending on the rule book," Mr. Ghaly said.
If workers are doing track repairs, the transit authority also relies on train operators obeying flagmen and instructions to slow down. And the signal system only works in one direction. If a train needs to back up because of an emergency, all the trains behind it have to be cleared.
In the new system, each train on a line will have two onboard computers (one is a backup) and an electronic reader strapped to its belly. The readers are designed to pick up signals from radio transponders placed every 600 feet along the tracks. The transponders will give trains the information they need to track their locations and speeds.
Each onboard computer will in turn communicate by radio waves with computers set up in spots along the track. These track-side computers will be doing the main work of traffic regulation. The trains' onboard computers will then set down proper speeds. Meanwhile, a main computer at the new rail control center, being built in Manhattan, will monitor everything and issue commands when needed.
In October, the system will begin operating in "shadow" mode on the L line, with train operators still completely in control while engineers make sure the software is working properly. Later, over gradually lengthening segments, the computer system will begin issuing commands to the train operator about speed and travel distances, but the operator will still apply the throttle. If the train operator ignores directions from the computer console inside the cab, the computer system will take over and halt the train.
Finally, in May or June of next year, the line will move to fully automatic mode, in which the train operator will simply sit back and watch while the train moves from station to station on its own.
The new system will allow the transit authority to squeeze 20 percent more trains onto its tracks, running 30 to 31 trains per hour on a typical line instead of 26, and permit the trains to operate at higher speeds, meaning less waiting time and shorter rides for passengers. Stations will also have computer displays that will offer passengers real-time information about when the next train will arrive.
But some outside the transit authority have raised questions about whether having computers control trains is safe in New York City, given the system's age and complexity and all that can happen on the tracks.
"No subway system is like New York City's subway system," said Councilman John C. Liu, chairman of the City Council's Transportation Committee, who wants to hold hearings this fall on the system.
"Before you start having robots run our subways, I'd like to see them get the P.A. system up and running," he said. "Let's get the P.A. system working on all the subway cars and platforms. Let's get the lighting fixed on all the platforms. Let's get the MetroCard machines working fully, all the time. Get the basic stuff done first before you go into this Buck Rogers mode."
Much controversy has centered on whether the transit authority will eliminate conductors on the new trains, leaving them with only one crew member, because train operators, who no longer have to worry about running their trains, can open and close the doors, which conductors now do. Transit officials say they are still evaluating. But union officials have been issuing warnings, saying that in a time of terrorism fears, more crew members are needed on trains, not less. They point out that packed trains in rush hours can have more than 2,500 passengers. In an emergency, one crew member, located at the front of the train, would have trouble.
"It's important to be at the technology curve, but it has to be sensible," said Roger Toussaint, president of Local 100 of the Transport Workers Union.
The questions about safety frustrate those close to the project, who point out that the technology has proven itself in other cities. The project is being led by Siemens Transportation Systems Inc., the company that brought Paris the driverless Meteor Metro line, which opened in 1998. Engineers concede, however, the New York's system brings its own set of challenges. Stephane Bois, a software consultant on the project, said the biggest difficulty has been figuring out how to overlay the new system over the old, while making sure both still work.
Despite the criticism and obstacles, transit officials are moving forward with plans to convert the No. 7 line beginning in 2007 to the same computer-based system and then the F line in Brooklyn in 2009. Eventually, transit officials hope the entire system will be converted, although that could take decades.
As for the matter of making public address announcements actually understandable, they say they are still working on that.
Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company
How many ways are there to spell Viagra?
While I was cycling down Polk past City Hall, a black Jetta was in the lane next to me. The passenger wound down the window and chucked a crumped up -- cigarette pack? parking ticket? something associated with being moral turpitude, surely -- which bounced against me. I told the man, who was inches -- inches! -- away from me, that he was inconsiderate, and he replied, "I didn't see you there." I suggested that he was inconsiderate not just of me, but of the streets, and he looked blank. I put it plainly: "You shouldn't litter, and you shouldn't throw things at people." He became angry. Traffic in the bicycle lane was moving faster than autos, and I pulled ahead.
The place-name wich indicates a place where salt was made.
The citation states that it is merely a variation of wick.
Mark Kurlansky suggests this definition in his unsatisfying book
Cod.