• The last of Britain’s railway slip coaches: Video (TimDunn)
• Barcelona visual system for tactical urbanism + wayfinding (AraunaStudio)
• Maya Lin’s Eclipsed Time removed from LIRR Penn Station concourse (UrbanOmnibus)
• Silicon Valley Subway Project Balloons in Cost (CityLab Daily)
• Melbourne’s $12bn Metro Tunnel to open in September 2024, builder lets slip (The Guardian)
• Electric vehicles have so much electronics they’re pretty easy to hack into (TheAtlantic)
• Sometimes gruesome Thai railway safety posters (ThaiTrainGuide)
Check out our other sections:
- Industry News – updated every business day
- Webinars and Online Conferences
I grew up in the silicon valley and definitely agree that the bart extension could be done much cheaper. There are very wide roads and a grid pattern, cut and cover would not be anywhere near as disruptive as it would be in London for example. There are large multi-lane roads that are so wide (many 20m between pavements) that you might even be able to keep 1 or 2 lanes open for traffic while doing cut and cover (I don’t know how true that is haha). Comparing that to ahout 10m on fleet street/strand.
And maybe its a bit dense for people to want an elevated BART path going through but there’s definitely room for it, and replacing a multi lane stroad with an elevated “subway” with fewer car lanes (or low speed, access only) would be much more enjoyable experience for cyclists and pedestrians and even residents once they got used to it. Admittedly bart trains probably won’t be as quiet as the newly built REM elevated sections.
It’s so difficult to get transport projects through the political ebbs and flows in california they should really focus on making it cost-effective so it actually gets built.