More asphalt doesn't reduce road congestion .....

.... but light rail does.

From Transport & Environment (T & E)

We will have to get used to the fact that traffic jams are here to stay. After all, if traffic can move one per cent faster during rush hour, this will increase car commuting by just over one per cent. This follows from research by Rijkswaterstaat, the Dutch Road Authority. The study provides a simple insight into the behavioural effects of various mobility measures. These are average effects that can vary in specific situations.

Rijkswaterstaat's findings are in line with international research. A synthesis of five studies concludes that in urban areas, one per cent extra motorway capacity leads to one per cent extra traffic. For urban trunk roads, the figure is 0.75 percent. This confirms the 'fundamental law of road congestion', as one of the five underlying studies is called. A study of the impact of 16 motorway widenings in the Netherlands also shows that the additional traffic growth on the main road network exceeds the increase in capacity.

Congestion regulates mobility behaviour. Excessive congestion encourages drivers to choose a shorter journey, to avoid the rush hour, to travel with someone else or to use another mode of transport. Less congestion has the opposite effect. After the opening of the Zeeburger tunnel near Amsterdam, 16% more cars crossed the North Sea Canal during rush hour, the average occupancy of these cars fell by 7% and 31% of drivers returned to driving during rush hour.

So, congestion remains. Back in 1988, McKinsey advised in its report 'Ending traffic jams' that more asphalt would not solve congestion. The statistics bear this out: after some ups and downs, the time lost per kilometre driven on Dutch motorways today is about the same as it was twenty years ago. Traffic jams slow traffic down by an average of one tenth of a kilometre per hour.

This analysis also implies that converting roadways to pedestrian zones, i.e., making roads traffic-free, will not increase congestion, even while it makes using the streets more pleasant for pedestrians.

Meanwhile, building light rail leads to less congestion, shorter travel times, and less pollution: 

From Science Direct

I find evidence that an increase in the supply of [light]rails [in European cities] leads to less congestion, less travel time and less pollution. Furthermore, I find that cities with a new rail system have 7% less congestion, 1% less travel time and 3% less pollution than cities with no rail systems. I find no evidence of different pre-trends of treated and control cities. The impact of rails on congestion, travel time and pollution is gradual, and increases over time.

The analysis would imply that expanding a light-train or tram system after the first section has been constructed will lead to further traffic/congestion reductions, especially with network effects.

This paper suggests that in Melbourne (with the world's largest tram network) the impact is somewhat larger, despite stops being much closer together than on most light rail systems:

In inner Melbourne trams have a much higher impact in reducing congestion; vehicle time travelled and total delay on the road network decreases by 3.4% as a result of tram operations. The average road network speed rises from 41.6 km/h to 41.9 km/h (an increase of 0.9%). The operation of trams in inner Melbourne increases actual travel time on average from 2.14 minutes/km to 2.13 minutes/km. Although trams contribute to reduce the number of car trips on the road network, the average travel speed increases slightly. This is because the travel speed on links with non-exclusive tram rights-of-way decreases due to the low speed of trams and boarding/ alighting passengers. The tram network contributes to reduce 16% of the number of moderately congested links in inner Melbourne

The moral of the story is clear:  if your freeways are getting congested, don't add more lanes or more freeways.  Build light rail.  And add pedestrianised streets, which, the Melbourne experience shows, work particularly well with trams.

See also :  Metcalfe's law

King Charles's beautiful new town

This video is about Poundbury, a new town in Dorset, whose creation was driven by Prince Charles.  He wanted to show that it was possible to build beautiful towns that people wanted to live in.   Poundbury has turned into a massive success.   No doubt there are still some snooty, know-all architects who despise it, and prefer brutalist concrete architecture, but ordinary people love it.  Its treatment of social housing is exactly what I would do:  instead of concentrating the social housing in one area, it's spread out through the town.  No sink estates here!

I don't know why architects and town planners ignore our wishes all the time, but Poundbury shows why they are wrong.

Before and after

From a toot by Qagggy

BEFORE & AFTER: There are so many smart cities like this. It makes you wonder why there are still so many…how do I put this delicately? …dumb ones.

Before

After
Notice how the hideous windows in the building at the end of the street
have been restored to their original beauty!

Prague rooftops

 Jiri Jenicek, Prague Rooftops, 1947

First train connection between Ukraine and Romania

 From a Twitter thread by Alexander Kamyshin (railway minister of Ukraine)

Launched the first train connecting Ukraine and Romania.

Just to remind. Back in August 2022, in the middle of the war, we completed 20km of new track reconstruction. That track was closed for 17 years. We done it in 2 months. And then we waited for another 4 months while Romanian railways completed its part of the job.

 From other tweets in the thread, it looks as if the red section has in fact been completed

We also brought brand new diesel train to the route. Made in Ukraine during the war, btw.

What a beautiful station building!

5 reasons why this connection is important: (1) yet another connection for cargo export. More business for both countries. Vital for , because cargo export is blood for our economy. Beneficial for , both railways and #Constanta seaport. Great extension for #SolidarityLanes.

(2) another connection for Ukrainians to the EU. You can change the train in Valea Viseului and travel to Cluj-Napoca where international airport gives you 30 destinations per day, incl. 2 flights to London. Or you can go to Bucharest.

(3) more than 30k Ukrainians live in Maramures county of Romania, which is neighboring Ukraine. We are happy to give them a comfortable connection to visit their friends and relatives in Ukraine.

(4) great opportunity for Romanians to #VisitUkraine. Ski resorts in the winter time or hiking #Carpathians in the summer time. And yes, I'm sure that many Romanians are fine to travel to Ukraine even amid the war.

(5) we have to finish a few more exercises with border control and the customs office, and we gonna give a direct transit route connecting Ukraine with Ukraine via Romania. That's important because of the Carpathian mountains, complicating other ways to connect inside Ukraine.

Actually, there is also 6th reason why this corridor is important, but that's something we never discuss. If you know what I mean. 😎

Crossing the border from to .

 

 

And back home. From to .

The line is "Russian" gauge (1520 mm/4 ft 11+27⁄32 in) which is wider than standard gauge (1,435 mm /4 ft 8+1⁄2 in). You have to change trains across the border. (It might interest you to know that, since Australia has several railway gauges, you also had to change trains at state borders in the past, though these days there are standard gauge railway connections between all the mainland capital cities.) There are plans to build a high-speed network in Ukraine, using standard gauge, connecting with the European high-speed network..

To build this so quickly, and while their country is under attack from Russia, is very impressive.

Also, how beautiful that part of Ukraine is.  I'd love to visit.

Cost of carbon capture and storage in the US

 Carbon capture and storage is costly.  According to this analysis (below), it will add $50 to $60 to the cost of coal-fired electricity, and $80-$90 to gas-fired.  Lazard's estimate of the cost of new coal is $112/MWh, without subsidy, carbon tax or CCS.  So unless there is a tax credit (= subsidy), forcing coal power stations to introduce CCS will put up the cost of electricity from new coal power stations to ±$170/MWh (1 MWh of coal-fired electricity produces roughly 1 tonnes of carbon).  And the operating cost of existing coal will rise from $41/MWh to $100/MWh.  This compares with the cost of wind + solar + 4 hours of storage of around $40/MWh.   If, instead of a subsidy for CCS, we introduce a carbon tax/price on carbon high enough to make CCS worthwhile, the cost of power from coal will rise anyway.   Either way, coal will just be priced out of the market more quickly.  

A reminder: the EU price on carbon is roughly US$73/tonne.  And the EU  is determined to levy a carbon border tax on imports from countries which don't have a price on carbon, which will drive the global adoption of a carbon tax.  After all, why pay a carbon tax to Europe when you could pay it to yourself?

From The Royal Society

We model the costs of carbon capture and storage (CCS) in subsurface geological formations for emissions from 138 northeastern and midwestern electricity-generating power plants. The analysis suggests coal-sourced CO2 emissions can be stored in this region at a cost of $52–$60 ton−1, whereas the cost to store emission from natural-gas-fired plants ranges from approximately $80 to $90. Storing emissions offshore increases the lowest total costs of CCS to over $60 per ton of CO2 for coal. Because there apparently is sufficient onshore storage in the northeastern and midwestern United States, offshore storage is not necessary or economical unless there are additional costs or suitability issues associated with the onshore reservoirs. For example, if formation pressures are prohibitive in a large-scale deployment of onshore CCS, or if there is opposition to onshore storage, offshore storage space could probably store emissions at an additional cost of less than $10 ton−1. Finally, it is likely that more than 8 Gt of total CO2 emissions from this region can be stored for less $60 ton−1, slightly more than the $50 ton−1 Section 45Q tax credits incentivizing CCS.

The Royal Society. 
Dating from a time when architecture produced beautiful buildings as a matter of course.