This image presents a comparison of different urban railway configurations and poses the question of efficiency. Let's analyze each option:

Overall Title:

* "URBAN RAILWAYS": This clearly defines the topic as railway systems within a city or urban environment.
* "WHICH IS MORE EFFICIENT???": This is the central question the image aims to explore, prompting viewers to consider the efficiency of different railway designs.

Author:

* "@07SKETCHES": Likely the creator of the image, suggesting an online source, possibly related to urban planning, design, or transportation.

Railway Configurations (1, 2, 3, 4):

The image illustrates four distinct ways urban railways can be integrated into a city, presented in cross-section views. Let's examine each one:

1. At-Grade (Level 1)

* Visual: The railway tracks are at ground level. Roads and sidewalks would cross at the same level, likely requiring level crossings or traffic signals. The image shows trees and streetlights along the side, suggesting integration into a streetscape.
* Potential Efficiencies:
* Pros:
* Lower Construction Cost: Generally the cheapest option as it requires minimal excavation or elevated structures.
* Easier Access: Stations are easily accessible from street level.
* Simpler Integration: Can be more easily integrated into existing street grids.
* Cons:
* Space Consumption: Requires dedicated land at ground level, which can be valuable in dense urban areas.
* Traffic Congestion: Can cause traffic disruption and congestion at level crossings, impacting road traffic flow.
* Safety Concerns: Level crossings pose safety risks for pedestrians and vehicles.
* Noise Pollution: Train noise is directly at street level, potentially affecting nearby residents and businesses.

2. Elevated (Level 2)

* Visual: The railway tracks are elevated above ground on a viaduct or elevated structure. Roads and pedestrian traffic can pass underneath.
* Potential Efficiencies:
* Pros:
* Reduces Ground-Level Congestion: Separates rail traffic from road traffic, minimizing congestion and delays at ground level.
* Improved Safety: Eliminates level crossings, enhancing safety for both rail and road users.
* Space Efficiency (Ground Level): Frees up ground space for other uses like roads, parking, or pedestrian areas.
* Cons:
* Higher Construction Cost: Elevated structures are more expensive to build and maintain than at-grade tracks.
* Visual Impact: Can be visually intrusive and create a barrier effect, impacting the urban landscape and potentially reducing property values nearby.
* Noise and Vibration: Elevated structures can transmit noise and vibration to surrounding buildings.
* Accessibility (Stations): Requires stairs, elevators, or escalators to access elevated stations, which can be less convenient for some users.

3. Cut-and-Cover/Trench (Level 3)
* Visual: The railway tracks are in a trench or cutting below ground level, but still open to the sky. Bridges or road overpasses would be needed for street crossings.
* Potential Efficiencies:
* Pros:
* Reduces Ground-Level Congestion: Separates rail traffic from road traffic, similar to elevated rail.
* Lower Visual Impact: Less visually intrusive than elevated rail, as the tracks are partially hidden below ground.
* Noise Reduction (Slight): The trench can offer some degree of noise dampening compared to at-grade rail.
* Cons:
* Moderate Construction Cost: More expensive than at-grade but generally less than fully underground tunnels. Requires excavation and retaining walls.
* Construction Disruption: Significant disruption during construction due to excavation.
* Drainage Issues: Requires drainage systems to manage rainwater and groundwater in the trench.
* Accessibility (Stations): Stations are typically below street level, requiring stairs or elevators.

4. Underground/Tunnel (Level 4)

* Visual: The railway tracks are completely underground in a tunnel. The surface level above is undisturbed and can be used for roads, buildings, parks, etc.
* Potential Efficiencies:
* Pros:
* Maximum Space Efficiency (Ground Level): Ground level space is completely freed up for other uses, maximizing land utilization in dense urban areas.
* Minimal Disruption to Surface Traffic: No interference with road traffic or pedestrian movement.
* Noise and Vibration Reduction: Tunnels significantly reduce noise and vibration pollution at street level.
* Aesthetic Integration: Preserves the visual character of the city at ground level.
* Cons:
* Highest Construction Cost: Tunneling is the most expensive and complex railway construction method.
* Complex Engineering: Requires advanced engineering and specialized equipment for tunneling, ventilation, and safety systems.
* Accessibility (Stations): Stations are deep underground, requiring elevators, escalators, and longer access times.
* Emergency Egress: More complex emergency evacuation procedures are needed in tunnels.

Which is More Efficient?

The image intentionally leaves the question of "which is more efficient?" open-ended because efficiency is not a simple, single metric. The "most efficient" option depends heavily on the specific urban context and priorities:

* Cost Efficiency: At-grade is generally the most cost-efficient in terms of initial construction.
* Space Efficiency: Underground is the most space-efficient in terms of ground-level land use.
* Traffic Efficiency: Elevated and underground options are more efficient at separating rail and road traffic.
* Environmental Efficiency: Consider noise pollution, visual impact, and disruption during construction.
* Social Efficiency: Consider accessibility for all users, safety, and integration with the urban fabric.

Overall Message:
The image effectively illustrates that there is no single "most efficient" urban railway solution. The optimal choice depends on balancing various factors and prioritizing different aspects of efficiency based on the specific needs and constraints of a city. Urban planners must weigh the trade-offs between cost, space, environmental impact, and social considerations when deciding on the best railway configuration for a given urban environment.
(https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1XYxWCQsnA/)
#Urbanists #Urbanplanner #publictransport

Ταξιδευα με την κορη μου με τραινοσε κ με "hellenic train" απο το 2012 ως το 2022

εχω ζησει ολη τη στσδιακη παρακμη ως κ τη διαλυση απ το 2019 κ μετα. εχω ζησει εκτροχιασμο, βλαβες, λαθος γραμμες κ οπισθεν, καθυστερησεις, αραιωση δρομολογιων, καραβανια στιβαγμενων απελπισμενων προσφυγων στα νυχτερινα το 15 κ 16, φοιτητες κ φανταρους να φτανουν στους σταθμους για να τους παραλαβουν με αγκαλιες κ φιλια γονεις κ φιλοι...ωσπου 57 δεν εφτασαν ποτε, παρα τους πεταξαν στα χωραφια κ μπαζωσαν μετα

#capitalism

Διαλέξτε ομάδα

#λατερνα #grpoll

Ο 45χρονος #Χανιώτης αφού πήρε την ζωή ενός αθώου παιδιού, απέδειξε για άλλη μια φορά ότι η Ελλάδα του 2025 είναι ακόμη η χώρα του... "...ξέρεις ποιος είμαι ΕΓΩ;;;"

#ΕΛΛΑΔΑ2_0

I have an important announcement to make. This is going to be a long post, but please, keep reading.

After a lot of consideration, I decided that it's time to take the next step when it comes to the services I've been hosting for the last two years.

So, the bigger change will be to move the services to a new domain, and maybe to a new server, probably with a bit more resources than the current one.

The plan is the following:

- The server is going to be run mostly as a pubnix, with a few services running on it for its users.

- We need to set up services that will be sustainable to run for a long time, in a relatively small budget, as much as it's possible.

- The decisions for the server should be taken by the majority of users and not by a single entity (the administrator).

Also, I'm considering of setting the new service in a few phases.

Phase 0:

Preparation for setting up the services, getting a new domain name (and server, if needed). The basic services should be set up at this point.

Phase 1:

The basic services will be up and running, ready to be accessible by the users. At this point, the old services will be slowly discontinued.

Some of the services that will be up at this point are the following:

- Website for our services and our users
- Fediverse instance (with alternative frontends)
- XMPP server (with MUC and voice/video calls support)
- Shells for registered users
- Email server (for use mostly from administrators of the service)

Phase 2:

Additional services will be set up when the services at Phase 1 will be considered stable. The old services will have been discontinued.

The services we'll add at this point are the following:

- Tor and I2P support for our pages
- Gemini and Gopher server for users, as well as pages for our services
- Mumble server
- Git server
- Radio stream
- File upload service

Phase 3:

At this phase, we will stop adding additional services (unless it's needed) and work on the maintenance of the ones will be running at this point.

Also, we'll considering of discontinuing the following services:

- IRC
- Minecraft server

The IRC server might be discontinued, since it was barely used. The Minecraft server will be discontinued because it has been difficult to run and it doesn't really worth the effort in my opinion.

So, where we are now?

Currently, we are at the beginning of the Phase 0, planning the new services. At this point, I think some help will be needed.

First, from the people of this instance, especially @Saphiroth, @MoonArcadia, @Floppa and @spacejunkie:

I need your feedback about the services, what would you like to see being added, changed or removed and the most important, picking a new name.

Second, from the administrators of local instances like Kafeneio or Electric Requiem, I need feedback about stuff that aren't necessarily technical, but are important to avoid potential issues, like legal stuff etc.

Last, but not least, from everyone who has experience on pubnixes etc., we'll need assistance on setting up our server for our needs. Some of the services we'll probably need help with are the following:

- Email server
- LDAP
- Setting up the system for usage as pubnix etc.

We will also need suggestions for a VPS provider. We currently use Contabo for our service and we didn't have any issues lately, but considering the issues other administrators had, we are considering to move our services to another provider.

That's what are we will working on for the next few months. I hope things will go well for us for the near future.

Thanks for reading.