Bienvenue sur le site intermodalite.com. Afin de faciliter vos recherches, nous avons classé les commentaires par catégories « derniers commentaires » et « derniers sujets commentés ». Vous pouvez réagir instantanément en déposant un commentaire & appliquer une notation à l’article.
Zamfir,Again, your density coamorispns are not meaningful because they ignore clustering. Los Angeles is denser than New York, but New York is far more conducive to walking and biking than LA because development in New York is much more tightly concentrated into dense clusters. Similarly, densely clustered housing and infrastructure is ubiquitous in the Netherlands. That's the only way to make it conducive to biking. In the US, virtually all urban development for the past 50 years has been low-density and car-oriented. Wide streets, even in residential neighborhoods. Large detached houses with front and back yards and a two-car garage. Giant malls and shopping centers and office parks with acres of parking space. That kind of development is extremely rare in the Netherlands. Your roads are narrow. Your housing stock is mostly small apartments in mid-rise buildings and row houses jammed together. You have many fewer cars per capita, and smaller cars, so you devote much less land to parking. And your shopping and commercial development is also much more compact.
Mixner, it may be rare in the US, but it is hardly cmomon in the Netherlands either. There are two cities build like that, Amsterdam and The Hague, and together they hold less then 10% of the people in the country. The other two large cities, Rotterdam and Utrecht, are already a lot less dense. According to the figures, somewhat less dense than LA.And don't overestimate the density of Amsterdam, it's less than half that of New York City. Where, don't forget, 3% of the US lives, against 5% of the Netherlands in Amsterdam.The borough of Manhattan has 28000 people per square kilometer, against 4700 for Amsterdam. Brooklyn, the Bronx and Queens are also way higher. Only Staten Island is below Amsterdam levels, at 3200/km2.A last point: neighborhoods like in that picture are not seen in the Netherlands as particularly cycling-oriented. It might be weird given the way it looks, but you get a similar misleading impression if you look at NY traffic and conclude that it must be a very car-oriented city.Many older blocks in Amsterdanm do not have storage space at ground level, so people store their bikes in the street. As you can imagine, this makes cycling a lot less popular, but it makes it look more popular because of all the bikes in the streets.
I'd be among those suggesting that a perluy technological interpretation of innovation is far too narrow to be of any particular use in the climate change debate. Clearly, social and institutional innovations are hugely important as well. To be fair to Mixner, technical innovations' are the focus of Manzi's post (and Noah Millman's original post before that). However, as we all risk getting bogged down in semantics I'd rather address Mixner's general comment on stabilizing atmospheric GHG concentrations. Yes, it's true that per capita emissions will have to be much lower in the future than today if we take the mainstream scientific view as gospel. However, the fact that we adopt low-hanging efficiency measures first (e.g. using public transport and other lifestyle changes) is entirely consistent with basic economics. These represent the easiest marginal gains to be had, while more advanced steps will come once the carbon price is high enough. I also support the observations of other readers here, in that we have indeed seen some notable technological advancements coming out of Europe. I'd emphasise an additional point (that some have implicitly made above): Much of technology is freely available in the USA and has been for some time. Useful innovation must, of course, have an element of adoption about it If higher prices encourage the wider use of carbon-reducing technologies from previous decades; goal achieved, i'd say.
Bonjour, Je ne sais pas comment vous ctetaconr donc je me permets de laisser un commentaire sur un te9moignage. Cordialement, David.Hier, c est-e0-dire dimanche 30 septembre 2012, j’ai pris le tramway ligne 3 pour aller au centre ville en partant de la station Mosson e0 16h48. Je me suis assis juste derrie8re le conducteur. En arrivant e0 la station Pergola , un jeune de 15-17 ans donne un coup de pied sur l’avant du tram puis entre. Je vois le conducteur regarder dans son re9tro probablement pour observer le comportement de ce jeune dans le tramway. Il semble rester calme. Ce meame jeune, redescend e0 la staton ab Plan Cabanes bb remonte le quai en longeant le tram et au moment de traverser devant le tram, ce dernier rede9marre et donc doit freiner. Ce jeune en question s’e9nerve en re9ite9rant un coup de pied contre la vitre de la cabine du conducteur. Et c’est le0 qu’il s’acharne, un, deux, trois, quatre coups… De sa cabine, le conducteur impuissant lui ordonne d’arreater. Puis la vitre finit par casser, le conducteur re9pond ab tu es content ? Tu l’as casse9 ! bb et le jeune part en remontant la rue du Faubourg du Courreau.En tant que simple passager, j’ai e9te9 impressionne9 par la violence de ce jeune. Que ce serait-il passe9 s’il avait pu revenir dans le tram ? Nous avons de si beaux trams, quel dommage de voir nos moyens de transport eatre de9te9riore9s de cette fae7on… J’espe8re que ce jeune a e9te9 retrouve9 par les services de police.
Le 3 avril 2007 e0 13 h 15 sur la LGV Est Europe9enne, la SNCF bat son propre rcerod en parvenant e0 faire rouler la rame d’essais 4402 e0 la vitesse de 574,8 km/h (soit 159,4 me8tres/seconde). Cette vitesse correspond e0 Mach 0,47 (pour une tempe9rature de 15 b0C[11]) ! Ce rcerod s’inscrivait dans le cadre du programme ab V150 bb visant e0 de9passer la vitesse de 150 m/s (soit 540 km/h). Une rame Duplex compose9e de trois remorques uniquement avait e9te9 spe9cialement pre9pare9e et sa puissance avait e9te9 double9e par rapport au TGV classique. Elle posse9dait des roues d’un diame8tre plus important et la voiture au centre de la rame e9tait e9quipe9e de bogies motorise9s de la future AGV. Pour le reste, ce train e9tait similaire e0 un train de se9rie SNCF. Durant la phase d’essais, la vitesse de 568 km/h avait de9je0 e9te9 atteinte. Il s’agissait le 3 avril d’obtenir un rcerod de vitesse homologue9.Le TGV a e9galement e9tabli un rcerod d’endurance, le 26 mai 2001 avec le trajet Calais Marseille (1 067 km) en 3 h 29 (306,3 km/h de moyenne), lors de l’inauguration de la LGV Me9diterrane9e, avec la rame Re9seau no 531.Il a e9galement e9tabli le 17 mai 2006 un rcerod du monde de la plus longue distance parcourue sans arreat par un train de voyageurs, en transportant dans une rame Eurostar l’e9quipe du film Da Vinci Code de Londres e0 Cannes, soit 1 421 km en 7 h 25 (191,6 km/h)[12].Le TGV reste, en 2009, le train sur rail le plus rapide au monde en service commercial (au Japon, le Maglev de9tient le rcerod de vitesse pour les trains e0 sustentation magne9tique, et en Chine, le Transrapid de Shanghai fait l’objet d’une exploitation commerciale). Re9cemment, un parcours type moyen s’e9tablissait e0 263,3 km/h de vitesse moyenne de gare e0 gare[13].
Exactly where did you actually acrique the ideas to compose ““NVision Scanners Provide Crucial Evidence | NVision Reverse Engineering Services�Thanks for the post ,Anton
Robert & Gilles CLARACO Fondateurs du portail de l’intermodalité intermodalite.com
Remettre les Européens sur les rails