DOCSLIB.ORG

A Blueprint for Building Transit Better

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
A Blueprint for Building Transit Better SAVING TIME AND MAKING CENTS: A Blueprint for Building Transit Better A Blueprint for Building Transit Better 1 AUTHORS Romic Aevaz Policy Analyst, Eno Center for Transportation Brianne Eby Senior Policy Analyst, Eno Center for Transportation Paul Lewis Vice President of Policy and Finance, Eno Center for Transportation Robert Puentes President and CEO, Eno Center for Transportation A Blueprint for Building Transit Better 2 Acknowledgments The authors would like to express gratitude to Alice Grossman, Jeff Davis, and Katherine Idziorek for their research assistance, as well as Katie Donahue and Caroline Marete for their help reviewing and editing this report. Karen Price and Madeline Gorman also provided invaluable assistance preparing this report and accompanying digital materials for publication. The Eno Center for Transportation would like to thank the following individuals for contributing their expertise, constructive feedback, and support as members of the advisory panel convened for this research initiative: Adjo Amekudzi-Kennedy Hani Mahmassani Professor and Associate Chair, Global Director, Northwestern University Engineering Leadership and Entrepreneurship, Transportation Center School of Civil & Environmental Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology Beth Osborne Director, Transportation for America Rabinder Bains Chief Economist, Federal Transit Administration Stephanie Pollack former Secretary and CEO, Massachusetts Andrew Bata Department of Transportation Regional Manager, North America UITP Thomas Prendergast Allison Black Americas Transit Leader, AECOM Senior Vice President & Chief Economist, American Road & Transportation Builders Edwina Smallwood Association Economist, Federal Transit Administration David Carol Christof Spieler Chief Operating Officer, American Public Senior Lecturer, Rice University Transportation Association Raj Srinath Aileen Carrigan Former Deputy General Manager/Chief Principal & Founder, Bespoke Transit Solutions Financial Officer, Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Richard Clarke Former Chief Program Management Officer, Ali Touran Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Northeastern University College of Engineering Nuria Fernandez former General Manager/CEO, Santa Clara Mia Veltri Valley Transportation Authority Program Analyst, Federal Transit Administration Eric Goldwyn Carole Voulgaris Research Scholar, New York University’s Marron Assistant Professor of Urban Planning, Institute on Cities and the Urban Environment Harvard Graduate School of Design Tracy Gordon Charlie Zelle Senior Fellow, Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center Chairman, Metropolitan Council A Blueprint for Building Transit Better 3 The Eno Center for Transportation also wishes to thank the Merck Family Fund, TransitCenter, the Barr Foundation, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, and the John Merck Fund for their generous support of this initiative. The Federal Transit Administration also provided financial support for this and future related work on transit costs and project delivery. About the Eno Center for Transportation The Eno Center for Transportation is an independent, nonpartisan think tank whose vision is for an American transportation system that fosters economic vitality, advances social equity, and improves the quality of life for all. The mission of Eno is to shape public debate on critical multimodal transportation issues and build a network of innovative transportation professionals. As an organization, Eno values independence, collaboration, relevance, excellence, and entrepreneurialism. These core values are reflected in everything we do. A Blueprint for Building Transit Better 4 Executive Summary Cities, states, and metropolitan areas across the United States are looking to invest in a range of public transit projects in order to connect people to jobs and economic opportunity, reduce greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles, and shape development patterns. According to one estimate, the United States invested about $50 billion in new transit projects in just the last decade.1 These include underground subways in Los Angeles, commuter rail lines along the Front Range near Denver, a streetcar in downtown Atlanta, light rail lines in suburban Phoenix, and bus rapid transit in Richmond, Virginia, among many others. While these projects are as diverse as the country itself, they all have one thing in common: increased scrutiny over their costs and timelines to build. A few very visible projects have reinforced the narrative that rail transit investments have systemic issues that are endemic to the United States. This all begs the questions: Is this true? If so, why? And what should we do about it? These are precisely the questions Eno set out to answer through this research, policy, and communications project to analyze current and historical trends in public transit project delivery. We convened a set of advisors and conducted in-depth interviews with key stakeholders to understand the drivers behind mass transit construction, cost, and delivery in the United States. A comprehensive database of rail transit projects was created and curated to compare costs and timelines among U.S. cities and peer metropolitan areas in Western Europe and Canada. Through this quantitative and qualitative approach, we developed actionable recommendations for policy changes at all levels of government as well as best practices for the public and private sectors. UNDERSTANDING COSTS AND TIMELINES Eno’s Construction Cost Database of 180 domestic and international public transit projects completed since 2000 shows that the United States pays a premium of nearly 50 percent on a per-mile basis to build transit for both primarily at-grade and primarily tunneled projects. The tunneling premium in the United States rises to roughly 250 percent when New York City’s disproportionately expensive projects are included. Tunneled projects are not only less expensive abroad, but also more common. Just under 12 percent of U.S. rail transit projects represented in our database were constructed primarily below ground, compared to 37 percent of non-U.S. projects. In fact, many international projects constructed below grade have similar costs to those that are at-grade in the United States. For example, Toulouse, France’s 9.3 mile Metro Line B was built entirely underground at a cost of about $176 million per mile while Houston Metro’s 3.2 mile Green Line is all at-grade and cost $223 million per mile. A Blueprint for Building Transit Better 5 Despite their lower construction costs, international projects are often more complex than similar lines in the United States. They tend to have more stations that are built closer together than U.S. projects, often run through crowded historic city centers, and usually share street space with cars and other vehicles. Rail projects in the United States tend to be routed along “paths of least resistance” such as freight rail or highway corridors, rather than dense areas where transit would make the most sense for riders or communities. Of course, this is not always the case. Seattle’s 1 Line corridor traverses well-developed urban areas and operates in a tunnel between the University of Washington and downtown. But many U.S. transit projects resemble Minneapolis’ Blue Line, whose mostly at-grade alignment along existing right-of-way was specifically intended to limit impacts on the local community and minimize the need to acquire private property. Even with more straightforward alignments, U.S. projects with minimal tunneling still take about six months longer to construct than similar non-U.S. projects. U.S. projects that are almost all underground take nearly a year and a half longer to build than abroad. The time it takes to construct a transit project is also highly correlated with its cost, reinforcing the aphorism “time is money.” RESEARCH METHODS With an understanding that transit projects in the United States do suffer from high costs and take longer to complete than they do abroad, it is important to investigate the “why.” To do so, we conducted a thorough examination of existing literature and research and interviewed 117 professionals with both intimate knowledge of specific projects or regions and transit project delivery expertise generally. We also conducted detailed case studies of project delivery in four domestic regions (Los Angeles, Seattle, Denver, and Minneapolis) and four international regions (Copenhagen, Madrid, Paris, and Toronto) to help identify real-world examples of cost and timeline drivers for transit projects as well as best practices. We also compared a transit project to a highway project in Virginia to compare how regulatory processes, project delivery practices, institutional support, and governance differ across modes. Through our literature review and case studies, one clear finding emerged: there is not one, easily identifiable reason for high costs or delivery delays. Rather, we identified a dozen drivers of transit construction costs and timelines that fall into three overlapping and interrelated categories: governance, processes, and standards. These findings form the basis of our resulting recommendations and best practices to deliver transit projects quicker and more cost-effectively. A Blueprint for Building Transit Better 6 POLICY AND PRACTICE RECOMMENDATIONS The responsibility for cutting costs and timelines for transit projects does not rest solely on federal reforms, fixes at the agency
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Transit City Etobicoke - Finch West LRT
    Delcan Corporation Toronto Transit Commission / City of Toronto Etobicoke-Finch West Light Rail Transit Transit Project Assessment Environmental Project Report - Appendices Transit City Etobicoke - Finch West LRT APPENDIX M – Consultation Record March 2010 March 2010 Appendix M Delcan Corporation Toronto Transit Commission / City of Toronto Etobicoke-Finch West Light Rail Transit Transit Project Assessment Environmental Project Report - Appendices 3.0 List of Interested Persons Participating in the Consultations 1.0 Introduction This appendix documents in detail the consultations carried out with the technical agencies, the public, Consultation was carried out to encourage technical agencies to provide input during the course of the and the First Nations communities. study. The following agencies were invited to be involved and provide comment on the TPAP study for the EFWLRT: 2.0 Description of Consultations and Follow-up Efforts The general public, government agencies and various interest groups were provided opportunities to Government Review Agencies Technical Agencies Canadian Environmental Assessment All Stream review and comment on this project during the course of the study. The City of Toronto Public Agency Consultation Team was involved in the overall public consultation process. They offered a wide range Environmental Canada MTA All Stream Inc. of communication methods to the public, including project web site, dedicated telephone number, fax, Department of Fisheries and Oceans Telus and email address for contacting the project team. Indian and Northern Affairs Canada Enwave Energy Corporation (INAC) Transportation Canada-Ontario Region Group Telecom/360 Network Technical agencies, including federal, provincial, municipal agencies, utilities, and potential interested Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs Hydro One Network Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • Bus Rapid Transit Service Breaks Ground in Mississauga
    No. H0xx/10 For release August 20, 2010 BUS RAPID TRANSIT SERVICE BREAKS GROUND IN MISSISSAUGA MISSISSAUGA, ONTARIO — Bob Dechert, Member of Parliament, Mississauga-Erindale, the Honourable Kathleen Wynne, Ontario’s Transportation Minister, Her Worship Hazel McCallion, Mayor of Mississauga and Gary McNeil, GO Transit Managing Director participated in a groundbreaking ceremony today to mark the start of construction of the Mississauga Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) corridor. This project, which is expected to be completed in spring 2013, will improve local and inter-regional bus operations across the City of Mississauga. It involves constructing an 11-kilometre east-west busway across the City of Mississauga between Winston Churchill Boulevard and Renforth Drive in the City of Toronto and a total of 12 stations along the route with related commuter facilities. “Investments in public transit creates jobs and boosts the Canadian economy,” said MP Dechert. “This rapid transit system will provide commuters in Mississauga with a more efficient transit option, while cutting commute times and taking more cars off the road.” “This is great news for Mississauga residents,” said Ontario Transportation Minister Kathleen Wynne. “When the new bus rapid transit line is finished, more commuters will be able to leave their cars at home and take public transit. Investing in public transit is part of the McGuinty government’s Open Ontario plan. Better public transit means a better quality of life for Ontario families.” (TBC) “We are doing everything we can to make Mississauga a transit-oriented city and show our commitment to ensure we meet the needs of residents and businesses,” said Mayor Hazel McCallion.
    [Show full text]
  • Area Transportation System Problems and Opportunities Report
    GTA West Corridor Planning and Environmental Assessment Study Revised Draft Area Transportation System Problems and Opportunities Report GTA West Corridor Planning and Environmental Assessment Study Revised Draft Area Transportation System Problems and Opportunities Report PREFACE The Area Transportation System Problems and Opportunities Report – Draft for Consultation (2009) is one of several interim reports which depicts the study process culminating in the Transportation Development Strategy. The Area Transportation System Problems and Opportunities Report – Draft for Consultation (2009) was first issued in July 2009. The reports purpose was to summarize the process and methodology that was used to identify transportation problems and opportunities, and to document the key findings of this work. In the consultation period following its release, the study team received comments relating to a range of issues, including municipal planning policy, transportation modelling, and planned transportation initiatives within the preliminary study area. The purpose of this revised draft report (December 2010) is to ensure that all comments received have been adequately addressed; where appropriate, the content of the report has been revised accordingly. Appendix C provides a Summary of the Input Received on the draft Problems and Opportunities Report, and details each comment received, the study team’s response, and any changes incorporated into the revised draft report. www.gta-west.com GTA West Corridor Planning and Environmental Assessment Study
    [Show full text]
  • 2018 Financial and CSR Report Attestation of the Persons Responsible for the Annual Report
    2018 Financial and CSR Report Attestation of the persons responsible for the annual report We, the undersigned, hereby attest that to the best of our knowledge the financial statements have been prepared in accordance with generally-accepted accounting principles and give a true and fair view of the assets, liabilities, financial position and results of the company and of all consolidated companies, and that the management report attached presents a true and fair picture of the results and financial position of the consolidated companies and of all uncertainties facing them. Paris, 29 March 2019 Chairwoman and CEO Catherine Guillouard Chief Financial Officer Jean-Yves Leclercq Management Corporate report governance Editorial 4 report Profile 6 The Board of Directors 89 RATP Group organisation chart 14 Compensation of corporate officers 91 Financial results 16 Diversity policy 91 Extra-financial performance Appendix – List of directors declaration 28 and their terms of office at 31 December 2018 91 International control and risk management 69 Consolidated Financial fi nancial statements statements Statutory Auditors’ report on the financial statements 156 Statutory Auditors’ report on the consolidated financial statements 96 EPIC balance sheet 159 Consolidated statements EPIC income statement 160 of comprehensive income 100 Notes to the financial statements 161 Consolidated balance sheets 102 Consolidated statements of cash flows 103 Consolidated statements of changes in equity 104 Notes to the consolidated financial statements 105 RATP Group — 2018 Financial and CSR Report 3 Editorial 2018 – a year of strong growth momentum and commitment to the territories served 2018 was marked by an acceleration in RATP Capital Innovation continues to invest the Group’s development in Île-de-France, in new shared mobility solutions and smart cities, in France and internationally.
    [Show full text]
  • Commission Report Macro
    Form Revised: February 2005 TORONTO TRANSIT COMMISSION REPORT NO. MEETING DATE: JUNE 18, 2008 SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF THE SHEPPARD EAST LRT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT STUDY ACTION ITEM: x RECOMMENDATIONS It is recommended that the Commission: 1. Approve the recommendation of the joint City/TTC Sheppard East LRT Environmental Assessment (EA) study, that a Light Rail Transit (LRT) line be constructed on Sheppard Avenue East, between Don Mills Station and Meadowvale Road, to provide transit service in that corridor, as outlined in this report; 2. Forward this report to the City of Toronto, and request that City Council, at it’s meeting on July 15, 2008, approve the recommendations of the Sheppard East LRT EA study to allow staff to begin detailed design as soon as possible, and be in a position to begin construction of this first Transit City light rail line in 2009; 3. Request that City Council: i) authorise staff to submit the final Environmental Assessment Study report for the 30-day public review period, as required to complete the EA process for this project; ii) advise the Province of Ontario of its approval of this EA study; 4. Note that City Planning is proceeding to amend the Toronto Official Plan so that Sheppard Avenue East, from McCowan Road to Meadowvale Road, is included as a Transit Priority Corridor, in support of this project; 5. Note that City Planning staff have been full participants in the preparation of this environmental assessment. They have reviewed this report, and they concur with its recommendations; and 6. Forward this report to Metrolinx, to confirm previous information that the Sheppard East light rail line is ready to proceed to implementation and, therefore, should be included in Metrolinx’s forthcoming ‘first wave’ funding approval.
    [Show full text]
  • Yonge Subway Extension Transit Project Assessment
    Yonge Subway Extension Transit Project Assessment Councillors Briefing January 22, 2009 inter-regional connectivity is the key to success 2 metrolinx: 15 top priorities ● On November 28, 2008 Regional Transportation Plan approved by Metrolinx Board ● Top 15 priorities for early implementation include: ¾ Viva Highway 7 and Yonge Street through York Region ¾ Spadina Subway extension to Vaughan Corporate Centre ¾ Yonge Subway extension to Richmond Hill Centre ¾ Sheppard/Finch LRT ¾ Scarborough RT replacement ¾ Eglinton Crosstown LRT 3 …transit city LRT plan 4 yonge subway – next steps TODAY 5 what’s important when planning this subway extension? You told us your top three priorities were: 1. Connections to other transit 2. Careful planning of existing neighbourhoods and future growth 3. Destinations, places to go and sensitivity to the local environment were tied for the third priority In addition, we need to address all the technical and operational requirements and costs 6 yonge subway at a crossroads ● The Yonge Subway is TTC’s most important asset ● Must preserve and protect existing Yonge line ridership ● Capacity of Yonge line to accommodate ridership growth a growing issue ● Extension of Yonge/Spadina lines matched by downstream capacity ● Three major issues: 1. Capacity of Yonge Subway line 2. Capacity of Yonge-Bloor Station 3. Sequence of events for expansion 7 yonge-university-spadina subway – peak hour volumes 8 yonge subway capacity: history ● Capacity of Yonge line an issue since early 1980s ● RTES study conclusions (2001) ¾
    [Show full text]
  • Toronto Transit Commission Relief Line South Toronto Transit Commission
    Toronto Transit Commission Relief Line South Toronto Transit Commission The engineering support services provided by GZ included Location: Toronto, Canada preliminary design of the temporary and permanent support measures for the SEM caverns in the swelling conditions as well Date: 2017 - 2019 design of the waterproofing system. In addition, GZ provided constructability reviews and value engineering studies for the stations, as well as for the alignment. Structure: 2 large diameter underground Station caverns Length: 4.66 mi (7.5 km) Geology: Georgian Bay Shale, glacial tills Cost: - Client: HDR Owner: Toronto Transit Commission Preliminary SEM Station Design: n 2017, the Toronto Transit Commission approved the I Preliminary Engineering Design of the Relief Line South Project, which was a planned new 7.5 km long subway line that was intended to run through the center of downtown Toronto. The project was to connect the Yonge-University-Spadina Subway (Line 1) to the Bloor-Danforth Subway (Line 2) in the downtown area. The goal of the Relief Line South was to help relieve Figure 1. Proposed Relief Line South arrangement with stations. crowding on Line 1 south of Bloor, at the Bloor-Yonge Station, and on the surface transit routes coming in and out of downtown. Construction planning of the Relief Line South included construction of twin running tunnels by means of tunnel boring machines, five new stations, and modifications to three existing stations, which will be converted to interchange stations. Design of the Relief Line South progressed to the preliminary engineering stage, and was consequently re-envisioned as the southern section of the Ontario Line Project.
    [Show full text]
  • Update on Metrolinx Transit Expansion Projects – Second Quarter 2021
    REPORT FOR ACTION Update on Metrolinx Transit Expansion Projects – Second Quarter 2021 Date: June 21, 2021 To: Executive Committee From: Executive Director, Transit Expansion Office and Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning Wards: All SUMMARY The purpose of this report is to provide a status update on Metrolinx-led transit expansion projects currently underway in Toronto, with a focus on the Subway Program (i.e., Ontario Line, Scarborough Subway Extension, Yonge North Subway Extension, and Eglinton Crosstown West Extension), SmartTrack Stations Program, and Durham- Scarborough Bus Rapid Transit. In particular, this report provides information that addresses several Council directives related to the Ontario Line and the Bloor- Lansdowne SmartTrack Station. City staff are involved in the planning, design, and implementation of Metrolinx transit expansion programs through activities such as reviewing technical drawings, developing required legal agreements, reviewing construction management and traffic management plans, and planning approvals, among many other activities. City staff will continue to provide updates to Council on these multi-billion dollar transit expansion investments as they develop. RECOMMENDATIONS The Executive Director, Transit Expansion Office and Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning recommend that: 1. Executive Committee receive this report for information. Update on Metrolinx Projects – Q2 2021 Page 1 of 16 FINANCIAL IMPACT There are no financial implications resulting from the adoption of this report. The Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer has reviewed this report and agrees with the financial impact information. DECISION HISTORY In October 2019, City Council considered EX9.1 Toronto-Ontario Transit Update and authorized the City Manager to negotiate, enter into and execute a Preliminary Agreement with the Province and/or any other relevant provincial agency, in accordance with the terms set out in the term sheet in Attachment 6 to the report.
    [Show full text]
  • A Bid for Better Transit Improving Service with Contracted Operations Transitcenter Is a Foundation That Works to Improve Urban Mobility
    A Bid for Better Transit Improving service with contracted operations TransitCenter is a foundation that works to improve urban mobility. We believe that fresh thinking can change the transportation landscape and improve the overall livability of cities. We commission and conduct research, convene events, and produce publications that inform and improve public transit and urban transportation. For more information, please visit www.transitcenter.org. The Eno Center for Transportation is an independent, nonpartisan think tank that promotes policy innovation and leads professional development in the transportation industry. As part of its mission, Eno seeks continuous improvement in transportation and its public and private leadership in order to improve the system’s mobility, safety, and sustainability. For more information please visit: www.enotrans.org. TransitCenter Board of Trustees Rosemary Scanlon, Chair Eric S. Lee Darryl Young Emily Youssouf Jennifer Dill Clare Newman Christof Spieler A Bid for Better Transit Improving service with contracted operations TransitCenter + Eno Center for Transportation September 2017 Acknowledgments A Bid for Better Transit was written by Stephanie Lotshaw, Paul Lewis, David Bragdon, and Zak Accuardi. The authors thank Emily Han, Joshua Schank (now at LA Metro), and Rob Puentes of the Eno Center for their contributions to this paper’s research and writing. This report would not be possible without the dozens of case study interviewees who contributed their time and knowledge to the study and reviewed the report’s case studies (see report appendices). The authors are also indebted to Don Cohen, Didier van de Velde, Darnell Grisby, Neil Smith, Kent Woodman, Dottie Watkins, Ed Wytkind, and Jeff Pavlak for their detailed and insightful comments during peer review.
    [Show full text]
  • Attachment 4 – Assessment of Ontario Line
    EX9.1 Attachment 4 – Assessment of Ontario Line As directed by City Council in April 2019, City and TTC staff have assessed the Province’s proposed Ontario Line. The details of this assessment are provided in this attachment. 1. Project Summary 1.1. Project Description The Ontario Line was included as part of the 2019 Ontario Budget1 as a transit project that will cover similar study areas as the Relief Line South and North, as well as a western extension. The proposed project is a 15.5-kilometre higher-order transit line with 15 stations, connecting from Exhibition GO station to Line 5 at Don Mills Road and Eglinton Avenue East, near the Science Centre station, as shown in Figure 1. Figure 1. Ontario Line Proposal (source: Metrolinx IBC) Since April 2019, technical working groups comprising staff from the City, TTC, Metrolinx, Infrastructure Ontario and the Ministry of Transportation met regularly to understand alignment and station location options being considered for the Ontario 1 http://budget.ontario.ca/2019/contents.html Attachment 4 - Assessment of Ontario Line Page 1 of 20 Line. Discussions also considered fleet requirements, infrastructure design criteria, and travel demand modelling. Metrolinx prepared an Initial Business Case (IBC) that was publicly posted on July 25, 2019.2 The IBC compared the Ontario Line and Relief Line South projects against a Business As Usual scenario. The general findings by Metrolinx were that "both Relief Line South and Ontario Line offer significant improvements compared to a Business As Usual scenario, generating $3.4 billion and $7.4 billion worth of economic benefits, respectively.
    [Show full text]
  • Rapid Transit in Toronto Levyrapidtransit.Ca TABLE of CONTENTS
    The Neptis Foundation has collaborated with Edward J. Levy to publish this history of rapid transit proposals for the City of Toronto. Given Neptis’s focus on regional issues, we have supported Levy’s work because it demon- strates clearly that regional rapid transit cannot function eff ectively without a well-designed network at the core of the region. Toronto does not yet have such a network, as you will discover through the maps and historical photographs in this interactive web-book. We hope the material will contribute to ongoing debates on the need to create such a network. This web-book would not been produced without the vital eff orts of Philippa Campsie and Brent Gilliard, who have worked with Mr. Levy over two years to organize, edit, and present the volumes of text and illustrations. 1 Rapid Transit in Toronto levyrapidtransit.ca TABLE OF CONTENTS 6 INTRODUCTION 7 About this Book 9 Edward J. Levy 11 A Note from the Neptis Foundation 13 Author’s Note 16 Author’s Guiding Principle: The Need for a Network 18 Executive Summary 24 PART ONE: EARLY PLANNING FOR RAPID TRANSIT 1909 – 1945 CHAPTER 1: THE BEGINNING OF RAPID TRANSIT PLANNING IN TORONTO 25 1.0 Summary 26 1.1 The Story Begins 29 1.2 The First Subway Proposal 32 1.3 The Jacobs & Davies Report: Prescient but Premature 34 1.4 Putting the Proposal in Context CHAPTER 2: “The Rapid Transit System of the Future” and a Look Ahead, 1911 – 1913 36 2.0 Summary 37 2.1 The Evolving Vision, 1911 40 2.2 The Arnold Report: The Subway Alternative, 1912 44 2.3 Crossing the Valley CHAPTER 3: R.C.
    [Show full text]
  • Asia Pacific Rail Virtual Online 10-12 November 2020
    Asia Pacific Rail Virtual Online 10-12 November 2020 For speaking opportunities, please contact Parveen Sekhon at [email protected] or +65 9015 3987. © Terrapinn Pte Ltd 2020. This is a preliminary agenda and is subject to change without prior notice. Please do not disseminate without permission. 2020 SPONSORS & EXHIBITORS Diamond Sponsors Platinum Sponsor Gold Sponsors Silver Sponsors Exhibitors © Terrapinn Pte Ltd 2020. This is a preliminary agenda and is subject to change without prior notice. Please do not disseminate without permission. Confirmed speakers: • Dr Jacob Kam, Chief Executive Officer, MTR Corporation, Hong Kong • Punit Agarwal, Chief Project Manager (Systems) at National High • Chua Chong Kheng, Deputy Chief Executive, Infrastructure & Speed Rail Corporation Ltd (NHSRCL), India Development, Land Transport Authority, Singapore • Russell McMullan, General Manager – CRL Assurance and • Michael Peter, CEO, Siemens Mobility, Germany Integration, City Rail Link Project, New Zealand • Rolf Härdi, Chief Technology Innovation Officer, Deutsche Bahn AG, • Marco Gallini, Head of Diagnostics and Maintenance Vehicles Germany Department, Rete Ferroviaria Italiana (RFI S.p.A.), Italy • Naoto Kimura, Director of International Relations Department, • Yanto Yulianto, Head of Signalling, Telecommunication and IT Tokyo Metro Co. Ltd., Japan Department, PT MRT Jakarta, Indonesia • Christian Schlehuber, Manager Governance CyberSecurity & Co- • Jeffrey Sim, Head of Rail Development and Acting Head of North Chair ER-ISAC, Deutsche
    [Show full text]