how much does it cost to build a light rail system

The cost of light rail construction varies widely, largely depending on the amount of tunneling and elevated structures required. A survey of North American light rail projects[35] shows that costs of most LRT systems range from $15 million to over $100 million per mile. Seattle's new light rail system is by far the most expensive in the US, at $179 million per mile, since it includes extensive tunneling in poor soil conditions, elevated sections, and stations as deep as 180 feet (55Â m) below ground level.[36] This results in costs more typical of subways or rapid transit systems than light rail. At the other end of the scale, four systems (Baltimore, Maryland; Camden, New Jersey; Sacramento, California; and Salt Lake City, Utah) incurred construction costs of less than $20 million per mile. Over the US as a whole, excluding Seattle, new light rail construction costs average about $35 million per mile.[35]

Light rail

Light rail, light rail transit (LRT), or fast tram is urban public transport using rolling stock similar to a tramway, but operating at a higher capacity, and often on an exclusive right-of-way.

There is no standard definition, but in the United States (where the terminology was devised in the 1970s from the engineering term light railway), light rail operates primarily along exclusive rights-of-way and uses either individual tramcars or multiple units coupled to form a train that is lower capacity and lower speed than a long heavy passenger train or metro system.[1][2][3][4][5]

A few light rail networks tend to have characteristics closer to rapid transit or even commuter rail; some of these heavier rapid transit-like systems are referred to as light metros. Other light rail networks are tram-like in nature and partially operate on streets. Light rail systems are found throughout the world, on all inhabited continents. They have been especially popular in recent years due to their lower capital costs and increased reliability compared with heavy rail systems.

Many original tram and streetcar systems in the United Kingdom, United States, and elsewhere were decommissioned starting in the 1950s as the popularity of the automobile increased. Britain abandoned its last tram system, except for Blackpool, by 1962.[7] Although some traditional trolley or tram systems exist to this day, the term "light rail" has come to mean a different type of rail system. Modern light rail technology has primarily West German origins, since an attempt by Boeing Vertol to introduce a new American light rail vehicle was a technical failure. After World War II, the Germans retained many of their streetcar networks and evolved them into model light rail systems (Stadtbahnen). Except for Hamburg, all large and most medium-sized German cities maintain light rail networks.[8]

The basic concepts of light rail were put forward by H. Dean Quinby in 1962 in an article in Traffic Quarterly called "Major Urban Corridor Facilities: A New Concept". Quinby distinguished this new concept in rail transportation from historic streetcar or tram systems as:

The term light rail transit (LRT) was introduced in North America in 1972 to describe this new concept of rail transportation.[9]

The first of the new light rail systems in North America began operation in 1978 when the Canadian city of Edmonton, Alberta, adopted the German Siemens-Duewag U2 system, followed three years later by Calgary, Alberta, and San Diego, California. The concept proved popular, and although Canada has few cities big enough for light rail, there are now at least 30 light rail systems in the United States.

Britain began replacing its run-down local railways with light rail in the 1980s, starting with the Tyne and Wear Metro and followed by the Docklands Light Railway (DLR) in London. The historic term light railway was used because it dated from the British Light Railways Act 1896, although the technology used in the DLR system was at the high end of what Americans considered to be light rail. The trend to light rail in the United Kingdom was firmly established with the success of the Manchester Metrolink system in 1992.

The term light rail was coined in 1972 by the U.S. Urban Mass Transportation Administration (UMTA; the precursor to the Federal Transit Administration) to describe new streetcar transformations that were taking place in Europe and the United States. In Germany the term Stadtbahn (to be distinguished from S-Bahn, which stands for Stadtschnellbahn) was used to describe the concept, and many in UMTA wanted to adopt the direct translation, which is city rail (the Norwegian term, bybane, means the same). However, UMTA finally adopted the term light rail instead.[10] Light in this context is used in the sense of "intended for light loads and fast movement", rather than referring to physical weight. The infrastructure investment is also usually lighter than would be found for a heavy rail system.

The Transportation Research Board (Transportation Systems Center) defined "light rail" in 1977 as "a mode of urban transportation utilizing predominantly reserved but not necessarily grade-separated rights-of-way. Electrically propelled rail vehicles operate singly or in trains. LRT provides a wide range of passenger capabilities and performance characteristics at moderate costs."

The American Public Transportation Association (APTA), in its Glossary of Transit Terminology, defines light rail as:

...a mode of transit service (also called streetcar, tramway, or trolley) operating passenger rail cars singly (or in short, usually two-car or three-car, trains) on fixed rails in right-of-way that is often separated from other traffic for part or much of the way. Light rail vehicles are typically driven electrically with power being drawn from an overhead electric line via a trolley [pole] or a pantograph; driven by an operator on board the vehicle; and may have either high platform loading or low level boarding using steps."[1]

However, some diesel-powered transit is designated light rail, such as the O-Train Trillium Line in Ottawa, Canada, the River Line in New Jersey, United States, and the Sprinter in California, United States, which use diesel multiple unit (DMU) cars.

Light rail is similar to the British English term light railway, long-used to distinguish railway operations carried out under a less rigorous set of regulation using lighter equipment at lower speeds from mainline railways. Light rail is a generic international English phrase for these types of rail systems, which means more or less the same thing throughout the English-speaking world.

The use of the generic term light rail avoids some serious incompatibilities between British and American English. The word tram, for instance, is generally used in the UK and many former British colonies to refer to what is known in North America as a streetcar, but in North America tram can instead refer to an aerial tramway,[11] or, in the case of the Disney amusement parks, even a land train.[12] (The usual British term for an aerial tramway is cable car, which in the US usually refers to a ground-level car pulled along by subterranean cables.) The word trolley is often used as a synonym for streetcar in the United States, but is usually taken to mean a cart, particularly a shopping cart, in the UK and elsewhere.[13] Many North American transportation planners reserve streetcar for traditional vehicles that operate exclusively in mixed traffic on city streets, while they use light rail to refer to more modern vehicles operating mostly in exclusive rights of way, since they may operate both side-by-side targeted at different passenger groups.[14]

The difference between British English and American English terminology arose in the late 19th century when Americans adopted the term "street railway", rather than "tramway", with the vehicles being called "streetcars" rather than "trams". Some have suggested that the Americans' preference for the term "street railway" at that time was influenced by German emigrants to the United States[15] (who were more numerous than British immigrants in the industrialized Northeast), as it is the same as the German term for the mode, StraÃŸenbahn (meaning "street railway"). A further difference arose because, while Britain abandoned all of its trams except Blackpool after World War II, seven major North American cities (Toronto, Boston, Philadelphia, San Francisco, Pittsburgh, Newark, and New Orleans) continued to operate large streetcar systems.[16] When these cities upgraded to new technology, they called it light rail to differentiate it from their existing streetcars since some continued to operate both the old and new systems. Since the 1980s, Portland, Oregon, has built all three types of system: a high-capacity light rail system in dedicated lanes and rights-of-way, a low-capacity streetcar system integrated with street traffic, and an aerial tram system.

The opposite phrase heavy rail, used for higher-capacity, higher-speed systems, also avoids some incompatibilities in terminology between British and American English, as for instance in comparing the London Underground and the New York City Subway. Conventional rail technologies including high-speed, freight, commuter/regional, and metro/subway/elevated urban transit systems are considered "heavy rail". People movers and personal rapid transit are even "lighter," at least in terms of capacity. Monorail is a separate technology that has been more successful in specialized services than in a commuter transit role.

Due to varying definitions, it is hard to distinguish between what is called light rail, and other forms of urban and commuter rail. A system described as light rail in one city may be considered to be a streetcar or tram system in another. Conversely, some lines that are called "light rail" are in fact very similar to rapid transit; in recent years, new terms such as light metro have been used to describe these medium-capacity systems. Some "light rail" systems, such as Sprinter, bear little similarity to urban rail, and could alternatively be classified as commuter rail or even inter-city rail. In the United States, "light rail" has become a catch-all term to describe a wide variety of passenger rail systems.

There is a significant difference in cost between these different classes of light rail transit. Tram-like systems are often less expensive than metro-like systems by a factor of two or more.

The most difficult distinction to draw is that between light rail and streetcar or tram systems. There is a significant amount of overlap between the technologies, many of the same vehicles can be used for either, and it is common to classify streetcars or trams as a subcategory of light rail rather than as a distinct type of transportation. The two general versions are:

At the highest degree of separation, it can be difficult to draw the line between light rail and metros, as in the case of Wuppertal's Schwebebahn hanging rail system, the "D" Branch of Boston's Green Line, or London's Docklands Light Railway, which would likely not be considered "light" were it not for the contrast between it and the London Underground. These may be considered to be light metro lines rather than "light rail" lines. In Europe, however, the term light rail is increasingly used to describe any rapid transit system with a fairly low frequency or short trains compared to heavier mass rapid systems such as the London Underground or Singapore's Mass Rapid Transit. For instance, the LRT-1 and MRT-3 in Manila are often referred to as "light rail", despite being fully segregated, mostly elevated railways. This phenomenon is quite common in Chinese cities, where elevated light metro lines in Shanghai, Wuhan, and Dalian are called light rail lines. In North America, such systems are not considered light rail.

Many systems have mixed characteristics. Indeed, with proper engineering, a rail line could run along a street, then go underground, and then run along an elevated viaduct. For example, the Los Angeles Metro Rail's Gold Line "light rail" has sections that could alternatively be described as a tramway, a light metro, and, in a narrow sense, rapid transit. This is especially common in the United States, where there is not a popularly perceived distinction between these different types of urban rail systems.

It is even possible to have high-floor rapid transit cars run along a street, like a tram; this is known as street running.

In some areas, "light rail" may also refer to any rail line with frequent low speeds or many stops in a short distance. This inherits the old definition of light railway in the UK. Hong Kong's Light Rail is an example of this, although it is also called "light rail" because it is a lower-scale system than the rest of the MTR. Sprinter in the San Diego area uses DMUs and is targeted towards a commuter rail audience; however, because of the large number of stops along the line, it is called light rail.

Reference speed from major light rail systems, including station stop time, is shown below.[17]

However, low top speed is not always a differentiating characteristic between light rail and other systems. For example, the Siemens S70 LRVs used in the Houston METRORail and other North American LRT systems have a top speed of 106 kilometres per hour (66 mph) while the trains on the all-underground Montreal Metro can only reach a top speed of 72 kilometres per hour (45 mph). Los Angeles Metro light rail vehicles have higher top and average speeds than Montreal Metro or New York City Subway trains.[18] The main difference is that Montreal Metro and New York City Subway trains carry far more passengers than any North American LRT system, and the trains have faster acceleration, making station-to-station times relatively short in their densely populated urban areas. Most light rail systems serve less densely populated cities and suburbs where passenger traffic is not high, but low cost combined with high top speed may be important to compete with automobiles.

Many light rail systems—even fairly old ones—have a combination of both on- and off-road sections. In some countries (especially in Europe), only the latter is described as light rail. In those places, trams running on mixed rights-of-way are not regarded as light rail, but considered distinctly as streetcars or trams. However, the requirement for saying that a rail line is "separated" can be quite low—sometimes just with concrete "buttons" to discourage automobile drivers from getting onto the tracks. Some systems such as Seattle's Link are truly mixed but closed to traffic, with light rail vehicles and traditional buses both operating along a common right-of-way.

Some systems, such as the AirTrain JFK in New York City, the DLR in London, and Kelana Jaya Line in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, have dispensed with the need for an operator. The Vancouver SkyTrain was an early adopter of driverless vehicles, while the Toronto Scarborough rapid transit operates the same trains as Vancouver, but uses drivers. In most discussions and comparisons, these specialized systems are generally not considered light rail.

Historically, the track gauge has had considerable variations, with narrow gauge common in many early systems. However, most light rail systems are now standard gauge.[8] Older standard-gauge vehicles could not negotiate sharp turns as easily as narrow-gauge ones, but modern light rail systems achieve tighter turning radii by using articulated cars. An important advantage of standard gauge is that standard railway maintenance equipment can be used on it, rather than custom-built machinery. Using standard gauge also allows light rail vehicles to be moved around, conveniently using the same tracks as freight railways. Another factor favoring standard gauge is that accessibility laws are making low-floor trams mandatory, and there is generally insufficient space for wheelchairs to move between the wheels in a narrow-gauge layout. Furthermore, standard-gauge rolling stock can be switched between networks either temporarily or permanently and both newly built and used standard-gauge rolling stock tends to be cheaper to buy, as more companies offer such vehicles.

With its mix of right-of-way types and train control technologies, LRT offers the widest range of latitude of any rail system in the design, engineering, and operating practices. The challenge in designing light rail systems is to realize the potential of LRT to provide fast, comfortable service while avoiding the tendency to overdesign that results in excessive capital costs beyond what is necessary to meet the public's needs.[19]

The BART railcar in the following chart is not generally considered to be a "light rail" vehicle (it is actually a heavy rail vehicle), and is only included for comparison purposes.

An important factor crucial to LRT is the train operator. Unlike rail rapid transit, which can travel unattended under automatic train operation (ATO), safe, high-quality LRT operation relies on a human operator as a key element. The reason that the operator is so important is because the train tracks often share the streets with automobiles, other vehicles, and pedestrians. If trains were fully automated on roads, nobody would be there to stop the train if a car pulled in front of it. Light rail trains are actually very sturdily built for passenger safety, and to reduce damage from impacts with cars.[citation needed]

The latest generation of LRVs has the advantage of partially or fully low-floor design, with the floor of the vehicles only 300 to 360 mm (11.8 to 14.2 in) above the top of the rail, a feature not found in either rapid rail transit vehicles or streetcars. This allows them to load passengers, including those in wheelchairs or strollers, directly from low-rise platforms that are little more than raised sidewalks. This satisfies requirements to provide access to disabled passengers without using expensive and delay-inducing wheelchair lifts, while also making boarding faster and easier for other passengers.[citation needed]

Overhead lines supply electricity to the vast majority of light rail systems. This avoids the danger of passengers stepping on an electrified third rail. The Docklands Light Railway uses an inverted third rail for its electrical power, which allows the electrified rail to be covered and the power drawn from the underside. Trams in Bordeaux, France, use a special third-rail configuration where the power is only switched on beneath the trams, making it safe on city streets. Several systems in Europe and a few recently opened systems in North America use diesel-powered trains.[citation needed]

Around the world there are many tram and streetcar systems. Some date from the beginning of the 20th century or earlier, but many of the original tram and streetcar systems were closed down in the mid-20th century, with the exceptions of many Eastern Europe countries. Even though many systems closed down over the years, there are still a number of tram systems that have been operating much as they did when they were first built over a century ago. Some cities (such as Los Angeles and Jersey City) that once closed down their streetcar networks are now restoring, or have already rebuilt, at least some of their former streetcar/tram systems. Most light rail services are currently committed to articulated vehicles like modern LRVs, i.e. trams, with the exception of large underground metro or rapid transit systems.

The table below illustrates the capacity of a light rail train (the Siemens S70) compared to that of a standard car with five seats. The average length of a standard five-seat car is about 4.74 metres. The length of a Siemens S70 light rail vehicle is 27.7 meters, approximately the same length as 5.8 cars. The maximum occupancy of a five-seat automobile car is five people. The maximum capacity of the Siemens S70 is 220 people. This means that one metre in a car has a capacity of one person and one metre in a light rail vehicle has a capacity of almost eight persons, so the capacity of light rail is about eight times as high as that of an average consumer car, if only the length of the vehicles is taken into consideration. The average width of an automobile is about 1.77 metres, while the average width of the Siemens S70 is about 2.7 metres. The area of an average consumer car is about 8.4 m², while the area taken up by a light rail car is about 74.8 m². In an automobile car, each square metre has room for only 0.6 persons, while each square metre in a light rail car has room for 2.9 persons. This means that a light rail vehicle is significantly more capacity-effective than a consumer car is. Height is not taken into consideration, because it is not normally a problem given minimum-clearance regulations for underpasses.

Energy efficiency for light rail may be 120 passenger miles per gallon of fuel (or equivalent), but variation is great, depending on circumstances.[23]

While the table above compares the maximum capacity of each mode, the average use of a lane might be quite different, based on a number of factors. One line of light rail (requires 25' Right of Way) has a theoretical capacity of up to 8 times more than one 12' lane of freeway (not counting buses) during peak times. Roads have ultimate capacity limits that can be determined by traffic engineering. They usually experience a chaotic breakdown in flow and a dramatic drop in speed (colloquially known as a traffic jam) if they exceed about 2,000 vehicles per hour per lane (each car roughly two seconds behind another).[24] Since most people who drive to work or on business trips do so alone, studies show that the average car occupancy on many roads carrying commuters is only about 1.5 people per car during the high-demand rush hour periods of the day.[25] This combination of factors limits roads carrying only automobile commuters to a maximum observed capacity of about 3,000 passengers per hour per lane. The problem can be mitigated by introducing high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes and ride-sharing programs, but in most cases the solution adopted has been to add more lanes to the roads.

By contrast, light rail vehicles can travel in multi-car trains carrying a theoretical ridership up to 20,000 passengers per hour in much narrower rights-of-way, not much more than two car lanes wide for a double track system.[26] They can often be run through existing city streets and parks, or placed in the medians of roads. If run in streets, trains are usually limited by city block lengths to about four 180-passenger vehicles (720 passengers). Operating on two-minute headways using traffic signal progression, a well-designed two-track system can handle up to 30 trains per hour per track, achieving peak rates of over 20,000 passengers per hour in each direction. More advanced systems with separate rights-of-way using moving block signalling can exceed 25,000 passengers per hour per track.[27]

Most light rail systems in the United States are limited by demand rather than capacity (by and large, most North American LRT systems carry fewer than 4,000 persons per hour per direction), but Boston's and San Francisco's light rail lines carry 9,600 and 13,100 passengers per hour per track during rush hour.[28] Elsewhere in North America, the Calgary C-Train and Monterrey Metro have higher light rail ridership than Boston or San Francisco. Systems outside North America often have much higher passenger volumes. The Manila Light Rail Transit System is one of the highest capacity ones, having been upgraded in a series of expansions to handle 40,000 passengers per hour per direction, and having carried as many as 582,989 passengers in a single day on its Line 1.[29] It achieves this volume by running four-car trains with a capacity of up to 1,350 passengers each at a frequency of up to 30 trains per hour. However, the Manila light rail system has full grade separation and as a result has many of the operating characteristics of a metro system rather than a light rail system. A capacity of 1,350 passengers per train is more similar to heavy rail than light rail.

A bus rapid transit (BRT) system using dedicated lanes can have a theoretical capacity of 3,600 passengers per hour per direction (30 buses per direction, 120 passengers in articulated buses). BRT is an alternative to LRT, at least if very high capacity is not needed. Using buses, roads can achieve a much higher commuter capacity than is achievable with passenger cars. To have 30 buses per direction an hour, buses must have priority at traffic lights and have their own dedicated lanes. Buses can travel closer to each other than rail vehicles because of better braking capability. However, each bus vehicle requires a single driver, whereas a light rail train may have three to four cars of much larger capacity in one train under the control of one driver, or no driver at all in fully automated systems, increasing the labor costs of high-traffic BRT systems compared to LRT systems.

The peak passenger capacity per lane per hour depends on which types of vehicles are allowed at the roads. Typically roadways have 1,900 passenger cars per lane per hour (pcplph).[30] If only cars are allowed, the capacity will be less and will not increase when the traffic volume increases.

When there is a bus driving on this route, the capacity of the lane will be more and will increase when the traffic level increases. And because the capacity of a light rail system is higher than that of a bus, there will be even more capacity when there is a combination of cars and light rail. Table 3 shows an example of peak passenger capacity.

(Edson & Tennyson, 2003)

While many claim that light rail is safe, research by car bloggers[which?] suggest otherwise. For example, an analysis of data from the 505-page National Transportation Statistics report [31] published by the US Department of Transportation shows that light rail fatalities are higher than all other forms of transportation except motorcycle travel (31.5 fatalities per 100 million miles).[32]

However, the National Transportation Statistics report [31] published by the US Department of Transportation states that "Caution must be exercised in comparing fatalities across modes because significantly different definitions are used. In particular, Rail and Transit fatalities include incident-related (as distinct from accident-related) fatalities, such as fatalities from falls in transit stations or railroad employee fatalities from a fire in a workshed. Equivalent fatalities for the Air and Highway modes (fatalities at airports not caused by moving aircraft or fatalities from accidents in automobile repair shops) are not counted toward the totals for these modes. Thus, fatalities not necessarily directly related to in service transportation are counted for the transit and rail modes, potentially overstating the risk for these modes."

Light rail lines have various policies on bicycles.[33] Some fleets restrict bicycles on trains during peak hours. Some light rail systems, such as the St. Louis MetroLink, allow bicycles on the trains, but only in the rear sections of cars. Some light rail lines, like San Francisco's, allow only folding bicycles on board.[34] In some systems dedicated bike parking is available at select stations and others are integrated with local bike share systems.

By comparison, a freeway lane expansion typically costs $1.0 million to $8.5 million per lane mile for two directions, with an average of $2.3 million.[37] However, freeways are frequently built in suburbs or rural areas, whereas light rail tends to be concentrated in urban areas, where right of way and property acquisition is expensive. Similarly, the most expensive US highway expansion project was the "Big Dig" in Boston, Massachusetts, which cost $200 million per lane mile for a total cost of $14.6 billion. Since a light rail track can carry up to 20,000 people per hour as compared with 2,000â€“2,200 vehicles per hour for one freeway lane,[38] light rail is comparable in construction cost to freeways on a per passenger-mile basis. For example, in Boston and San Francisco, light rail lines carry 9,600 and 13,100 passengers per hour, respectively, in the peak direction during rush hour.[28]

Combining highway expansion with LRT construction can save costs by doing both highway improvements and rail construction at the same time. As an example, Denver's Transportation Expansion Project rebuilt interstate highways 25 and 225 and added a light rail expansion for a total cost of $1.67 billion over five years.[39] The cost of 17 miles (27 km) of highway improvements and 19 miles (31 km) of double-track light rail worked out to $19.3 million per highway lane-mile and $27.6 million per LRT track-mile. The project came in under budget and 22 months ahead of schedule.[40]

LRT cost efficiency improves dramatically as ridership increases, as can be seen from the numbers above: the same rail line, with similar capital and operating costs, is far more efficient if it is carrying 20,000 people per hour than if it is carrying 2,400. The Calgary, Alberta, C-Train used many common light rail techniques to keep costs low, including minimizing underground and elevated trackage, sharing transit malls with buses, leasing rights-of-way from freight railroads, and combining LRT construction with freeway expansion. As a result, Calgary ranks toward the less expensive end of the scale with capital costs of around $24 million per mile.[41]

However, Calgary's LRT ridership is much higher than any comparable US light rail system, at 300,000 passengers per weekday, and as a result its capital efficiency is also much higher. Its capital costs were one-third those of the San Diego Trolley, a comparably sized US system built at the same time, while by 2009 its ridership was approximately three times as high. Thus, Calgary's capital cost per passenger was much lower than that of San Diego. Its operating cost per passenger was also much lower because of its higher ridership. A typical C-Train vehicle costs only CA$163 (equivalent to $192 in 2016) per hour to operate, and since it averages 600 passengers per operating hour,[42] Calgary Transit estimates that its LRT operating costs are only 27 cents per ride, versus $1.50 per ride on its buses.[41]

Compared to buses, costs can be lower due to lower labor costs per passenger mile, higher ridership (observations show that light rail attracts more ridership than a comparable bus service)[citation needed] and faster average speed (reducing the number of vehicles needed for the same service frequency). While light rail vehicles are more expensive to buy, they have a longer useful life than buses, sometimes making for lower life-cycle costs.

Around Karlsruhe, Kassel, and Saarbrücken in Germany, dual-voltage light rail trains partly use mainline railroad tracks, sharing these tracks with heavy rail trains. In the Netherlands, this concept was first applied on the RijnGouweLijn. This allows commuters to ride directly into the city centre, rather than taking a mainline train only as far as a central station and then having change to a tram. In France, similar tram-trains are planned for Paris, Mulhouse, and Strasbourg; further projects exist. In some cases, tram-trains use previously abandoned or lightly used heavy rail lines in addition to or instead of still in use mainline tracks.

Some of the issues involved in such schemes are:

There is a history of what would now be considered light rail vehicles operating on heavy rail rapid transit tracks in the US, especially in the case of interurban streetcars. Notable examples are Lehigh Valley Transit trains running on the Philadelphia and Western Railroad high-speed third rail line (now the Norristown High Speed Line). Such arrangements are almost impossible now, due to the Federal Railroad Administration refusing (for crash safety reasons) to allow non-FRA compliant railcars (i.e., subway and light rail vehicles) to run on the same tracks at the same times as compliant railcars, which includes locomotives and standard railroad passenger and freight equipment. Notable exceptions in the US are the NJ Transit River Line from Camden to Trenton and Austin's Capital MetroRail, which have received exemptions to the provision that light rail operations occur only during daytime hours and Conrail freight service only at night, with several hours separating one operation from the other. The O-Train Trillium Line in Ottawa also has freight service at certain hours.

When electric streetcars were introduced in the late 19th century, conduit current collection was one of the first ways of supplying power, but it proved to be much more expensive, complicated, and trouble-prone than overhead wires. When electric street railways became ubiquitous, conduit power was used in those cities that did not permit overhead wires. In Europe, it was used in London, Paris, Berlin, Marseille, Budapest, and Prague. In the United States, it was used in parts of New York City and Washington, DC.[43] Third rail technology was investigated for use on the Gold Coast of Australia for the G:link light rail,[44] though power from overhead lines was ultimately utilized for that system.

In the French city of Bordeaux, the tramway network is powered by a third rail in the city centre, where the tracks are not always segregated from pedestrians and cars.[45] The third rail (actually two closely spaced rails) is placed in the middle of the track and divided into eight-metre sections, each of which is powered only while it is completely covered by a tram. This minimises the risk of a person or animal coming into contact with a live rail. In outer areas, the trams switch to conventional overhead wires. The Bordeaux power system costs about three times as much as a conventional overhead wire system, and took 24 months to achieve acceptable levels of reliability, requiring replacement of all the main cables and power supplies.[46] Operating and maintenance costs of the innovative power system still remain high. However, despite numerous service outages, the system was a success with the public, gaining up to 190,000 passengers per day.


they know what is what but they don't know what is what original

The vocals on the song consist almost entirely of the repeating verse, "They know what is what, but they don't know what is what, they just strut. What the fuck?", sampled from "I Get Deep" by Roland Clark, which was also used on Fatboy Slim's song "Song for Shelter".

Star 69 (Fatboy Slim song)

"Star 69" (also known as "Star 69 (What the F**k)") is a song by English big beat musician Fatboy Slim, with sampled vocals from Roland Clark; from his third studio album Halfway Between the Gutter and the Stars. It was released as a double A-side single with "Weapon of Choice" on 23 April 2001, as well as a standalone single release. The single peaked at No. 10 on the UK Singles Chart.[1]

"Star 69" was sampled by Katy Perry and Nicki Minaj on their 2017 collaboration, "Swish Swish".

A radio edit of the track exists with the word "fuck" taken out. "Star 69" is popular with DJs and has often been remixed and used in mashups due to the vocal hook.

The song is included in the compilation CD Soundtrack 1: The Definitive Xbox Compilation.[2]

12" vinyl

"Star 69" / "Weapon of Choice" double A-side chart positions


india's communications satellite insat-4b was launched from

Arianespace was contracted to launch INSAT-4B using an Ariane 5 ECA carrier rocket. The launch occurred on 11 March 2007 at 22:03 UTC, from ELA-3 at Kourou.[1] The Skynet 5A military communications satellite for the British Ministry of Defence was launched aboard the same rocket.

INSAT-4B

INSAT-4B is an Indian communications satellite which forms part of the Indian National Satellite System. Launched in 2007, it is operated in geostationary orbit at a longitude of 93.48° east.[3]

Built by the Indian Space Research Organisation, INSAT-4B is based upon the I-3K satellite bus. It had a mass at launch of 3,028 kilograms (6,676 lb), with a dry mass of 1,335 kilograms (2,943 lb) and was expected to operate for twelve years. Two solar arrays power the satellite, while its communications payload consists of twelve C and twelve Ku band transponders.[4]

INSAT-4B was successfully inserted into geosynchronous transfer orbit, from which it raised itself into geostationary orbit using a liquid-fuelled apogee motor.[4] It received the International Designator 2007-007A and Satellite Catalog Number 30793.[5] As of 11 November 2013, it is in an orbit with a perigee of 35,776 kilometres (22,230 mi), an apogee of 35,809 kilometres (22,251 mi), inclination of 0.07 degrees and an orbital period of 23.93 hours.[2]

On 10 July 2010 INSAT-4B suffered a disruption in power supply from one of the two solar panels, rendering half of its transponder capacity useless. After review the cause of malfunction was found out to be electric arcing in slip ring of one of the solar panels.[6] Similar partial power supply failure also affected Eutelsat W2M now known as Afghansat 1 and caused delay in launch of GSAT-8 due to required design changes in relevant power systems of satellite bus.[7][8]

On 11 November 2017, INSAT-4B maneuvered to lower its altitude and drifted eastward to reach new slot at 111.2Â°E on 18 December 2017.[9]


the shame of the nation chapter 3 summary

Kozol examines the strategy of "one size fits all" within urban public schools. Scripted programs such as 'Success for All' drive curriculum changes, using models adapted from industrial efficiency and Taylorism. In addition, Kozol discusses the naming ritual that permeates the formality of each course taught by the school. Such examples include 'Authentic Writing', 'Active Listening', 'Accountable Talk', and 'Zero Noise'. Teachers in urban school are strongly encouraged to follow these scripted lessons to bring formality and structure to the learning environment. This order is driven by state testing, which leads to anxiety among schoolchildren when their reading level is announced. Students are scored from Level One (lowest) to Level Four (highest), which places them into categories for further instruction. However, these placement scores are used as descriptive terms among students; 'He's a level one', or 'She's gone down to a level two'.

The Shame of the Nation

The Shame of the Nation: The Restoration of Apartheid Schooling in America is a book by educator and author Jonathan Kozol. It describes how, in the United States, black and Hispanic students tend to be concentrated in schools where they make up almost the entire student body.[1]

Kozol visited nearly 60 public schools in preparation for writing the book. He found that conditions had grown worse for inner-city children in the 50 years since the Supreme Court in the landmark ruling of Brown v. Board of Education dismantled the previous policy of de jure segregated schools and their concept of "separate but equal".  In many cities, wealthier white families continued to leave the city to settle in suburbs, with minorities comprising most of the families left in the public school system.[2] In the book Kozol quotes Gary Orfield of the Harvard Graduate School of Education, who says, "American public schools are now 12 years into the process of continuous resegregation.... During the 1990s, the proportion of black students in majority white schools has decreased... to a level lower than in any year since 1968."[1][2] In a separate quote from Gary Orfield in a letter to AllArtsAllKids.org, he mentions that, "the country clearly has had enough of the drill, kill, test & punish, and learn only two subjects style of NCLB reform... ".[3]

In his earlier books, like Amazing Grace, Kozol wrote that the schools of the South Bronx were stunningly segregated. But in the last five years, Kozol said that he "... realized how sweeping this change has been throughout the nation, and how reluctant the media is to speak of it."  Newspapers he says "... refuse to see what is in their own front yard... in a description of a 98 percent black and Latino school, the newspaper won't say what would seem to be the most obvious starting point: This is a deeply segregated school. They won't use the word'segregated.'"[4]

In the book, Kozol attacks the disparity in expenditures on education between central cities and well-to-do suburbs, and the system of property taxes which most school systems and states rely on for funding.[4] He expresses outrage at inequities in expenditure, pointing out that New York City in 2002-3 spent $11,627 on the education of each child, while in Nassau County, the town of Manhasset spent $22,311, and Great Neck $19,705. He found that there are comparable disparities in other metropolitan areas, since most funding is locally based.[1] Kozol describes schools that are separated by a 15-minute drive but that offer vastly different educational opportunities. In one example, a primarily white school offers drama club and AP classes, and the nearby primarily black school requires classes like hairdressing.[5]

In the first chapter of this text, Kozol examines the current state of segregation within the urban school system. He begins with a discussion on the irony stated in the above quote: schools named after leaders of the integration struggle are some of the most segregated schools, such as the Thurgood Marshall Elementary School in Seattle, Washington (95% minority) or a school named after Rosa Parks in San Diego, California (80% minority). Kozol notes that most of the students within these schools are unfamiliar with the actions of the minority leaders their schools are named after. Kozol goes on to point out the lack of segregation within the urban communities that surround these schools, specifically mentioning the residential segregation on New York City, which matches levels from the 1960s.

In chapter 2, Kozol describes the hardships students of color experience in segregated schools. Students of color have limited resources and support from the educational system. Students concerns were devalued and little consideration is given to help fund their schools. As opposed to affluent families they were able to provide an education for their children. Programs were available for those who could afford to pay children education. Baby Ivy is a private educational program that taught children of early age to receive the proper education they need. Children who had a head start in school had more positive educational outcomes than disadvantage children.[6]

Within this chapter, Kozol continues to look at the curriculum shifts found in urban schools, which are nowhere to be seen in more affluent suburban schools. Increasingly, teachers are encouraged to weave 'work-related' themes into the lessons throughout the day. This trend starts at the elementary school level with 'Help Wanted' signs, classroom jobs labeled as'managers', and students keep 'earnings-tracking' charts on their desks. Learning itself, is further taught as a 'possession' and not something one 'engages' with. The influence of managerial thinking continues into urban high schools, where students are strongly encouraged to select a 'career path' during their freshman year, so they may tailor their course work. Among the choices not marketed is a college education. The curriculum additions are often influenced by local corporations and business leaders. Kozol points out that many of these corporations place great importance on 'team players', and the walls of urban school classrooms are plastered with corporate brands and managerial themes.

In this chapter, Kozol looks into the damaging effects of high-stakes tests, specifically on inner-city children who are almost destined to fail as a result of limited resources. In these schools, drastic and specific measures are taken to raise scores, usually at the expense of any freedom or flexibility in the curriculum. The schools adopt blanket teaching materials that have been compared to military manuals.

Kozol also calls attention to the negative physiological effects these tests have on the children who take them. In L.A., standardized tests are given to children as young as 5 or 6, who without strong reading skills become frustrated to the point of crying and wetting their pants. Furthermore, the children who do not perform to standard are being forced to repeat multiple grades, which increase the likelihood that the student will drop out by 90%.

The subjects that are not included in these high-stakes tests, such as geography, history, and science are no longer being taught, consequently lowering the quality of education for students in low performing schools. Music, art, and recess, and even portions of the summer break are also being excluded in order to maximize test preparation time.

In this chapter, Kozol examines the increasing separation between the children of the privileged and the children of minorities. For years, the better school districts in New York have been more accessible to knowledgeable, "savvy" parents who know that applications to these schools must be filed a year early. These applications usually call for an understanding of a contract, and a written "educational philosophy," two things that would be near impossible for an illiterate or non-English speaking parent to complete.  The competition for the best, most acclaimed schools is cut throat and minority parents are usually unprepared or unaware of such competition.

In conclusion to the chapter, Kozol describes a microcosmic example in the Roosevelt School District of New York. A proposal was made to dissolve the impoverished, mostly minority district and absorb the small number of students into the surrounding school district, East Meadow, with a mostly white student population. This proposal went through initially but was met with outrage by the East Meadow community and was eventually overturned. Kozol views this as a missed "opportunity to end the education apartheid of a small community of children".

In this chapter, Kozol reveals the poor conditions and state of disrepair many of the segregated schools are now in.  The physical appearance of these schools negatively impacts the students desire to be in school and the way that they feel while they are present. Kozol talks about how there is no misery index in place even though there should be. In Oklahoma City, for example, the schools are overcrowded, lined with insufficient trailers that were not heated or cooled and often leak. In California, the overcrowding was so severe that students had to attend schools in monthly shifts year round. Some schools lack even the basic supplies such as textbooks, chairs, and desks for their students. Many students do not even attempt to eat lunch because the cafeteria is so over-crowded and the lines are so long.

This lack of space and resources takes a toll on the variety and quality of courses that are offered. One student describes her desire to go to college and take AP classes, but without the teachers or space, she must instead take the courses already offered such as sewing and hair braiding.

In this chapter, Kozol describes his experience working as a teacher in New York during the implementation of Higher Horizons in the 1960s. This program was designed to increase spending per child in segregated schools while also training teachers to increase their expectations. The program claimed to improve reading and math skills, lower suspension rates, and improve relations with parents. As the program began to work, money was reduced, and this quick reduction resulted in the abandonment of Higher Horizons after 7 years. While briefly successful, the promises of the program fell through.

The high expectations placed on new superintendents and personnel also bring false hope. The pressures of the cities they are placed in and the low achievement of the students make the turnover rate in these positions so high that it becomes impossible to achieve long-term goals.

"The right of transfer" was a provision introduced in this chapter that gave off a false hope for children of poor people to attend well off schools that were available to middle-class communities. However, such schools were scarce and the requirements the students needed to meet to attend these schools were challenging and children who lived in the middle class communities had priority over any poor child attempting to attend their school.[7]

Kozol states that he doesn't believe a good school or a good school system can be built on miracles or on the stunning interventions of dramatically original charismatic men or women.[8]

Chapter 9 begins offering some answers to that question.  Using the words of Jack White, a writer at Time magazine, Kozol begins by examining the need for a broad political movement.   "Herewith…a radical proposal…Revive the civil rights movement, which went into limbo long before some of its most important goals were accomplished…"  (Kozol, 2005, p. 216).   This argument is more fully explored in the epilogue.   Next, Kozol reports on the efforts of teachers and principals to resist the strengthening of segregation in public schools.

In the second half of the chapter several examples of successful desegregation (ex. Prince Edward County, Virginia) are discussed.  Kozol emphasized that while there are successes, they are fragile at best with many integration programs across the state being threatened.

In this chapter Kozol explores the United States legal system as an option for combating apartheid schooling. Local, state, and federal courts cases have attempted to bring desegregation and equality to public schools in many different parts of the country.   Kozol explores both successful (ex. Brown vs. Board of Education) and unsuccessful ones (ex. San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez). Overall Kozol's analysis presents evidence (through several key cases) that the courts have been either unwilling or unable to correct the issue.

The remainder of the chapter addresses the legislative branch's attempts to correct the problem. Kozol discusses both Congressman Fattah's bill and Congressman Jesse Jackson Jr.'s proposal for a constitutional amendment. Neither effort has been met with much success.

"I went to Washington to challenge the soft bigotry of low expectations," the president said again in his re-election in September 2004.  "It's working.  It's making a difference."  It is one of those deadly lies which by sheer repetition, is at length accepted by large numbers of Americansâ€¦

From the legislative branch Kozol moves to the executive. By reviewing the impact of No Child Left Behind and high-stakes achievement tests this chapter further demonstrates the increasing imbalance in quality of public schools.   The basic argument presented in the book is that no matter how much students are told they can succeed and how much educators teach to the test, schools that have inadequate funding will inevitably suffer.  According to Kozol the largely Republican controlled presidency of the last 28 years has further segregated American schools through a failed education policy.

The rest of the chapter focuses on "standard-based reform" and the small school initiative (see Deborah Meier, The power of their ideas: Lessons for America from a small school in Harlem) in relation to school segregation.   Kozol argues that the "standards-based reform" is an effort to address the scoring gap between high and low socio-economic schools through the use of positive thinking and sheer willpower.   This strategy is shown to be occasionally successful in the extreme short term, but ultimately unsuccessful in the long run.  In other words, scores would often improve for the particular test being studied for, but the competency of the students did not improve.   As for the small school initiative, Kozol is generally supportive of the idea but is critical when it amounts to many smaller just as segregated learning institutions around the nation.

Kozol's last chapter is devoted to showcase examples of excellence that he witnessed in his visits to schools in America's most segregated schools.  Examples such as Mr. Bedrock (an elementary teacher in one of New York's most segregated schools) and Miss Rosa (the principal of the same school, PS. 30) demonstrate that even in the worst of situations there is still hope.


copyright designs and patents act 1988 what does it cover

In order for a creation to be protected by copyright it must fall within one of the following categories of work: literary work, dramatic work, musical work, artistic work, films, sounds recordings, broadcasts, and typographical arrangement of published editions.[1]

Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988

The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (c 48), also known as the CDPA, is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom that received Royal Assent on 15 November 1988. It reformulates almost completely the statutory basis of copyright law (including performing rights) in the United Kingdom, which had, until then, been governed by the Copyright Act 1956 (c. 74). It also creates an unregistered design right, and contains a number of modifications to the law of the United Kingdom on Registered Designs and patents.

Essentially, the 1988 Act and amendment establishes that copyright in most works lasts until 70 years after the death of the creator if known, otherwise 70 years after the work was created or published (50 years for computer-generated works).

Part 1 of the Act "restates and amends" (s. 172) the statutory basis for United Kingdom copyright law, although the Copyright Acts of 1911 (c. 46) and 1956 (c. 74) continue to have some effect in limited circumstances under ss. 170 & 171 and Schedule 1. It brings United Kingdom law into line with the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, which the UK signed more than one hundred years previously, and allowed the ratification of the Paris Act of 1971.[3]

Part I of the Act (copyright provisions) extends to the whole of the United Kingdom (s. 157); amendments by Order in Council extended the Act to Bermuda[4] and Gibraltar[5]. Works originating (by publication or nationality/domicile of the author) in the Isle of Man[6] or the following former dependent territories[7] qualify for copyright under the Act: Antigua, Dominica, Gambia, Grenada, Guyana, Jamaica, Kiribati, Lesotho, St. Christopher-Nevis, St. Lucia, Swaziland and Tuvalu. All other countries of origin whose works qualified for United Kingdom copyright under the UK Copyright Act 1911, also known as the Imperial Copyright Act of 1911, or the 1956 Acts continue to qualify under this Act (para. 4(3) of Schedule 1).[8]

The Act simplifies the different categories of work which are protected by copyright, eliminating the specific treatment of engravings and photographs.

The following works are exempted from copyright by the transitional provisions of ScheduleÂ 1:

The Act as it received Royal Assent does not substantially change the qualification requirements of the author or the country of origin of the work, which are restated as ss. 153–156: these have since been largely modified, in particular by the Duration of Copyright and Related Rights Regulations 1995 No. 3297.

Part II of the Act creates a series of performers' rights in application of the Rome Convention for the Protection of Performers, Producers of Phonograms and Broadcasting Organisations of 1961.[9] These rights are retrospective in respect of performances before commencement on 1 August 1989 (s. 180). These rights have been largely extended by the transposition of European Union directives and by the application of the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty:[10] the section below describes only the rights which were created by the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 itself.

A performer has the exclusive right to authorise the recording and/or broadcast of his performances (s. 182). The use or broadcast of recordings without the performer's consent (s. 183) and the import or distribution of illicit recordings (s. 184) are also infringements of the performer's rights. A person having an exclusive recording contract over one or more performances of an artist holds equivalent rights to the performer himself (ss. 185–188). Schedule 2 lists the permitted acts (limitations) in relation to these rights.

Rights in performances last for fifty years from the end of the year in which the performance was given (s. 191). They may not be assigned or transferred, and pass to the performer's executors on death (s. 192). An infringement of rights in performances is actionable under the tort of breach of statutory duty. Orders are available for the delivery up (Scots law: delivery) and disposal of infringing copies (ss. 195, 204): holders in rights in performances may also seize such copies (s. 196). The making, dealing in or use of infringing copies is a criminal offense (s. 198), as is the false representation of authority to give consent (s. 201).

The provisions on duration have been largely modified by the Duration of Copyright and Related Rights Regulations 1995 No. 3297.[11] The provisions of the 1988 Act (ss. 12–15) as it received Royal Assent are given below. All periods of copyright run until the end of the calendar year in which they would otherwise expire. The duration of copyright under the 1988 Act does not depend on the initial owner of the copyright, nor on the country of origin of the work. The following durations do not apply to Crown copyright, Parliamentary copyright or the copyright of international organisations.

Note that the Duration of Copyright and Rights in Performances Regulations 1995 amended the durations, for films only, to seventy years from the death of the last principal director, author or composer. If the film is of unknown authorship: seventy years from creation, or if released within this period, seventy years from first release.[3]

These provisions apply to works existing on 1 August 1989, other than those covered by Crown copyright or Parliamentary copyright (paras. 12 & 13 of Schedule 1).

The duration of copyright in the following types of work continued to be governed by the 1956 Act:

â€” however these transitional provisions were largely cancelled by the 1995 Regulations,[5] which in many cases caused lapsed UK copyrights to be revived.

Copyright in the following types of work lasts until 31 December 2039:

Artistic works that are mass-produced by an industrial process suffer from a downgrading of their copyright term from the life of the creator plus 70 years to 25 years as a result of the provisions of section 52 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. The Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill[6] was introduced into Parliament on 23 May 2012 and is likely to become law in late 2012 or early 2013. If section 56(2) of the Bill is enacted then artistic works that are mass-produced by the copyright holder will benefit from the same period of protection as those not replicated in large numbers. The result will be a significant extension from 25 years to that of the life of the creator plus 70 years. The proposed change is a reaction to pressure from the international furniture industry supported by manufacturers of decorative arts: copyright holders of many famous and much copied 20th century furniture design classics such as the Egg Chair and Barcelona Daybed hope that long expired copyright periods will be revived allowing for a further period of commercial exploitation.[7] Some legal commentators have doubted whether the legislation will have the desired effect. They contend that many mass-produced items of 20th-century industrial furniture may not be defined by the courts of the United Kingdom as works of artistic craftsmanship but as mere designs. A design that is not an artistic work attracts no copyright protection under the 1988 Act.[8]

Section 301 and Schedule 6 contain an unusual grant of the right to royalties in perpetuity, proposed by James Callaghan, enabling Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children to continue to receive royalties for performances and adaptations, publications and broadcast of "Peter Pan" whose author, J. M. Barrie, had gifted his copyright to the hospital in 1929, later confirmed in his will. Although often incorrectly referred to as a perpetual copyright, it does not confer Great Ormond Street Hospital full intellectual property rights over the work. The amendment was proposed when Peter Pan's copyright first expired on 31 December 1987, 50 years after Barrie's death, which was the copyright term at that time. Following EU legislation extending the term to author's life + 70 years, Peter Pan's copyright was revived in 1996 and expired on 31 December 2007 in the UK, where Great Ormond Street Hospital's right to remuneration in perpetuity now prevails.

See Fair dealing in United Kingdom law.

Chapter III of Part I of the Act provides for a number of situations where copying or use of a work will not be deemed to infringe the copyright, in effect limitations on the rights of copyright holders. The existing common law defences to copyright infringement, notably fair dealing and the public interest defence, are not affected (s. 171), although many of the statutory permitted acts would also qualify under one of the common law defences: the defence of statutory authority is specifically maintained in section 50. This chapter of the Act has been substantially modified, notably by the Copyright and Related Rights Regulations 2003 No. 2498 transposing the EU Copyright Directive:[12] the description below is of the Act as it received Royal Assent.

The following are also permitted acts (the list is not exhaustive):

In general, limited copying for educational use (including examination) is permitted so long as it is 'fair dealing' and is performed by the person giving or receiving instruction (s. 32) or by the education establishment in the case of a broadcast (s. 35)[16]: however, reprographic copying of published editions is only permitted within the limit of 5% of the work per year (s. 36). Works may be performed in educational establishments without infringing copyright, provided that no members of the public are present (s. 34): the parents of pupils are considered members of the public unless they have some other connection with the establishment there are different things too.(e.g., by being teachers or governors). Further provisions are contained in secondary legislation.[17]

Librarians may make and supply single copies of an article or of a reasonable proportion of a literary, artistic or musical work to individuals who request them for the purposes of private study or research (ss. 38–40); copying of the entire work is possible if it is unpublished and the author has not prohibited copying (s.–43). They may also make and supply copies to other libraries (s. 41) and make copies of works in their possession where it is not reasonably possible to purchase further copies (s. 42). The detailed conditions for making copies are contained in secondary legislation, currently the Copyright (Librarians and Archivists) (Copying of Copyright Material) Regulations 1989 No. 1212.[18]

Torvill & Dean wanted to create music to dance to. Their service company, Inside Edge (“IE”), was given the task of doing this. IE engaged a Mr Pullen who in turn engaged an arranger and a conductor (R). It was common ground that R did the following – commissioned and paid for the musical arrangements, booked and paid for the studio, arranged and paid for the attendance of the 51 musicians necessary to make the recording, engaged and paid for the scoring, a sound engineer, and a fixer and paid for all expenses of the sessions such as meals, taxis, etc. The issue in this case: who was the “author” of the sound recording under s 9(2) CDPA? By whom were the arrangements necessary for the making of the recording undertaken? Alternatively, was IE the owner in equity under the principles of Massine v De Basil? And if the plaintiffs were not the owners of the copyright, was R stopped from asserting his ownership?

The coffee shop, Stephen Carwardine & Co, had been keeping its customers entertained by playing records. EMI, then called The Gramophone Company and argued that it was against the law to play the record in public without first receiving the permission of the copyright owners. The judge agreed, establishing this as a legal principle. EMI and Decca formed Phonographic Performance Ltd (PPL) to carry out this licensing role and opened the first office in London. The Copyright Act 1956 led to the expansion of PPL's role to also cover the licensing of broadcasters that played recorded music. Further copyright law changes in 1988 strengthened PPL's licensing position. In 1996, performers were given the rights to receive 'equitable remuneration' where recordings of their performances were played in public or broadcast – leading to PPL paying them royalties directly for the first time. In addition, it was stated by Maugham J that, “the arrangement of the recording instruments in the building where the record is to be made the building itself, the timing to fit the record, the production of the artistic effect... Combine together to make an artistic record, which is very far from the mere production of a piece of music.”

The Claimant was a classically trained pianist invited by a pop group to reside with them and act as orchestral arranger of a number of their songs. He never became a member of the Group. The issue here was whether the Claimant was the joint owner of copyright in six musical works for which he had made orchestral arrangements or contributed to their composition. The Claimant had established that he had made a significant and original contribution to the creation of the work and must be regarded as a joint author. But as he had waited 14 years before asserting his rights, he was stopped from revoking the implied license granted to the pop group for the exploitation of the works.

Problems can occur when there is a need to determine whether a person involved in the creation of a piece of work may have joint ownership. When this is the case, there is a test that can be applied, similar to the one which is used to determine originality. This test is used in order to show that the labor, skill and judgement exercised by the author are unique and are that of which are protected by copyright. For example, in this case it was stated that there can be no finding of joint authorship in a copyright work in the absence of a common intention to that effect. T is implicit in the concept of ‘collaboration’ that there must be “joint laboring in the furtherance of a common design.” This means that it is necessary for both authors to make a significant contribution and that they must have had a similar plan. Furthermore, in the case of Godfrey v Lees, as mentioned above, it is clear to conclude that joint authorship does not require that the respective contribution be equal. The Claimant was a classically trained pianist invited by a pop group to reside with them and act as orchestra arranger of a number of their songs. He never became a member of the Group. The issue in this case was whether the Claimant was the joint owner of copyright in six musical works for which he had made orchestral arrangements of contributed to their composition. It was held that he has made a significant and original contribution to the creation of the work and must be regarded as joint author.

The court described the test for joint authorship in a work of music: "What the claimant to joint authorship of a work must establish is that he has made a significant and original contribution to the creation of the work and that he has done so pursuant to a common design." It is not necessary that his contribution to the work is equal in terms of either quantity, quality, or originality to that of his collaborators. Nor, in the case of a song, does it matter that his contribution is to the orchestral arrangement of the song rather than to the song itself."

This case explains the concept of â€˜originality. Here, examiners were hired to create exam scripts for the University of London. The question arose as to whether certain mathematics exam papers were original literary works. The exam papers just consisted of conventional maths problems in a conventional manner. The court held that originality does not mean that the work must be an expression of individual thought. The simple fact that the authors drew on a body of knowledge common to mathematicians did not compromise originality. The requirement of originality, it was held, does not require that expression be in an original or novel form. It does, however, require that the work not be copied from another work. It must originate from the author. As such, even though these were the same old maths problems every student is familiar with, and even though there was no creative input, the skill, labour, and judgement of the authors was sufficient to make the papers original literary works. Essentially, the criteria is satisfied if the work is not a copy of a preceding work and it is originated from the author, who must have exercised the requisite labor, skill or judgement in producing the work.

Copyright is not infringed by anything done for the purposes of parliamentary or judicial proceedings or for the purposes of a Royal Commission or statutory inquiry (ss. 45, 46). The Crown may make copies of works which are submitted to it for official purposes (s. 48). Material which is open to public inspection or on an official register may be copied under certain conditions:[19] this includes material made open to public inspection by the European Patent Office and by the World Intellectual Property Organisation under the Patent Cooperation Treaty,[20] and material held as public records under the Public Records Act 1958 c. 51 or similar legislation[21] (s. 49).

The Act creates a specific regime of moral rights for the first time in the United Kingdom: previously, an author's moral right had to be enforced through other torts, e.g. defamation, passing off, malicious falsehood. The author's moral rights are:

The moral rights of an author cannot be transferred to another person (s. 94) and pass to his heirs on his death (s. 95): however, they may be waived by consent (s. 87). The right to object to false attribution of work last for twenty years after a person death, the other moral rights last for the same period as the other copyright rights in the work (s. 86).

The Act simplifies the regime of Crown copyright, that is the copyright in works of the United Kingdom government, and abolishes the perpetual Crown copyright in unpublished works of the Crown. It also creates the separate concept of Parliamentary copyright for the works of the Parliament of the United Kingdom and the Scottish Parliament, and applies similar rules to the copyrights of certain international organisations.

Crown copyright last for fifty years after publication, or 125 years after creation for unpublished works (s. 163): however, no unpublished works of the Crown will come into the public domain until 31 December 2039, that is fifty years after the commencement of section 163. Acts of the United Kingdom and Scottish Parliaments and Church of England Measures are protected by Crown copyright for fifty years from Royal Assent (s. 164). Works of the Parliaments of the United Kingdom and of Scotland, except Bills and Acts, are protected by Parliamentary copyright for fifty years after creation: Bills are protected from the date of their introduction to the date of Royal Assent or of rejection (ss. 165–167, Parliamentary Copyright (Scottish Parliament) Order 1999 No. 676[22]). The works of the United Nations and its specialised agencies and of the Organisation of American States are protected for fifty years after creation (s. 168, Copyright (International Organisations) Order 1989 No. 989[23]).

Infringement of copyright is actionable by the copyright owner as the infringement of a property right (s. 96) or, in the case of infringement of moral rights, as the tort of breach of statutory duty (s. 103). Damages will not be awarded against an "innocent" defendant, i.e. one who did not know and had no reason to know that the work was under copyright, but other remedies (e.g. injunction, account of profits: Scots law interdict, accounting and payment of profits) continue to be available (s. 97, see Microsoft v Plato Technology). Orders are available for the delivery up (Scots law: delivery) and disposal of infringing copies (ss. 99, 114): copyright owners may also seize such copies (s. 100).[24] The making, dealing in or use of infringing copies is a criminal offence (s. 107). Copyright owners may ask the HM Revenue and Customs to treat infringing copies as "prohibited goods", in which case they are prohibited from import (s. 111).[25] Section 297 of the Act makes it an offense to fraudulently receive broadcasts for which a payment is required.[26] Section 300 creates the offense of fraudulently using a trademark, inserted as ss. 58A–58D of the Trade Marks Act 1938 c. 22.

The Copyright and Related Rights Regulations 2003 amended the CDPA to provide an additional right of performers to require consent before making copies of their performances available to the public by electronic transmission.[10]

The Act codifies the principle of secondary infringement, that is knowingly enabling or assisting in the infringement of copyright, which had previously been applied at common law (see R v Kyslant). Secondary infringement covers:

Copyright infringement that may be criminal offences under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 are the:

The penalties for these copyright infringement offences may include:

The Act establishes the Copyright Tribunal as a continuation of the tribunal established under s. 23 of the 1956 Act (s. 145).[27] The Tribunal is empowered (s. 149) to hear and determine proceedings concerning:

An appeal on any point of law lies to the High Court, or to the Court of Session under Scots law.

Part III of the Act creates a "design right" separate from the registration of designs governed by the Registered Designs Act 1949. To qualify, the design must be original (not commonplace in the field in question) and not fall into one of the excluded categories (s. 213(3)):

The design must be recorded in a document after 1989-08-01 (s. 213(6)): designs recorded or used before that date do not qualify (s. 213(7)).

The design right lasts for fifteen years after the design is recorded in a document, or for ten years if articles have been made available for sale (s.Â 216).

The copyright in a design document is not infringed by making or using articles to that design, unless the design is an artistic work or a typeface (s. 51). If an artistic work has been exploited with permission for the design by making articles by an industrial process and marketing them, the work may be copied by making or using articles of any description after the end of a period of twenty-five years from the end of the calendar year when such articles were first marketed (s. 52). It is not an infringement of the copyright in a typeface to use it in the ordinary course of printing or to use the material produced by such printing (s. 54).

Part IV of the Act contains a certain number of amendments to the Registered Designs Act 1949 c. 88. The criteria for registration of a design and the duration of the registered design right (ss. 1 & 8 of the 1949 Act) are notably modified. Provisions are also added to allow ministers to take action to protect the public interest in monopoly situations (s. 11A of the 1949 Act) and to provide for compensation for Crown use of registered designs (para. 2A to Schedule 1 to the 1949 Act). A consolidated version of the Registered Designs Act 1949 is included (s. 273, Schedule 4).

Part V of the act provides for the registration of patent agents and trade mark agents and for the privilege of their communications with clients from disclosure in court. Part VI of the act creates a system of patents county courts for proceedings involving patents which are of a lesser financial implication.

There are numerous commencement dates for the different sections of the Act, detailed below. The provisions on copyright, rights in performances and design right came into force on 1 August 1989, while the registration of patent agents and trade mark agents came into force on 13 August 1990.

The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (Commencement No. 2) and (Commencement No. 3) Orders 1989[32] are technical measures to allow the preparation of secondary legislation.

The following regulations were made under the European Communities Act 1972 in order to implement European Union directives in UK law.


who will be inducted into the baseball hall of fame in 2018

Elections to the Baseball Hall of Fame for 2018 proceeded according to rules most recently amended in 2016. As in the past, the Baseball Writers' Association of America (BBWAA) voted by mail to select from a ballot of recently retired players. The results were announced on January 24, 2018, with the BBWAA electing Chipper Jones, Vladimir Guerrero, Jim Thome, and Trevor Hoffman to the Hall of Fame. Jones and Thome were elected in their first year of eligibility.[1]

Baseball Hall of Fame balloting, 2018

The three voting panels that replaced the more broadly defined Veterans Committee following a 2010 rules change[2] were replaced by a new set of four panels in 2016.[3] The Modern Baseball Era Committee convened on December 10, 2017 to select from a ballot of retired players and non-playing personnel who made their greatest contributions to the sport between 1970 and 1987,[3] with Jack Morris and Alan Trammell elected by this body.[4] The formal induction ceremony was held at the Hall's facilities in Cooperstown, New York on July 29, 2018.[1]

The BBWAA election rules remained identical to those that were in effect for the most recent elections. The BBWAA voted at the 2016 winter meetings to make all Hall of Fame ballots public one week after the results were announced, effective with this election.[5] However, the Hall rejected the BBWAA's proposal, and ballots remain confidential unless individual voters choose to reveal them (which is allowed by Hall of Fame rules).[6]

Another recent rules change, announced in 2015, tightened the qualifications for the BBWAA electorate. Beginning with the 2016 election, eligible voters must not only have 10 years of continuous BBWAA membership, but also be currently active members, or have held active status within the 10 years prior to the election. A BBWAA member who has not been active for more than 10 years can regain voting status by covering MLB in the year preceding the election.[7] As a result of the new rule, the vote total in 2016 decreased by 109 from the previous year, to 440.[8]

The ballot included two categories of players:

422 ballots were cast, 20 fewer than in 2017.

Voting results from 2018:[9]

Players who were eligible for the first time in 2018 but were not on the ballot included Rod Barajas, Miguel Batista, Geoff Blum, Miguel Cairo, Aaron Cook, Francisco Cordero, Juan Cruz, Brian Fuentes, Bill Hall, Willie Harris, Nick Johnson, Adam Kennedy, Rodrigo López, Mike MacDougal, Guillermo Mota, Will Ohman, Vicente Padilla, Carl Pavano, Scott Podsednik, Juan Rivera, J. C. Romero, Brian Schneider, Ben Sheets, Jeff Suppan, Kip Wells, Dan Wheeler, and Jack Wilson.

On July 23, 2016, the Hall of Fame announced changes to the Era Committee system. The system's timeframes were restructured to place a greater emphasis on the modern game, and to reduce the frequency at which individuals from the pre-1970 game (including Negro Leagues figures) will have their careers reviewed.[3]

Separate 16-member subcommittees continue to vote on individuals from different eras of baseball, with candidates still being classified by the time periods that cover their greatest contributions:

All committees' ballots will include 10 candidates. While there was previously a one-year waiting period after elimination from annual BBWAA consideration, there is now no waiting period. At least one committee convenes every December, in the calendar year before the induction ceremony in July. The Early Baseball committee will convene decennially in years ending in 0, and the Golden Days committee will convene every five years, in years ending in 0 and 5. The Today's Game and Modern Baseball committees alternate their meetings in that order, skipping years in which the Golden Days and Early Baseball committees meet. [3]

Accordingly, the committees will meet in the following years as part of the elections for the next calendar year:

Additionally, the Hall of Fame has modified the criteria for consideration of active executives. Previously, active executives 65 or older were eligible for consideration by era-based committees; the lower age limit has now been raised to 70. The new criteria explicitly state that for those who meet the age cutoff, neither their positions in an organization nor their currently active status will affect their election.[3]

On November 6, 2017, the Hall announced the 10 candidates to be considered when the Modern Baseball Era Committee met at the 2017 winter meetings near Walt Disney World on December 10, with the voting results announced immediately after the committee met.[10]  The cutoff for election and induction remained the standard 75%, or 12 of 16 votes.

The committee consisted of the following individuals:[4]

All candidates except Miller were living when the ballot was announced. Mattingly, Morris, Murphy, and Trammell were being considered for the first time; the others had been considered at least once by one of the predecessors to this committee. Garvey, John, Miller, Parker, and Simmons were most recently considered in 2014 by the former Expansion Era Committee, and Tiant was most recently considered by the former Golden Era Committee in 2015. Among players, Simmons was the only candidate who was not on the BBWAA ballot for the full 15-year period formerly allowed by Hall rules; he received less than 5% when he debuted on the BBWAA ballot in 1994 and thus did not appear on further ballots. The Hall changed the eligibility period to 10 years starting with the 2015 election, but Trammell and Mattingly (who were then past the new 10-year cutoff) retained their original 15-year eligibility window.

The J. G. Taylor Spink Award has been presented by the BBWAA at the annual summer induction ceremonies since 1962.[12] Through 2010, it was awarded during the main induction ceremony, but is now given the previous day at the Hall of Fame Awards Presentation.  It recognizes a sportswriter "for meritorious contributions to baseball writing".[13] The recipients are not members of the Hall of Fame but are featured in a permanent exhibit at the National Baseball Museum.

The three finalists for the 2018 award were announced during the 2017 All-Star break.[14]

Ocker was announced as the recipient during the 2017 winter meetings on December 12.[15] He covered the Cleveland Indians for more than three decades, serving as Cleveland Indians beat reporter for the Beacon-Journal from 1981 until his retirement at the end of the 2013 season. Ocker received 168 of the 426 ballots cast (including two blanks) to Reeves' 143 and Reusse's 113.[16]

Various changes in July 2016 were also made to the annual Ford C. Frick Award elections, presented annually to a preeminent baseball broadcaster since 1978. According to the Hall, the new criteria for selection are "Commitment to excellence, quality of broadcasting abilities, reverence within the game, popularity with fans, and recognition by peers."

Additionally, a ballot of eight candidates will now be set, down from 10 in years past. The three ballot slots previously determined by fan voting on Facebook will now be filled by a committee of historians.

A new election cycle has been established, rotating annually between Current Major League Markets (team-specific announcers) with the 2017 Frick Award; National Voices (broadcasters whose contributions were realized on a national level) with the 2018 Frick Award; and Broadcasting Beginnings (early team voices and pioneers of baseball broadcasting) with the 2019 Frick Award. This cycle will repeat every three years.[3]

The Hall announced the following finalists for the 2018 Ford C. Frick Award on October 23, 2017.[17]

Four finalists were members of the Hall of Fame as playersâ€”Dean, Drysdale, Morgan, and Reese. When the ballot was announced, Buck, Costas, Michaels, and Morgan were still alive.  The other four were deceased.[17]

Costas was announced as the recipient at the 2017 winter meetings on December 13. He began his sportscasting career as a play-by-play caller for the Spirits of St. Louis in the American Basketball Association, and went from there to calling NBA and NFL games for CBS, but made his greatest mark as part of NBC's broadcast team for its national MLB telecasts from 1982 to 2009. Costas then joined the MLB Network, where he was serving as the network's documentary host when he was announced as the Frick Award recipient.[18]


who plays ted in how i met your mother

Joshua Radnor (born July 29, 1974) is an American actor. He is best known for portraying Ted Mosby on the popular Emmy Award-winning CBS sitcom How I Met Your Mother. He made his writing and directorial debut with the 2010 comedy drama film Happythankyoumoreplease, for which he won the Sundance Film Festival Audience Award and was nominated for the Grand Jury Prize.

Josh Radnor

In 2012, he wrote, directed and starred in his second film, Liberal Arts, which premiered at the 2012 Sundance Film Festival.[1] In 2014, Radnor portrayed Isaac in the Broadway play Disgraced, which earned a Tony Award for Best Play nomination. He then starred as Dr. Jedediah Foster on the PBS American Civil War drama series Mercy Street. He is set to star in the upcoming musical series "Rise".

Radnor was born in Columbus, Ohio, the son of Carol Radnor (nÃ©e Hirsch), a high school guidance counselor, and Alan Radnor, a medical malpractice lawyer. Radnor has two sisters, Melanie Radnor and Joanna Radnor Vilensky. He grew up in Bexley, Ohio, a small city near Columbus. Radnor attended Orthodox Jewish day schools (including the Columbus Torah Academy) and was raised in Conservative Judaism.[2][3][4] Radnor went to Bexley High School, and later Kenyon College, where his school's theater department presented him with the Paul Newman Award and during which he spent a semester (Spring 1995) training at the National Theater Institute at the Eugene O'Neill Theater Center in Waterford, Connecticut. He graduated from Kenyon with a Bachelor of Arts in drama in 1996.[5] Radnor received his Master of Fine Arts degree in acting from New York University's Graduate Acting Program at the Tisch School of the Arts in 1999.[5][6] Radnor participated in an Israel experience program in Tzfat with Livnot U'Lehibanot in 1997.[2]

Radnor was cast as the lead in The WB series Off Centre. However, the role was re-cast with Eddie Kaye Thomas before the first episode aired.[7] In 2002, he made his Broadway debut in the stage version of The Graduate, succeeding Jason Biggs, opposite Kathleen Turner and Alicia Silverstone. In 2004, Radnor starred in The Paris Letter alongside his future How I Met Your Mother co-star, Neil Patrick Harris.[8] From 2005 to 2014, Radnor starred in How I Met Your Mother, his biggest role to date.

In July 2008, he starred opposite Jennifer Westfeldt in the premiere of the play Finks,[9] written by Joe Gilford and directed by Charlie Stratton for New York Stage and Film. Radnor made his directorial debut with the film Happythankyoumoreplease, where he was both the writer and star of the 2010 comedy-drama.[10]

His second directorial effort, Liberal Arts, starring himself and Elizabeth Olsen, premiered at the Sundance Film Festival on January 22, 2012.[11] Radnor appeared in the Broadway production of Disgraced, which opened October 23, 2014 at the Lyceum Theatre.[12][13]

In October 2016, Radnor also confirmed he is in a band, Radnor and Lee, with Australian musician Ben Lee. Their debut album, Radnor & Lee has been released on 10th november 2017.[14] He is set to direct the sci-fi thriller film The Leaves.[15]

In 2008, Radnor told the Los Angeles Times, "I do Transcendental Meditation, and part of the reason I chose my house is that I thought it would be a great place to meditate."[16]

Radnor is an outspoken opponent of pornography. In a 2016 interview, he said, "I'm not a porn addict, though I believe the addiction is real. I didn't grow up in any kind of repressive, super religious environment. I never felt I was in danger of eternal damnation or anything... I do believe porn is a huge problem that has to be confronted. The battle, though, is ultimately an internal one. Each person has to decide for themselves whether to have this thing in their lives or not. I value love and connection and friendship and community. I want to encourage more creativity, joy, and peace in my life. Porn is opposed to all of that. I stand strong with anyone choosing to get porn out of their lives."[17]

Radnor is an avid Cloud Cult fan. He collaborated with the band to make the film The Seeker in 2016. Radnor explained, "What's true for me about a lot of music, but especially true for Cloud Cult's music, is that it stirs up the thing that's already in you and calls it out. If this film is able to do that, I'll sleep well at night."[18]

Radnor is a registered Democrat.[19]


what is the difference between jetstar and jetstar asia

Jetstar Asia Airways Pte Ltd (operating as Jetstar Asia) is a low-cost airline based in Singapore. It is one of the Asian offshoots of parent Jetstar Airways, the low-cost subsidiary airline of Australia's Qantas airline. It operates services to regional destinations in Southeast Asia to countries such as Myanmar, Cambodia, Malaysia, Philippines, Thailand and Vietnam. It also flies to regional routes in East Asia such as Japan, Taiwan and Hong Kong. It is the main feeder airline for its parent company Jetstar Airways for budget passengers flying to Australia. Its sister airlines include Jetstar in New Zealand, Jetstar Pacific and Jetstar Japan.

Jetstar Asia Airways

Jetstar Asia was launched in 2004 as a partnership between Qantas, holding a 49% stake in the airline, Singaporean businessmen Tony Chew (22%) and FF Wong (10%) and the Singapore government's investment company, Temasek Holdings (Private) Limited (19%).[1] It received its Air Operator's Certificate from the Singapore government on 19 November 2004.[2]

Due to its belated entry into the market, the airline differentiated itself from its competitors by flying further; anywhere within a 5-hour radius from Singapore while its competitors flew to destinations within a 4-hour radius from Singapore. The airline announced 7 routes to Shanghai, Hong Kong, Taipei, Pattaya, Jakarta, Surabaya and Manila; the most ambitious start-up plan compared to any of its Asian rivals, which would have given it the widest international coverage.

Online ticketing commenced at 0800 hours (8GMT) on 7 December 2004, a day after the first three routings and their promotional prices were announced, namely S$48 (HK$228) to Hong Kong, S$88 (NT1788) to Taipei and S$28 (Bht725) to Pattaya on a one-way ticket for all seats in the first week of operations as each routing was launched. Flights to Manila began in 2005. As part of its differentiation, Jetstar flew to Ninoy Aquino International Airport instead of the cheaper Clark International Airport in Angeles City.

However, services to certain announced destinations (Shanghai, Jakarta and Surabaya) could not be started. The non-start of flights to Shanghai was because China's aviation authority did not allow foreign budget airlines flying to both Shanghai and Beijing airports. Flights to Indonesia were not allowed as Indonesia's government embarked a policy of protectionism. Existing flights by low-fare airlines, such as Valuair's flights to Jakarta and Denpasar as well as Tiger Airways' service to Padang, were not revoked.

Despite facing a difficult market, Jetstar Asia took delivery of a fifth aircraft in 2005 and sought approval for new routes. Jetstar planned to lease the aircraft from Atlasjet Airways, but the aircraft was later withdrawn from the lease arrangement. Discussions were held with Qantas to source additional aircraft. In 2005, the budget carrier began seeking approval from Cambodian authorities to fly to Phnom Penh and Siem Reap, and was eventually granted rights.

Hot on the heels of Tiger Airways' success on the Phuket route, Jetstar Asia announced 4 times weekly flights to Phuket. The flight commenced on 25 October 2005, however due to inconsistent demand and better opportunities elsewhere, Jetstar announced the suspension of flights to Phuket on 27 March 2008.

By the end of December, it was clear that Jetstar Asia was bleeding cash and its investors were struggling to finance the airline. On 2 December 2005, Jetstar Asia announced that its chief executive officer (CEO), Ken Ryan, was stepping down to return to Australia. Mr Ryan would take on a new management role at Orange Star's majority shareholder Qantas and was replaced at the helm by Neil Thompson. On 9 February 2006, Jetstar Asia appointed Singaporean Chong Phit Lian as the airline's new CEO, replacing interim CEO Neil Thompson.

On 26 July 2006, Qantas decided to re-position both of its Jetstar ventures in Australia and Singapore as a single brand. This was followed by a launch of Jetstar's long-haul operations to six destinations in South-east Asia from Australia.[citation needed]

On 15 September 2006, Jetstar Asia became the first international airline to land at Bangkok's Suvarnabhumi Airport.[3]

On 16 April 2008, Jetstar Asia announced that it had reported a profit ahead of schedule, and ahead of local rival Tiger Airways. Both Jetstar Asia and sister airline Valuair saw a 20% increase in revenue, a 4% rise in passenger load and an overall 20% jump in passenger carriage for the year ending March 2008. The airline's CEO attributes its success to better brand awareness as well as an increased utilisation of aircraft, growing revenue and a broadening of the earning base.

On 16 April 2008, the company announced that it had achieved profitability for the year ended 31 March 2008, with an increase of 20% in the number of passengers carried and a passenger load factor of over 75%, an increase of 4% over the previous year.[4] Jetstar Asia carried 2.7 million passengers during the year to 30 June 2011, an increase of 18% on the previous year, and saw Revenue passenger kilometres increase by 39.7%,[5] as long-haul flights from Singapore to Auckland and Melbourne using Airbus A330 aircraft were launched.[6]

In March 2011, Jetstar launched flights to Hangzhou, China.

Jetstar Asia and Valuair, another Singapore-based airline, merged on 24 July 2005, in the first major consolidation of South-east Asia's crowded and competitive low-cost airline industry. The airlines released a joint statement saying they would continue to operate their normal routes under their own brands in the meantime, with little or no change to the service offered by either airline. Qantas CEO and Jetstar Asia chairman Geoff Dixon chaired the new company.[7] Jetstar Asia CEO Chong Phit Lian was appointed as the chief executive of both airlines. The new company was due to receive a cash injection of more than 50 million Singapore dollars in fresh capital into the new entity, largely to be provided by Qantas. Shareholders of Valuair, including airline-industry veteran Lim Chin Beng, Malaysia's Star Cruises and Asiatravel.com, have now become minority shareholders in the merged company, Orange Star. Qantas owns 42.5% of both airlines after the merger.

On October 2014, following the Indonesian Government lifting operational restrictions on foreign owned low cost carriers into Indonesia. Valuair was dissolved and its flights were taken over by Jetstar Asia on 26 October 2014.[8]

Valuair was the first low-cost airline to begin operations in Singapore, although some do not consider it as such by other definitions. Launching its first flight on May 5, 2004, it was funded by local businessmen, and had the expertise of an ex-Singapore Airlines employee as its chief executive.

Valuair sought to differentiate itself from its competitors such as then-rival Jetstar Asia and Tiger Airways by offering free hot meals, wider legroom and assigned seating, and marketed itself as a low-fare airline. The airline flew beyond the traditional five-hour radius typical of low-cost carriers and flew to destinations like Perth, Xiamen and Chengdu. The airline even had ambitious plans flying to Australia's East Coast and Northeast Asia using wide-body aircraft. In its plans, a Business Class and cargo operations was even thought of. However, rising fuel prices, along with lack of financial backing and the deep pockets of Qantas' Jetstar Asia and Singapore Airlines-backed Tiger Airways finally forced the airline to concede defeat in the highly-competitive local scene.

On 24 July 2005, the carrier announced plans to merge with Jetstar Asia. Both Jetstar Asia, a Qantas-backed airline, and Valuair were planning to operate their respective routes normally for the foreseeable future. The announcement came after several weeks of speculation about consolidation within Southeast Asia's low-cost airline industry.

In December 2011 the airline announced that CEO Chong Phit Lian was to step down from 1 February 2012 after leading the airline for six years, to pursue opportunities outside the aviation sector. Ms Chong remained a member of the Jetstar Asia board; meanwhile Paul Daff, formerly head of Jetconnect, the Qantas Group subsidiary airline in New Zealand and previously Head of Commercial for Jetstar Asia, acted as Interim CEO while a successor was recruited.[9]

In March 2012 it was announced that Mr Barathan (Bara) Pasupathi, former CFO of Jetstar Asia, had been appointed as CEO to take effect from 2 July 2012.[10]

The ownership structure is composed of Westbrook Investments (51%) and Qantas Group (49%). Newstar Holdings is the holding company that operates and manages Jetstar in Singapore.

Jetstar Asia flies from Singapore to 27 cities in 12 countries throughout Asia.

Jetstar Asia Airways has codeshare agreements with the following airlines:[11]

In addition to the above codeshare arrangements, Jetstar Asia also has interline arrangements with the following airlines:

The Jetstar Asia Airways fleet consists of the following aircraft (as of August 2017):[14][15]

Jetstar Asia aircraft feature leather seats with an average seat pitch of 29 inches. Passengers may select a seat prior to their flight for a fee.[17]

Passengers may purchase food and beverages on board from the Jetstar CafÃ© menu. On selected Jetstar Asia flights, passengers may pre-purchase and select their meals online.[18]