|
|
| Re: Manhattan's 34th Street BRT way, updated plans... traffic, ugh (188947) | |||
 |
|||
| Home > BusChat | |||
|
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ] |
|
||
|
Re: Manhattan's 34th Street BRT way, updated plans... traffic, ugh |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Mon Mar 8 01:15:36 2010, in response to Manhattan's 34th Street BRT way, updated plans... traffic, ugh, posted by Gold_12th on Sun Mar 7 22:33:39 2010. Goddamn that screams for a streetcar. Fine, they'd have to find an acre or two to put a Portland Streetcar-like operations base somewhere in Hell's Kitchen, but it'd reduce the cost per passenger mile by a quarter. If I may be so bold there's a bus depot over there that could probably use an extra floor.But the alternative analysis is confused at best. Their statement that "streetcar service along 34th Street failed the primary screening because the mode is inconsistent with current MTA operating procedures," is not a valid reason to reject a mode. Saying "we don't do that because we don't do that" is a tautology, not a determining criteria. Before 1904 NYC did not use subways because they had no subways, but when money is properly invested good things happen. I am simply baffled that they found the streetcar alternative had "no improvement to pedestrian circulation areas, and severe restriction of deliveries to local businesses due to its curbside operation.", yet somehow the BRT mode, where the transitway placement should not be significantly different, did not. Either the streetcar alternative was not subjected to the same design iterations as the BRT alternative, or they're handicapping the streetcar. I am highly suspicious of the fact that no capital cost is given for the streetcar mode. I'd be willing to bet the low end estimate was on the order of 150 million dollars and thus low enough to provide a viable alternative to the BRT mode, especially in light of the lower operational cost. I particularly like the misstatement about the shared use of the ROW between LRT/Streetcar and buses. I realize worldwide best practices may not be their strongest suit, but they have a photo of Pittsburgh's BRT system (10 million dollars more per mile than they quote as an upper limit to the capital cost), which shares ROW and tunnels with LRTs. If you're going to include a photo of a given system in a report you should be familiar with that system and the impact its operation could have on the findings. And how is it that Manhattan can have all sorts of cantilevered signs, lights, and everything else hanging over traffic, but the world is going to end if a wire goes over lanes cars will never travel along? Even if we accept the premise that wires will never be used in Manhattan the alternatives are not more expensive or unproven. The APS system in Bordeaux added no more than a half million dollars per mile to the system. The PRIMOVE inductive power transfer system Bombardier is developing should have costs no higher than a conventional catenary system, and will be even lower maintenance than the existing catenary and ground level power supply systems. |
|
|
|