Home · Maps · About
Home > SubChat
 

[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
[ First in Thread | Next in Thread ]

 

view flat

Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail

Posted by WillD on Sat Jun 17 18:19:06 2006, in response to Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail, posted by Olog-hai on Sat Jun 17 16:13:36 2006.

edf40wrjww2msgDetail:detailStr
fiogf49gjkf0d
From the chart on page 22 (pdf page 25) of the report I uploaded:
* The Heavy Rail Alternative has lower than expected ridership compared to the other alternatives due to its less frequent headway. Frequency of service and travel times are stronger predictors of ridership than vehicle capacity.
Also from page 55 (pdf page 58):
However, estimated
passenger demand for North Shore service indicates that the flexible LRT and DMU alternatives would be most appropriate for the corridor.
And from the next paragraph:
The heavy rail alternative presents unique opportunities and constraints. A heavy rail system could be interlinked with existing Staten Island Railway South Shore service for more efficient intra-borough travel. However, operation of heavy rail would require renovation of the existing elevated structure and construction of grade-separated crossings at four to six current at-grade intersections along the Right-of-Way. Thus capital costs would be higher for heavy rail than for any of the other alternatives. Operations costs are comparatively higher because passenger capacity on the required three-car trains exceeds the anticipated demand.
Unless you know of a whole lot of folks who are hankering for a one seat ride from Tottenville to Arlington via St. George (which is highly unlikely due to the layout of that terminal) the light rail alternative will fufill all the project goals while costing less to build, attracting more riders, and having the lowest operation and maitenance cost per passenger of the alternatives. You could lower the headways of the heavy rail system to the point where the ridership is equal to that of the light rail, DMU, and streetcar modes, but then you're simply increasing the operating cost. The heavy rail alternative already would cost twice as much per passenger to operate as the light rail, and it'd be 125% as expensive to build. If you doggedly stick to the heavy rail alternative all you'll end up with is the BRT system, which cannot hope to fully accomodate all its potential ridership. Light rail is the only alternative which combines low capital costs with low O&M costs and provides the capacity for ridership to grow.

Responses

Post a New Response

Your Handle:

Your Password:

E-Mail Address:

Subject:

Message:



Before posting.. think twice!


[ Return to the Message Index ]