|
|
| Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail (268230) | |||
 |
|||
| Home > SubChat | |||
|
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ] |
|
||
|
Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sat Jun 17 18:36:40 2006, in response to Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail, posted by WillD on Sat Jun 17 18:19:06 2006. The Heavy Rail Alternative has lower than expected ridership compared to the other alternatives due to its less frequent headwayIf you believe that report, you got another thing coming. "Less frequent headway" is purely an artifice, and the whole board knows that. Heavy rail has historically met or beaten light rail headways. 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 That's also baloney. There are no grade crossings along that right of way, unless you're talking the one along the west shore, and that's not in the proposal. Further, light rail with grade crossings is more dangerous than heavy rail with grade crossings, anyway—and the way they run light rail nowadays, all LRVs have to stop dead at each crossing before proceeding, even if there is no station, and that will kill average speed. They also leave out the FRA separation and new facilities necessary for light rail maintenance. Operations costs are comparatively higher because passenger capacity on the required three-car trains exceeds the anticipated demand Hogwash again, unless they're basing this on their "free" Tottenville service, which they operate artificially slowly anyway. Don't you know better than to believe what's written in studies, or to at least take what's written in them with a grain of salt? |
|
|
|