|
|
| Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail (268262) | |||
 |
|||
| Home > SubChat | |||
|
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ] |
|
||
|
Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Sat Jun 17 19:57:07 2006, in response to Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail, posted by Olog-hai on Sat Jun 17 18:36:40 2006. If you believe that report, you got another thing coming.Yes, how dare I believe some report compiled by trained professionals when I can simply listen to the uneducated ramblings of some foamer. "Less frequent headway" is purely an artifice, and the whole board knows that. Do you not have Adobe installed or something. I can't figure out why you're either unable or unwilling to actually read that document. I merely quoted the relevant portions, but if you actually read the report you'll find that that is the shortest cost effective headway. The annual operations and maitenance cost for heavy rail is already nearly double that of the light rail alternative. Reducing headways to the level of the light rail would only lead an increasing of that cost, and that would further marginalize the heavy rail alternative. Heavy rail has historically met or beaten light rail headways. Really? Where exactly is there a heavy rail system with a sub 60 second headway? I think the folks at SEPTA's subway surface would like to introduce you to their operation. 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. It's bad enough that you're clearly not familiar with the area, but at least read the report to find out that there are indeed crossings which cannot simply be closed. The project also includes a bike path which would require access points. With heavy rail these clearly would have to be over or under passes, while LRT could handle small at-grade pedestrian crossings. Further, light rail with grade crossings is more dangerous than heavy rail with grade crossings, anyway Lets see some figures here. I've offered up plenty of proff, time for you to return the favor. 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. That depends solely upon the method of crossing protection used by the system. If they use a simple traffic signal with no physical protection then yes, that is the case. If they go for a crossing gate and signal as a commuter or freight railroad would use then they do not have to slow down. SEPTA's Rt101/102 resignalling program seeks to achieve just that. They also leave out the FRA separation and new facilities necessary for light rail maintenance. Clearly if NJT can get the Bordentown secondary for their Riverline a booming freight line like SI's North Shore won't have any problems at all. And yes, they mentioned maitenance facilities, they'd be west of Arlington Station, roughly south of the freight yard to be constructed in that area. |
|
|
|