|
|
| Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail (268548) | |||
 |
|||
| 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 Sun Jun 18 14:24:04 2006, in response to Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail, posted by WillD on Sat Jun 17 19:57:07 2006. how dare I believe some report compiled by trained professionalsDon't you mean "pothead interns"? This is a report that's biased in favor of LRT. Even worse, it's by URS Corporation—a government contractor that'll say what a politician wants them to say. (What the hell do they know about rail? I'd believe a foamer before them. Another strike against them, being based in SF.) Plenty of "reports" and "studies" that skewed things in favor of high platforms, remember . . . ? meanwhile, Metrolink out in LA and GO Transit in Toronto show that low platforms can indeed be equal, if not superior. the uneducated ramblings of some foamer Unless you're a rail, you're a foamer as well, bottom line, so you're knocking yourself. And how do you know I'm not a rail? Only a rail could tell (and not a nine-year "old head" like someone else on this board). Consultants are foamers as well. It's bad enough that you're clearly not familiar with the area Like you know the area? You're relying on a report written by pothead interns, remember? at least read the report to find out that there are indeed crossings which cannot simply be closed This is what they said in their report: Title to a parcel adjacent to the Right-of-Way (the Blissenbach property, formerly a private marina) was acquired by the PANYNJ and transferred to the New York City Department of Parks and Recreation for preservation and public use. If the Right-of-Way again becomes active, this property, as well as each of the industrial facilities in this area, would require continued access to sustain established activities. In this section of the alignment, four to six at-grade crossings would be necessary.They would be creating new crossings thanks to encroachment. They're trying to go the cheap route and avoid building a new elevated structure. (But of course, they'll have nice new LRVs to crash into . . .) Lets see some figures Sorry, only anecdotes. Remember LRVs getting knocked off the track by dumptrucks at grade crossings in Jersey City? Really? Where exactly is there a heavy rail system with a sub 60 second headway? Subway surface is trolleys, not modern light rail. Further, look at the capacity to operator ratio, never mind capacity of vehicle. Start putting POP on your subway-surface, and watch headways get longer, longer, longer—look at what happened to the Newark Subway. (And the lovely "study" thereof distinguishes "streetcar" from LRT.) 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 Why would they do that? Remember, they're pushing for the cheap version of light rail. Clearly if NJT can get the Bordentown secondary for their Riverline Yeahh, for $1 billion. If they had actually used people at NJTRO for the project instead of giving it to political hacks (they're only doing that now since the Comet V debacle), it would have cost a third of that, and they wouldn't even have had to buy the ROW from CSA. |
|
|
|