|
|
| Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail (268774) | |||
 |
|||
| 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 20:45:09 2006, in response to Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail, posted by tydev417 on Sun Jun 18 17:12:19 2006. the LRT alternative came up and you catch a fitNo, I just said they won't build it. if they were stuck on heavy rail, you would be fine when you KNOW that heavy rail is more cost inefficient How is it more cost-inefficient? Nobody's demonstrated "how" except for a bunch of unqualified biased know-nothings at URS Enterprises. Should we close down the whole NYC Subway and replace the cars with high-platform LRVs too? If it were up to URS, places like Washington DC wouldn't have a Metro. With LRT, you're going to have more operators, flimsier vehicles, and lower operating speeds, not to mention segments that potentially can get stuck in road traffic. Forgetting that having two separate rail-based modes inherently has higher operating costs? The only way you'd have them low enough is to have legacy systems—but these are all new-builds. BTW, I didn't say anything against the (unmentioned by anyone but me) DMU mode; that's a viable one that could even do substitute-running on the Tottenville line. |
|
|
|