|
|
| Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail (268778) | |||
 |
|||
| Home > SubChat | |||
|
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ] |
|
||
|
Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail |
|
|
Posted by tydev417 on Sun Jun 18 20:52:39 2006, in response to Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail, posted by Olog-hai on Sun Jun 18 20:45:09 2006. 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.It's getting very tiring that we keep debating in circles. The North Shore Line may or may not be an LRV line, may or may not. You keep missing the fact that the trains will not get stuck in traffic if running on it's own ROW and not all LRVS have low-operating speeds. It may or may not be an LRT line, they are focusing on it because it is cost efficient, you think the latter but it's true, that's why they risen up so fast over the years. |
|
(There are no responses to this message.)
|
|