|
|
| Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail (this is why) (268787) | |||
 |
|||
| Home > SubChat | |||
|
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ] |
|
||
|
Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail (this is why) |
|
|
Posted by tydev417 on Sun Jun 18 21:22:14 2006, in response to Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail (this is why), posted by Olog-hai on Sun Jun 18 20:55:42 2006. It appears that you didn't read the study, I see. They have two alignments they are studying; one is the old ROW, the other is a new ROW on the "shoulder" of Richmond Terrace (which would indeed involve street-running on some parts).I can't say you haven't read the study but it shows that you selectively read what you wanted out of it and seeped out that the LRT line would run on Richmond Terrace's shoulder when it clearly stated on it's own ROW following the shoulder of Richmond Terrace....not conflicting with car traffic. False, for the umpteenth time. Your LRT is going to have higher capital costs, higher maintenance costs due to necessary separate facilities and separate spare-parts inventories, and higher operating costs due to number of operators and (can you believe it?) fare inspectors. The only way that heavy-rail is ever "more expensive" than LRT is in the case of new-build with extensive underground segments—and there have been a number of new-build underground LRT lines with comparable costs. Light rail is inexpensive compared to heavy rail, it is more cost effiecent when it comes to this line in a particular. Did you not see shots of the North Shore Line running with only 1 car and no people in sight? A heavy rail line wouldn't play well with this line, ride the S40 in the middle of the day either and see if it isn't a breeze from one end to another. And for the kicker, what you really fail to understand is that you think there is just money to blow on making it a heavy rail line. It would require it's own separate row in many populated or built-up areas where some demolishing would be required. You think they have money to just blow on elevated viaducts when you clearly you haven't even seen Richmond Terrace in these areas where the crossing are needed because they are dense areas and Richmond Terr makes a few sharp turns in a few areas where the crossings are required. So stop claiming that heavy rail is better when it's clearly not. Wow, this is very sad on your part, you resorting to lies. I never spoke out against the R160s—never. Nor did I speak out against the PA-5s; what I said is that it was a waste of money to buy so many of them versus rehabbing the PA-4s. There is no such thing as "Moynihan Station", there is only Moynihan Concourse which delivers virtually nothing. What "Grand Central project" have I spoken out against? As for LRT, it has its place; just not on former commuter or heavy-rail rights of way. Have you forgotten that quickly that there have been plenty other debates with you and these projects and how they are a waste of money and that all the politicians do is waste and waste money? I was talking about the LIRR Grand Central project which you also feel is a waste of money. Nothing is ever good enough for you and now you are saying I'm lying when it's true. As for your language, it's very childish; this is an adult board, and if you can't deal with that, then perhaps you ought to go to some place like Railroadforums . . . This is an adult board but you are the one that is constantly stating that light rail is much more expensive than heavy rail? Or denying what is stated in the documents and calling your own thoughts the facts? |
|
(There are no responses to this message.)
|
|