|
|
| 42 St Light Rail (1325549) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
| (1325549) | |
42 St Light Rail |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Wed Nov 26 17:44:54 2014 There is a small article in today’s Daily News about light rail in NY city and resurrecting the concept of the 42 St Xtown light rail line was specifically mentioned. |
|
|
| (1325565) | |
Re: 42 St Light Rail |
|
|
Posted by 3-9 on Wed Nov 26 19:00:35 2014, in response to 42 St Light Rail, posted by randyo on Wed Nov 26 17:44:54 2014. Zero chance of that happening. Maybe a better chance in the outer boroughs. |
|
|
| (1325571) | |
Re: 42 St Light Rail |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Wed Nov 26 19:38:31 2014, in response to Re: 42 St Light Rail, posted by 3-9 on Wed Nov 26 19:00:35 2014. Perhaps, the Bay Ridge branch...X Train concept. |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (1325572) | |
Re: 42 St Light Rail |
|
|
Posted by 3-9 on Wed Nov 26 19:50:33 2014, in response to Re: 42 St Light Rail, posted by Edwards! on Wed Nov 26 19:38:31 2014. Dunno what the X train concept is, but if it can pass FRA muster and can handle subway-type loadings, I'm game. |
|
|
| (1325573) | |
Re: 42 St Light Rail |
|
|
Posted by Gold_12th on Wed Nov 26 19:52:42 2014, in response to 42 St Light Rail, posted by randyo on Wed Nov 26 17:44:54 2014. The article refer to the MTA report: http://web.mta.info/mta/news/hearings/pdf/MTA_Reinvention_Report_141125.pdfManhattan CBD light rail... lol. |
|
|
| (1325588) | |
Re: 42 St Light Rail |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Wed Nov 26 23:21:59 2014, in response to Re: 42 St Light Rail, posted by Gold_12th on Wed Nov 26 19:52:42 2014. LOL is right.The MTA's been running away from LRT type system's for awhile now.. That's not about to change now. |
|
|
| (1325600) | |
Re: 42 St Light Rail |
|
|
Posted by AEM-7AC #901 on Thu Nov 27 04:42:14 2014, in response to Re: 42 St Light Rail, posted by 3-9 on Wed Nov 26 19:00:35 2014. Zero chance of that happeningAnd that's why we don't have nice things. |
|
|
| (1325614) | |
Re: 42 St Light Rail |
|
|
Posted by 3-9 on Thu Nov 27 07:05:36 2014, in response to Re: 42 St Light Rail, posted by AEM-7AC #901 on Thu Nov 27 04:42:14 2014. On crowded, congested 42nd St, you want to devote 2 lanes to LRT? I like having nice things, but they have to make some kind of sense! |
|
|
| (1325624) | |
Re: 42 St Light Rail |
|
|
Posted by Andrew Saucci on Thu Nov 27 09:17:38 2014, in response to Re: 42 St Light Rail, posted by 3-9 on Thu Nov 27 07:05:36 2014. Maybe it wouldn't be as crowded or congested if it had LRT. |
|
|
| (1325628) | |
Re: 42 St Light Rail |
|
|
Posted by Andy on Thu Nov 27 10:00:20 2014, in response to 42 St Light Rail, posted by randyo on Wed Nov 26 17:44:54 2014. Light rail generally works best in cities where transit usage does not require 10 car subway train capacity – Portland, San Diego, and San Francisco all come to mind. Those systems feature routes 10-20 miles long with branches, and are part of a comprehensive network. New York’s transit corridors have such large passenger loadings that heavy rail is needed. Light rail cannot carry 1000 persons per train.That said, a single short line on one street, such as 42nd, does not make sense because it involves using a unique type vehicle that requires new storage and maintenance facilities that make the operating costs high. Light rail would make sense if a series of connected lines were built and maintained at a common facility. Brooklyn’s long-disappeared streetcars are the best example of what used to be a comprehensive light rail network in New York. Given the MTA’s bigger needs, it’s unlikely that a 42nd Street single route will ever be built. |
|
|
| (1325631) | |
Re: 42 St Light Rail |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Thu Nov 27 10:14:56 2014, in response to Re: 42 St Light Rail, posted by Andy on Thu Nov 27 10:00:20 2014. Light rail would work as a supplement to the subway system— you can't fit 1,000 people on a bus, but we have plenty of those. |
|
|
| (1325649) | |
Re: 42 St Light Rail |
|
|
Posted by 3-9 on Thu Nov 27 11:58:58 2014, in response to Re: 42 St Light Rail, posted by Andrew Saucci on Thu Nov 27 09:17:38 2014. If it was crowded and congested because of the buses, then I could understand. Otherwise, I don't think a lot of people are going to get out of their car at 42nd St to ride the LRT to some other destination on 42nd. If the LRT went further and connected some other parts of Manhattan, that would also be more useful, but the High Line is out of the question now. |
|
|
| (1325663) | |
Re: 42 St Light Rail |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Thu Nov 27 13:52:25 2014, in response to Re: 42 St Light Rail, posted by Edwards! on Wed Nov 26 23:21:59 2014. Maybe if King Andrew wants it! |
|
|
| (1325664) | |
Re: 42 St Light Rail |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Thu Nov 27 14:19:50 2014, in response to 42 St Light Rail, posted by randyo on Wed Nov 26 17:44:54 2014. . . . again. Concept pix (such as this one from openly dogmatic "auto-free.org") are unrealistic, especially showing overhead wires (definitely not under the Park Avenue viaduct).  |
|
|
| (1325666) | |
Re: 42 St Light Rail |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Thu Nov 27 14:29:06 2014, in response to Re: 42 St Light Rail, posted by Andy on Thu Nov 27 10:00:20 2014. Actually, if a light rail line were to be built on 42 St, it might just open the door for resurrecting other former trolley line in NYC. The physical configuration of upper Bway with its medial lends itself to a light rail line up Bway with passengers boarding the cars from the median utilizing a POP system like the SBS service. Certain other broad thoroughfares could be similarly modified to allow for further expansion of the light rail system and certain other avenues like Park Av already have medians that could be utilized for light rail boarding as well. |
|
|
| (1325667) | |
Re: 42 St Light Rail |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Thu Nov 27 14:34:34 2014, in response to Re: 42 St Light Rail, posted by randyo on Thu Nov 27 14:29:06 2014. Nope. Not unless you want chaos in Manhattan worse than what Bloomberg did with Times Square? |
|
|
| (1325670) | |
Re: 42 St Light Rail |
|
|
Posted by r33/r36 mainline on Thu Nov 27 15:28:58 2014, in response to 42 St Light Rail, posted by randyo on Wed Nov 26 17:44:54 2014. There's no room in Manhattan for a storage yard/maintenance facility for the Light Rail cars. That alone would probably kill the idea of this ever happening. |
|
|
| (1325680) | |
Re: 42 St Light Rail |
|
|
Posted by merrick1 on Thu Nov 27 16:26:48 2014, in response to Re: 42 St Light Rail, posted by Olog-hai on Thu Nov 27 14:19:50 2014. The Park Avenue viaduct is high enough that it doesn't have low clearance signs, I've never seen a truck stuck under it. |
|
|
| (1325681) | |
Re: 42 St Light Rail |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Thu Nov 27 16:29:39 2014, in response to Re: 42 St Light Rail, posted by Olog-hai on Thu Nov 27 14:34:34 2014. But the current administration doesn't care about chaos anymore. Only cyclsts, pedestrians and bus riders have any rights today.What goes someone the right to block a highway and cause chaos as the police just stand and watch because they are afraid to act. Thousands of people inconveniencing others and blocking traffic and it is allowed with only ten arrested. Big joke. |
|
|
| (1325682) | |
Re: 42 St Light Rail |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Thu Nov 27 16:31:55 2014, in response to 42 St Light Rail, posted by randyo on Wed Nov 26 17:44:54 2014. Not really needed anymore with the extension of the #7 line. If there were some through parallel streets where traffic could be diverted, maybe okay, but none of the nearby streets go river to river uninterrupted. |
|
|
| (1325683) | |
Re: 42 St Light Rail |
|
|
Posted by merrick1 on Thu Nov 27 16:37:01 2014, in response to Re: 42 St Light Rail, posted by r33/r36 mainline on Thu Nov 27 15:28:58 2014. How about the Michael Quill bus depot? Also Fed Ex and UPS both have full block buildings in that area which could be taken. The MTA would probably want to do it now before the area gets even more developed. |
|
|
| (1325694) | |
Re: 42 St Light Rail |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Thu Nov 27 17:35:13 2014, in response to Re: 42 St Light Rail, posted by Olog-hai on Thu Nov 27 14:19:50 2014. When the 42 St light rail was originally proposed, mention was made of a special device at Bway to allow the withes to be lifted out of the way for the balloons of the Thanksgiving Day parade so obviously it was intended that the ban on overhead wires in Manhattan would be amended to allow trolley wires. |
|
|
| (1325695) | |
Re: 42 St Light Rail |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Thu Nov 27 17:39:27 2014, in response to Re: 42 St Light Rail, posted by Olog-hai on Thu Nov 27 14:34:34 2014. The medians on Bway and Park Av are ideal for the establishment of light rail on those streets. There will come a time when New Yorkers are going to have to adjust like people have in other cities that rebuilt their light rail systems after a long absence. |
|
|
| (1325696) | |
Re: 42 St Light Rail |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Thu Nov 27 17:41:12 2014, in response to Re: 42 St Light Rail, posted by r33/r36 mainline on Thu Nov 27 15:28:58 2014. Depending on how many light rail lines might eventually be established certain bus depots could be converted. |
|
|
| (1325698) | |
Re: 42 St Light Rail |
|
|
Posted by TUNNELRAT on Thu Nov 27 17:44:16 2014, in response to Re: 42 St Light Rail, posted by randyo on Thu Nov 27 17:39:27 2014. nobody on this board will be alive to see it! |
|
|
| (1325702) | |
Re: 42 St Light Rail |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Thu Nov 27 17:56:34 2014, in response to Re: 42 St Light Rail, posted by BrooklynBus on Thu Nov 27 16:31:55 2014. It may still be needed for passengers who need stops closer together than those provided by the subway. |
|
|
| (1325704) | |
Re: 42 St Light Rail |
|
|
Posted by Andrew Saucci on Thu Nov 27 18:24:06 2014, in response to Re: 42 St Light Rail, posted by randyo on Thu Nov 27 14:29:06 2014. This has me thinking-- it's too late now, but perhaps part of the 2 Ave subway construction should have been light rail on the surface. The road had to be ripped up anyway. Maybe this should be considered for the 3 Ave subway (still needed to replace the el) or Lion's 5 Ave subway. |
|
|
| (1325747) | |
Re: 42 St Light Rail |
|
|
Posted by Dan Lawrence on Thu Nov 27 22:30:48 2014, in response to Re: 42 St Light Rail, posted by Andrew Saucci on Thu Nov 27 18:24:06 2014. That seems like it's the right way!!! |
|
|
| (1325750) | |
Re: 42 St Light Rail |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Thu Nov 27 22:41:27 2014, in response to Re: 42 St Light Rail, posted by Andrew Saucci on Thu Nov 27 18:24:06 2014. This has me thinking-- it's too late now, but perhaps part of the 2 Ave subway construction should have been light rail on the surface.No. The 2nd Avenue subway has to play nice with 10-car subway trains so it can't handle light rail. Maybe this should be considered for the 3 Ave subway (still needed to replace the el) or Lion's 5 Ave subway. Meh. For 3rd Avenue, we should rebuild the el. (Also 9th Avenue.) There's plenty of room for light rail in the outer boroughs. Alternatively, we could turn certain streets into bus/light rail corridors similar to Seattle's downtown transit tunnel, though able to accommodate delivery trucks while being closed to ordinary traffic. This would allow effective street-running light rail and reasonably fast bus service, creating high-capacity transit access while choking vehicular traffic and providing an incentive to use it. Perhaps a congestion charge could be added to further discourage unnecessary driving. |
|
|
| (1325754) | |
Re: 42 St Light Rail |
|
|
Posted by renee gil on Thu Nov 27 23:43:43 2014, in response to Re: 42 St Light Rail, posted by TUNNELRAT on Thu Nov 27 17:44:16 2014. you've got that right! |
|
|
| (1325757) | |
Re: 42 St Light Rail |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Fri Nov 28 00:30:37 2014, in response to Re: 42 St Light Rail, posted by merrick1 on Thu Nov 27 16:26:48 2014. It's never had wires under it. Different game there. |
|
|
| (1325758) | |
Re: 42 St Light Rail |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Fri Nov 28 00:32:14 2014, in response to Re: 42 St Light Rail, posted by randyo on Thu Nov 27 17:35:13 2014. Passive language. Any politician can mention anything. |
|
|
| (1325760) | |
Re: 42 St Light Rail |
|
|
Posted by italianstallion on Fri Nov 28 00:36:28 2014, in response to Re: 42 St Light Rail, posted by randyo on Thu Nov 27 17:39:27 2014. Since the medians are parks, they will never be repurposed for light rail. |
|
|
| (1325772) | |
Re: 42 St Light Rail |
|
|
Posted by MainR3664 on Fri Nov 28 07:53:27 2014, in response to 42 St Light Rail, posted by randyo on Wed Nov 26 17:44:54 2014. I remember back in the 5th grade (1978-79, for me), our teacher told us the return of the 42nd Street trolley was imminent. I'm glad I haven't been out there waiting ... |
|
|
| (1325774) | |
Re: 42 St Light Rail |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Fri Nov 28 07:57:57 2014, in response to Re: 42 St Light Rail, posted by MainR3664 on Fri Nov 28 07:53:27 2014. 42nd Street has 2 subways and a (pokey) bus.Parallel streets have too may interrupts, i.e. the Library, GCT, to reroute traffic in one direction or the other. 34th Street LRT would make more sense, which has no subways, never will, IND System 2 or 3 notwithstanding. If not LRT on the Street, build an el. |
|
|
| (1325789) | |
Re: 42 St Light Rail |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Fri Nov 28 11:19:42 2014, in response to Re: 42 St Light Rail, posted by BrooklynBus on Thu Nov 27 16:29:39 2014. Just keep it up with your pro-automobile rants. Who funds your diatribes? AAA? AASHTO? AHUA? |
|
|
| (1325799) | |
Re: 42 St Light Rail |
|
|
Posted by italianstallion on Fri Nov 28 12:09:52 2014, in response to Re: 42 St Light Rail, posted by WillD on Fri Nov 28 11:19:42 2014. If I were stuck in that traffic jam, I'd have had the same reaction.I doubt anyone funds his "diatribes." How much funding do you need to post here? |
|
|
| (1325801) | |
Re: 42 St Light Rail |
|
|
Posted by Alan Follett on Fri Nov 28 12:19:46 2014, in response to Re: 42 St Light Rail, posted by Olog-hai on Thu Nov 27 14:19:50 2014. One possible solution: dip the rail roadbed where it passes under the viaduct by the minimum distance (surely no more than a few feet?) needed to achieve wire clearance.Alan Follett Hercules, CA |
|
|
| (1325815) | |
Re: 42 St Light Rail |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Fri Nov 28 13:48:55 2014, in response to Re: 42 St Light Rail, posted by Alan Follett on Fri Nov 28 12:19:46 2014. Or just order an LRV with some form of off-wire capability. Either Alstom's APS ground level power system, the batteries proposed by Kinki-Sharyo, United Streetcar, and Brookville, or the inductive power system designed by BBD. |
|
|
| (1325817) | |
Re: 42 St Light Rail |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Fri Nov 28 13:54:09 2014, in response to Re: 42 St Light Rail, posted by italianstallion on Fri Nov 28 12:09:52 2014. If he were onboard the LRV in a dedicated lane with proper traffic signal preemption then he wouldn't be in a traffic jam. But apparently every square meter of public space in the city must be dedicated to the automobile, and to hell with anyone else.I dunno how much you need to pay to get an op-ed in that Brooklyn paper that regularly lets him vent his spleen on their pages. |
|
|
| (1325870) | |
Re: 42 St Light Rail |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Fri Nov 28 16:31:29 2014, in response to Re: 42 St Light Rail, posted by italianstallion on Fri Nov 28 00:36:28 2014. The medians them selves would not be used for light rail, just the traffic lanes immediately adjacent to them. dedicated sections of the medians would merely be used for boarding areas. |
|
|
| (1325871) | |
Re: 42 St Light Rail |
|
|
Posted by Dan on Fri Nov 28 16:36:44 2014, in response to Re: 42 St Light Rail, posted by Edwards! on Wed Nov 26 19:38:31 2014. The 42nd Street Light Rail has been proposed multiple times since the 1980s. Went nowhere then, will go nowhere now. Same for LR in the outer boroughs. |
|
|
| (1325873) | |
Re: 42 St Light Rail |
|
|
Posted by Andrew Saucci on Fri Nov 28 16:39:46 2014, in response to Re: 42 St Light Rail, posted by Nilet on Thu Nov 27 22:41:27 2014. What I meant was to have light rail on the surface in addition to the underground heavy rail that is in the process of being built now on 2 Ave. Since the surface is being destroyed anyway, it could just as well have been rebuilt with light rail on the top. The same thing could be done on 3 Ave and 5 Ave-- a subway underneath light rail on the surface. Not either/or-- both. If the subway is being built and the stations are cut and cover, adding light rail is only an incremental cost. Large portions of 2 Ave are currently a temporary surface anyway; when the surface is restored, it could have light rail tracks installed at the same time. |
|
|
| (1325874) | |
Re: 42 St Light Rail |
|
|
Posted by Dan on Fri Nov 28 16:44:07 2014, in response to Re: 42 St Light Rail, posted by merrick1 on Thu Nov 27 16:37:01 2014. "....which could be taken......"Taken, as in confiscated? |
|
|
| (1325876) | |
Re: 42 St Light Rail |
|
|
Posted by merrick1 on Fri Nov 28 16:52:13 2014, in response to Re: 42 St Light Rail, posted by Dan on Fri Nov 28 16:44:07 2014. As in eminent domain with just compensation. |
|
|
| (1325883) | |
Re: 42 St Light Rail |
|
|
Posted by Wado MP73 on Fri Nov 28 18:22:58 2014, in response to Re: 42 St Light Rail, posted by randyo on Thu Nov 27 17:35:13 2014. They do that in the town of Chichibu, west of Tokyo. For its annual night festival, they remove the catenary wire from grade crossings to let the parade go through. |
|
|
| (1325884) | |
Re: 42 St Light Rail |
|
|
Posted by merrick1 on Fri Nov 28 18:48:45 2014, in response to Re: 42 St Light Rail, posted by BrooklynBus on Thu Nov 27 16:29:39 2014. Congress shall make no law respecting ... the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.I don't see the right to drive a car anywhere in the Constitution. |
|
|
| (1325890) | |
Re: 42 St Light Rail |
|
|
Posted by Elkeeper on Fri Nov 28 19:16:07 2014, in response to Re: 42 St Light Rail, posted by TUNNELRAT on Thu Nov 27 17:44:16 2014. Or, the SAS to Pine Street, or wherever! |
|
|
| (1325988) | |
Re: 42 St Light Rail |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Sat Nov 29 15:56:01 2014, in response to Re: 42 St Light Rail, posted by merrick1 on Fri Nov 28 18:48:45 2014. There isn’t. AFAIK, driving is a privilege, not a right, That is why the Muslin woman in Florida couldn’t claim violation of her right to freedom of religion when she wasn’t allowed to be photographed for her driver’s license in her burkha which would have obscured her entire face save for her eyes. |
|
|
