|
|
| Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail (268071) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
|
Page 1 of 7 |
|
|
| (268071) | |
Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail |
|
|
Posted by UWS Greg on Sat Jun 17 02:25:53 2006 What?? Has this been in the news or discussed here? NY1 is reporting that Senator Chuck S. is "throwing his weight" behind 2 lines for S.I., a North Shore route and West Shore route, the latter connecting with the Hudson Bergen line in Jersey City.How much planning/ mapping/ funding etc. has been done for this project? The NY1 story suggests that things are pretty far along-- even the dollar amount for at least one of these lines has already been established. |
|
|
| (268089) | |
Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail? |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sat Jun 17 08:36:21 2006, in response to Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail, posted by UWS Greg on Sat Jun 17 02:25:53 2006. Yeah, hello. Nothing will get done. This will be Staten Island's SAS. |
|
|
| (268097) | |
Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail? |
|
|
Posted by Sand Box John on Sat Jun 17 09:00:17 2006, in response to Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail?, posted by Olog-hai on Sat Jun 17 08:36:21 2006. Yeah, hello. Nothing will get done. This will be Staten Island's SAS.This all depends on if there is political will and agreement to support the project from the grassroots up. Something that is seriously lacking in New York City. If the above does not materialize then you are correct, "Nothing will get done". John in the sand box of Maryland's eastern shore. |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (268098) | |
Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail |
|
|
Posted by Westcode44 on Sat Jun 17 09:05:48 2006, in response to Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail, posted by UWS Greg on Sat Jun 17 02:25:53 2006. It would be nice to see..! |
|
|
| (268104) | |
Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail |
|
|
Posted by streetcarman1 on Sat Jun 17 10:08:03 2006, in response to Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail, posted by UWS Greg on Sat Jun 17 02:25:53 2006. I got this from the NY1.COM website:"A political heavyweight is throwing his support behind a proposed light rail system on Staten Island. Senator Charles Schumer says new passenger rail systems along the island's north and west shores are essential to meeting the borough's growing transportation needs. The North Shore rail link would run from Arlington to the St. George ferry terminal. Officials estimate anywhere between 11,000 to 15,000 riders would use the North Shore line. The West Shore line would link the Hudson-Bergen station in New Jersey to a new "park and ride" in Staten Island's Bloomfield section, and stretch all the way to the Staten Island Mall. Supporters say the rail lines would alleviate traffic and revitalize the area. “The people that go to Manhattan to work, down to the ferry, the growth would be tremendous,” S.I. Borough President James Molinaro said Friday. “It would be tremendous, plus it would have a impact on the economy and an impact on the quality of life for people." "That's the difference between bumper-to-bumper traffic and moving traffic. So this not only good for the people who live near here and can use this light rail system, but it's good for everybody who has to commute," said Schumer. The cost of the north shore rail link is estimated at $360 million. The cost of the west shore link is still being studied. " |
|
|
| (268105) | |
Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail |
|
|
Posted by streetcarman1 on Sat Jun 17 10:12:57 2006, in response to Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail, posted by UWS Greg on Sat Jun 17 02:25:53 2006. The idea is not new, what is new is that Charles Schumer is putting his weight behind the project. I am not sure though about the estimated traveling time for a daily comuter who might want to use the line to go to work in NYC via the West Shore Line into NJ. If there was some "express" type train during rush hours, it would benefit the commute than to have to wait for the ferry at St. George. Or there could be a new terminal near the shore line were a new high-speed ferry could meet the commuter that way as well. |
|
|
| (268106) | |
Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail |
|
|
Posted by tydev417 on Sat Jun 17 10:20:35 2006, in response to Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail, posted by UWS Greg on Sat Jun 17 02:25:53 2006. That would be so beneficial to Staten Island and the fact that I live on the North Shore would help out even more. I wonder if the S40 bus would still run though. |
|
|
| (268117) | |
Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Sat Jun 17 10:53:34 2006, in response to Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail, posted by streetcarman1 on Sat Jun 17 10:08:03 2006. The West Shore line would link the Hudson-Bergen station in New Jersey to a new "park and ride" in Staten Island's Bloomfield section, and stretch all the way to the Staten Island Mall.I wonder how competitive PATH+HBLR timings would be to SI. |
|
|
| (268127) | |
Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail |
|
|
Posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Sat Jun 17 12:03:03 2006, in response to Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail, posted by tydev417 on Sat Jun 17 10:20:35 2006. I would think the S40 bus would stay since it's a local. But they'd likely discontinue the S90 limited-stop bus if the rail line was built. |
|
|
| (268131) | |
Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail? |
|
|
Posted by New Brunswick Station on Sat Jun 17 12:09:54 2006, in response to Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail?, posted by Sand Box John on Sat Jun 17 09:00:17 2006. Oh, come on, why not convert SIRTOA to Light Rail and make it more frequent? |
|
|
| (268134) | |
Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail? |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Sat Jun 17 12:14:09 2006, in response to Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail?, posted by New Brunswick Station on Sat Jun 17 12:09:54 2006. No..why not convert it to COMMUTER RAIL..and buy M1 type trains? |
|
|
| (268136) | |
Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail? |
|
|
Posted by tydev417 on Sat Jun 17 12:20:07 2006, in response to Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail?, posted by Edwards! on Sat Jun 17 12:14:09 2006. M1 type trains? If it was ever to convert to commuter rail, the least they could use is two-car M7 like trains. |
|
|
| (268137) | |
Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail? |
|
|
Posted by tydev417 on Sat Jun 17 12:22:40 2006, in response to Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail?, posted by New Brunswick Station on Sat Jun 17 12:09:54 2006. No, the current SIR line is fine as a heavy rail line. Now about the North Shore branch, trying to reactivate it as a heavy rail line may be a little costly and may prove time consuming, so light rail may be the best way to go for that line to reduce costs and get it off the ground already. |
|
|
| (268138) | |
Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail |
|
|
Posted by tydev417 on Sat Jun 17 12:24:39 2006, in response to Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail, posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Sat Jun 17 12:03:03 2006. That's probably the exact same reason why the S78 hasn't received a limited-stop route. The SIR stations are a good distance up from Hylan at most points but still serves much of the same areas. |
|
|
| (268143) | |
Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail |
|
|
Posted by Hart Bus on Sat Jun 17 12:52:54 2006, in response to Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail, posted by UWS Greg on Sat Jun 17 02:25:53 2006. Don't get your hopes up too soon. Chuck Schumer likes to shoot his mouth off at various "Photo-ops", wtih very few of his proposals or comments ever coming to fruition.I realize that part of his failure is that he is currently a member of the minority party in Washington. If the Democats ever get a majority in both houses of Congress, I hope the people of SI hold Chuck's feet to the fire and hold him to his word. |
|
|
| (268154) | |
Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail? |
|
|
Posted by Sand Box John on Sat Jun 17 14:10:37 2006, in response to Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail?, posted by tydev417 on Sat Jun 17 12:20:07 2006. You all just proved the point I emphasized in my post.John in the sand box of Maryland's eastern shore. |
|
|
| (268156) | |
Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail? |
|
|
Posted by streetcarman1 on Sat Jun 17 14:21:49 2006, in response to Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail?, posted by tydev417 on Sat Jun 17 12:22:40 2006. The North Shore Branch in question was already a heavy rail line until it was closed down years ago. I have seen pics of it when it was active on some the popular rail/transit web sites. |
|
|
| (268157) | |
Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Sat Jun 17 14:25:21 2006, in response to Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail, posted by UWS Greg on Sat Jun 17 02:25:53 2006. A while back a subchatter passed around a copy of a North Shore Right of Way transit feasibility study performed by URS engineers. The whole zipped folder is 40 megabytes and includes proposed station designs, and alignment drawings, but I can't get it to upload at the moment. If somebody would like all this stuff I can email it, the largest singe portion is just shy of 10 megabytes. Here is the 1.55 MB pdf study summary:http://www.pages.drexel.edu/~wld25/NSLRTAssessmentreport.pdf It's interesting that the study, in particular page 25, seems to concludes that the Light Rail alternative is the prefered alternative. According to the study the Heavy Rail alternative would suffer from higher headways than the other modes resulting in it carrying about 2000 fewer passengers per day than the other modes. With the higher capital costs and higher operating costs of heavy rail when both numbers are compared per daily ridership the Heavy rail alternative is nearly 125% as expensive to build and twice as expensive to operate as the light rail alternative. Bus Rapid Transit, despite attracting perhaps 2000 more riders than the other modes, would be 10% cheaper than an LRT to build for the same number of riders, but would be 150% more expensive to operate. Page 52 of the study has the following about BRT's prospects: The most significant drawback to BRT might be its high ridership. Projections indicate that BRT vehicles would be near capacity by 2015, even with a peak frequency of some 20 trips per hour. The resulting operations costs are high relative to the LRT, DMU and streetcar alternatives, and terminal operations would be difficult to time consistently given the required frequency of service. BRT would also require an impervious pavement surface throughout its entire length that would increase the area and infrastructure required for stormwater treatment.It seems clear that if this project is going to actually go forward then light rail is definitely the way to go. The light rail alternative includes the possibility of ATC, cab signalling, and other systems similar to those NJT has included on their light rail lines, so compatibility could certainly be maintained. |
|
|
| (268170) | |
Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail? |
|
|
Posted by tydev417 on Sat Jun 17 15:52:12 2006, in response to Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail?, posted by streetcarman1 on Sat Jun 17 14:21:49 2006. I know but when it comes to revitalizing it, light rail seems to be the best option although heavy rail will always be there too. It's not that hard to convert a heavy rail line into light rail. |
|
|
| (268175) | |
Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail? |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sat Jun 17 16:03:59 2006, in response to Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail?, posted by tydev417 on Sat Jun 17 12:22:40 2006. Costs just as much to build heavy rail as it does light. |
|
|
| (268179) | |
Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sat Jun 17 16:13:36 2006, in response to Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail, posted by WillD on Sat Jun 17 14:25:21 2006. It seems clear that if this project is going to actually go forward then light rail is definitely the way to goOh? What's wrong with heavy rail . . . ? never mind the expense of building separate facilities for light rail, lower capacity, FRA incompatibilities, et al. |
|
|
| (268181) | |
Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail |
|
|
Posted by tydev417 on Sat Jun 17 16:30:47 2006, in response to Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail, posted by Olog-hai on Sat Jun 17 16:13:36 2006. There's nothing wrong with heavy rail other than the fact that it's more costly.It's not that hard to alter platforms at St. George Terminal along with the existing abandoned platforms at Port Richmond, Tower Hill and Mariner's Harbor stations. Although the North Shore line would have high ridership without a doubt, light rail may just be able to cope with demand. |
|
|
| (268182) | |
Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail? |
|
|
Posted by tydev417 on Sat Jun 17 16:32:12 2006, in response to Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail?, posted by Olog-hai on Sat Jun 17 16:03:59 2006. It probably does but light rail is cheaper to maintain then heavy rail. |
|
|
| (268183) | |
Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail? |
|
|
Posted by tydev417 on Sat Jun 17 16:35:45 2006, in response to Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail?, posted by Olog-hai on Sat Jun 17 16:03:59 2006. Don't get me wrong though, I wasn't crazy about the light rail idea either but after riding the HBLR a few times, it would do just fine on the North Shore branch.Jus think about it, you have a branch that's ready to be revitalized and fixed up in many areas with much of the trackway cleared. You can either purchase a form of R160s and keep the high platforms or purchase a cheaper fleet of light rail trains and build low-level platforms at most stations and alter others. |
|
|
| (268192) | |
Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail? |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sat Jun 17 17:51:48 2006, in response to Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail?, posted by tydev417 on Sat Jun 17 16:35:45 2006. Light rail "trains" are not cheaper either. In fact, everything about light rail on SI is more expensive. Yes, high-platform LRVs exist, and you can run LRVs on third rail—but why go that route? Did you miss the part about having to build new facilities for LRVs? (Next time you ride HBLRT, look at that big maintenance facility just south of Liberty State Park Station. That was not cheap.) |
|
|
| (268193) | |
Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail? |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sat Jun 17 17:53:30 2006, in response to Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail?, posted by tydev417 on Sat Jun 17 16:32:12 2006. light rail is cheaper to maintain then (sic) heavy railNot true. |
|
|
| (268194) | |
Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sat Jun 17 17:54:36 2006, in response to Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail, posted by tydev417 on Sat Jun 17 16:30:47 2006. There's nothing wrong with heavy rail other than the fact that it's more costlyNo it's not. It doesn't even have more expensive startup costs than light rail, unless you're looking at street-running (the only significant difference thereof). |
|
|
| (268195) | |
Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail? |
|
|
Posted by tydev417 on Sat Jun 17 17:56:57 2006, in response to Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail?, posted by Olog-hai on Sat Jun 17 17:53:30 2006. Yes it is, just because you have negative opinions about light rail doesn't change the actual facts about it. |
|
|
| (268197) | |
Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail? |
|
|
Posted by tydev417 on Sat Jun 17 18:00:47 2006, in response to Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail?, posted by Olog-hai on Sat Jun 17 17:51:48 2006. They don't have the space to store the added North Shore branch line trains at Clifton depot or Tottenville yard so it doesn't make a difference. A new depot or small yard would have to be built somewhere.Light rail is inexpensive compared to heavy rail, you have a document sitting in front of you stating it. In fact, everything about light rail on SI is more expensive. Pure opinion, not a fact. |
|
|
| (268201) | |
Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail |
|
|
Posted by tydev417 on Sat Jun 17 18:06:33 2006, in response to Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail, posted by Olog-hai on Sat Jun 17 17:54:36 2006. It's cheaper to maintain light rail trains, if that wasn't the case then they wouldn't be focusing on light rail more than heavy rail and there's other factors in there too. |
|
|
| (268205) | |
Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail? |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Sat Jun 17 18:08:40 2006, in response to Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail?, posted by Olog-hai on Sat Jun 17 17:51:48 2006. (Next time you ride HBLRT, look at that big maintenance facility just south of Liberty State Park Station. That was not cheap.)And where do you think SI LRVs would be maintained on this hypothetical Jersey City - West Shore Line? |
|
|
| (268207) | |
Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail? |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sat Jun 17 18:10:48 2006, in response to Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail?, posted by Rail Blue on Sat Jun 17 18:08:40 2006. Not there, since they would hypothetically be "connecting" with the HBLRT, not operating on it.. |
|
|
| (268211) | |
Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail? |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sat Jun 17 18:15:48 2006, in response to Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail?, posted by tydev417 on Sat Jun 17 18:00:47 2006. Light rail is inexpensive compared to heavy rail, you have a document sitting in front of you stating itJust because something's "documented" doesn't make it factual. Look at HBLRT and its costs reaching into the billions right now—those costs would never have been accumulated if that line was built as a Hoboken-Bayonne commuter rail service, even an electrified one. Even further, look at the Trenton-Camden "River Line". They don't have the space to store the added North Shore branch line trains at Clifton depot or Tottenville yard Now that's "pure opinion". And have you forgotten about the existing Howland Hook yard? |
|
|
| (268214) | |
Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Sat Jun 17 18:19:06 2006, in response to Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail, posted by Olog-hai on Sat Jun 17 16:13:36 2006. From the chart on page 22 (pdf page 25) of the report I uploaded:* The Heavy Rail Alternative has lower than expected ridership compared to the other alternatives due to its less frequent headway. Frequency of service and travel times are stronger predictors of ridership than vehicle capacity.Also from page 55 (pdf page 58): However, estimatedAnd from the next paragraph: The heavy rail alternative presents unique opportunities and constraints. A heavy rail system could be interlinked with existing Staten Island Railway South Shore service for more efficient intra-borough travel. However, operation of heavy rail would require renovation of the existing elevated structure and construction of grade-separated crossings at four to six current at-grade intersections along the Right-of-Way. Thus capital costs would be higher for heavy rail than for any of the other alternatives. Operations costs are comparatively higher because passenger capacity on the required three-car trains exceeds the anticipated demand.Unless you know of a whole lot of folks who are hankering for a one seat ride from Tottenville to Arlington via St. George (which is highly unlikely due to the layout of that terminal) the light rail alternative will fufill all the project goals while costing less to build, attracting more riders, and having the lowest operation and maitenance cost per passenger of the alternatives. You could lower the headways of the heavy rail system to the point where the ridership is equal to that of the light rail, DMU, and streetcar modes, but then you're simply increasing the operating cost. The heavy rail alternative already would cost twice as much per passenger to operate as the light rail, and it'd be 125% as expensive to build. If you doggedly stick to the heavy rail alternative all you'll end up with is the BRT system, which cannot hope to fully accomodate all its potential ridership. Light rail is the only alternative which combines low capital costs with low O&M costs and provides the capacity for ridership to grow. |
|
|
| (268216) | |
Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail? |
|
|
Posted by tydev417 on Sat Jun 17 18:20:01 2006, in response to Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail?, posted by Olog-hai on Sat Jun 17 08:36:21 2006. If anything, this project just might be done before SAS and maybe even the LIRR Grand Central project.Unlike the SAS, the trackway is there from St. George Terminal down to Arlington but there's one roadblock that requires a new tunnel and also major restructuring in West Brighton were the line has been developed over. So no, it's not SI's SAS, but SI's NSL.....two entirely different things. :P |
|
|
| (268217) | |
Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sat Jun 17 18:23:01 2006, in response to Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail, posted by tydev417 on Sat Jun 17 18:06:33 2006. It's cheaper to maintain light rail trainsNo it isn't. Only thing that's cheaper, like I said, would be startup when it comes to a completely new-build—and the North Shore isn't new-build by any stretch. if that wasn't the case then they wouldn't be focusing on light rail more than heavy rail These are politicians focusing on anything to try and get them votes. Perhaps you do not recall, but "light rail" was a 90s catchphrase for a while; it was used to describe any rail project from the Philly-Reading SEPTA project (a distance of well over 60 miles) to the New Orleans-Baton Rouge proposal (well over 80 miles). there's other factors in there too Yes, they're called "politicians' careers" and the false promises they boost them with. You can always count on a politician's ignorance. |
|
|
| (268219) | |
Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail? |
|
|
Posted by tydev417 on Sat Jun 17 18:25:22 2006, in response to Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail?, posted by Olog-hai on Sat Jun 17 18:15:48 2006. Now that's "pure opinion". And have you forgotten about the existing Howland Hook yard?You have your facts mixed up, Howland Hook yard has nothing to do with the SIR, it has and always was a freight yard and has just been revitalized as a freight yard recently. There would have to be a new yard built in Arlington. |
|
|
| (268220) | |
Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail? |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sat Jun 17 18:25:38 2006, in response to Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail?, posted by tydev417 on Sat Jun 17 17:56:57 2006. It's not true; maintenance costs are not less. New-build LRT uses 115 lb/yd rails; the LRVs are less durable than heavy-rail trains and carry fewer passengers; and especially over on Staten Island, you have the FRA to contend with. I do not have a "negative opinion" of light rail; but I do believe that it is not a replacement for heavy rail. |
|
|
| (268222) | |
Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail |
|
|
Posted by tydev417 on Sat Jun 17 18:26:55 2006, in response to Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail, posted by WillD on Sat Jun 17 18:19:06 2006. You've hit all the points I've been trying to make. |
|
|
| (268223) | |
Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail? |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Sat Jun 17 18:27:33 2006, in response to Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail?, posted by tydev417 on Sat Jun 17 18:20:01 2006. Hell, at 351 million dollars for the Light Rail alternative this is one of those projects I can't see why you wouldn't build this thing. This is right up there with SEPTA's Rt100 to King of Prussia, Boston's Green line extension, and LA's Expo line for no-brainer projects. Even allowing for considerable cost overruns the project could come in under a half billion dollars and carry a quite sizeable ridership. If 2800 passengers are sufficient to justify a 350 million dollar train to Scranton then aren't 13600 passengers sufficient to justify a 351 million dollar train to Arlington? |
|
|
| (268226) | |
Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail |
|
|
Posted by tydev417 on Sat Jun 17 18:33:28 2006, in response to Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail, posted by Olog-hai on Sat Jun 17 18:23:01 2006. Why do you always manage to turn this into a politics thing, let's stick on the topic and the facts, light rail is more cost efficient than heavy rail.Why do you think so many American cities and European cities went light rail instead of heavy rail? |
|
|
| (268228) | |
Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail |
|
|
Posted by Jackson Park B on Sat Jun 17 18:35:10 2006, in response to Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail, posted by tydev417 on Sat Jun 17 18:06:33 2006. How does the traction motor cost less to maintain because it is in an LRV rather than an L or subway car? The control packages are similar, what makes them cost less to maintain because the car body is different?As to the better choice for SI, the issue is run through compatibility. If the system will be linked to the HBLR, then the cars MUST be interoperable. That said, if this gets built, the current SIR should migrate to similar cars/platforms. The point is allow for through routings/ make everything easy for the riders. |
|
|
| (268230) | |
Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sat Jun 17 18:36:40 2006, in response to Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail, posted by WillD on Sat Jun 17 18:19:06 2006. The Heavy Rail Alternative has lower than expected ridership compared to the other alternatives due to its less frequent headwayIf you believe that report, you got another thing coming. "Less frequent headway" is purely an artifice, and the whole board knows that. Heavy rail has historically met or beaten light rail headways. However, operation of heavy rail would require renovation of the existing elevated structure and construction of grade-separated crossings at four to six current at-grade intersections along the Right-of-Way. Thus capital costs would be higher for heavy rail than for any of the other alternatives That's also baloney. There are no grade crossings along that right of way, unless you're talking the one along the west shore, and that's not in the proposal. Further, light rail with grade crossings is more dangerous than heavy rail with grade crossings, anyway—and the way they run light rail nowadays, all LRVs have to stop dead at each crossing before proceeding, even if there is no station, and that will kill average speed. They also leave out the FRA separation and new facilities necessary for light rail maintenance. Operations costs are comparatively higher because passenger capacity on the required three-car trains exceeds the anticipated demand Hogwash again, unless they're basing this on their "free" Tottenville service, which they operate artificially slowly anyway. Don't you know better than to believe what's written in studies, or to at least take what's written in them with a grain of salt? |
|
|
| (268236) | |
Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail? |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sat Jun 17 18:43:46 2006, in response to Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail?, posted by tydev417 on Sat Jun 17 18:25:22 2006. Howland Hook yard has nothing to do with the SIR, it has and always was a freight yard and has just been revitalized as a freight yard recentlyOh? There aren't any trains getting to it from the Bayway side yet, so how can it be in use as a rail freight terminal? |
|
|
| (268237) | |
Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sat Jun 17 18:44:17 2006, in response to Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail, posted by tydev417 on Sat Jun 17 18:26:55 2006. Pity they're all falsehoods. |
|
|
| (268238) | |
Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail |
|
|
Posted by Jackson Park B on Sat Jun 17 18:46:48 2006, in response to Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail, posted by tydev417 on Sat Jun 17 18:33:28 2006. excuse me, transit agencies can waste money just as gast no matter what the "weight" of the rolling stock. As to the trackage, modern LRVs w/ all the bells whistles and AC weigh more than classic PCC based subway L cars of CTA and MNTA, so the rail mow spec'd is heavier than what was laid before. Most newer LR is concrete tie--excellent not cheap to install. As to other costs, there are "heavy rail catenary systems so the issue is mostly PR. Perhaps Cleveland w/ mixed service sharing trackage would be instructive.A |
|
|
| (268239) | |
Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sat Jun 17 18:47:41 2006, in response to Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail, posted by tydev417 on Sat Jun 17 18:33:28 2006. Why do you always manage to turn this into a politics thingBecause you can't divorce such things as this from politics. Anyone who thinks they can is suffering from self-delusion; I prefer to stick with reality. let's stick on the topic and the facts, light rail is more cost efficient than heavy rail Again, false. And politics are utterly on-topic for this thread. Why do you think so many American cities and European cities went light rail instead of heavy rail? For the last time, startup costs and street-running—and mainly because heavy-rail proposals would involve building underground segments. With the SIR, no such thing is the case. (And let's not forget political patronage.) |
|
|
| (268240) | |
Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail? |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sat Jun 17 18:49:59 2006, in response to Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail?, posted by WillD on Sat Jun 17 18:27:33 2006. Hell, at 351 million dollars for the Light Rail alternative this is one of those projects I can't see why you wouldn't build this thingLOL if you believe that one. $351 million? Further, SI is a part of NYC where no light rail has operated for well over sixty years. Light rail is not coming back to any part of NY. |
|
|
| (268241) | |
Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail (this is why) |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sat Jun 17 18:54:02 2006, in response to Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail, posted by UWS Greg on Sat Jun 17 02:25:53 2006. Even though it'd probably be cheaper to rebuild the old Arlington line as it was, they're scared to deal with the segment of the line alogn the Kill van Kull, even though they could probably get a (necessary) sea wall built via separate funding: More pix here, as well as a pictorial of extant stations. |
|
|
| (268242) | |
Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail |
|
|
Posted by tydev417 on Sat Jun 17 18:54:37 2006, in response to Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail, posted by Jackson Park B on Sat Jun 17 18:35:10 2006. How does the traction motor cost less to maintain because it is in an LRV rather than an L or subway car? The control packages are similar, what makes them cost less to maintain because the car body is different?I dunno, you tell me.... http://www.transitpicsgallery.com/gallery/albums/SIR44s/DSC00472.jpg http://www.railfanwindow.com/albums/album264/DSC_3071a.jpg |
|
|
|
|
Page 1 of 7 |
|
