|
|
| Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail (this is why) (268071) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 3 of 7 |
||
|
| (268526) | |
Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail (this is why) |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sun Jun 18 13:23:20 2006, in response to Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail (this is why), posted by WillD on Sat Jun 17 22:58:25 2006. There is no logical "upper alignment". This thing won't get built in any form. |
|
|
| (268527) | |
Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sun Jun 18 13:24:19 2006, in response to Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail, posted by tydev417 on Sat Jun 17 19:28:10 2006. You don't get it, do you. The notion of light rail is mere stalling. Not even "BRT" will get built. |
|
|
| (268548) | |
Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sun Jun 18 14:24:04 2006, in response to Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail, posted by WillD on Sat Jun 17 19:57:07 2006. how dare I believe some report compiled by trained professionalsDon't you mean "pothead interns"? This is a report that's biased in favor of LRT. Even worse, it's by URS Corporation—a government contractor that'll say what a politician wants them to say. (What the hell do they know about rail? I'd believe a foamer before them. Another strike against them, being based in SF.) Plenty of "reports" and "studies" that skewed things in favor of high platforms, remember . . . ? meanwhile, Metrolink out in LA and GO Transit in Toronto show that low platforms can indeed be equal, if not superior. the uneducated ramblings of some foamer Unless you're a rail, you're a foamer as well, bottom line, so you're knocking yourself. And how do you know I'm not a rail? Only a rail could tell (and not a nine-year "old head" like someone else on this board). Consultants are foamers as well. It's bad enough that you're clearly not familiar with the area Like you know the area? You're relying on a report written by pothead interns, remember? at least read the report to find out that there are indeed crossings which cannot simply be closed This is what they said in their report: Title to a parcel adjacent to the Right-of-Way (the Blissenbach property, formerly a private marina) was acquired by the PANYNJ and transferred to the New York City Department of Parks and Recreation for preservation and public use. If the Right-of-Way again becomes active, this property, as well as each of the industrial facilities in this area, would require continued access to sustain established activities. In this section of the alignment, four to six at-grade crossings would be necessary.They would be creating new crossings thanks to encroachment. They're trying to go the cheap route and avoid building a new elevated structure. (But of course, they'll have nice new LRVs to crash into . . .) Lets see some figures Sorry, only anecdotes. Remember LRVs getting knocked off the track by dumptrucks at grade crossings in Jersey City? Really? Where exactly is there a heavy rail system with a sub 60 second headway? Subway surface is trolleys, not modern light rail. Further, look at the capacity to operator ratio, never mind capacity of vehicle. Start putting POP on your subway-surface, and watch headways get longer, longer, longer—look at what happened to the Newark Subway. (And the lovely "study" thereof distinguishes "streetcar" from LRT.) That depends solely upon the method of crossing protection used by the system. If they use a simple traffic signal with no physical protection then yes, that is the case. If they go for a crossing gate and signal as a commuter or freight railroad would use then they do not have to slow down Why would they do that? Remember, they're pushing for the cheap version of light rail. Clearly if NJT can get the Bordentown secondary for their Riverline Yeahh, for $1 billion. If they had actually used people at NJTRO for the project instead of giving it to political hacks (they're only doing that now since the Comet V debacle), it would have cost a third of that, and they wouldn't even have had to buy the ROW from CSA. |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (268549) | |
Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sun Jun 18 14:25:00 2006, in response to Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail, posted by tydev417 on Sat Jun 17 19:17:12 2006. Stop reflecting. |
|
|
| (268552) | |
Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail (this is why) |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sun Jun 18 14:28:37 2006, in response to Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail (this is why), posted by tydev417 on Sat Jun 17 19:12:28 2006. It's clear you don't even know what your posting a picture ofHow is it "clear"? I'm illustrating why some people are pushing for LRT. They want some street-running, obviously (i.e doing it on the cheap), otherwise they wouldn't dream of pushing for an alignment alongside Richmond Terrace. Even worse, this "study" cited earlier was commissioned by the PANYNJ, who seem to be loath to putting money into anything operated by the MTA. it's in Snug Harbor and that's one of the areas that need reconstructing The whole thing needs "reconstructing". The ROW should have never closed, of course; but now, you're faced with either a proper rebuild or some pokey LRT that'll get caught behind the S40. |
|
|
| (268554) | |
Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Sun Jun 18 14:35:13 2006, in response to Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail, posted by Olog-hai on Sun Jun 18 14:24:04 2006. Wow..talk about being against anything new.Why don't YOU give us some ideas about what YOU would do with the area in question..since you have the floor now? Im sure your answer will astound us all. |
|
|
| (268569) | |
Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sun Jun 18 15:01:37 2006, in response to Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail, posted by Edwards! on Sun Jun 18 14:35:13 2006. Wow..talk about being against anything newStop blabbing in nonsequiturs. LRT is not "new" as we all know. Why don't YOU give us some ideas about what YOU would do with the area in question No, you first since you stuck your neck out. Let's hear what your brilliant brain comes up with. |
|
|
| (268570) | |
Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sun Jun 18 15:03:01 2006, in response to Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail, posted by tydev417 on Sat Jun 17 19:01:12 2006. It's sitting clear in your face that light rail is cheaper to build and cheaper to maintain, along with a cheaper infrastructureYou're just desperate to get anything rail-based built. You'll grow out of that as soon as you get old enough to recognize politicians' delay tactics as what they are. |
|
|
| (268571) | |
Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sun Jun 18 15:04:06 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. If the system will be linked to the HBLRIt will never be linked to HBLR. That's guaranteed. |
|
|
| (268572) | |
Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sun Jun 18 15:07:30 2006, in response to Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail, posted by WillD on Sat Jun 17 22:52:17 2006. The possibility certainly exists of using LRTs to cheaply implement transitCite a "cheap" implementation. Possibility and reality are quite far apart. Look at what HBLRT's sucess (sic) has done for the folks along the Tenafly line Yeah, nothing. NJT and Mr. Warrington are all ready to renig (sic) on their promise to run the line up there, but the good citizens of Bergen County are not going to let them run off without giving them a train A train, or a trolley? And what promise? Nothing was ever promised, and nothing was ever funded. |
|
|
| (268573) | |
Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail? |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sun Jun 18 15:10:55 2006, in response to Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail?, posted by tydev417 on Sat Jun 17 18:57:01 2006. Because they're still working on itThey'll be working on it forever. What's more likely to get built is a connector from the Chemical Coast to the SIR westbound into Linden and Roselle. as I said before, you just love to be on odd ends with people You're the one going after me, again, so don't give me that BS. |
|
|
| (268574) | |
Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sun Jun 18 15:14:02 2006, in response to Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail, posted by WillD on Sat Jun 17 23:43:16 2006. The German cities after WWII are a prime exampleOf what? Don't be citing unique examples and comparing them to US cities that did not suffer in kind. Your political patronage canard is a double edged sword. It could just as easily be that the folks in Hamburg, Munich, and Nuremburg had friends who owned construction companies and would stand to profit handsomely from Metro building Don't call it a "canard" when you say in the next breath that it's valid. That's doublespeak on your part. |
|
|
| (268575) | |
Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sun Jun 18 15:16:54 2006, in response to Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail, posted by tydev417 on Sat Jun 17 21:53:56 2006. just rare to find a newly built subway/elevated line in the USHBLRT is elevated from Newport Mall into Hoboken Terminal, and nowadays from Hoboken Terminal onto the former freight alignment into Lincoln Harbor; and they built a new elevated structure over the North Busway towards Port Imperial (used to be at-grade, hmm, but how come they didn't go "cheap" and keep it at-grade?) If they can do that for HBLRT, they sure can do it for a heavy-rail North Shore. |
|
|
| (268578) | |
Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sun Jun 18 15:18:02 2006, in response to Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail, posted by RIPTA42HopeTunnel on Sun Jun 18 08:23:52 2006. Heavy rail, unless it's on a commuter-rail timetable, doesn't make sense for a low-density area like the North Shore of Staten IslandSince when is that a low-density area? |
|
|
| (268615) | |
Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail? |
|
|
Posted by tydev417 on Sun Jun 18 16:55:56 2006, in response to Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail?, posted by Olog-hai on Sun Jun 18 15:10:55 2006. First off nobody came after you, you responded to my post.Stop having such a pessimistic personality, the NSL will be done in due time. The SI Freight Line is very close to completion, come over and check it out first before talking like you've seen it (which obviously you haven't even been to Staten Island). They're working on the Jersey portion now. |
|
|
| (268616) | |
Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail |
|
|
Posted by tydev417 on Sun Jun 18 16:57:35 2006, in response to Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail, posted by Olog-hai on Sun Jun 18 13:24:19 2006. You're the one that never understands things for what they are and debate them out. Light rail may just show up on Staten Island, I don't understand why you must find a reason to debate it. |
|
|
| (268619) | |
Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail |
|
|
Posted by tydev417 on Sun Jun 18 16:59:43 2006, in response to Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail, posted by Olog-hai on Sun Jun 18 15:04:06 2006. It will never be linked to HBLR. That's guaranteed.It may or it may not, either way, it's not effecting you. |
|
|
| (268621) | |
Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail |
|
|
Posted by tydev417 on Sun Jun 18 17:01:55 2006, in response to Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail, posted by Olog-hai on Sun Jun 18 15:18:02 2006. Since when is that a low-density area?It's nowhere near that but the S40, S46, S48, S44 all carry the load of the North Shore fairly well so if it's dumped onto a light rail line, it'll do perfectly. Heavy rail will prove ineddicient during off-peak hours. |
|
|
| (268623) | |
Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail |
|
|
Posted by tydev417 on Sun Jun 18 17:05:21 2006, in response to Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail, posted by Olog-hai on Sun Jun 18 15:03:01 2006. You're just desperate to get anything rail-based built.No really?  I take the S94 or S44 to the ferry everyday and the buses are always jammed packed.Let me state this for you again.... You Do Not Live In Staten Island So It Will Not Be Affecting You Whether It's LRT or Heavy Rail |
|
|
| (268624) | |
Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail |
|
|
Posted by tydev417 on Sun Jun 18 17:12:19 2006, in response to Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail, posted by Olog-hai on Sun Jun 18 15:01:37 2006. Stop blabbing in nonsequiturs. LRT is not "new" as we all know.Only you are the one babbling in nonsequiturs, the LRT alternative came up and you catch a fit but if they were stuck on heavy rail, you would be fine when you KNOW that heavy rail is more cost inefficient. You have no REASON or FACTS to back up your thoughts either but are only using your own OPINIONS as FACTS. And dare let them come up with the decision of heavy rail with the use of PA-5 like cars.  No, you first since you stuck your neck out. Let's hear what your brilliant brain comes up with. Don't try to avoid the question, let's see what you can do over here to solve the overcrowding on buses. |
|
|
| (268626) | |
Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail (this is why) |
|
|
Posted by tydev417 on Sun Jun 18 17:15:43 2006, in response to Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail (this is why), posted by Olog-hai on Sun Jun 18 13:23:20 2006. So that is your claim huh? This thing won't get built?? You don't even have any knowledge of the area in question (but the internet and your own thoughts) so just stop now.Staten Island Transportation Task Force - Google NYC.gov - Staten Island Transportation Task Force |
|
|
| (268629) | |
Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail (this is why) |
|
|
Posted by tydev417 on Sun Jun 18 17:25:45 2006, in response to Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail (this is why), posted by Olog-hai on Sun Jun 18 14:28:37 2006. How is it "clear"? I'm illustrating why some people are pushing for LRT. They want some street-running, obviously (i.e doing it on the cheap), otherwise they wouldn't dream of pushing for an alignment alongside Richmond Terrace. Even worse, this "study" cited earlier was commissioned by the PANYNJ, who seem to be loath to putting money into anything operated by the MTA.Nobdoy said it is street-running. The Whole ENTIRE ROW is SEPARATED, there is no "street-running" if they are building it on an old ROW. The whole thing needs "reconstructing". The ROW should have never closed, of course; but now, you're faced with either a proper rebuild or some pokey LRT that'll get caught behind the S40. Of course it does, most lines that get shut down and abandoned need "reconstructing". At the time it was closed, the ROW's closure's was justified, there was little to no ridership. The North Shore was just getting built up, afterwards of course like most other areas that lost a train line, the area had a suburban sprawl and became populated and is now in need of the reactivation. It's very clear here that you're biased of anything "new", you don't even have to deny it, you hate the R160s, you hate the PA-5s, you don't like the THE project, you don't want Moynihan station, you dislike the Grand Central project, you don't like LRT and only want heavy rail....what do you like???? What YOU fail to understand is that this heavy rail that you speak of is more EXPENSIVE than LRT. Have you not noticed at all that there haven't been too many brand new subway lines opened in the US as of late? You haven't right, LRT is the next best option. I like heavy rail but you sticking to it like gorilla glue is no help, LRT is more cost efficient. And maybe if you actually READ the documents, the LRT line WILL NOT be stuck behind the S40 because it's running on it's OWN ROW. |
|
|
| (268630) | |
Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail |
|
|
Posted by tydev417 on Sun Jun 18 17:26:47 2006, in response to Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail, posted by Olog-hai on Sun Jun 18 14:25:00 2006. Stop avoiding the facts then. |
|
|
| (268646) | |
Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail |
|
|
Posted by AMoreira81 on Sun Jun 18 17:50:35 2006, in response to Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail, posted by Olog-hai on Sun Jun 18 14:24:04 2006. Don't you mean "pothead interns"? This is a report that's biased in favor of LRT. Even worse, it's by URS Corporation—a government contractor that'll say what a politician wants them to say. (What the hell do they know about rail? I'd believe a foamer before them. Another strike against them, being based in SF.)Plenty of "reports" and "studies" that skewed things in favor of high platforms, remember . . . ? meanwhile, Metrolink out in LA and GO Transit in Toronto show that low platforms can indeed be equal, if not superior. Do you know the details of how the cars will be built? Thought so. Unless you're a rail, you're a foamer as well, bottom line, so you're knocking yourself. And how do you know I'm not a rail? Only a rail could tell (and not a nine-year "old head" like someone else on this board). Consultants are foamers as well. You, sir, must hate transport for urban areas, advocating for a rail line to Scranton that would be a waste of money. Like you know the area? You're relying on a report written by pothead interns, remember? YOU are familiar with the area? HELLO! The area along the North Shore (assuming the line will parallel the former North Shore line) could use a LOT of redevelopment, as it is a lot of junkyards, especially between West New Brighton and Port Richmond (and again by the Bayonne Bridge). at least read the report to find out that there are indeed crossings which cannot simply be closed This is what they said in their report: Title to a parcel adjacent to the Right-of-Way (the Blissenbach property, formerly a private marina) was acquired by the PANYNJ and transferred to the New York City Department of Parks and Recreation for preservation and public use. If the Right-of-Way again becomes active, this property, as well as each of the industrial facilities in this area, would require continued access to sustain established activities. In this section of the alignment, four to six at-grade crossings would be necessary. They would be creating new crossings thanks to encroachment. They're trying to go the cheap route and avoid building a new elevated structure. (But of course, they'll have nice new LRVs to crash into . . .) What traffic? The busiest streets are Richmond Avenue, Hylan Boulevard, and Victory Boulevard, none of which are anywhere NEAR the line. Besides, our drivers are 1 TRILLION times better than Houston drivers. FURTHERMORE. SI is suburbia within the City of NY. Traffic on Richmond Terrace would be slowed VERY minimally by grade crossings that may be blocked for about 30 seconds---WHOOP DE F'N DO! Sorry, only anecdotes. Remember LRVs getting knocked off the track by dumptrucks at grade crossings in Jersey City? ISOLATED INCIDENT if it did happen. It was the dump truck's fault for refusing to heed the streetlights. Subway surface is trolleys, not modern light rail. Further, look at the capacity to operator ratio, never mind capacity of vehicle. Start putting POP on your subway-surface, and watch headways get longer, longer, longer—look at what happened to the Newark Subway. (And the lovely "study" thereof distinguishes "streetcar" from LRT.) HA HA HA! Streetcars and light rail transit are synonyms. Who miseducated you? Actually, POP on subway-surface would help headways, as it would be fewer lights to lose on the surface. (Whether or not you would have enough cars to cope now with faster boarding and much less dwell, that can be resolved.) Why would they do that? Remember, they're pushing for the cheap version of light rail. And you should be believed---pushing for a true boondoggle in rail to Scranton? Those people should move to the NJ side of the border if they want rail transit---they chose extreme commuting, let them live with it. Yeahh, for $1 billion (NJT got the Bordentown secondary for their River LINE). If they had actually used people at NJTRO for the project instead of giving it to political hacks (they're only doing that now since the Comet V debacle), it would have cost a third of that, and they wouldn't even have had to buy the ROW from CSA. WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! It cost a rather cheap $67.5M to acquire the line, a great bargain looking at things. Prior to the RiverLINE, South Jersey transport was extremely fractured, considering the 409 isn't too reliable. |
|
|
| (268651) | |
Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail |
|
|
Posted by AMoreira81 on Sun Jun 18 18:01:47 2006, in response to Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail, posted by Olog-hai on Sun Jun 18 15:03:01 2006. Uh, NO!!! (Even though I live on the other side of the Verrazano, I can tell you firsthand that unlike the other four boroughs, NO ONE who can afford a car wants to ride buses in SI---and this includes the MCI cruisers where Yukon and SI have NO MAINTENANCE!)As for funding, the MTA would be smart if it cancelled Charleston Depot (proposed near Tottenville), and redirected that to the North Shore. |
|
|
| (268652) | |
Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail |
|
|
Posted by AMoreira81 on Sun Jun 18 18:02:09 2006, in response to Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail, posted by Olog-hai on Sun Jun 18 15:03:01 2006. Uh, NO!!! (Even though I live on the other side of the Verrazano, I can tell you firsthand that unlike the other four boroughs, NO ONE who can afford a car wants to ride buses in SI---and this includes the MCI cruisers where Yukon and SI have NO MAINTENANCE!)As for funding, the MTA would be smart if it cancelled Charleston Depot (proposed near Tottenville---a bus garage that would house solely MCI cruisers), and redirected that to the North Shore. |
|
|
| (268653) | |
Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail |
|
|
Posted by tydev417 on Sun Jun 18 18:03:27 2006, in response to Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail, posted by AMoreira81 on Sun Jun 18 17:50:35 2006. AMoreira81, As I said time and time again, he continues to deny facts, documents and statements and in turn uses his own thoughts and opinions as facts. |
|
|
| (268655) | |
Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail |
|
|
Posted by tydev417 on Sun Jun 18 18:06:26 2006, in response to Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail, posted by AMoreira81 on Sun Jun 18 18:01:47 2006. As for funding, the MTA would be smart if it cancelled Charleston Depot (proposed near Tottenville), and redirected that to the North Shore.I was thinking the same exact thing after passing by both Castelon and Yukon depots while headed towards the mall earlier. They're both crowded to the point where buses are parked on the surrounding streets and Charleston Depot hopefully will be holding most of the express bus lines and give Yukon some Cas routes because it would be a long ride headed from Huegenot all the way to St. George to start a S78 run. |
|
|
| (268659) | |
Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Sun Jun 18 18:13:47 2006, in response to Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail, posted by AMoreira81 on Sun Jun 18 17:50:35 2006. Richmond Terr. is usually VERY BAD during the Peak hours.My home was only a block away of Broadway in West Brighton right across from the Dry Dock. Any type of rail line would have to thread its way thur there..where the clearance is really tight. |
|
|
| (268660) | |
Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail? |
|
|
Posted by AMoreira81 on Sun Jun 18 18:14:21 2006, in response to Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail?, posted by Olog-hai on Sat Jun 17 18:43:46 2006. Someone please slap some sense into the poster to whom I am replying.THAT is what he deserves for saying something about an area he has never toured with his own eyes. |
|
|
| (268661) | |
Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail? |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Sun Jun 18 18:15:13 2006, in response to Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail?, posted by Mark Michalovic on Sat Jun 17 20:07:13 2006. I totally agree. I think it should be an expansion of the current SIR. Easier for passengers, crews, bureaucracy and everything else. |
|
|
| (268662) | |
Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail |
|
|
Posted by AMoreira81 on Sun Jun 18 18:15:30 2006, in response to Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail, posted by Edwards! on Sun Jun 18 18:13:47 2006. However, people may jump out of their cars and take North Shore LRT to the ferry. I am predicting traffic would decrease. (Remember, who really wants to ride a Staten Island Division bus?) |
|
|
| (268663) | |
Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Sun Jun 18 18:15:40 2006, in response to Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail, posted by Olog-hai on Sun Jun 18 14:24:04 2006. Don't you mean "pothead interns"?... Even worse, it's by URS Corporation—a government contractor that'll say what a politician wants them to say.No. I've worked with stuff from URS, compared to groups like Pennoni, Urban, and other firms they're damn good, right up there with Parsons and such. When I was surveying my boss loved the stuff they'd feed us and when I was with Philly water the contract drawings done by URS were among the clearest and best done drawings we had. This as compared to the crap we got from Pennoni which was cluttered and sometimes ambiguous. It's clear you have no experience with these companies, otherwise you wouldn't have stuck your foot in your mouth. (What the hell do they know about rail? I'd believe a foamer before them. Another strike against them, being based in SF.) Yes, San Fransisco, home to perhaps the best modernized trolley system and the worst heavy rail system in the US. However their numbers were based on SIRT and NYCTA's heavy rail figures, not BART's. As for what they know about rail, try their site. Next time you ride the F into Queens remember that the firm you labeled a 'Pothead Intern' designed the steel that keeps the few million pounds of dirt off your hollow head. Plenty of "reports" and "studies" that skewed things in favor of high platforms, remember . . . ? meanwhile, Metrolink out in LA and GO Transit in Toronto show that low platforms can indeed be equal, if not superior. Yeah, on the East Coast, because the PRR and NY Central couldn't settle on a standardized height and the second rate railroads like the EL and such didn't order actual level boarding low floor cars. Now with federal money the high platform is unfortunately winning out around here simply for standardization. But the rest of the country outside two lines in Chicago is pretty staunchly low platform, and you'll find few reports out there today that reflect the idea that high platforms are the way to go. They would be creating new crossings thanks to encroachment. They're trying to go the cheap route and avoid building a new elevated structure. Well no kidding. Why would they want to blow billions that could go elsewhere on grade separation for an area which is basically suburbia? Even the heavy rail alternative does not use a full elevated structure but instead goes for pedestrian overpasses to access the bike trail at certain points. Remember LRVs getting knocked off the track by dumptrucks at grade crossings in Jersey City? I remember one instance of that, and nothing else. However, in this case we're not dealing with a city growing up around the light rail line and the truck traffic that would bring. This would be just a few grade crossings which would cost unneccesary millions of dollars to eliminate which would really only see traffic going to the small shipyards north of Richmond Terrace. You'd spend millions building an elevated section to eliminate the crossing of a few hundred cars per day, if even that many. Subway surface is trolleys, not modern light rail. Further, look at the capacity to operator ratio, never mind capacity of vehicle. Start putting POP on your subway-surface, and watch headways get longer, longer, longer—look at what happened to the Newark Subway. (And the lovely "study" thereof distinguishes "streetcar" from LRT.) Fine, since you insist on splitting hairs, the Portland TriMet system runs headways of less than 4 minutes between Beaverton TC and Gateway TC, and the new Yellow line knocks that to less than 3 minutes through the center of the city. That being said you're comparing apples to oranges, since LRT systems built to this point simply have little need of Lexington Avenue-like frequencies. Even tremendously successful systems are still fighting an uphill battle against the car for ridership, and in some cases the population simply isn't dense enough. Either you accept that an established system like SEPTA or the MBTA's Green Lines is an example, or your argument is moot (and you also never said 'modern' LRT). Of course we could look at Europe and likely find plenty of modern LRT systems with headways lower than the Lex and ridership numbers likely even higher. But then why would you want to spend the extra money to build a heavy rail system for a location so clearly devoid of population density? The line can always be upgraded down the line, but while LRT might actually stand a chance of getting built if you insist on heavy rail nothing will get done since the politicians will look at the area and balk at such a boondoggle in the making. Why would they do that? Remember, they're pushing for the cheap version of light rail. With an estimated cost of 68 million dollars per mile it's not really that cheap an LRT system. It's more expensive than Phoenix, San Jose, Denver, Minneapolis, Charlotte, or Portland's systems on a per mile basis, and is equal to the cost of the St Louis Metrolink system, which included some tunnel construction in downtown. Now that's still a far cry from the 100 million per mile HBLRT system, so clearly folks have learned their lessons from that overbuilt system. However, crossing gates at the few grade crossings would likely run a few hundred thousand dollars per installation, so it'd really be a minor cost to cut if they were looking to save money and be 'cheap'. Yeahh, for $1 billion. If they had actually used people at NJTRO for the project instead of giving it to political hacks (they're only doing that now since the Comet V debacle), it would have cost a third of that, and they wouldn't even have had to buy the ROW from CSA 1 billion for 34 miles of rail through the most densely populated state in the nation is nothing to sneeze at. If NJTRO had taken the line without purchasing it from CSAO we'd have GP40PH-2Bs sucking back 8 times the fuel per trip and running every two hours on a schedule which may or may not get held up by a freight somewhere on the line. |
|
|
| (268665) | |
Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Sun Jun 18 18:19:29 2006, in response to Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail, posted by AMoreira81 on Sun Jun 18 18:15:30 2006. Not me,thats for sure.The "fight" at St George just to get to the bus is more than enough for me. If they do build this line..chances are that the S40/90 bus will go0 the way of the dinosaurs...which wont be such a bad thing. |
|
|
| (268667) | |
Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail |
|
|
Posted by tydev417 on Sun Jun 18 18:24:09 2006, in response to Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail, posted by Edwards! on Sun Jun 18 18:13:47 2006. Richmond Terrace can be very bad with all the buses heading to and from Castelton Depot and St. George Terminal and all the traffic headed from the ferry's parking lot and also the bridges.My home was only a block away of Broadway in West Brighton right across from the Dry Dock. That's very close to where I live now, I saw the American Legion there sometimes. All along Richmond Terrace though would definately require some long-needed redevelopment in order to get this North Shore Line from West Brighton down to Snug Harbor. I'm just curious as to how the stations would be though....the stations and tracks would have to be cramped in most areas to get it to fit and I'm only talking about LRT....heavy rail would require some reconstruction of Richmond Terrace in West Brighton to get both to fit without being too close to the water. But over near the Bayonne Bridge, the line is elevated so nothing really neeeded there (redevelopment-wise) but some repairs, rebuilding in some locations and of course a repaint of the viaduct through Port Richmond. |
|
|
| (268669) | |
Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail |
|
|
Posted by AMoreira81 on Sun Jun 18 18:25:51 2006, in response to Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail, posted by Edwards! on Sun Jun 18 18:19:29 2006. While a bit off the initial topic (but still SI LRT related), what is there stopping the installation of LRT from SI Mall to Saint George? The aim is to get people off express buses and to the ferry. (Part of the ROW to be used would be where expressways in central SI were cancelled---and could perhaps be built as a tie-in to HBLR (once 21st Century is off the project) and North Shore LRT, to appease those who complain about lack of transport on SI, of which there is a severe lack).If HBLR is tied in, perhaps NJ Transit should be hired as the contractor for this whole system. (Cars in HBLR and MTA livery would be shared.) |
|
|
| (268670) | |
Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail |
|
|
Posted by AMoreira81 on Sun Jun 18 18:27:00 2006, in response to Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail, posted by tydev417 on Sun Jun 18 18:24:09 2006. I am surprised some street-running on Richmond Terrace (towards the eastern end) isn't being considered, if that provides a cheaper alternative. |
|
|
| (268671) | |
Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail |
|
|
Posted by tydev417 on Sun Jun 18 18:27:37 2006, in response to Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail, posted by Edwards! on Sun Jun 18 18:19:29 2006. The S40 would probably stay but with reduced service and the S90 would be outta here.When I'm on the S94, it's prone to getting caught in ongoing traffic from down further when turning off Lafayette Ave onto Richmond Terr all the way down to Westervelt were it transitions into 2 lanes. I would take the LRT without a doubt even if I would have to walk 5 minutes longer to catch it. |
|
|
| (268672) | |
Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail |
|
|
Posted by tydev417 on Sun Jun 18 18:29:38 2006, in response to Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail, posted by AMoreira81 on Sun Jun 18 18:25:51 2006. I was always wondering the same thing about a new line to the Mall but a LRT from SI Mall to St. George...what route would it take without getting caught in rush hour traffic? |
|
|
| (268673) | |
Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Sun Jun 18 18:30:10 2006, in response to Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail, posted by WillD on Sat Jun 17 23:08:14 2006. Residents and businesses in Puerto Rico pay SS and Medicare payroll taxes. |
|
|
| (268675) | |
Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail |
|
|
Posted by AMoreira81 on Sun Jun 18 18:33:02 2006, in response to Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail, posted by tydev417 on Sun Jun 18 18:29:38 2006. There is room on Richmond Avenue to take away a lane or even two each way, at least through to Victory (and then eliminate parking there if it is allowed---on a high speed street, no one should be parking) and grade-separate the line. Then, traffic isn't too terrible (run it up Richmond and Morningstar, and merge it into the North Shore there).As for having it pull into the mall, throw money at General Growth Properties. |
|
|
| (268676) | |
Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail |
|
|
Posted by tydev417 on Sun Jun 18 18:33:38 2006, in response to Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail, posted by AMoreira81 on Sun Jun 18 18:27:00 2006. Oh no...you don't want to do that, that idea might upset Olog. Some street-running may be required if it proves too difficult to remove the docks along Richmond Terrace but if they can just up and leave or make an agreement and let the MTA build on the lots, then everything would be fine. |
|
|
| (268677) | |
Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Sun Jun 18 18:34:56 2006, in response to Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail, posted by AMoreira81 on Sun Jun 18 18:25:51 2006. Hummm...Politics is what stopping the line and it extention futher in the Island. If the PA/NJT and MTA can come to some sort of agreement over the cost/operation of such a route...then Im sure there would be no problem getting it built. Now the other major sticking point is WHERE to place the ROW.. The most obious location would be Richmond Avenue right down to New Springfield[Staten Island Mall Area]..but there is a problem. Can you tell me what it could be? |
|
|
| (268679) | |
Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Sun Jun 18 18:36:04 2006, in response to Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail, posted by tydev417 on Sun Jun 18 18:33:38 2006. It just might be the case in West Brighton. |
|
|
| (268680) | |
Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Sun Jun 18 18:39:21 2006, in response to Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail, posted by RIPTA42HopeTunnel on Sun Jun 18 08:23:52 2006. Low?Where did yuou get that from? |
|
|
| (268681) | |
Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail? |
|
|
Posted by Alex L. on Sun Jun 18 18:40:13 2006, in response to Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail?, posted by NIMBYkiller on Sun Jun 18 10:15:07 2006. So all the arguments that HBLR can't handle the Bayonne climb is just a bunch of bull,Where have you seen these arguements? One of the high mucky-mucks who built the HBLR said he could have service to Staten Island within 18 months of getting the final approval, ie route approved, land owned, money available (I wish I had saved the article, but I suppose someone could go search an indexed back-issue file of the SI Advance). |
|
|
| (268683) | |
Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail? |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Sun Jun 18 18:42:13 2006, in response to Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail?, posted by Alex L. on Sun Jun 18 18:40:13 2006. I heard that also..on NY1 NEWS. |
|
|
| (268693) | |
Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail |
|
|
Posted by tydev417 on Sun Jun 18 19:02:48 2006, in response to Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail, posted by WillD on Sun Jun 18 18:15:40 2006. his would be just a few grade crossings which would cost unneccesary millions of dollars to eliminate which would really only see traffic going to the small shipyards north of Richmond Terrace. You'd spend millions building an elevated section to eliminate the crossing of a few hundred cars per day, if even that many.But then why would you want to spend the extra money to build a heavy rail system for a location so clearly devoid of population density? Although, I agree with you all the way on the other points, the North Shore of Staten Island is very dense, almost too dense. It's actually the most dense part of the Staten Island but is completely void of a rail line. You'll see much, much, much more traffic on Richmond Terrace than the amount you stated. Trucks don't really come through Richmond Terrace that often either with all the sharp turns. If NJTRO had taken the line without purchasing it from CSAO we'd have GP40PH-2Bs sucking back 8 times the fuel per trip and running every two hours on a schedule which may or may not get held up by a freight somewhere on the line. And you think he would have any problem with that? Well no kidding. Why would they want to blow billions that could go elsewhere on grade separation for an area which is basically suburbia? Even the heavy rail alternative does not use a full elevated structure but instead goes for pedestrian overpasses to access the bike trail at certain points. Agreed, and to tell you ther truth, I have no clue at all what exactly is running through his mind right now advocating for a more expensive heavy rail line instead of a LRT line which has been receiving more attention due to it's cost efficiency. |
|
|
| (268718) | |
Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail (this is why) |
|
|
Posted by AMoreira81 on Sun Jun 18 19:41:50 2006, in response to Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail (this is why), posted by Wayne-MrSlantR40 on Sat Jun 17 21:31:04 2006. Or street-run certain portions if necessary (particularly close to the eastern end). This isn't heavy rail. |
|
|
| (268726) | |
Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail |
|
|
Posted by The Port of Authority on Sun Jun 18 20:07:21 2006, in response to Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail, posted by tydev417 on Sun Jun 18 18:29:38 2006. Simple, convert the SIR to LRT and run a branch up from Eltingville to the SI Mall via the Eltingville Transit Center. :p |
|
|
|
Page 3 of 7 |
||
