|
|
| Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail (268071) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 4 of 7 |
||
|
| (268751) | |
Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sun Jun 18 20:31:36 2006, in response to Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail, posted by Edwards! on Sun Jun 18 18:34:56 2006. If the PA/NJT and MTA can come to some sort of agreement Good luck with that. Only reason that we have "agreements" like Metro-North WOH is because of Conrail being the former operator of Port Jervis trains . . . |
|
|
| (268759) | |
Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail (this is why) |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sun Jun 18 20:35:22 2006, in response to Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail (this is why), posted by tydev417 on Sun Jun 18 17:15:43 2006. So that is your claim huh? This thing won't get built?That's what I said in my first post. And you've been bothering me ever since about it, and then accused me of just disagreeing with everyone . . . You don't even have any knowledge of the area in question Don't I? Been to Saint George and Snug Harbor plenty of times. You just want anything rail-based built, even if it turns out to be the wrong mode. BTW, don't bother posting anything by those do-nothings at NYC.gov. If you believe politicians, you're in for some big disappointments. |
|
|
| (268760) | |
Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sun Jun 18 20:35:52 2006, in response to Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail, posted by tydev417 on Sun Jun 18 17:26:47 2006. What facts? Nobody's presented any. |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (268762) | |
Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sun Jun 18 20:36:48 2006, in response to Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail, posted by tydev417 on Sun Jun 18 16:59:43 2006. No, it's not "it may or may not", it's "it will never". Bottom line. |
|
|
| (268764) | |
Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sun Jun 18 20:38:13 2006, in response to Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail, posted by tydev417 on Sun Jun 18 16:57:35 2006. You're the one that never understands things for what they are and debate them outYou're in for a lot of disappointment down the road, especially if you haven't recognized political posturing for what it is. There isn't even a "may" when it comes to LRT. |
|
|
| (268774) | |
Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sun Jun 18 20:45:09 2006, in response to Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail, posted by tydev417 on Sun Jun 18 17:12:19 2006. the LRT alternative came up and you catch a fitNo, I just said they won't build it. if they were stuck on heavy rail, you would be fine when you KNOW that heavy rail is more cost inefficient How is it more cost-inefficient? Nobody's demonstrated "how" except for a bunch of unqualified biased know-nothings at URS Enterprises. Should we close down the whole NYC Subway and replace the cars with high-platform LRVs too? If it were up to URS, places like Washington DC wouldn't have a Metro. With LRT, you're going to have more operators, flimsier vehicles, and lower operating speeds, not to mention segments that potentially can get stuck in road traffic. Forgetting that having two separate rail-based modes inherently has higher operating costs? The only way you'd have them low enough is to have legacy systems—but these are all new-builds. BTW, I didn't say anything against the (unmentioned by anyone but me) DMU mode; that's a viable one that could even do substitute-running on the Tottenville line. |
|
|
| (268775) | |
Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail (this is why) |
|
|
Posted by tydev417 on Sun Jun 18 20:46:38 2006, in response to Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail (this is why), posted by Olog-hai on Sun Jun 18 20:35:22 2006. There, I did it again.NYC.gov - Staten Island Transportation Task Force Staten Island has major traffic issues regardless of what you may think and we need solutions to those problems regardless of what you may think. Don't I? Been to Saint George and Snug Harbor plenty of times. You just want anything rail-based built, even if it turns out to be the wrong mode." The wrong mode?? Excuse me...but you have to be blind not to realize that heavy rail is more expensive than light rail. |
|
|
| (268778) | |
Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail |
|
|
Posted by tydev417 on Sun Jun 18 20:52:39 2006, in response to Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail, posted by Olog-hai on Sun Jun 18 20:45:09 2006. How is it more cost-inefficient? Nobody's demonstrated "how" except for a bunch of unqualified biased know-nothings at URS Enterprises. Should we close down the whole NYC Subway and replace the cars with high-platform LRVs too? If it were up to URS, places like Washington DC wouldn't have a Metro. With LRT, you're going to have more operators, flimsier vehicles, and lower operating speeds, not to mention segments that potentially can get stuck in road traffic. Forgetting that having two separate rail-based modes inherently has higher operating costs? The only way you'd have them low enough is to have legacy systems—but these are all new-builds.It's getting very tiring that we keep debating in circles. The North Shore Line may or may not be an LRV line, may or may not. You keep missing the fact that the trains will not get stuck in traffic if running on it's own ROW and not all LRVS have low-operating speeds. It may or may not be an LRT line, they are focusing on it because it is cost efficient, you think the latter but it's true, that's why they risen up so fast over the years. |
|
|
| (268779) | |
Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail (this is why) |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sun Jun 18 20:55:42 2006, in response to Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail (this is why), posted by tydev417 on Sun Jun 18 17:25:45 2006. 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 ROWIt 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). What YOU fail to understand is that this heavy rail that you speak of is more EXPENSIVE than LRT 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. 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 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. 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 . . . |
|
|
| (268781) | |
Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail |
|
|
Posted by tydev417 on Sun Jun 18 20:59:50 2006, in response to Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail, posted by Olog-hai on Sun Jun 18 20:35:52 2006. That light rail is more cost efficient..."Light rail systems are generally cheaper to build than heavy rail, since the infrastructure does not need to be as substantial, and tunnels are generally not required as is the case with most metro systems. Moreover, the ability to handle sharp curves and steep gradients can reduce the amount of work required. Traditional streetcar systems as well as newer light rail systems are used in many cities around the world because they typically can carry a larger number of people than any bus-based public transport system. They are also cleaner, quieter, more comfortable, and in many cases faster than buses. In addition, light rail has none of the negative connotations of being a system used by the "transit dependent" that can plague BRT ridership levels. The presence of rail lines demonstrates a long-term commitment by government to a particular neighborhood. In an emergency, light rail trains are also easier to evacuate than monorail or elevated rapid rail trains. Many modern light rail projects re-use parts of old rail networks, such as abandoned industrial rail lines. This fact gives some systems built-in right-of-way; besides the built-in right-of-way, the hardware generally operates more quietly than commuter rail or metro systems, and noise mitigation is easier to design. A good example of both points above is the Docklands Light Railway (DLR) in London, which uses a sharp, steep, curve to enable it to transfer from running alongside an existing railway line to a disused railway line which crossed underneath the first line. A direct connection between these lines would not be practical for conventional rail (note that because the DLR has a completely grade-separated right of way, it can also be regarded as a metro)." -Light rail - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia |
|
|
| (268784) | |
Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sun Jun 18 21:11:07 2006, in response to Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail, posted by tydev417 on Sun Jun 18 20:59:50 2006. Read your own quoted statement again:Light rail systems are generally cheaper to build than heavy rail, since the infrastructure does not need to be as substantial, and tunnels are generally not required as is the case with most metro systemsThat's a general statement, which is actually filled with utter nonspecific BS. The "insubstantial" infrastructure they are talking about is street-bound alignment. Elevated structures and tunnels with light rail are built to the same standards as heavy rail, not to mention the actual rails (HBLRT and "River LINE" have 115 lb/yd rails and concrete ties, remember—you can run commuter rail on tracks like that). |
|
|
| (268787) | |
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? |
|
|
| (268788) | |
Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Sun Jun 18 21:26:41 2006, in response to Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail, posted by AMoreira81 on Sun Jun 18 18:25:51 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?As others have said, money and politics. The aim is to get people off express buses and to the ferry. It's debatable as to whether or not the installation of an LRT system from the SI Mall and Arlington to St George would really bring folks off the express bus and onto the ferry. With the slow speed of the subway from Whitehall and South Ferry the travel time to midtown just isn't competitive enough. The MTA could simply chop the express bus service, but would have to deal with the political backlash from that. Still the light rail system seems to work as a way to reduce headways on the express bus system. A faster way into midtown would be to run the SI Mall branch over the Bayonne Bridge, interline with the HBLRT (yeah yeah Olog, STFU), and have the passengers change to PATH at Hoboken for 33rd. The MTA already has run their express buses through NJ, so there's certainly a precedent for this kind of service, and there is at least one bus that does this routing, the 122 or 144 I believe. (Part of the ROW to be used would be where expressways in central SI were cancelled Interesting idea. I'd assume you mean skirting through Willowbrook Park rather than using Richmond Ave. It does straighten out the alignment when compared to running up Richmond Ave to Victory or I-278, and it allows a grade separated crossing of Victory right into the median of 440. Along Richmond Ave south of the park at Rockland Avenue the median is certainly wide enough for two tracks down to the Staten Island Mall. The few left turn lanes which would be displaced could become jughandles on the land to west or the southbound lanes could simply be shifted slightly west to make up for the lack of room in the median for the turn lane. However, the possibility would always exist that folks wouldn't take kindly to having an LRV through the park. It's only too bad you can't take such people to Europe to show them what's possible. The other issue is that an alignment through Willowbrook Park could pull the LRV away from the residential areas southwest of Richmond and Victory Blvd. If the LRV sticks to the western edge of the park this should present only the most minor of problems. |
|
|
| (268789) | |
Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail |
|
|
Posted by tydev417 on Sun Jun 18 21:28:37 2006, in response to Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail, posted by Olog-hai on Sun Jun 18 21:11:07 2006. Will you believe anything we throw at you? The construction (varies greatly though), track and signalling infrastructure can be about the same price for both heavy rail and LRT but it is not the same price when it comes to buying the cars and maintainence and a few other factors. |
|
|
| (268790) | |
Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail |
|
|
Posted by Easy on Sun Jun 18 21:32:11 2006, in response to Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail, posted by tydev417 on Sun Jun 18 21:28:37 2006. LRV's are more expensive, right? Our new LRV's in LA are $3 million a pop. That's more than double the average cost of the new R160's. Our LRV's are bigger than the R160's, but not twice as big. |
|
|
| (268791) | |
Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail |
|
|
Posted by tydev417 on Sun Jun 18 21:33:19 2006, in response to Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail, posted by Olog-hai on Sun Jun 18 20:36:48 2006. It may or may not, people though the same thing about the NYC Subways in the 1970s but it came up from the dead and is now one of the best in the world.I fail to see why you continue to say "it will never"...you can say it will never to alot things that'll still come about. It's under consideration and has been for awhile, they managed to get the SI Freight line underway so they can do this. |
|
|
| (268858) | |
Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail? |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Sun Jun 18 23:43:05 2006, in response to Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail?, posted by Alex L. on Sun Jun 18 18:40:13 2006. Someone, or a few people, here kept posting about how the cars can't handle the grade everytime someone brought up the idea of HBLR to SI. I had a feeling it was all bull, but now there are numbers to that. |
|
|
| (268859) | |
Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sun Jun 18 23:47:43 2006, in response to Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail, posted by WillD on Sun Jun 18 18:15:40 2006. 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 ambiguousParsons-Brinckerhoff, you're comparing URS to? Their claim to fame was that their founder designed the IRT; such a different era from today (that was a NYC throwing off the chains of the Boss Tweed types). Once these engineers go independent, funny things happen. It's clear you have no experience with these companies Not true. I know exactly how engineers work, and they're all about trouble and drinking coffee. The craft has been ruined since the days of Robert Moses (almost said "days of wine and roses" as a bit of rhyming slang). San Fransisco, home to perhaps the best modernized trolley system Hmm, I alone must be stoic but everyone else can throw their opinions out there. That's funny. Apples and oranges anyway, because this LRT system at least was not a new-build, or a conversion from heavy to light as it were. Either you accept that an established system like SEPTA or the MBTA's Green Lines is an example, or your argument is moot Sorry, but there are several kinds of LRT system; they are not all alike. Neither of the above are examples of conversion from heavy to light, either. With an estimated cost of 68 million dollars per mile it's not really that cheap an LRT system Oh, it's cheap enough, and it's way underestimated. Watch costs go up and upper as things drag on. Eventually, the heavy rail option will seem cheap. 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 Uh, if NJT management would stop treating NJTRO like a red-headed stepchild and giving projects to outsiders, they would have had something far superior to what Bechtel gave 'em. FRA DMUs can do 2-3 mpg, not very far behind the Stadler DLRV; it's NJT management putting the boot on NJTRO's neck insofar as MUs, and we all know this. And using traditional FRA rail would have allowed for use of Track 3 at the NEC Trenton Station (instead of building an "upstairs station" that lots of people complain about not being able to connect to), not to mention pave the way for the restoration of the east-west connector to the AC line in Pennsauken (instead of having passengers and foam alike clamoring for a "transfer station" that nobody will use). |
|
|
| (268860) | |
Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail? |
|
|
Posted by tydev417 on Sun Jun 18 23:48:26 2006, in response to Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail?, posted by NIMBYkiller on Sun Jun 18 23:43:05 2006. I remember hearing that too, if that was the case then there wouldn't have been so many people advocating it to run across the Bayonne Bridge. |
|
|
| (268861) | |
Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sun Jun 18 23:49:47 2006, in response to Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail, posted by tydev417 on Sun Jun 18 19:02:48 2006. 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 lineSee, he doesn't know his petootie from his elbow when it comes to SI. The North Shore is anything but "suburbia"; and if you had heavy rail restored, it'd get more ridership than the former Perth Amboy division. |
|
|
| (268862) | |
Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail |
|
|
Posted by tydev417 on Sun Jun 18 23:50:32 2006, in response to Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail, posted by Olog-hai on Sun Jun 18 23:47:43 2006. Oh, it's cheap enough, and it's way underestimated. Watch costs go up and upper as things drag on. Eventually, the heavy rail option will seem cheap.Keep in mind that is your own opinion though. |
|
|
| (268864) | |
Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sun Jun 18 23:55:06 2006, in response to Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail, posted by tydev417 on Sun Jun 18 23:50:32 2006. Keep in mind that is your own opinion thoughThis whole thread is all about opinions. Ain't gonna be any facts unless somebody builds something. And if it's LRT, it'll be incompatible with the rest of MTA rail systems—that's a fact. |
|
|
| (268865) | |
Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail |
|
|
Posted by tydev417 on Sun Jun 18 23:57:34 2006, in response to Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail, posted by Olog-hai on Sun Jun 18 23:49:47 2006. See, he doesn't know his petootie from his elbow when it comes to SI. The North Shore is anything but "suburbia"; and if you had heavy rail restored, it'd get more ridership than the former Perth Amboy division.Your argument serves no purpose from here on......I live in Staten Island first of alll and the North Shore is thee most dense portion of SI. You don't know crap about Staten Island to even be debating over it. You probably don't even believe Google Maps for all I know but start here, go to top, follow Richmond Terrace and have fun. Google Maps |
|
|
| (268866) | |
Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail |
|
|
Posted by tydev417 on Mon Jun 19 00:01:19 2006, in response to Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail, posted by Olog-hai on Sun Jun 18 23:55:06 2006. And if it's LRT, it'll be incompatible with the rest of MTA rail systems—that's a fact.As if we don't know that? LRT is a separate and cheaper system in itself. It would be $360 million to get the project off the ground, keep in mind they have yet to determine or even consider the price of heavy rail. |
|
|
| (268877) | |
Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail |
|
|
Posted by tydev417 on Mon Jun 19 00:40:09 2006, in response to Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail, posted by Olog-hai on Sun Jun 18 15:16:54 2006. Ya know...your argument is pointless to a tee. There is no way in hell that an elevated structure can be built on Richmond Terrace, no way in hell. You ride down Richmond Terrace and tell me if they can just knock down houses and shut down piers and docks so an elevated structure can be built to keep heavy rail going. It would do more damage and cost much more at the same time than good.I was hoping you would make a post like this just to show that you don't even know what you are talking about but is just staying in the debate because you "dislike" light rail. Do you have any knowledge at all of the North Shore line's or even the North Shore's history? It should only take one ride through the North Shore from St. George to Arlington....not Snug Harbor to realize that it is densely populated. Richmond Terrace rides very close to the water and docks have since been built since the line's closure. It would not be an easy task to get the row going for heavy rail but light rail opens up other oportunities not available with heavy rail. And besides you continue to avoid the fact that the line would not be used much outside of rush hours and LRT would suit that perfectly. The only reason why the LRT's ridership wouldn't be higher initially after opening is because of all the surrounding bus lines. |
|
|
| (268881) | |
Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Mon Jun 19 00:56:43 2006, in response to Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail, posted by tydev417 on Mon Jun 19 00:40:09 2006. There is no way in hell that an elevated structure can be built on Richmond Terrace, no way in hellWhat are you talking about . . . ? Are you trying to claim that the original ROW along the water can't be elevated? They want to put LRT on the street along Richmond Terrace; you need to re-read the study again. And you're not doing a good job of twisting what I said, not that anyone has done a good job thus far, but you're pretty bad at it . . . Richmond Terrace rides very close to the water and docks have since been built since the line's closure. It would not be an easy task to get the row going for heavy rail but light rail opens up other oportunities (sic) not available with heavy rail Nope. They have no such plans for the light rail. Go back to the study and read about the alignment on Richmond Terrace again. besides you continue to avoid the fact that the line would not be used much outside of rush hours and LRT would suit that perfectly Huh? Now you venture into absurdity, with all due respect. Nobody builds LRT with the eye of having little to no service outside rush hours—nobody. Nobody operates it that way either. |
|
|
| (268921) | |
Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail |
|
|
Posted by RIPTA42HopeTunnel on Mon Jun 19 07:25:34 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?
|
|
|
| (268927) | |
Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail |
|
|
Posted by tydev417 on Mon Jun 19 07:33:27 2006, in response to Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail, posted by RIPTA42HopeTunnel on Mon Jun 19 07:25:34 2006. That's not low-density, ride through it and you'll see. |
|
|
| (268929) | |
Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Mon Jun 19 07:34:54 2006, in response to Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail, posted by tydev417 on Mon Jun 19 07:33:27 2006. Ok, so it's high density. What does that make THE REST of the NYC? High density too? |
|
|
| (268931) | |
Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail |
|
|
Posted by tydev417 on Mon Jun 19 07:45:41 2006, in response to Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail, posted by Terrapin Station on Mon Jun 19 07:34:54 2006. I would guess so?The South Shore and many other areas are this "Suburbia" but the North Shore is one of the most growing areas of the state but has always been very densely populated. |
|
|
| (268936) | |
Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Mon Jun 19 08:04:29 2006, in response to Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail, posted by tydev417 on Mon Jun 19 07:45:41 2006. No. You would call the rest of NYC high-density, and you would call the north shore low-density. |
|
|
| (268939) | |
Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail |
|
|
Posted by tydev417 on Mon Jun 19 08:06:23 2006, in response to Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail, posted by Terrapin Station on Mon Jun 19 08:04:29 2006. The North Shore is high-density too. |
|
|
| (268941) | |
Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Mon Jun 19 08:15:11 2006, in response to Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail, posted by tydev417 on Mon Jun 19 08:06:23 2006. HAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAA |
|
|
| (268942) | |
Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Mon Jun 19 08:15:50 2006, in response to Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail, posted by tydev417 on Mon Jun 19 08:06:23 2006. Have you ever been "off the island"?HAahahahahahahahahahahah. |
|
|
| (268944) | |
Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail |
|
|
Posted by SUBWAYSURF on Mon Jun 19 08:20:45 2006, in response to Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail, posted by tydev417 on Mon Jun 19 08:06:23 2006. True most Satan Island people I've run into are high, they are also pretty densee, too. |
|
|
| (268952) | |
Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail |
|
|
Posted by tydev417 on Mon Jun 19 08:34:46 2006, in response to Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail, posted by Terrapin Station on Mon Jun 19 08:15:50 2006. What you are making is a generalized sterotype about Staten Island and how it's suburban everywhere which isn't true.Come and explore the North Shore (don't get shot/robbed though :P) And don't just go to the South Shore and then claim that the North Shore isn't dense |
|
|
| (268964) | |
Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail |
|
|
Posted by TeaBiscuit18thAveDude on Mon Jun 19 08:53:18 2006, in response to Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail, posted by tydev417 on Mon Jun 19 08:34:46 2006. Exactly. He hasn't been in Castleton or West Brighton evidentally. Welcome to the projects ;) |
|
|
| (268989) | |
Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Mon Jun 19 09:44:24 2006, in response to Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail, posted by tydev417 on Mon Jun 19 08:34:46 2006. So in general, SI is HIGH DENSITY, like Manhattan? I don't think so. Show me the numbers. |
|
|
| (268992) | |
Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Mon Jun 19 09:47:57 2006, in response to Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail, posted by Terrapin Station on Mon Jun 19 09:44:24 2006. Manhattan isn't high-density. It's ultra-saturated density. The boroughs where the subways go to are high- |
|
|
| (269001) | |
Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail |
|
|
Posted by RIPTA42HopeTunnel on Mon Jun 19 09:54:34 2006, in response to Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail, posted by TeaBiscuit18thAveDude on Mon Jun 19 08:53:18 2006. Exactly. He hasn't been in Castleton or West Brighton evidentally. Welcome to the projects ;)Castleton and West Brighton are a shorter walk from the ferry terminal than from the North Shore branch, since the railroad hugs the shoreline at that point. Sure, there are some apartment buildings and projects at the eastern end of the North Shore, in R4 and R5 zones. West of Snug Harbor, though, is mostly zoned R3A or R3-2, both of which have a maximum floor/area ratio of 0.5 and maximum building height of 35'. The NYC Zoning Resolution classifies anything under R6 as "lower density." Note also that a large portion of the North Shore's service area to the north is water, which may have a significant impact on ridership patterns. Just because an area is dangerous doesn't make it dense. |
|
|
| (269006) | |
Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail |
|
|
Posted by tydev417 on Mon Jun 19 09:57:17 2006, in response to Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail, posted by Olog-hai on Mon Jun 19 09:47:57 2006. That is beyond false, there are dense areas were there is a lack of subways or rail service.Staten Island is one of them...you guys are thinking of the South Shore, I'm talking North Shore. If you haven't been there or seen it then just stop. |
|
|
| (269009) | |
Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail |
|
|
Posted by tydev417 on Mon Jun 19 09:59:33 2006, in response to Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail, posted by RIPTA42HopeTunnel on Mon Jun 19 09:54:34 2006. But I've noticed that the only people who are saying it is not dense is people that have either not been to Staten Island, following typical sterotypes about SI or haven't been in the North Shore.And no Castelton and West Brighton is no short walk to the ferry. It's a 20-25 minute ride on the bus from there so I have no clue what it would be like walking. |
|
|
| (269011) | |
Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Mon Jun 19 10:00:08 2006, in response to Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail, posted by tydev417 on Mon Jun 19 09:57:17 2006. dense does not equal high-density. |
|
|
| (269014) | |
Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail |
|
|
Posted by tydev417 on Mon Jun 19 10:02:25 2006, in response to Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail, posted by Terrapin Station on Mon Jun 19 10:00:08 2006. Have you ever at at least seen the North Shore? And not from pictures..I mean actually live or walked around or even taken the bus? |
|
|
| (269015) | |
Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Mon Jun 19 10:03:59 2006, in response to Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail, posted by tydev417 on Mon Jun 19 08:06:23 2006.   The North Shore is high-density too. Hey! We got High Density Housing in Richardton too! (Federal Bucks You Know... we *had* to set up a "Housing Authority") There are *FOUR* units in ONE Building! |
|
|
| (269017) | |
Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Mon Jun 19 10:05:46 2006, in response to Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail, posted by tydev417 on Mon Jun 19 09:59:33 2006. Castelton and West Brighton is no short walk to the ferry. It's a 20-25 minute ride on the bus from there so I have no clue what it would be like walking. 15 to 20 minutes? After all you do not also have to *wait* for the bus or for traffic. |
|
|
| (269018) | |
Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Mon Jun 19 10:05:50 2006, in response to Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail, posted by tydev417 on Mon Jun 19 09:59:33 2006. YOU GOT PWN3D BY SOMEONE WHO KNOWS THE FACTSBut I've noticed that the only people who are saying it is not dense is people that have either not been to Staten Island, following typical sterotypes about SI or haven't been in the North Shore. No, you just GUESSED that. In reality, the only people who are saying "it is not high-density" are the people who know what they are talking about, either from direct observation or from professional training. |
|
|
| (269020) | |
Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail |
|
|
Posted by tydev417 on Mon Jun 19 10:07:24 2006, in response to Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail, posted by Broadway Lion on Mon Jun 19 10:05:46 2006. No it's more like 20-25 minutes during rush hours and sometimes during off-hours. |
|
|
| (269021) | |
Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Mon Jun 19 10:07:33 2006, in response to Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail, posted by tydev417 on Mon Jun 19 10:02:25 2006. Yes, I've been there. |
|
|
| (269022) | |
Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail |
|
|
Posted by tydev417 on Mon Jun 19 10:08:47 2006, in response to Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail, posted by Terrapin Station on Mon Jun 19 10:05:50 2006. You Don't Even Live In Staten Island To Know How Dense it is! You've only been to the South Shore and call SI in general, not that dense. |
|
|
|
Page 4 of 7 |
||
