|
|
| Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail? (268071) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 6 of 7 |
||
|
| (269150) | |
Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail? |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Mon Jun 19 16:36:02 2006, in response to Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail?, posted by tydev417 on Mon Jun 19 16:04:52 2006. You have Manchester Metrolink in England, it pretty much street-runs the entire routeNo, it doesn't. It's a seriously pathetic plug-in of some commuter rail lines into an on-the-cheap street-running link across the City Centre. Talk about doing things backwards. |
|
|
| (269151) | |
Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail |
|
|
Posted by New Brunswick Station on Mon Jun 19 16:36:02 2006, in response to Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail, posted by tydev417 on Mon Jun 19 13:29:52 2006. It appeared to me to be about as dense as urban residential parts of New Jersey. |
|
|
| (269152) | |
Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail |
|
|
Posted by RIPTA42HopeTunnel on Mon Jun 19 16:36:45 2006, in response to Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail, posted by tydev417 on Mon Jun 19 15:49:59 2006. Unless you know something I don't, Edgewater and Front Streets are already bypasses for Bay St.There was a plan in the late 1990s to make Edgewater/Front the primary north-south through route to ease congestion on Bay Street. If the R3A and R3X zones....are zones, if they are ever rezoned, wouldn't that resistance be lifted? Letter suffixes have only existed since 1989. They indicate that a nehighborhood already has been rezoned to tighten control on the scale of buildings that can be built. Such zones aren't likely to be re-rezoned to allow denser development. |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (269153) | |
Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail |
|
|
Posted by RIPTA42HopeTunnel on Mon Jun 19 16:38:42 2006, in response to Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail, posted by New Brunswick Station on Mon Jun 19 16:30:38 2006. the north shore is medium density. SO THERE.No it isn't. R6 is the lower boundary for medium density. |
|
|
| (269154) | |
Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail |
|
|
Posted by New Brunswick Station on Mon Jun 19 16:38:53 2006, in response to Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail, posted by RIPTA42HopeTunnel on Mon Jun 19 14:39:01 2006. How so? One would expect new development to bring in new people; thus, the density would increase. |
|
|
| (269155) | |
Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail |
|
|
Posted by New Brunswick Station on Mon Jun 19 16:40:39 2006, in response to Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail, posted by RIPTA42HopeTunnel on Mon Jun 19 16:38:42 2006. Whose medium density? The suburbanites' medium density, the Manhattanites' medium density, or the Brooklyn/Bronx/Queensites' medium density? |
|
|
| (269156) | |
Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail |
|
|
Posted by New Brunswick Station on Mon Jun 19 16:43:56 2006, in response to Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail, posted by Rail Blue on Mon Jun 19 12:14:22 2006. Good, someone came in with the census. So it would seem that all of the sides of this argument are correct: on the north shore, there are high density, medium density, and low density pockets. |
|
|
| (269157) | |
Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail |
|
|
Posted by New Brunswick Station on Mon Jun 19 16:45:12 2006, in response to Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail, posted by R7 Torresdale Express on Mon Jun 19 13:20:57 2006. Another argument for my position: make SIRT light rail. |
|
|
| (269158) | |
Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail |
|
|
Posted by New Brunswick Station on Mon Jun 19 16:47:29 2006, in response to Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail, posted by Rail Blue on Mon Jun 19 16:26:05 2006. how about Staten Island and northern NJ? |
|
|
| (269159) | |
Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail? |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Mon Jun 19 16:50:09 2006, in response to Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail?, posted by tydev417 on Mon Jun 19 16:22:03 2006. And I knew it has happened before...there have been other abandoned rail lines converted into light rail lines. The LRT I'm talking about though is Birmingham's Midland Metro but it isn't doing well (ridership-wise) because it is awaiting further extensions.Actually it isn't doing well because they included a load of totally useless stops:  Really, the following stops should be closed:
Dartmouth Street and Dudley Street should be combined too. Of course, the latest news is that the prats at Centro have decided that what Midland Metro needs is... wait for it... another stop! Yes, they're intending on inserting one between Bilston Central and Loxdale to serve some crony's company. Extensions *are* needed - notably the simple one stop through the city centre tunnel from Snow Hill to Moor Street - but that can't be done without either converting Midland Metro to heavy rail or converting Kidderminster-Dorridge to light rail and making assorted resultant changes to heavy rail tracks. I'm just showing that it is possible because it was mentioned in another post that all abandonded rail lines that started out as heavy rail lines should stay as a heavy rail line which isn't true one bit. Unfortunately, it would have been distinctly sensible in this case. |
|
|
| (269161) | |
Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail |
|
|
Posted by tydev417 on Mon Jun 19 16:54:21 2006, in response to Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail, posted by New Brunswick Station on Mon Jun 19 16:45:12 2006. I pass on that one...the current line should stay heavy rail, the new line should become light rail. |
|
|
| (269162) | |
Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail? |
|
|
Posted by tydev417 on Mon Jun 19 16:56:51 2006, in response to Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail?, posted by Rail Blue on Mon Jun 19 16:50:09 2006. Unfortunately, it would have been distinctly sensible in this case.I guess you could say that's true, it probably would've done better as a Network Rail line in this case. Now the North Shore line has only 6 stops and they look to be trying to minimize the amont of damage and construction done. |
|
|
| (269164) | |
Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail? |
|
|
Posted by Tunnel Rat on Mon Jun 19 17:05:56 2006, in response to Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail?, posted by tydev417 on Mon Jun 19 16:24:35 2006. Way back when the H&M first opened,the plan was to extend to S.I.using central rr of n.j.trackage to a point around kill van kull.tunnel under& run as a seperate rr.across S.I. |
|
|
| (269165) | |
Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Mon Jun 19 17:06:32 2006, in response to Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail, posted by New Brunswick Station on Mon Jun 19 16:40:39 2006. NYC defined medium density. You'd know that if you had read the whole thread before posting. |
|
|
| (269166) | |
Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Mon Jun 19 17:08:19 2006, in response to Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail, posted by New Brunswick Station on Mon Jun 19 16:43:56 2006. Nope. |
|
|
| (269172) | |
Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Mon Jun 19 17:30:18 2006, in response to Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail, posted by New Brunswick Station on Mon Jun 19 16:47:29 2006. how about Staten Island and northern NJ?   
|
|
|
| (269173) | |
Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Mon Jun 19 17:32:05 2006, in response to Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail, posted by New Brunswick Station on Mon Jun 19 16:43:56 2006. It'd be more accurate to say that the North Shore *is* denser than the interior and extreme south and west of Staten Island, but none of it's really high density. |
|
|
| (269174) | |
Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail |
|
|
Posted by RIPTA42HopeTunnel on Mon Jun 19 17:33:23 2006, in response to Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail, posted by New Brunswick Station on Mon Jun 19 16:38:53 2006. How so? One would expect new development to bring in new people; thus, the density would increase.If an area gentrifies, it brings in a wealthier population that occupies more space per person. A three-level tenement that might have housed six families would become three "luxury condos," each with a single yuppie in it. |
|
|
| (269190) | |
Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail |
|
|
Posted by tydev417 on Mon Jun 19 19:11:44 2006, in response to Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail, posted by RIPTA42HopeTunnel on Mon Jun 19 17:33:23 2006. I'm glad that you mentioned that because they evicted everyone from the Markham Houses (the stucco housing groups in between Broadway and North Burgher Ave and can be seen from Richmond Terrace) and the whole complex is now abandoned with only a few people still living there waiting to leave. There is a whole bunch of contruction in surrounding the area by the corner of Broadway and Richmond Terrace so I have no clue what plans they have for it.There are also rumors going around that they might evict everyone from the West Brighton Projects...oh excuse me...Housing Units because the owner just isn't making enough money from the buildings. They are the smallest projects on Staten Island so it seems just a little justified. |
|
|
| (269205) | |
Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Mon Jun 19 21:12:59 2006, in response to Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail, posted by tydev417 on Mon Jun 19 19:11:44 2006. IM me |
|
|
| (269206) | |
Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail |
|
|
Posted by The Port of Authority on Mon Jun 19 21:25:11 2006, in response to Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail, posted by Rail Blue on Mon Jun 19 13:36:50 2006. IAWTP. Better to standardize everything. |
|
|
| (269208) | |
Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Mon Jun 19 21:37:36 2006, in response to Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail, posted by Rail Blue on Mon Jun 19 13:36:50 2006. Perhaps both should be LRTOh great, even more capital spending. |
|
|
| (269219) | |
Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail |
|
|
Posted by tydev417 on Mon Jun 19 21:53:16 2006, in response to Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail, posted by Olog-hai on Mon Jun 19 21:37:36 2006. You know, I would disagree with you because I know that you only said that because it's LRT but I agree because there's nothing wrong with having two different systems. There's no need for any R44 train to run on the LRT or vice-versa. All of the work locos are diesel so they could run on either line. |
|
|
| (269220) | |
Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail |
|
|
Posted by Tunnel Rat on Mon Jun 19 21:55:17 2006, in response to Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail, posted by tydev417 on Mon Jun 19 21:53:16 2006. Does anyone have photos of the N/S& southbeach when they were running? |
|
|
| (269222) | |
Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail |
|
|
Posted by The Port of Authority on Mon Jun 19 22:00:34 2006, in response to Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail, posted by tydev417 on Mon Jun 19 21:53:16 2006. But if the two lines are both LRT (or if they're both heavy rail), the Clifton shops can be used for both lines and this eliminates the need to add a second maintenance facility.Also it simplifies things to some extent; an LRV could, in theory, start at Tottenville, run to St George, then reverse and operate on the North Shore line. And, this allows for easier expansion of the entire system as a whole; it's easier to add LRT branches off the SIR line if it's converted to LRT. A good idea for a branch would be an extension from Eltingville up to the Staten Island Mall via the Eltingville Transit Center. |
|
|
| (269223) | |
Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail |
|
|
Posted by tydev417 on Mon Jun 19 22:07:46 2006, in response to Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail, posted by The Port of Authority on Mon Jun 19 22:00:34 2006. Since the R44s are due for their time to go in a few years 2011 being the latest, maybe they could just convert the line into LRT but it would probably cause a long closure of the line which would be unecessary.If LRT was to arrive on the North Shore line, it would not affect the Tottenville mainline in any way. |
|
|
| (269235) | |
Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Mon Jun 19 22:29:27 2006, in response to Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail, posted by tydev417 on Mon Jun 19 22:07:46 2006. email mesubtalk at railfanwindow dot com |
|
|
| (269237) | |
Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail |
|
|
Posted by tydev417 on Mon Jun 19 22:32:36 2006, in response to Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail, posted by Terrapin Station on Mon Jun 19 22:29:27 2006. ok, and what do you want me to say? |
|
|
| (269239) | |
Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail |
|
|
Posted by tydev417 on Mon Jun 19 22:36:10 2006, in response to Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail, posted by Terrapin Station on Mon Jun 19 22:29:27 2006. I'm still confused as to why you want me to e-mail you but I just did. |
|
|
| (269245) | |
Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail |
|
|
Posted by The Port of Authority on Mon Jun 19 23:12:49 2006, in response to Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail, posted by tydev417 on Mon Jun 19 22:07:46 2006. If LRT was to arrive on the North Shore line, it would not affect the Tottenville mainline in any way.But it would offer better options if the two lines were linked in some way. The most logical means to do this would be to convert the SIR to LRT and have them share a station at St. George. |
|
|
| (269251) | |
Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail |
|
|
Posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Mon Jun 19 23:26:32 2006, in response to Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail, posted by Olog-hai on Mon Jun 19 21:37:36 2006. To standardize operations and not have to take the rail cars off of Staten Island to do heavy maintenance. I think it's worth it to convert the existing SIRT line to light rail just before the R44s are ready to be retired. |
|
|
| (269256) | |
Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail |
|
|
Posted by tydev417 on Mon Jun 19 23:40:01 2006, in response to Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail, posted by Tunnel Rat on Mon Jun 19 21:55:17 2006. The only ones I know of can be found here:http://www.nycsubway.org/nyc/sirt/ http://www.thethirdrail.net/0201/index.html http://thejoekorner.quuxuum.org/nycmetro/sirtindex.html |
|
|
| (269258) | |
Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail? |
|
|
Posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Mon Jun 19 23:44:09 2006, in response to Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail?, posted by Olog-hai on Sat Jun 17 16:03:59 2006. I disagree. Light rail can safely operate in streets. Maybe not on Manhattan streets, which can be choked with traffic 24/7, but certainly on some SI streets. Heavy-rail subway can not safely operate on streets, and thus, must always run in its own right-of-way unimpeded by cars, buses and trucks. And it costs big bucks to build that ROW, money you wouldn't have to spend if you go with light rail. Just imagine a four-car train of R68s (never mind eight cars) running down the middle of Hylan Blvd, stopping at high-level platforms on Hylan.Even on private ROW, light rail is cheaper. You can get off-the-shelf LRV's, which you can't do with subway cars. Frequently-running heavy rail cars also need high platforms. LRV's don't. |
|
|
| (269262) | |
Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail |
|
|
Posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Mon Jun 19 23:53:58 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. "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)."True. I've read articles describing the Chicago L and PATH as "light rail." By their definition NYC already has light rail, and extremely successful light rail - it's called the subway. |
|
|
| (269265) | |
Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail? |
|
|
Posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Mon Jun 19 23:58:43 2006, in response to Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail?, posted by Edwards! on Sat Jun 17 22:38:37 2006. "Lots of folks feel this way, dude..."Indeed. They feel it has to be subway or no way (and in the case of the 2nd Avenue Subway, four tracks or no tracks). When did no loaf of bread become better than half a loaf? |
|
|
| (269275) | |
Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Tue Jun 20 01:18:13 2006, in response to Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail, posted by WillD on Sun Jun 18 21:26:41 2006. Hummm..very thoughtfull.It's too bad that the NIMBY's will come out in full force against any and all transit thur the park. I still remember the fights and protest from the Willowbrook Expressway plan. |
|
|
| (269290) | |
Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail |
|
|
Posted by G1Ravage on Tue Jun 20 07:26:28 2006, in response to Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail, posted by tydev417 on Mon Jun 19 10:32:36 2006. "You know what, I don't want to take this any further, you're right, I'm wrong, you win, I lose, you get an e-cookie." |
|
|
| (269291) | |
Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail |
|
|
Posted by G1Ravage on Tue Jun 20 07:29:05 2006, in response to Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail, posted by Broadway Lion on Mon Jun 19 10:10:35 2006. No crossing arms or lights and bells?Hope the cows come to a complete stop and look both ways before crossing the lion. |
|
|
| (269306) | |
Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Tue Jun 20 08:41:51 2006, in response to Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail, posted by The Port of Authority on Mon Jun 19 23:12:49 2006. "If LRT was to arrive on the North Shore line, it would not affect the Tottenville mainline in any way."But it would offer better options if the two lines were linked in some way. The most logical means to do this would be to convert the SIR to LRT and have them share a station at St. George. Conversion of the Main Line would probably be easiest done in three phases: 1) linking the Bay Terrace - Tottenville stretch to a new express light rail route alongside Willowbrook Park, down the median of the Willowbrook Expwy, over the Bayonne Bridge, over the HBLR to Richard Av, then ducking under the NJ Tpk Ext to a portal on the edge of Liberty State Park, then diving under the Hudson to a lower Manhattan terminal (probably either WTC or Fulton St / Broadway - Nassau St). 2) conversion of the rest of the main line to LRT operation. 3) addition of various branches, for instance:
|
|
|
| (269307) | |
Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail |
|
|
Posted by RIPTA42HopeTunnel on Tue Jun 20 08:44:20 2006, in response to Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail, posted by Broadway Lion on Mon Jun 19 10:30:53 2006. And they *would* benefit from an LRV or even and HRV, since development would surely follow. And with development, usually comes improvement.Again, I was never arguing against transit altogether, just in favor of light rail on short headways over heavy rail on long headways. I'd love to see heavy rail return to the North Shore branch, but it doesn't seem practical, as the longer headways would discourage ridership. As I pointed out, there are rezoning areas all along the North Shore that indicate development density will not likely increase. |
|
|
| (269309) | |
Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Tue Jun 20 08:49:13 2006, in response to Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail, posted by Edwards! on Tue Jun 20 01:18:13 2006. It's too bad that the NIMBY's will come out in full force against any and all transit thur the park.I still remember the fights and protest from the Willowbrook Expressway plan. There's a huge difference in scale though - the expressway would use just about all the park's land; an LRT line would take a 20ft strip along one edge. |
|
|
| (269324) | |
Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail |
|
|
Posted by R7 Torresdale Express on Tue Jun 20 09:45:33 2006, in response to Re: Study Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail, posted by tydev417 on Mon Jun 19 22:07:46 2006. I see no reason why LRT conversion would disrupt the South Shore service, unless there are insufficient clearances at underpasses and the Clifton tunnel for overhead catenary wires. I suppose you could do a 3rd rail-catenary dual-mode but aside from SEPTA's N-5s which are supposedly set up for attachment of a pantograph, I don't know of any such vehicles in existence. |
|
|
| (269343) | |
Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail? |
|
|
Posted by Deaks on Tue Jun 20 11:03:02 2006, in response to Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail?, posted by Rail Blue on Mon Jun 19 16:36:02 2006. ou have Manchester Metrolink in England, it pretty much street-runs the entire route.No, it doesn't. It's a seriously pathetic plug-in of some commuter rail lines into an on-the-cheap street-running link across the City Centre. Talk about doing things backwards. Not at all. Metrolink's Atrincham and Bury lines replaced infrequent, unreliable BR services with ten trams an hour - to the city centre, rather than either of the decrepit, out-of-the-way terminals served previously. The city centre street running section isn't particularly prone to delays and replaced a poorly-executed bus link between Piccadilly and Victoria. Go see it for yourself, and observe the level of crowding throughout the day and particularly the peak. The Eccles line is completely new and is a valuable piece of public transport in Salford, although it won't be until Salford Quays are total redeveloped that it sees its full potential. Tydev417 - the amount of street running in the city centre is limited - roughly split 50/50 between street and reservation running in the CC. The Eccles line has a fair bit of street running towards the outer terminal, however. See NYCSubway's Manchester Metrolink site. |
|
|
| (269359) | |
Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail? |
|
|
Posted by Max Roberts on Tue Jun 20 11:53:05 2006, in response to Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail?, posted by Deaks on Tue Jun 20 11:03:02 2006. The Bury and Altrincham lines both ran every 15 minutes off-peak, so I wouldn't characterise these as being infrequent, no worse than many London Underground branches. They may or may not have been reliable, but street-running adds an extra variable to the equation.Newcastle and Liverpool both got tunnel schemes in the 1970s, Manchester dropped the ball and never got the Picc-Vic tunnel. Or perhaps they were lucky. Certainly, the LRTA blames the cross-Newcastle tunnel for the "failure" of the Tyne & Wear Metro. Me? I blame urban motorways, competing express buses, and out-of-town stations that look as though they have been the site of nuclear war. |
|
|
| (269437) | |
Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail? |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Tue Jun 20 15:36:01 2006, in response to Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail?, posted by Deaks on Tue Jun 20 11:03:02 2006. Not at all. Metrolink's Atrincham and Bury lines replaced infrequent, unreliable BR services with ten trams an hour - to the city centre, rather than either of the decrepit, out-of-the-way terminals served previously.And THERE is the reason why it's pathetic. Because of the street running section, it couldn't serve any of the lines out of Piccadilly. A Picc-Vic tunnel would have been a far better idea. And "decrepit, out of the way" rather conflates the vices of Victoria and Piccadilly respectively. The Eccles line is completely new and is a valuable piece of public transport in Salford, although it won't be until Salford Quays are total redeveloped that it sees its full potential. The Eccles Line is a screw-up because they had to build high platforms for it because they decided to bolt it onto Metrolink. It would have been better with kerb height boarding and segregation from Metrolink. |
|
|
| (269439) | |
Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail? |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Tue Jun 20 15:42:40 2006, in response to Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail?, posted by Max Roberts on Tue Jun 20 11:53:05 2006. The Bury and Altrincham lines both ran every 15 minutes off-peak, so I wouldn't characterise these as being infrequent, no worse than many London Underground branches. They may or may not have been reliable, but street-running adds an extra variable to the equation.Especially when this "ten trams an hour" turns out to be theoretically spaced at 9 and 3 minute intervals. In practice, this means they've only got the benefit of 6tph, so not really much improvement. Certainly, the LRTA blames the cross-Newcastle tunnel for the "failure" of the Tyne & Wear Metro. Me? I blame urban motorways, competing express buses, and out-of-town stations that look as though they have been the site of nuclear war. Sounds more accurate. To this you can add: - ingrained petty municipal stupidity in terminating the line at the Airport (instead of continuing 1¾ miles further to Ponteland), resulting in all the buses from Ponteland still duplicating the entire route into Newcastle. |
|
|
| (269593) | |
Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail? |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Wed Jun 21 03:57:23 2006, in response to Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail?, posted by tydev417 on Mon Jun 19 15:56:56 2006. R-160 type trains need not be 4 or or 5 cars long if they are specifically designed for low density service such as would be found in SI. In the pre MTA days, SIRT often operated 1 and 2 car trains in the off hours as Chicago does according to the needs of the service. Even many of the NYC subway lines during midnight hours don't need the train lengths that are operated, but the MTA seems to feel that it is more economical to build trains in multiple car units and run cars that are not needed rather than to build single units or 2 car married pairs which might require more maintenance due to the additional motor control equipment. Also, even though the trains can be cut into shorter lengths for off peak operation, the MTA seems reluctant to do so since additional yard personnel would be required to lay up the excess cars and because the powers that be in RTO and CED are afraid to cut and add units fearing that overuse of the drawheads would lead to equipment failures.As for the cost of construction, as I mentioned in my other post, many so called light rail lines such as LAMTA were built with high level platforms which are more characteristic of heavy rail and there is a question whether overhead catenary or third rail is cheaper to construct. |
|
|
| (269594) | |
Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail? |
|
|
Posted by Fytton on Wed Jun 21 04:05:38 2006, in response to Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail?, posted by Max Roberts on Tue Jun 20 11:53:05 2006. "The Bury and Altrincham lines both ran every 15 minutes off-peak, so I wouldn't characterise these as being infrequent, no worse than many London Underground branches."LU now advertises that runs at least every ten minutes (6 tph) at all times right out to the ends of its lines, the only exceptions I know of being Amersham and Chesham (which are really suburban rail masquerading as an Underground line) and the hopeless Hainault-Woodford section, which gets 3 tph offpeak. I think this subthread is being unduly negative about the Manchester Metrolink, which is actually a success story, in terms of passenger loadings. "Half a loaf is worse than no bread" seems to be general line of argument. The failure to build the Picc-Vic tunnel was more central government's fault than Manchester's, and who can blame them for eventually deciding that they would never get allocated the capital to build the tunnel, and making sure that they actually got something useful built. The routing of the onstreet section in the city centre was rather carefully planned to minimise congestion. Of course it is true that it is backwards to build a system that is the reverse of Philly's and Boston's (and Newark's) subway-surface systems, private RoW in the outer areas and onstreet in the centre, we understand that. But it's wise to get what you can, rather than wait for ever for the perfect system (SAS, anyone?). And as noted, Metrolink is *not* mostly onstreet. The systems in the UK that do have a high proportion of onstreet are Sheffield and to a lesser extent Nottingham. As for the argument that he city centre tunnel section of the Tyne & Wear Metro 'caused its failure', I find that argument incomprehensible - the system isn't a failure, and it is good that they did succeed in getting the central tunnel section built. The Birmingham system is a disappointment but of course only the first phase has got built so far. But I totally disagree with the proposal to close half its stations - one of the merits of light rail is that it can have closely-spaced stops for maximum passenger convenience - the idea being to attract people from cars, not to provide a suburban rail service. O.K., it slows it down, but it's still a lot faster than a bus, and British provincial cities are quite compact urban areas anyway, so the overall journey times are pretty acceptable even from othe outer termini. For me, the best kind of rail rapid transit system is one that exists, and the worst sort is one that never gets built. |
|
|
| (269595) | |
Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail? |
|
|
Posted by Max Roberts on Wed Jun 21 05:00:44 2006, in response to Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail?, posted by Fytton on Wed Jun 21 04:05:38 2006. Newcastle is an interesting one. Its Sunderland extension is performing way below expectations, and thanks to bus deregulation, passenger numbers are actually the same as at the end of the diesel service.Here is the LRTA link that blames this on tunnels: http://lrta.info/Facts/facts123.html Actually, the below ground stations are the only parts of the network that feel safe in my opinion. BTW Piccadilly Line trains beyond Rayners lane only run every 20 minutes. |
|
|
| (269623) | |
Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail? |
|
|
Posted by Fytton on Wed Jun 21 09:22:51 2006, in response to Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail?, posted by Max Roberts on Wed Jun 21 05:00:44 2006. "Piccadilly Line trains beyond Rayners lane only run every 20 minutes."True, but the route is also covered by Metropolitan Line trains every 10 minutes, giving 9 tph in total |
|
|
|
Page 6 of 7 |
||
