|Re: oops. the full post. (Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch (13312)|
|Home > The Reef|
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
[ First in Thread | Next in Thread ]
Re: oops. the full post. (Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch
Posted by J trainloco on Fri Jul 28 02:21:06 2006, in response to Re: oops. the full post. (Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch, posted by NIMBYkiller on Fri Jul 28 01:22:29 2006.So are you biased against The Bronx?
No, but the Bronx has few areas not served by transit that need it. A crosstown LRT would be an immense waste of money that could be better spent on some other improvement. Crosstown routes are not good candidates for LRT. LRT invloves huge investments in the front, and I find it hard to justify such a use of money to transport what is a relatively small amount of passengers.
Why is it that Queens and Brooklyn deserve more attention then The Bronx? Why not improve a transit corridor that can be improved?
Unlike the Bronx, Queens and Kings both have large swaths of land uncovered by transit. Maybe the only part of the Bronx needing better mass transit is Co-op city. The way to do that is obvious.
And in Brooklyn, I've read several times that some of the crosstown buses are PACKED.
When did a line being PACKED mean that it needed to be replaced by LRT? Buses are often crowded, but not for very long; usually for a short distance from important travel points. Building an LRT would certainly help in the immediate vicinity of the Subway stations, but would mark wasteful spending once you get away from them.
I.E. my time on the B6 has revealed to me that it is crowded Right at Nostrand, but by Utica, it's comfortable. That does not justify building an LRT.
I don't know if maybe Kings Hwy or Church St can handle LRT.
Kings Hwy could physically handle LRT, but really doesn't have the ridership for it. Church has neither the ridership (as defined above) nor the physical ability to handle it.
That's why I'm looking for other candidates.
Exactly the problem here. You're looking for candidates, but there are none. As I stated before, LRT is best served by street running in areas where traffic is lighter, and then ducking into tunnels (or other dedicated ROWs) in the downtown areas. Buses in outerboroughs may get crowded, but generally they only reach capacity where they get nearer to the subway, and they don't need the kind of capacity offered by LRT. Additionally, IF you're building a seperate ROW for LRTs, then most often, it would make the most sense to run heavy rail on it, and then re-organize bus service accordingly. The best place I can think of to do this is Hillside, where you could cut the number of buses that run all the way to 165th if you extended the subway to Francis Lewis, and built a terminal there (you'd eliminate lots of traffic problems for those buses). Or if you extended the E along one of the LIRR branches in the area (either the one that has a stop at St. Albans, or the one that goes to Locust Manor and Laurelton. I don't know which sees more service.
LRT in NYC would be a waste of money that could be better spent on expanding the Heavy Rail network.