Trolley line ideas for Staten Island.

[Santa Fe via Willow]

I wasn't sure where to post this. This seemed like the most appropriate board, all things considered. If the mods feel it belongs elsewhere & want to move it, that's fine.

 

Korean War Veterans Memorial Parkway Streetcar:

This would operate between Bricktown(e), in the Outerbridge Crossing's shadow, & the Eltingville Transit Center. It would also serve the Pleasant Plains/Outerbridge Park'n'Ride.

 

Stops would be at under & overpasses.

 

No reason it couldn't be extended further, in either or both directions, than the terminals above.

 

Dr. Martin Luther King Expwy Cablecar:

This would operate between Port Richmond, in the shadow of the Bayonne Bridge, & CSI in Willowbrook.

 

Stops would be at over & underpasses.

 

No reason it couldn`t be extended further in either or both directions.

 

SIE Trolley 278:

Terminals would be at the 2 ends of 278 in SI. Namely in the shadows of the Goethals & Verrazano Narrows Bridges.

 

Stops would be under & overpasses.

 

No reason it couldn't be extended further in either or both directions.

[Roadcruiser1]

The Verrazano Narrows Bridge could be made light rail ready. Although Robert Moses built the bridge to be too steep for subway transit it isn't too steep for a light rail car.

[checkmatechamp13]

I wasn't sure where to post this. This seemed like the most appropriate board, all things considered. If the mods feel it belongs elsewhere & want to move it, that's fine.

 

Korean War Veterans Memorial Parkway Streetcar:

This would operate between Bricktown(e), in the Outerbridge Crossing's shadow, & the Eltingville Transit Center. It would also serve the Pleasant Plains/Outerbridge Park'n'Ride.

 

Stops would be at under & overpasses.

 

No reason it couldn't be extended further, in either or both directions, than the terminals above.

 

Dr. Martin Luther King Expwy Cablecar:

This would operate between Port Richmond, in the shadow of the Bayonne Bridge, & CSI in Willowbrook.

 

Stops would be at over & underpasses.

 

No reason it couldn`t be extended further in either or both directions.

 

SIE Trolley 278:

Terminals would be at the 2 ends of 278 in SI. Namely in the shadows of the Goethals & Verrazano Narrows Bridges.

 

Stops would be under & overpasses.

 

No reason it couldn't be extended further in either or both directions.

 

None of these would be good enough to survive by themselves, but they could be combined with other routes.

 

-The Korean War Veterans Memorial Parkway streetcar could be combined with the West Shore Light Rail to run up Richmond Avenue to the Bayonne Bridge (it can also be combined with the Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Expressway Cable Car)

 

-The SIE trolley should feed into something at both ends. It can run from Bloomfield into Brooklyn (if the VZ Bridge could be retrofitted to allow for light rail)

 

By the way, this should be merged with this thread: http://nyctransitforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3226

[Queens Surface]

One sucessful Trolley/Lightrail would be the North-Shore line.

[Roadcruiser1]

I doubt the North Shore Line would ever be a light rail line. The area is too dense for that.

[Santa Fe via Willow]

None of these would be good enough to survive by themselves, but they could be combined with other routes.

 

-The Korean War Veterans Memorial Parkway streetcar could be combined with the West Shore Light Rail to run up Richmond Avenue to the Bayonne Bridge (it can also be combined with the Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Expressway Cable Car)

 

That would be :cool: These trolley lines could serve as the short term foundation & template for future full SI lightrail, like your SI Railmap idea(s).

 

-The SIE trolley should feed into something at both ends. It can run from Bloomfield into Brooklyn (if the VZ Bridge could be retrofitted to allow for light rail)

 

I have a feeling the VNB could be made trolley & light-rail compatible.

 

By the way, this should be merged with this thread: http://nyctransitforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3226

 

Good idea.

[metsfan]

The narrows bridge could absolutely be modified to allow in-traffic LRT operation. The HBLR's light rail vehicles are capable of 55 mph travel, so a similar model could be employed. As for steepness, yea, not really a problem.

 

- A

[Y2Julio]

Unless you guys have a degree in Civil Engineering, I don't know how you're coming to the conclusion of something being easily converted for rail traffic.

[Joe]

Unless you guys have a degree in Civil Engineering, I don't know how you're coming to the conclusion of something being easily converted for rail traffic.

 

Armchair engineers. You know, they took the classes but never got the degree. Conveniently, everyone is suddenly a bridge expert.

[Y2Julio]

Showed this thread to my uncle who is a civil engineer (not an armchair one, unlike many on this forums) and this was his response.

lol at the thread VZ conversion to support any kind of rail system is a lot more complicated than "does it look like it fits".

Engineers would have to investigate whether the bridge can handle the additional load from trains. They would have to figure out whether seismic requirements would be met, as any rail system causes additional vibration on the bridge, and if someone thinks closing off a few lanes of rtaffic to install this is a good idea, they obviously have not sat in traffic on the VZ. There are a lot of factors to be considered, that's why my company has an entire department for transit design, not just one "expert". how would they power it, who would pay for it? what would the payback period be on this project? second avenue subway has been a huge pain in the ass for everyone, because at this rate, it will take over a hundred years to pay for itself. that's why the job has seen so many delays, and so many people have lost their jobs over this project. The VZ project wold not get past what is known as a feasibility study. A feasibility study covers things like can it be done, how long it will take, how much it will cost, and who's paying for it.

[Santa Fe via Willow]

Armchair engineers. You know, they took the classes but never got the degree. Conveniently, everyone is suddenly a bridge expert.

 

LOL!

[Kamen Rider]

Please, watch the Nazi Banksters Crimes Ripple Effect at http://jforjustice.co.uk/banksters

[Harry]

But one thing you armchair generals and captains keep forgetting, this is a forum and this type of topic is allowed. It's just a discussion, try not to take it too serious. God forbid one of you guys brake an arm falling off your high chair.

[Santa Fe via Willow]

Showed this thread to my uncle who is a civil engineer (not an armchair one, unlike many on this forums) and this was his response.

 

Hey! I got my civil engineering degree from a Cracker Jack box & my PE license from the back of a matchbook.

 

Anyway, trains, lightrail, trolleys, whatever, going over the Verrazano is just an abstract thought. :cool: to speculate & wonder about, but IRL would have to pass basic muster before being made real.

 

Robert Moses didn't want trains & rail on the VNB. But I can't imagine why the VNB wasn't at least equipped with sidewalks on each side like the Golden Gate.

 

But one thing you armchair generals and captains keep forgetting, this is a forum and this type of topic is allowed. It's just a discussion, try not to take it too serious. God forbid one of you guys brake an arm falling off your high chair.

 

LOL! Any armchair admirals here?

[Kamen Rider]

Please, watch the Nazi Banksters Crimes Ripple Effect at http://jforjustice.co.uk/banksters

[Roadcruiser1]

There's one thing you guys should know about Robert Moses. He never had a degree or a major in Civil Engineering, Architecture, or Urban Planning. He got his PHD in Political Science. Since he was rich he had connections to rich and powerful people and that is why he built New York the way it is today. Today I am curious why would New York allow a man with no degree, no major on any engineering build everything in New York.

 

A man with no degree was actually allowed to do this:

 

Only a lack of a key Federal approval thwarted the bridge scheme. President Roosevelt ordered the War Department to assert that the Brooklyn Battery Bridge in that location, if bombed, would block the East River access to the Brooklyn Navy Yard upstream. A dubious claim for a river already crossed by bridges, it nevertheless stopped Moses. In retaliation for being prevented from building his bridge, Moses dismantled the New York Aquarium that had been in Castle Clinton and moved it to Coney Island in Brooklyn. He also attempted to raze Castle Clinton itself, on a variety of pretenses, and the historic fort's survival was assured only after ownership was transferred to the federal government.

[Kamen Rider]

Please, watch the Nazi Banksters Crimes Ripple Effect at http://jforjustice.co.uk/banksters

[Santa Fe via Willow]

These trolley lines could also be done via SBS on steroids.

[Roadcruiser1]

Well today I had a talk with my teacher who has a major in Civil Engineering and knows about bridges. He told me it would be impractical and expensive even for light rail. The Verrazano was built to be extremely light and uses light material so the bridge could only support traffic as heavy as trucks. To even support a light rail on the Verrazano would call for heavy retrofitting which would be expensive. Even worse tunnels would have to be dug on both sides for stations and there is no room because the area surrounding the bridge is steep. There is no room for wires and rail traffic signals anywhere on the bridge even for light rail, and the bridge can't support that either. Even more worse is people won't make the out of system transfer even if it was built so the Verrazano option is the worse idea. Robert Moses won. He is correct that no rail traffic light or heavy would ever cross the Verrazano.

[Santa Fe via Willow]

Well today I had a talk with my teacher who has a major in Civil Engineering and knows about bridges. He told me it would be impractical and expensive even for light rail. The Verrazano was built to be extremely light and uses light material so the bridge could only support traffic as heavy as trucks. To even support a light rail on the Verrazano would call for heavy retrofitting which would be expensive. Even worse tunnels would have to be dug on both sides for stations and there is no room because the area surrounding the bridge is steep. There is no room for wires and rail traffic signals anywhere on the bridge even for light rail, and the bridge can't support that either. Even more worse is people won't make the out of system transfer even if it was built so the Verrazano option is the worse idea. Robert Moses won. He is correct that no rail traffic light or heavy would ever cross the Verrazano.

 

How about a pseudo-lightrail like BRT or +SBS+? The VNB should be able to handle that?

[checkmatechamp13]

Personally, I think it would be a great idea. There are 6 lanes in each direction, and I'm sure 1 can be given up to speed bus travel over the VZ. The problem is how to line it up with the existing bus lane. The local buses and some express buses have to use the right lane to get off the SIE, and other express buses have to go to the left lane to get to the bus lane.

 

The lane that would be best suited for buses would be the right lane on the upper level. Buses that need the bus lane shift a little to the left and buses that need the exits at Hylan Blvd and Bay Street can shift to the right.

[Santa Fe via Willow]

Personally, I think it would be a great idea. There are 6 lanes in each direction, and I'm sure 1 can be given up to speed bus travel over the VZ. The problem is how to line it up with the existing bus lane. The local buses and some express buses have to use the right lane to get off the SIE, and other express buses have to go to the left lane to get to the bus lane.

 

The lane that would be best suited for buses would be the right lane on the upper level. Buses that need the bus lane shift a little to the left and buses that need the exits at Hylan Blvd and Bay Street can shift to the right.

 

Hmm...I'm probably grasping for straws here but could the VNB handle a tram under it like the Roosevelt Island tram?

[Roadcruiser1]

He told me today that a light rail transit can cross the Verrazano though it has to be really light and it also has to run on the upper level of the bridge to be viable. It can't run underground or else no one would really use it, and it would be extremely expensive. It can't use the lower deck because there is no room to put equipment. A light rail car would have to weight about as much as a large 16-18 wheeled rig or as heavy as the trucks that cross the Verrazano. Buses are a good idea but is extremely expensive to run including bus lanes. Also like I and he said and he has a major in civil engineering. No rail traffic or tram traffic can use the lower level it would be expensive to run as it has to be tunneled on both sides, it's too steep to build the tunnels and the underground stations at both sides so therefore only the upper level of the Verrazano can be used for light rail and that's how heavy it the Verrazano can take. I believe that second bridge should be built next to the Verrazano to alleviate traffic, allow a second way to Staten Island, allow light rail to be put on the Verrazano without too much traffic interruption, and to support heavy rail like the subway or maybe even the LIRR.

 

Here are posts from a website that mentions the difference between each rail service type.

 

Commuter Rail

 

Commuter rail may be defined as a type of passenger train transit service that utilizes diesel-electric or electrically propelled trains, operating over existing railway trackage on the same rights-of-way used by intercity railway freight and passenger trains. Common practice in the United States and Canada is to use trains of coaches drawn by diesel-electric locomotives, as opposed to electrified multiple-unit equipment. Some commuter rail service is provided by self-propelled diesel-powered coaches. Fare collection is typically on board the train by cash or ticket, and boarding is normally from low platforms.

 

Commuter rail normally accommodates mainly the longest-distance trips made within metropolitan regions during weekday peak travel periods at high overall average operating speeds of typically between 30 and 50 miles per hour, with relatively few station stops. Typical commuter rail routes range from 20 to 50 miles in length. Because the railway track usually is shared with intercity freight and passenger trains, commuter rail normally requires neither the acquisition of new right-of-way nor the construction of new main-line trackage. However, for safety and operational reasons, locomotives and cars must be manufactured to main-line railway standards with respect to size and strength. These characteristics, together with the relatively long station spacings of two to five mites, characterize commuter rail as having the ability to provide a very high level of riding comfort for passengers.

 

Commuter rail is the oldest of all railway passenger transit modes, but presently exists only in corridors with substantial concentrations of passenger-trip origins in the outlying suburban areas of a corridor with destinations in the central business district of the corridor. The closest operating commuter rail system to Southeastern Wisconsin is the system centered on the central business district of the City of Chicago and operated by Metra. Metra is the Commuter Rail Division of the Regional Transportation Authority of Northeastern Illinois. The Metra system is one of the largest commuter rail systems in North America, and is generally regarded as among the best managed and most cost-effective. Metra, as well as some other existing commuter rail systems in the United States and Canada, has made efforts to attract off-peak as well as peak-travel-period ridership and markets its service to attract passengers using the private automobile to the railway service. Extensive park-ride facilities are usually associated with commuter rail services. Some existing systems, including Metra, have begun to give consideration to finding ways of serving non-central-business district-oriented trips in metropolitan areas. Typical commuter rail frequency of service on individual routes may be every 30 minutes in the peak travel direction during weekday peak travel periods, with midday, evening, and weekend service frequencies varying from one to three hours where such non-peak service is operated at all.

 

In the United States and Canada, commuter rail systems are found only in the largest metropolitan areas. Large-scale commuter rail operations, which include frequent peak-period service and a base service during non peak periods and weekends, are found in the Boston, Chicago, Montreal, New York, Philadelphia, San Francisco, and Toronto areas. Other commuter rail operations with service provided principally during weekday peak periods operate in the Baltimore and Washington, D.C., areas. New commuter rail operations which include peak-period service and some limited nonpeak weekday service have commenced operations within the last 10 years in the Dallas, Los Angeles, Miami, New Haven, and San Diego areas. Specialized commuter rail services that function more as local-area shuttles have also commenced operations in the southern New Jersey and Syracuse areas. The potential for commuter rail services continues to be considered in a number of other metropolitan areas, including the Atlanta, Cleveland, New Orleans, Oakland, St. Louis, Seattle, and Tampa areas. In other countries, commuter rail is often referred to as "regional rail to emphasize the length of the lines involved and to emphasize the high level of service provided throughout the entire day, as opposed to the mainly peak-travel-period, peak-direction service typicaily provided by existing commuter rail systems in the United States.

 

Light Rail

 

Light rail may be defined as a type of urban passenger transportation service that utilizes electrically propelled cars, or trains of cars, operating primarily at surface level either over exclusive rights-of way or over public streets. Light rail is essentially an improved and modernized version of the old streetcars and electric interurban railways that were common in the United States from the 1890s through World War II. Light rail can best be envisioned as trains of one to three articulated rail vehicles powered by electricity from overhead trolley wires. Fare collection is typically self service, using tickets purchased from vending machines. Boarding may be from either high- or low level platforms.

 

The trackage used for light rail operations is not normally shared with freight and other railway passenger trains. Light rail systems are intended to accommodate all types and lengths of passenger trips within the most densely developed portions of metropolitan areas during weekday peak travel periods, as well as during midday and evening off-peak travel periods and on weekends. Typically, light rail routes range from five to 15 miles in length. Normal station spacing for such systems ranges from one-quarter mile to one mile, thus providing good access while maintaining reasonable overall operating speeds. Typical average overall speeds for express transit light rail routes operating primarily over public streets may range from 10 to 20 miles per hour. Such speeds for rapid light rail routes operating extensively over exclusive, grade-separated rights-of-way may range from 20 to 30 miles per hour. Frequency of service on light rail systems typically ranges from five to 10 minutes during peak travel periods, and from 10 to 20 minutes during other times of the day. Extensive park-ride facilities may be provided at outlying stations, but substantial numbers of riders access light rail facilities by walking to stations or using feeder bus service. Unlike commuter rail, which utilizes existing railway trackage, the development of a new light rail system typically requires the acquisition or dedication of new rights-of-way and the construction of new trackage. Thus, the capital cost of implementing a light rail route will normally be significantly greater than the capital cost of a commuter rail route.

 

Within the United States and Canada, examples of light rail systems include the San Diego Trolley, MetroLink in St. Louis, C-Train in Calgary, Metropolitan Area Express (MAX) in Portland, and the Sacramento Regional Transit District system.

 

 

Heavy Rail

 

Heavy rail may be defined as a type of urban passenger transportation service that utilizes electrically propelled trains of cars operating over fully grade-separated rights-of-way. Heavy rail may best be envisioned as high-capacity, semiautomated trains of four to 10 cars powered by electricity from a third rail. Because heavy rail systems require an exclusive, completely grade-separated alignment, extensive subways and elevated structures are needed, both of which are costly and disruptive to construct. Fare collection is typically done at stations, and boarding is from high level platforms.

 

The trackage used for heavy rail operations is not shared with freight and other railway passenger trains. Like light rail, heavy rail systems are intended to accommodate all types and lengths of passenger trips within the most densely developed portions of metropolitan areas during weekday peak travel periods, as well as during midday and evening off-peak travel periods and on weekends. Typically, heavy rail routes range from five to 15 miles in length. Normal station spacing for such systems ranges from one-half mile to two miles. Typical average overall speeds may range from 25 to 40 miles per hour. Frequency of service on heavy rail systems typically ranges from five to 10 minutes during peak travel periods, and from 10 to 20 minutes during other times of the day. Extensive park-ride facilities may be provided at outlying stations, but substantial numbers of riders access heavy rail facilities by walking to stations or using feeder bus service. Unlike commuter rail, which utilizes existing railway trackage already in place, the development of a heavy rail system typically requires the acquisition or dedication of new rights-of-way and the construction of new trackage. Unlike light rail, which is intended to operate primarily at surface level, heavy rail requires fully grade-separated elevated or subway locations. Thus, the capital cost of implementing a heavy rail route will normally be much greater than the capital cost of either a commuter rail or light rail route.

 

Within the United States and Canada, examples of heavy rail systems include the Chicago Transit Authority, or "El," the New York City subway system, Metro in Washington, D.C., MARTA in Atlanta, the Red Line in Los Angeles, and BART in San Francisco and Oakland.

 

 

 

 

http://www.trainweb.org/kenrail/Rail_mode_defined.html

[Roadcruiser1]

Anyway if light rail is going to be used to cross the Verrazano Siemens should build the light rail cars. Sorry if it sounds like an ad or foaming but they had built one of the worlds fastest and highest capacity light rail cars ever the Siemens S70. It can run at speeds of 72 mph and carry 262 passengers in sitting and stand position. If the light rail car carries people at 65 mph on the bridge a lot of people would use it because it would be as fast as a car on the bridge itself.

 

Here's a picture

 

 

Now can you guys picture what one would look like crossing the Verrazano. It just might work. If they do this we might kick Robert Moses a** who tried to cut out rapid transit which is a good thing. Not just that if it works on the Verrazano it just might work on all of his other bridges and tunnels. Each light rail station should be placed at the same distance as a subway station. It would be fast, efficient and in some cases act just like a subway line at a fraction of the cost.

[Santa Fe via Willow]

Posts 23 & 24.

 

 

Thanks for the information:tup:

 

That Siemens railcar is beautiful:cool: