T to Dyre Avenue Posted October 17, 2010 Share #26 Posted October 17, 2010 Why built light rail when we can have real subways? Why bother building something medium-sized when we can go all the way? Because the doesn't have a money tree growing outside 347 Madison Avenue. But seriously, it's much, much more expensive to build subways than it is to build light rail. Not to mention that our "fearless leaders" in Albany and Washington aren't very forthcoming when it comes to funding the MTA's day-to-day operations or what little subway expansion they're undertaking now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T to Dyre Avenue Posted October 17, 2010 Share #27 Posted October 17, 2010 Light rail would work well for crosstown service in Manhattan (on 125th St and 34th St, at least, where there is no subway crosstown). Also ideal to connect Red Hook and Columbia St to the transit system. Parts of Queens, like Maspeth, would also benefit. If they run light rail trains on one side of the street and make automotive traffic one-way, I could see it working. The city is already planning to build a busway on the north side of 34th Street like that. They might as well make it light rail, so they can carry more passengers at any given time. I firmly agree that Maspeth and eastern Queens should have light rail. Standard 40-foot buses connecting to the subways at their endpoints are not sufficient. Neither is infrequent-running LIRR service. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
East New York Posted October 17, 2010 Share #28 Posted October 17, 2010 Light rail would work well for crosstown service in Manhattan (on 125th St and 34th St, at least, where there is no subway crosstown). Also ideal to connect Red Hook and Columbia St to the transit system. Parts of Queens, like Maspeth, would also benefit. If they run light rail trains on one side of the street and make automotive traffic one-way, I could see it working. The city is already planning to build a busway on the north side of 34th Street like that. They might as well make it light rail, so they can carry more passengers at any given time. You definitely can't have a light-rail on 34th street. Even if you could work one in around bus traffic, it's not cost effective right now. The M4, M16, M34, Q32, and Express routes use the street. A busway is the best solution for several reasons. For one, Artics will be added to the route, which will meet or exceed capacity needed on the M34 line. And cars will not be allowed in the busway lanes at anytime. Therefore bus traffic will be unobstructed 24/7. 34th street will be a "True BRT" street. Unlike the current, and planned SBS lines. Same goes for 125th street. There are too many buses that use it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
metsfan Posted October 17, 2010 Share #29 Posted October 17, 2010 The key here is replacing bus with light rail, not adding light rail in with busses or in addition to subway line, try to keep that in mind. Light rail is much easier to operate in severe weather, and you can have it with transponders that give it favorable traffic signals. Tons of cramped very old cities in europe & asia have wildly successful tram & light rail lines, if it can work there it can work in nyc. Imagine a proper light rail network with a few busses here and there which compliment the light rail lines and go where light rail can't really work space and cost wise, imagine how much fewer cars would be on the road, imagine how clean the air would be, and any taxi drivers looking to work could work for as a LRT operator along with the displaced bus drivers. :tup: - A Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roadcruiser1 Posted October 17, 2010 Share #30 Posted October 17, 2010 I once read a proposal on sending light rail across the Verrazano Narrows Bridge. Although Robert Moses designed the Verrazano against heavy rail he didn't know he built the bridge to be light rail ready. A light rail car could easily cross the bridge without the bridge having to be retrofitted connecting Bay Ridge to Staten Island. Another good idea would be another proposal to send light rail across the Brooklyn Bridge so less pedestrians and cars would cross the bridge and the bridge would be more eco friendly. The Brooklyn Bridge like the Verrazano could easily handle them too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
East New York Posted October 17, 2010 Share #31 Posted October 17, 2010 The key here is replacing bus with light rail, not adding light rail in with busses or in addition to subway line, try to keep that in mind. Light rail is much easier to operate in severe weather, and you can have it with transponders that give it favorable traffic signals. Tons of cramped very old cities in europe & asia have wildly successful tram & light rail lines, if it can work there it can work in nyc. Imagine a proper light rail network with a few busses here and there which compliment the light rail lines and go where light rail can't really work space and cost wise, imagine how much fewer cars would be on the road, imagine how clean the air would be, and any taxi drivers looking to work could work for as a LRT operator along with the displaced bus drivers. :tup: - A I see your point, but we don't have money for that right now. And that still won't solve the problem for all the buses that use streets like 34th. Besides, buy the time they get something like that up and running, buses will most likely not even use diesel anymore. BRT is much more cost effective. And I for one would not be a fan of having my buses replace by trains! It's bad enough my classic RTS is becoming a thing of the past. BRT/SBS is here to stay. We need our problems solved now, not in 2025. We don't have an infrastructure that will support the immediate implementation of light-rail. We would need trains, train yards, tracks, and power supplies. Not to mention millions would need to be spent for training and tooling. It's already 2011, and we don't have a money press at MTA HQ. Even in severe weather, the LRT would be delayed as well. Leave the LRT for Staten Island, Queens, and maybe some areas of The Bronx. The other continents you mentioned have had these things in place for decades. So that's not a fair or valid comparison IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T to Dyre Avenue Posted October 18, 2010 Share #32 Posted October 18, 2010 If Albany and Washington knew or cared about properly funding mass transit, there would have been money to build light rail in SI, the Bronx and Queens ages ago. But neither our state nor our federal legislature cares much about properly funding mass transit (especially Albany), so we don't. BRT is less expensive to build with arguably fewer start-up costs than LRT. But I believe light rail is more cost-effective in the long term and that it allows you to do "more with less," as in you can use fewer LRVs than buses to carry the same number of passengers. LRVs can be run in short trains, so they don't require as many operators per vehicle as buses do. LRVs cost more than buses, but last far longer, so money is spent less frequently for vehicle procurement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
metsfan Posted October 20, 2010 Share #33 Posted October 20, 2010 I see your point, but we don't have money for that right now. And that still won't solve the problem for all the buses that use streets like 34th. Besides, buy the time they get something like that up and running, buses will most likely not even use diesel anymore. BRT is much more cost effective. And I for one would not be a fan of having my buses replace by trains! It's bad enough my classic RTS is becoming a thing of the past. BRT/SBS is here to stay. We need our problems solved now, not in 2025. We don't have an infrastructure that will support the immediate implementation of light-rail. We would need trains, train yards, tracks, and power supplies. Not to mention millions would need to be spent for training and tooling. It's already 2011, and we don't have a money press at MTA HQ. Even in severe weather, the LRT would be delayed as well. Leave the LRT for Staten Island, Queens, and maybe some areas of The Bronx. The other continents you mentioned have had these things in place for decades. So that's not a fair or valid comparison IMO. Well manhattan (and most of nyc) had trams & streetcars just like those other cities for about 45 years till combinations of things brought those to an end here. Also, you could easily build track in sections and overhead line poles. use the poles for other stuff like signs and info kiosks, then when the money is there put up the wires, , then the stations, then get the rolling stock and put power to the wires. Rome, nor NYC, nor any transit system wasn't built in a day, and the best chance for any route based system is doing it in phases to spread the cost out. As for 34th street and 42nd street, there are numerous proposals to link these major cross streets with some kind of tram or people mover, going up and down 8th ave and 5th ave. - A Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tokkemon Posted October 20, 2010 Share #34 Posted October 20, 2010 You guys are nuts to think that a light rail line will work in Manhattan. The island is already busting at the seams with people and cars and expect to take away more lanes for a couples trollies? Be a man! Built some new subway lines! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roadcruiser1 Posted October 20, 2010 Share #35 Posted October 20, 2010 You know the cost of a subway line per mile, tunneling, infrastructure, demolishing, removing people, and the time and duration. Second Avenue is the best example. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T to Dyre Avenue Posted October 20, 2010 Share #36 Posted October 20, 2010 You guys are nuts to think that a light rail line will work in Manhattan. The island is already busting at the seams with people and cars and expect to take away more lanes for a couples trollies? Be a man! Built some new subway lines! Send this post to Jay Walder of the . Send it to Mayor Bloomberg. Send it to the governor of New York State and the Speaker of the New York State Assembly. Send it to Senators Chuck Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand. These are the people who have the power to build new subway lines in Manhattan and all of New York City. No one on this message board has the power to build new subway lines anywhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
East New York Posted October 22, 2010 Share #37 Posted October 22, 2010 No one on this message board has the power to build new subway lines anywhere. Oh yes there are people on this board with that power. You just don't see them posting! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theaveragejoe Posted October 22, 2010 Share #38 Posted October 22, 2010 The only real way LRT's would work is on Statan Island, on Long Island and Westchester County as it would be cheaper then Subway/EL's being built Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T to Dyre Avenue Posted October 24, 2010 Share #39 Posted October 24, 2010 Oh yes there are people on this board with that power. You just don't see them posting! I meant no one who posts here has that power. I'm pretty sure Governor Patterson and Senator Schumer aren't posting here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T to Dyre Avenue Posted October 24, 2010 Share #40 Posted October 24, 2010 The only real way LRT's would work is on Statan Island, on Long Island and Westchester County as it would be cheaper then Subway/EL's being built LRT is cheaper to build than subway almost anywhere it's built. It's how you build it that determines the cost. If you put LRT underground or build a brand-new above-ground right-of-way from scratch, then yes, it will be expensive. But if you build street-running LRT, reuse an abandoned railroad r.o.w. or even reuse an abandoned subway tunnel (like the one they have in Cincinnati), the cost goes down significantly. Granted, you could run a subway line onto an abandoned r.o.w., like the between Dyre Avenue and East 180th Street or the between Rockaway Boulevard and the Rockaways. But you can't build a frequently-running subway line with 10-car trains and high-platform stations in the middle of a busy street. It wouldn't be safe to do that. It either has to go above or below that street. LRT with its shorter trains and low-level boarding can fit safely on most streets. You wouldn't want to run it on traffic-choked streets in Manhattan or on very narrow streets (unless you close those streets to car traffic). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ceya Posted October 29, 2010 Share #41 Posted October 29, 2010 In the 90s the city was to bring light rail to 42, 34 and / or 23 and 14th streets. None of it got going. Transportation Alternatives got involved but city stalled. http://www.transalt.org/files/newsroom/magazine/033Summer/02provocateur.html TA had artisits rendering drawing for the light rail system. The city tore up some old rails left near 14th st near Bway in the early 90s. S/F< CEYA! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B35 via Church Posted October 31, 2010 Share #42 Posted October 31, 2010 No... No... 1000 times... NO. all the jaywalkers & the non-drivers (by that, I mean people w/ drivers licenses that can't drive worth a lick) we have in this city... as overpopulated this city is... are you kiddin.... As much as I would LIKE to see a LRT in NYC, I'm well aware enough to know that it isn't happening. at the very least, not in my lifetime. ^^ Then again, that last statement applies to the 2nd av subway... (so much for, as tokkemon so eloquently put it: "Be a man! Built some new subway lines!")... smh.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrcrassic Posted November 3, 2010 Share #43 Posted November 3, 2010 We had the trolleys back in the day. Not exactly light rail, but they are "lighter" than subway from a transportation standpoint. Weren't they cancelled because of redundancy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tokkemon Posted November 3, 2010 Share #44 Posted November 3, 2010 They wouldn't work today anyway. Back then they didn't have near as many cars or people. Trolleys would just be overloaded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SI Subway Posted June 18, 2011 Share #45 Posted June 18, 2011 Why built light rail when we can have real subways? Why bother building something medium-sized when we can go all the way? Because in some areas, the subway would be too expensive or impractical to build. Light rail is a good substitute until an actual subway can be built. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nova RTS 9147 Posted June 18, 2011 Share #46 Posted June 18, 2011 The topography and density of New York City makes any potential light rail plan automatically complicated. Some very dense streets like 3rd Avenue in the Bronx are too narrow to support its current traffic patterns, and then you're dealing with Nimbyism. Having said that a light rail system akin to HBLR can actually work if done right. The subways and busses provide ample transportation to eliminate the need for light rail, it would be pointless now anyway with all the transit developments afoot. No they don't. The subway is bursting at the seem and buses can only do so much. The only 'Light Rail' system or so called 'Rail Shuttle' or something along those lines in New York City, Ive heard about would run across 42 St. Close 42 St to all Vehicular Traffic and a Light Rail Train would transport people cross town... Not sure if the city is still implementing this plan, but last I heard about it, was about 4-5 years ago. Vision 42 you mean? http://www.vision42.org/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R68 Subway Car Posted June 18, 2011 Share #47 Posted June 18, 2011 It would be nice to have light rail in NYC but I think this idea would be hard to implement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trainfan22 Posted June 19, 2011 Share #48 Posted June 19, 2011 I was riding the Q24 today and a idea popped in my head that they should put a light rail on Penn Ave in ENY from Gateway Mall to SC Towers to Broadway Junction. With maybe a branch that will go in Caransie somewhere lol. My other idea is to convert the LIRR Flatbush Branch to light rail, I admit, the Jamaica area would be kinda tricky to do, I would add stations at Utica, Woodhaven. My first idea, the yard where this light rail fleet would be cared for at would be built on one of those empty spaces of land around the Gateway mall. The latter I honestly don't know, I don't think there's room in the undeveloped part of the Atlantic Yards to built a barn for the Light Rail fleet to be repaired. I've been riding HBLR quite a bit these past few days, so I have light rail fever lol, I'd love to see one of these things in NYC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nexis4Jersey Posted June 19, 2011 Share #49 Posted June 19, 2011 It can be done in higher densities , look at Hong Kong , London , Paris , Berlin , LA , Boston , and Melbourne. You need Wide boulevards to do it but it can be done. A Few years ago the TTP did a study on which routes would be the best for LRT or Streetcars in Brooklyn. You can only build so many Subway lines and it appears the MTA is nearly the end of the Subway era..... Paris , London and Hong Kong realized this , and implemented LRT , why can't NYC? You will be getting high capacity LRT cars , once you build a system. It won't be like the HBLR. But 2x longer.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The I Man Posted June 19, 2011 Share #50 Posted June 19, 2011 Our last Mayor threw his support behind the project, then withdrew it which killed it. I can see it happening, but not in this decade. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.