|
|
| Re: 2009 - Erie Orange Branch Photos (859830) | |||
 |
|||
| Home > SubChat | |||
|
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ] |
|
||
|
Re: 2009 - Erie Orange Branch Photos |
|
|
Posted by AEM-7AC #901 on Tue Nov 17 13:16:59 2009, in response to Re: 2009 - Erie Orange Branch Photos, posted by Olog-hai on Tue Nov 17 03:57:44 2009. Arrgh, you had to say "Stadtbahn" again.I'll keep saying it because it drives you crazy. Besides, HBLR is certainly much closer in design scope to a Stadtbahn system than a streetcar/strassenbahn. unless it's a genuine "tram-train" that doesn't need FRA waivers The problem is that building a vehicle to FRA standards basically eliminates its ability to be a tram. The European tram-trains are just slightly upgraded trams with signaling and voltage equipment. At best due to our freak sized freight, we should probably aim for shared railways with the use of a positive train control system. NJTR and not scab companies Actually, the main reason for the DBOM is that it allows up front construction of the line while NJT is permitted to issue bonds backed by future payments into the Transportation Trust Fund. In other words, the line can be built by the DBOM, and NJT makes payments toward the project over a certain period of time. It's generally believed to be much faster than traditional methods of procurement and construction used by most other transit agencies. One must remember that the costs of the first two phases of HBLR and RiverLINE included the operating costs for the length of the DBOM. Besides, even if the "scab" workers were unionized under say ATU or TWU, you'd be pissed since they'd still pay less than NJTRO... PATH stays as it is, too. Once you build a downtown tunnel, PATH is rather redundant, and should be converted into a means for the light rail network to expand and have direct downtown service if it is possible. |
|
|
|