|
|
| Re: 2009 - Erie Orange Branch Photos (859890) | |||
 |
|||
| 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 14:48:23 2009, in response to Re: 2009 - Erie Orange Branch Photos, posted by Olog-hai on Tue Nov 17 13:28:41 2009. Ever look at the construction standards of most interurban cars?Given that we haven't built one of those since the 1930s, I'd argue that using them as a comparison point is downright foolish. Plus, since they have near no modern crash energy management, I wouldn't want to use them as a base point either. I want a modern tram, not a single car MP-54 style vehicle running in the street. No . . . it's another way to rape the taxpayer. The DBOM company didn't put up the money for construction, remember. Actually, if it wasn't for the frigging DBOM, the system wouldn't exist at all, or we'd be talking about the first phase that opened up in 2005 after we spent years looking for the funding the pay for the system in lieu of talking about the third and fourth phases to 8th Street and Tenafly. As I stated earlier, the DBOM allows New Jersey Transit to make level payments to pay for the construction and operation of the line in order to expedite its construction. Is PATH redundant due to going to 33rd Street as well? Given that with a downtown transit tunnel, riders would prefer to main use of the commuter rail network to go directly to the terminal (and a stop on the Jersey side of the river down Jersey City access), I'd argue that PATH's role should be enhanced for other riders by allowing for direct service via an expanded light rail network serving areas that don't have commuter rail access. This not the elimination of a mode, but the reinforcement of redundancy and promoting regional connectivity. |
|
(There are no responses to this message.)
|
|