|
|
| Re: Scrap pecking order with R44-SI (305451) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 2 of 4 |
||
|
| (305835) | |
Re: Scrap pecking order with R44-SI |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Sun Sep 3 12:47:24 2006, in response to Re: Scrap pecking order with R44-SI, posted by Westinghouse XCB248S on Sun Sep 3 12:26:34 2006. Why the triple post? |
|
|
| (305839) | |
Re: Scrap pecking order with R44-SI |
|
|
Posted by Westinghouse XCB248S on Sun Sep 3 12:57:18 2006, in response to Re: Scrap pecking order with R44-SI, posted by Edwards! on Sun Sep 3 12:46:40 2006. Oh that is true. In fact the first R44 MLs to go into revenue service went on the F Line. They started "permanent" revenue service in April 1972. But they did revenue testing during the fall of 1971 which started on October 5, 1971. The First R44 SIs went into revenue service in February 1972. |
|
|
| (305840) | |
Re: Scrap pecking order with R44-SI |
|
|
Posted by Westinghouse XCB248S on Sun Sep 3 12:58:46 2006, in response to Re: Scrap pecking order with R44-SI, posted by Edwards! on Sun Sep 3 12:46:40 2006. Oh sorry, my mistake. That was true what you said their. In fact the first R44 MLs to go into revenue service went on the F Line. They started "permanent" revenue service in April 1972. But they did revenue testing during the fall of 1971 which started on October 5, 1971. The First R44 SIs went into revenue service in February 1972. |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (305842) | |
Re: Scrap pecking order with R44-SI |
|
|
Posted by Westinghouse XCB248S on Sun Sep 3 12:58:59 2006, in response to Re: Scrap pecking order with R44-SI, posted by Edwards! on Sun Sep 3 12:46:40 2006. Oh sorry, my mistake. That was true what you said there. In fact the first R44 MLs to go into revenue service went on the F Line. They started "permanent" revenue service in April 1972. But they did revenue testing during the fall of 1971 which started on October 5, 1971. The First R44 SIs went into revenue service in February 1972. |
|
|
| (305862) | |
Re: Intermediate Station Fare Payment on SIRT (was:Re: Scrap pecking order with R44-SI) |
|
|
Posted by R68A - 5200 on Sun Sep 3 13:52:04 2006, in response to Re: Intermediate Station Fare Payment on SIRT (was:Re: Scrap pecking order with R44-SI), posted by David of Broadway on Sun Sep 3 11:15:16 2006. The Staten Island Ferry would not be a money loser. The reason the Staten Island Ferry is free is because the DOT decided that if commuters in the Bronx, Queens, and Brooklyn, can travel into Manhattan for free, so should Staten Islanders. The Staten Island Ferry is to Staten Island as is the Brooklyn and Manhattan Bridge is to Brooklyn. |
|
|
| (305866) | |
Re: Intermediate Station Fare Payment on SIRT (was:Re: Scrap pecking order with R44-SI) |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Sun Sep 3 13:58:56 2006, in response to Re: Intermediate Station Fare Payment on SIRT (was:Re: Scrap pecking order with R44-SI), posted by Terrapin Station on Sun Sep 3 11:56:49 2006. 1 fare is deducted for said trip.What would be very interesting would be to see what would actually happen on this trip: a) Some random SI local bus. b) The SIR to St George. c) Walk to Battery Pl for the M20. [Does it really charge you an extra fare because it's not the M1, M6, M9, or M15?] d) Somewhere between 31st and 66th Sts, transfer to the M10. [Test if the M10/M20 transfer is still an extra free transfer.] I can see three possible results: 1) It lets you do it all on one fare. 2) It charges you an extra fare on the M20->M10 transfer. [Which I think is most likely.] 3) It charges you an extra fare for riding the M20 instead of one of the four named routes. |
|
|
| (305868) | |
Re: Intermediate Station Fare Payment on SIRT (was:Re: Scrap pecking order with R44-SI) |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Sun Sep 3 14:07:44 2006, in response to Re: Intermediate Station Fare Payment on SIRT (was:Re: Scrap pecking order with R44-SI), posted by Rail Blue on Sun Sep 3 13:58:56 2006. a) Some random SI local bus.b) The SIR to St George. c) Walk to Battery Pl for the M20. [Does it really charge you an extra fare because it's not the M1, M6, M9, or M15?] d) Somewhere between 31st and 66th Sts, transfer to the M10. [Test if the M10/M20 transfer is still an extra free transfer.] I can see three possible results: 1) It lets you do it all on one fare. 2) It charges you an extra fare on the M20->M10 transfer. [Which I think is most likely.] 3) It charges you an extra fare for riding the M20 instead of one of the four named routes. It has to be 2) NYCT no longer cares about the source and origination of a transfer (except from one route to the same route, which is always a new charge). I recently took a bus in the Bronx, took MNRR from Fordham to GCT, and then took a subway from GCT. The entry at GCT was a free transfer. If I can get a free transfer from a Bronx bus to the subway turnstile at GCT, I'm sure I can get a free transfer from the SIRT to any NYCT bus of my choosing. I'm sure that I could even get a ride up to midtown and get on a bus or subway there and still get a free transfer if I had one left. On an intersting side note, a few months ago I rode an M101, got off, did some errands, and then got on an M102, and was charged a new fare. Those are evidently considered the same line even though their routes are not identical. |
|
|
| (305874) | |
Re: Scrap pecking order with R44-SI |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Sep 3 14:20:26 2006, in response to Scrap pecking order with R44-SI, posted by Joe V on Sat Sep 2 15:44:05 2006. Why are you asserting that ANY R44's will be scrapped and replaced by ANY R160's? No mass scrapping of R44's will take place for another 6-7 years. All R32-42's will go first (in what order is anyone's guess). |
|
|
| (305878) | |
Re: Scrap pecking order with R44-SI |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Sep 3 14:24:16 2006, in response to Re: Scrap pecking order with R44-SI, posted by Edwards! on Sat Sep 2 21:50:52 2006. No, the R44's will make it to 2011, at least. 40 years is now the target lifespan of a subway car in the SMS era. |
|
|
| (305880) | |
Re: Intermediate Station Fare Payment on SIRT (was:Re: Scrap pecking order with R44-SI) |
|
|
Posted by ALP44 on Sun Sep 3 14:30:48 2006, in response to Re: Intermediate Station Fare Payment on SIRT (was:Re: Scrap pecking order with R44-SI), posted by AlM on Sun Sep 3 14:07:44 2006. "I recently took a bus in the Bronx, took MNRR from Fordham to GCT, and then took a subway from GCT. The entry at GCT was a free transfer. If I can get a free transfer from a Bronx bus to the subway turnstile at GCT, I'm sure I can get a free transfer from the SIRT to any NYCT bus of my choosing. I'm sure that I could even get a ride up to midtown and get on a bus or subway there and still get a free transfer if I had one left."Correct. That's if you only paid your fare on SIR and not the three-way method from a Staten Island Bus to SIR to any bus or subway station at Whitehall Terminal(including Bowling Green). "On an intersting side note, a few months ago I rode an M101, got off, did some errands, and then got on an M102, and was charged a new fare. Those are evidently considered the same line even though their routes are not identical." Yup. Seen that happen when this guy got a transfer from the M102 and tried to use it on the M101 at 103 St and 3rd. Driver said the transfers are not valid between the M101, 102, and 103. Until then..... ALP 44 |
|
|
| (305881) | |
Re: Intermediate Station Fare Payment on SIRT (was:Re: Scrap pecking order with R44-SI) |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Sun Sep 3 14:40:12 2006, in response to Re: Intermediate Station Fare Payment on SIRT (was:Re: Scrap pecking order with R44-SI), posted by ALP44 on Sun Sep 3 14:30:48 2006. Correct. That's if you only paid your fare on SIR and not the three-way method from a Staten Island Bus to SIR to any bus or subway station at Whitehall Terminal(including Bowling Green).Oh, so the 3-way method really is only good for specific bus routes and subway stations available right at South Ferry? If I've already used an SI bus and SIRT, I can't walk up to the Wall St area and grab a bus or subway there? |
|
|
| (305882) | |
Re: Intermediate Station Fare Payment on SIRT (was:Re: Scrap pecking order with R44-SI) |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Sun Sep 3 14:42:46 2006, in response to Re: Intermediate Station Fare Payment on SIRT (was:Re: Scrap pecking order with R44-SI), posted by AlM on Sun Sep 3 14:07:44 2006. "I can see three possible results:1) It lets you do it all on one fare. 2) It charges you an extra fare on the M20->M10 transfer. [Which I think is most likely.] 3) It charges you an extra fare for riding the M20 instead of one of the four named routes." It has to be 2) NYCT no longer cares about the source and origination of a transfer (except from one route to the same route, which is always a new charge). I suspect it'd be (2), but remember that the M10 and M20 used to be one route and that an extra free transfer between the two was instituted when Metrocard was first introduced. Whether this still exists is another matter - I'd be interested to know if anyone's tested one of these: M10->M20->another bus or subway route M20->M10->another bus or subway route another bus or subway route->M20->M10 another bus or subway route->M10->M20 If I were in NYC, I'd go and test these myself... |
|
|
| (305885) | |
Re: Intermediate Station Fare Payment on SIRT (was:Re: Scrap pecking order with R44-SI) |
|
|
Posted by AMoreira81 on Sun Sep 3 15:34:16 2006, in response to Re: Intermediate Station Fare Payment on SIRT (was:Re: Scrap pecking order with R44-SI), posted by tydev417 on Sun Sep 3 10:38:14 2006. The cars were never in the NYCTA subways in the first place388-399 are NOT original SI Railway cars. The SIR order was 400-435 and 436-466 (even only). You should be glad that extra R44s were diverted to SIR around GOH. If SI residents don't want to pay for the SI Railway, then the MTA could very well hang the prospect over their head of making SI residents pay the standard toll (instead of the SI resident discount) at the Verrazano---with the extra toll money being directed away from B&T and towards transit. The MTA is a TRANSIT agency that simply happens to have a profitable toll division. |
|
|
| (305887) | |
Re: Intermediate Station Fare Payment on SIRT (was:Re: Scrap pecking order with R44-SI) |
|
|
Posted by David of Broadway on Sun Sep 3 15:41:43 2006, in response to Re: Intermediate Station Fare Payment on SIRT (was:Re: Scrap pecking order with R44-SI), posted by R68A - 5200 on Sun Sep 3 13:52:04 2006. (scratches head) How could the ferry not be a money-loser under its current fare structure?The stated justification for removing the fare was that, with the anticipated transfer policy (allowing free transfer from bus to SIR to ferry to subway), almost everybody would end up riding the ferry for free, and the revenue from the few who wouldn't didn't justify the cost of maintaining fare control infrastructure. The more likely (IMO) reason was political, to thank Staten Island for its votes. I am not aware of any bus or train across the East River or Harlem River that doesn't charge a fare. Walking is not practical for most. In addition to capital costs, a ferry requires an operating staff to actually bring the ferry from one terminal to the other. It's hardly comparable to a bridge, which doesn't command nearly the same level of operating cost. Recall that the people who live on Staten Island aren't forced to live there; they choose to live there. There are positive and negative aspects to choosing to live on Staten Island, but one negative aspect to many is the high cost of travel to Manhattan. Rather than hide that cost and make residents of the other boroughs cover it, that cost should be borne by those who are responsible for it, so that they can make a rational decision about where to live. Note, also, that Staten Island has, by far, the highest median household income of the boroughs. So all of these special transportation subsidies to Staten Island residents are effectively a transfer in wealth from the (relatively) poor to the (relatively) wealthy. It's hard to justify the subsidies on efficiency grounds and it's hard to justify the subsidies on equity grounds. On what grounds are they justifiable? |
|
|
| (305890) | |
Re: Intermediate Station Fare Payment on SIRT (was:Re: Scrap pecking order with R44-SI) |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Sun Sep 3 15:58:25 2006, in response to Re: Intermediate Station Fare Payment on SIRT (was:Re: Scrap pecking order with R44-SI), posted by David of Broadway on Sun Sep 3 15:41:43 2006. It's hard to justify the subsidies on efficiency grounds and it's hard to justify the subsidies on equity grounds. On what grounds are they justifiable?I guess you've just proved that life isn't fair. I ride a train to Hartsdale each morning and back to GCT each evening. This train would be making the trip even if it had no passengers, since it has to get back out to WP in the AM and in to GCT in the PM to pick up another horde of conventional commuters. In fact, it often gets delayed by the non-revenue train ahead of it. So I should pay way less than conventional commuters, right? The incremental cost of my trip is almost zero (the train would make the trip a bit quicker if it didn't make all the stops it makes, but that's the only incremental cost). No, I now pay exactly the same. What's more, for my 21 mile ride I pay $180 per month, 55% as much as a Poughkeepsie commuter pays for his 74 mile ride. And he gets an express that makes as few as 4 stops while I can only get a local that makes between 11 and 15 stops. And looking at another comparison, the folks who get onto my train at Melrose and ride with me for 15 of the 21 miles of the trip only pay $55, less than 1/3 of what I pay. So how do I get my fare decreased to an economically correct one? |
|
|
| (305892) | |
Re: Intermediate Station Fare Payment on SIRT (was:Re: Scrap pecking order with R44-SI) |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Sun Sep 3 16:02:10 2006, in response to Re: Intermediate Station Fare Payment on SIRT (was:Re: Scrap pecking order with R44-SI), posted by David of Broadway on Sun Sep 3 15:41:43 2006. Well..they aren't.It was just a bone tossed their way to put an end to all that talk about leaving the City of New York. Plus...with all those discounts for island residents for bridge crossings...they had nothing to cry about. Face it..S.I squashed every single road and transit improvement offered... The Narrows Bridge had to be forced down their throats! |
|
|
| (305894) | |
Re: Scrap pecking order with R44-SI |
|
|
Posted by New Flyer #857 on Sun Sep 3 16:19:46 2006, in response to Re: Scrap pecking order with R44-SI, posted by J trainloco on Sat Sep 2 17:36:46 2006. I don't know if the R46 will last until 2020 (it would be 44 years old, just about 30 years since refurbishing). |
|
|
| (305895) | |
Re: Intermediate Station Fare Payment on SIRT (was:Re: Scrap pecking order with R44-SI) |
|
|
Posted by AMoreira81 on Sun Sep 3 16:26:54 2006, in response to Re: Intermediate Station Fare Payment on SIRT (was:Re: Scrap pecking order with R44-SI), posted by David of Broadway on Sun Sep 3 15:41:43 2006. If SI residents can pay the most, then hit the ones who can pay the most: THE MOTORIST RESIDENT, by ending the discounted toll for them (IIRC, SI residents pay $4.60 toll at the Verrazano instead of $9). The difference, and it would add up SIGNIFICANTLY, would then be redirected to transit (there would also be a litany of fees on motorists, mostly related to parking and tolls, that would be largely to fund the MTA's PUBLIC TRANSPORT divisions, but whose discussion doesn't beloing here).As for the issue of votes: Staten Island residents can vote at the polls against it, but they are also only 1/16 (and THAT is being generous) of the total NYC population, and the MTA (as a toll bridge operator and mass transit operator) could do various things towards motorists who complain about losing the discount from dismissing the complaints as whining to downright ignoring them, as the deck of the other four boros is stacked against them. |
|
|
| (305897) | |
Re: Intermediate Station Fare Payment on SIRT (was:Re: Scrap pecking order with R44-SI) |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Sun Sep 3 16:37:28 2006, in response to Re: Intermediate Station Fare Payment on SIRT (was:Re: Scrap pecking order with R44-SI), posted by AMoreira81 on Sun Sep 3 16:26:54 2006. SI needs subway connection. Develop it into a real boro. |
|
|
| (305900) | |
Re: Intermediate Station Fare Payment on SIRT (was:Re: Scrap pecking order with R44-SI) |
|
|
Posted by TheGreatOne2k6 on Sun Sep 3 16:44:27 2006, in response to Re: Intermediate Station Fare Payment on SIRT (was:Re: Scrap pecking order with R44-SI), posted by AlM on Sun Sep 3 15:58:25 2006. I know how to get your fare decreased PERIOD...DON'T get on MNR in Manhattan(GCT or 125) in the morning, go to Fordham (more trains than Melrose) cuts the fare down. MNR added those peak fares last year and screwed many MNR reverse peak riders (in Manhattan). Too bad the (8) train weren't still running, it would be easier to go to Fordham Plaza without taking a bus. Just take (4) to Fordham Road and get Bx12 or (5) to 3 Av and get Bx15 or Bx55((8) train replacement) or even Bx41. Maybe Bus Rapid Transit will make the trip for Fordham Road easier.... |
|
|
| (305903) | |
Bad Subject Above |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sun Sep 3 16:46:54 2006, in response to Re: Bad Subject above, posted by Broadway Lion on Sun Sep 3 07:58:20 2006. If I tell it to not remember passwords, it will not auto-fill either subject nor password. |
|
|
| (305906) | |
Re: Intermediate Station Fare Payment on SIRT (was:Re: Scrap pecking order with R44-SI) |
|
|
Posted by AMoreira81 on Sun Sep 3 16:52:54 2006, in response to Re: Intermediate Station Fare Payment on SIRT (was:Re: Scrap pecking order with R44-SI), posted by R30A on Sun Sep 3 16:37:28 2006. Staten Island doesn't need a subway. Light rail networks (including one perhaps across the Verrazano Bridge on the upper level), yes, but SI will never become large enough to warrant subways (remember, SI is suburbia that just happens to be located in NYC limits). |
|
|
| (305910) | |
Re: Intermediate Station Fare Payment on SIRT (was:Re: Scrap pecking order with R44-SI) |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Sun Sep 3 17:05:56 2006, in response to Re: Intermediate Station Fare Payment on SIRT (was:Re: Scrap pecking order with R44-SI), posted by AlM on Sun Sep 3 14:40:12 2006. Yep. |
|
|
| (305917) | |
Re: Bad Subject Above |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Sun Sep 3 17:29:40 2006, in response to Bad Subject Above, posted by Joe V on Sun Sep 3 16:46:54 2006. Use Firefox instead. |
|
|
| (305927) | |
Re: Intermediate Station Fare Payment on SIRT (was:Re: Scrap pecking order with R44-SI) |
|
|
Posted by Dan on Sun Sep 3 18:15:39 2006, in response to Re: Intermediate Station Fare Payment on SIRT (was:Re: Scrap pecking order with R44-SI), posted by AMoreira81 on Sun Sep 3 16:26:54 2006. SI Resident Verrazano Bridge E-Z Pass toll is $4.80 (a 46.6% discount). S.I. population in 2000 was 443,728 which is 5.5% (approx 1/18) of the NYC population.No elected official on staten Island demanded the free ferry or the 'free' SIR situation. The NYCDOT didn't want to install metrocard readers at the ferry terminals. The MTA supposedly didn't want to install weatherproof metrocard readers along the SIR. If both 'free' options were to disappear tommorow most Staten Islanders wouldn't give a damn. In fact I'd be in favor of it. I expect the SIR station to get the next generation RFID-type metrocard when it is implemented, same for the SI ferry. The VZB toll discount was fought for by all our elected officials. Staten Island is the only borough that motorists MUST pay a toll to reach another borough. And yes, I knew about the tolls when I moved here. |
|
|
| (305932) | |
Re: Scrap pecking order with R44-SI |
|
|
Posted by R4 Bryn Mawr LCL/R5 Paoli EXP on Sun Sep 3 18:22:48 2006, in response to Re: Scrap pecking order with R44-SI, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Sep 3 14:20:26 2006. Why are you asserting that all R32s-R42s will go first? They haven't even taken the option orders yet - hell, they haven't even begun production delivery yet. Anything can happen. |
|
|
| (305935) | |
Re: Scrap pecking order with R44-SI |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Sun Sep 3 18:23:53 2006, in response to Re: Scrap pecking order with R44-SI, posted by R4 Bryn Mawr LCL/R5 Paoli EXP on Sun Sep 3 18:22:48 2006. Because I believe Train Dude SAID they are going to be around for another 5-6 years at least. |
|
|
| (305936) | |
Re: Intermediate Station Fare Payment on SIRT (was:Re: Scrap pecking order with R44-SI) |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Sun Sep 3 18:26:41 2006, in response to Re: Intermediate Station Fare Payment on SIRT (was:Re: Scrap pecking order with R44-SI), posted by tydev417 on Sun Sep 3 10:16:06 2006. No POP payment, no paper tickets or whatever.. The MTA already has a system-wide Metrocard system so it would only be logical to use that and ridership on the SIR won't make up for the amount of money it would cost to rearrange station platforms, implement MVMs, install turnstiles and booths at some stations.LOL, w00t for reading comprehension. Please read my post again and notice that I included Metrocards. A metrocard based POP system where a smaller TVM allows a metrocard to be swiped and spits out a POP ticket could easily be used. Nowhere did I say SIRT should implement a barrier fare control system with booths and turnstiles, indeed I offered that as a subpar alternative to POP. Onboard fare control would only result in excessively long dwell times. If the MTA wishes to stem the hemorraging of money from SIRT intermediate station trips the only really viable alternative is to implement a POP based fare structure. POP can be implemented without a change in rolling stock, platforms, or even fare medium (metrocard in this case). All that'd be needed would be for the MTA to develop a small, robust, extremely simple TVM which accepts a metrocard, deducts a fare from a PPR card or checks the validity of an unlimited car, and prints out a timestamped ticket for POP. It'd be possible to retain the barrier fare control at St George to reduce peak hour POP enforcement needs by having the printed POP tickets come with a magnetic strip which would encode the time and date in which they were valid. In any event if the MTA wants to reduce the loss they take every time an SI resident rides from any station but St George their only really viable alternative is to use proof of payment. |
|
|
| (305940) | |
Re: Scrap pecking order with R44-SI |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Sun Sep 3 18:37:17 2006, in response to Re: Scrap pecking order with R44-SI, posted by David of Broadway on Sun Sep 3 07:58:57 2006. If you used Metrocards alone how would the fare be collected and how would the validation take place?I realize that for unlimited ride ticket holders this would be no problem, since they paid up to 30 days before and the MTA already has their money. However, if a PPR metrocard user is always going to have to have their ticket swiped by a POP enforcement officer to collect a fare then that's going to end up being an incredible drain on the utility of those officers at which point they might as well just use conductors. I realize you could do something where a small TVM or other component of an MVM encodes the valid until time and date onto the Metrocard which would then be checked by a reader carried by the POP enforcement officer. The interesting thing with that arrangement is that while the platform validator TVM-thing could subtract 2 dollars should somebody attempt to evade the fare the POP enforcement officer could immediately collect say 20 to 50 dollars from a PPR card provided the fare evader had a pay per ride metrocard with that amount of money on it. However, it's unlikely that any fare evader would be walking around with a metrocard with that amount of money on it, and if the validity of a ticket can only be ascertained by an electronic reader then the customer is completely out of luck if they forget when their ride is valid until. I'm afraid I just don't see how a Metrocard POP system using only metrocards can be a viable solution. Care to enlighten me? |
|
|
| (305947) | |
Re: Intermediate Station Fare Payment on SIRT (was:Re: Scrap pecking order with R44-SI) |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Sun Sep 3 19:04:17 2006, in response to Re: Intermediate Station Fare Payment on SIRT (was:Re: Scrap pecking order with R44-SI), posted by AMoreira81 on Sun Sep 3 16:52:54 2006. If you build it, they will come. If you build a subway to ANYWHERE(Within reason, that is), the area will develop, and there would be development to create those riders. do you think the upper west side in the 1860s would sustain a line? |
|
|
| (305950) | |
Re: Intermediate Station Fare Payment on SIRT (was:Re: Scrap pecking order with R44-SI) |
|
|
Posted by AMoreira81 on Sun Sep 3 19:10:19 2006, in response to Re: Intermediate Station Fare Payment on SIRT (was:Re: Scrap pecking order with R44-SI), posted by R30A on Sun Sep 3 19:04:17 2006. SI, however, isn't within reason, especially since that borough has no value to this city. |
|
|
| (305951) | |
Re: Intermediate Station Fare Payment on SIRT (was:Re: Scrap pecking order with R44-SI) |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Sun Sep 3 19:11:18 2006, in response to Re: Intermediate Station Fare Payment on SIRT (was:Re: Scrap pecking order with R44-SI), posted by AMoreira81 on Sun Sep 3 19:10:19 2006. How is it not within reason?I would say it most certainly is. |
|
|
| (305953) | |
Re: Intermediate Station Fare Payment on SIRT (was:Re: Scrap pecking order with R44-SI) |
|
|
Posted by AMoreira81 on Sun Sep 3 19:22:25 2006, in response to Re: Intermediate Station Fare Payment on SIRT (was:Re: Scrap pecking order with R44-SI), posted by R30A on Sun Sep 3 19:11:18 2006. However, SI is a place that this city could do without. |
|
|
| (305959) | |
Re: Scrap pecking order with R44-SI |
|
|
Posted by R4 Bryn Mawr LCL/R5 Paoli EXP on Sun Sep 3 19:48:46 2006, in response to Re: Scrap pecking order with R44-SI, posted by Terrapin Station on Sun Sep 3 18:23:53 2006. And? That doesn't mean they won't be replaced by R160s, and it doesn't mean that all R32-R42 will be replaced before the R44s. |
|
|
| (305963) | |
Re: Scrap pecking order with R44-SI |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Sun Sep 3 19:58:38 2006, in response to Re: Scrap pecking order with R44-SI, posted by R4 Bryn Mawr LCL/R5 Paoli EXP on Sun Sep 3 19:48:46 2006. I think it was implied that they would be the last the be replaced by the R-160's. I could be wrong though. |
|
|
| (305978) | |
Re: Intermediate Station Fare Payment on SIRT (was:Re: Scrap pecking order with R44-SI) |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Sun Sep 3 20:21:36 2006, in response to Re: Intermediate Station Fare Payment on SIRT (was:Re: Scrap pecking order with R44-SI), posted by AMoreira81 on Sun Sep 3 19:22:25 2006. So is queens. hell... So is manhattan. Brooklyn as a city would work out.However, none of this means the city would be better off. |
|
|
| (306016) | |
Re: Intermediate Station Fare Payment on SIRT (was:Re: Scrap pecking order with R44-SI) |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Sun Sep 3 21:05:23 2006, in response to Re: Intermediate Station Fare Payment on SIRT (was:Re: Scrap pecking order with R44-SI), posted by WillD on Sun Sep 3 18:26:41 2006.   If the MTA wishes to stem the hemorraging of money from SIRT intermediate station trips Why do you assume that they are hemorraging money. Because you assume that someone wishing to use SIR locally has both a point of origin and a destination within walking distance of a station. But this is probly not so. So at one end of the trip or the other they will have to ride on (Heaven Forfend) a bus. So there would be a free transfer in any case. So why not assume with the MTA that the fare was collected on the bus, and that they all made a free transfer to the train. Now if they need a second bus while still on SI, They will undoubtedly have to swipe again on that bus. Given the issue of transfers, the use of SIR by intermediate passengers not having already paid their fare somewhere is negligable. |
|
|
| (306027) | |
Re: Scrap pecking order with R44-SI |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Sun Sep 3 21:19:06 2006, in response to Re: Scrap pecking order with R44-SI, posted by New Flyer #857 on Sun Sep 3 16:19:46 2006. That's why I said before 2020. |
|
|
| (306033) | |
Re: Intermediate Station Fare Payment on SIRT (was:Re: Scrap pecking order with R44-SI) |
|
|
Posted by tydev417 on Sun Sep 3 21:23:03 2006, in response to Re: Intermediate Station Fare Payment on SIRT (was:Re: Scrap pecking order with R44-SI), posted by Dan on Sun Sep 3 18:15:39 2006. No elected official on staten Island demanded the free ferry or the 'free' SIR situation. The NYCDOT didn't want to install metrocard readers at the ferry terminals. The MTA supposedly didn't want to install weatherproof metrocard readers along the SIR. If both 'free' options were to disappear tommorow most Staten Islanders wouldn't give a damn. In fact I'd be in favor of it. I expect the SIR station to get the next generation RFID-type metrocard when it is implemented, same for the SI ferry.IAWTP, I live on the North Shore where buses are dominant and I could really give a rats ass if they put a fare on the SIR, it's just the fact that most people complaining about these concessions are currently living outside the borough and only visualize it as an unjustified act by the MTA and city when it's just a matter of ridership and money. And just tell some of you, I would prefer if you stop assuming that everybody who rides the SIR takes a bus beforehand. Some do actually walk or drive to the SIR where they take a bus/subway in the city afterwards which would be no different than your average transfer. |
|
|
| (306034) | |
Re: Scrap pecking order with R44-SI |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Sun Sep 3 21:23:05 2006, in response to Re: Scrap pecking order with R44-SI, posted by WillD on Sun Sep 3 18:37:17 2006. Screw a MetroCard POP system. Install turnstiles, and make them pay just like the rest of us do. |
|
|
| (306035) | |
Re: Scrap pecking order with R44-SI |
|
|
Posted by tydev417 on Sun Sep 3 21:25:07 2006, in response to Re: Scrap pecking order with R44-SI, posted by J trainloco on Sun Sep 3 21:23:05 2006. That's what I would prefer too had the fact not been there that stations would need to be rearranged, staircases closed, and the ridership would not make up for the system-wide installation. |
|
|
| (306041) | |
Re: Intermediate Station Fare Payment on SIRT (was:Re: Scrap pecking order with R44-SI) |
|
|
Posted by tydev417 on Sun Sep 3 21:35:18 2006, in response to Re: Intermediate Station Fare Payment on SIRT (was:Re: Scrap pecking order with R44-SI), posted by R30A on Sun Sep 3 16:37:28 2006. I would actually prefer not to unless it is a connection from New Jersey like a PATH, NJT or HBLR extension. Staten Island was the fastest growing county in NY State from 1990 to 2000 and it would be better for Staten Island to keep it from developing further to the point where it becomes an extension of Brooklyn. |
|
|
| (306044) | |
Re: Intermediate Station Fare Payment on SIRT (was:Re: Scrap pecking order with R44-SI) |
|
|
Posted by tydev417 on Sun Sep 3 21:37:27 2006, in response to Re: Intermediate Station Fare Payment on SIRT (was:Re: Scrap pecking order with R44-SI), posted by AMoreira81 on Sun Sep 3 19:10:19 2006. So much anger against Staten Island... Why so? Staten Island is one of the 5 boroughs and always will be.
|
|
|
| (306053) | |
Re: Intermediate Station Fare Payment on SIRT (was:Re: Scrap pecking order with R44-SI) |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Sun Sep 3 21:43:18 2006, in response to Re: Intermediate Station Fare Payment on SIRT (was:Re: Scrap pecking order with R44-SI), posted by tydev417 on Sun Sep 3 21:37:27 2006. Because SI whines and complains about it's misfortunes in the big scheme of things, when in reality, they should shut up and be happy.Like the people complaining that while The Rest of NY"C gets new cars, they are stuck with the 'old' trains. Idiots. |
|
|
| (306060) | |
Re: Intermediate Station Fare Payment on SIRT (was:Re: Scrap pecking order with R44-SI) |
|
|
Posted by tydev417 on Sun Sep 3 21:51:40 2006, in response to Re: Intermediate Station Fare Payment on SIRT (was:Re: Scrap pecking order with R44-SI), posted by J trainloco on Sun Sep 3 21:43:18 2006. Like the people complaining that while The Rest of NY"C gets new cars, they are stuck with the 'old' trains. Idiots.No they're actually right in a way, the NYC Subways has received 5 new fleets since the arrivals of the R44s between then and now (R46, R62, R68, R142, R143, R160). Because SI whines and complains about it's misfortunes in the big scheme of things, when in reality, they should shut up and be happy. In that case, all the rest of the boroughs should shut up and be happy too. All the rest of the boroughs whine and complain as well but Staten Islanders are always looked at different when they come to a problem. |
|
|
| (306063) | |
Re: Intermediate Station Fare Payment on SIRT (was:Re: Scrap pecking order with R44-SI) |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Sun Sep 3 21:56:22 2006, in response to Re: Intermediate Station Fare Payment on SIRT (was:Re: Scrap pecking order with R44-SI), posted by tydev417 on Sun Sep 3 21:51:40 2006. No they're actually right in a way, the NYC Subways has received 5 new fleets since the arrivals of the R44s between then and now (R46, R62, R68, R142, R143, R160).That is completely and utterly foolish, and you saying it makes you just as bad as them. In that case, all the rest of the boroughs should shut up and be happy too. All the rest of the boroughs whine and complain as well but Staten Islanders are always looked at different when they come to a problem. No. While other boroughs have far greater problems, SI manages to whine about it's small, inconsequential ones. They should have become their own seperate municipality so I wouldn't have to put up with their foolishness. |
|
|
| (306073) | |
Re: Intermediate Station Fare Payment on SIRT (was:Re: Scrap pecking order with R44-SI) |
|
|
Posted by tydev417 on Sun Sep 3 22:12:14 2006, in response to Re: Intermediate Station Fare Payment on SIRT (was:Re: Scrap pecking order with R44-SI), posted by J trainloco on Sun Sep 3 21:56:22 2006. That is completely and utterly foolish, and you saying it makes you just as bad as them.And how so? I was positioning my point through the minds of the "whiners and complainers", who may have seen the arrival of the R143s and R160s through news broadcasts and articles and may have wondered why the SIR hasn't received a new fleet in over 33 years. No. While other boroughs have far greater problems, SI manages to whine about it's small, inconsequential ones. They should have become their own seperate municipality so I wouldn't have to put up with their foolishness. I refuse to respond to such thoughtless remarks. |
|
|
| (306076) | |
Re: Intermediate Station Fare Payment on SIRT (was:Re: Scrap pecking order with R44-SI) |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Sun Sep 3 22:15:41 2006, in response to Re: Intermediate Station Fare Payment on SIRT (was:Re: Scrap pecking order with R44-SI), posted by tydev417 on Sun Sep 3 22:12:14 2006. And how so? I was positioning my point through the minds of the "whiners and complainers", who may have seen the arrival of the R143s and R160s through news broadcasts and articles and may have wondered why the SIR hasn't received a new fleet in over 33 years.Because, their fleet is 33 years old, and not up for replacement. Those of us who PAY for our trains are riding older cars. I refuse to respond to such thoughtless remarks. Because there's no response. I'm right. |
|
|
| (306080) | |
Re: Intermediate Station Fare Payment on SIRT (was:Re: Scrap pecking order with R44-SI) |
|
|
Posted by tydev417 on Sun Sep 3 22:18:34 2006, in response to Re: Intermediate Station Fare Payment on SIRT (was:Re: Scrap pecking order with R44-SI), posted by tydev417 on Sun Sep 3 22:12:14 2006. That is completely and utterly foolish, and you saying it makes you just as bad as them.And how so? I was positioning my point through the minds of the "whiners and complainers", who may have seen the arrival of the R143s and R160s through news broadcasts and articles and may have wondered why the SIR hasn't received a new fleet in over 33 years. Both the LIRR and MNRR as well as NJT, PATH, and the NY Subways have all recieved new fleets from the arrival of the R44s to current time and the Staten Island Railroad has only had R44s within it's fleet* from 1971 which was the year the SIR began. (*minus the time it took for the R44s to arrive and replace the B&O MU-1s) No. While other boroughs have far greater problems, SI manages to whine about it's small, inconsequential ones. They should have become their own seperate municipality so I wouldn't have to put up with their foolishness. I refuse to respond to such thoughtless remarks. |
|
|
| (306085) | |
Re: Intermediate Station Fare Payment on SIRT (was:Re: Scrap pecking order with R44-SI) |
|
|
Posted by tydev417 on Sun Sep 3 22:23:25 2006, in response to Re: Intermediate Station Fare Payment on SIRT (was:Re: Scrap pecking order with R44-SI), posted by J trainloco on Sun Sep 3 22:15:41 2006. Because, their fleet is 33 years old, and not up for replacement. Those of us who PAY for our trains are riding older cars.We are PAYING for our trains at St. George, the station with the highest ridership on the line. No. While other boroughs have far greater problems, SI manages to whine about it's small, inconsequential ones. They should have become their own seperate municipality so I wouldn't have to put up with their foolishness. No, they were actually thoughtless remarks made by you. Staten Island should become it's own municipality because they complain just like every single borough does at one time or another? |
|
|
|
Page 2 of 4 |
||
