<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Paris Officials Push Huge Suburban Transit Investment to Increase Metropolitan Mobility</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2010/01/19/paris-officials-push-huge-suburban-transit-investment-to-increase-metropolitan-mobility/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2010/01/19/paris-officials-push-huge-suburban-transit-investment-to-increase-metropolitan-mobility/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 11 Feb 2012 00:43:11 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Nathanael</title>
		<link>http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2010/01/19/paris-officials-push-huge-suburban-transit-investment-to-increase-metropolitan-mobility/#comment-55987</link>
		<dc:creator>Nathanael</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 01 Aug 2010 23:35:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/?p=5399#comment-55987</guid>
		<description>No, there will be two tracks to the dead-end deep-tunnel Big Dig station for NJT.  Operationally separate from the Amtrak tunnels.  Amtrak has said that NJT&#039;s tunnels are a waste and that they&#039;re going to need two more tunnels to Penn Station  *anyway*.

ARC got seriously messed up due to turf wars.  It was *supposed* to consist of:
- two new tunnels (total of 4) from Penn Station to New Jersey;
- two new tunnels (total of 2) from Penn Station to Grand Central.
- through-running from both LIRR and Metro-North to New Jersey.

Through-running would reduce dwell times massively in *both* Penn and Grand Central, distribute passengers &quot;correctly&quot; and take the load off of the NYC Subway, etc.

This project was diverted into the stupid, over-expensive NJT-only design due to TURF WARS among NJT, LIRR, Metro-North, Amtrak, and goodness knows who else.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>No, there will be two tracks to the dead-end deep-tunnel Big Dig station for NJT.  Operationally separate from the Amtrak tunnels.  Amtrak has said that NJT&#8217;s tunnels are a waste and that they&#8217;re going to need two more tunnels to Penn Station  *anyway*.</p>
<p>ARC got seriously messed up due to turf wars.  It was *supposed* to consist of:<br />
- two new tunnels (total of 4) from Penn Station to New Jersey;<br />
- two new tunnels (total of 2) from Penn Station to Grand Central.<br />
- through-running from both LIRR and Metro-North to New Jersey.</p>
<p>Through-running would reduce dwell times massively in *both* Penn and Grand Central, distribute passengers &#8220;correctly&#8221; and take the load off of the NYC Subway, etc.</p>
<p>This project was diverted into the stupid, over-expensive NJT-only design due to TURF WARS among NJT, LIRR, Metro-North, Amtrak, and goodness knows who else.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Nathanael</title>
		<link>http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2010/01/19/paris-officials-push-huge-suburban-transit-investment-to-increase-metropolitan-mobility/#comment-55986</link>
		<dc:creator>Nathanael</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 01 Aug 2010 23:31:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/?p=5399#comment-55986</guid>
		<description>NJT&#039;s 34th St Station has no reason to be there.

Penn Station is having its passenger flow problems fixed by the construction of &quot;Moynihan Station&quot;.  Train capacity could be fixed trivially by doing run-through operations, although this would require re-electrification of LIRR.  Which should be done anyway.


Of course, the original proposed Penn Station-Grand Central connection would have actually saved operating costs while maximizing ridership *and* getting passengers out of Penn Station.  *And* it was the cheapest to build.

This was rejected out of hand despite being the best alternative according to the studies, apparently because of fear of building the curve between the two stations.  Sheer stupidity.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>NJT&#8217;s 34th St Station has no reason to be there.</p>
<p>Penn Station is having its passenger flow problems fixed by the construction of &#8220;Moynihan Station&#8221;.  Train capacity could be fixed trivially by doing run-through operations, although this would require re-electrification of LIRR.  Which should be done anyway.</p>
<p>Of course, the original proposed Penn Station-Grand Central connection would have actually saved operating costs while maximizing ridership *and* getting passengers out of Penn Station.  *And* it was the cheapest to build.</p>
<p>This was rejected out of hand despite being the best alternative according to the studies, apparently because of fear of building the curve between the two stations.  Sheer stupidity.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Nathanael</title>
		<link>http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2010/01/19/paris-officials-push-huge-suburban-transit-investment-to-increase-metropolitan-mobility/#comment-55985</link>
		<dc:creator>Nathanael</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 01 Aug 2010 23:28:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/?p=5399#comment-55985</guid>
		<description>Remember, back in the 19th century trams were built out *before* starting metros.  Build metros where the demand is so great that you need them; build (exclusive-lane) trams where it isn&#039;t.

Brooklyn, the Bronx, and Queens could use more light rail trams.  New Jersey has two (Newark Light Rail and HBLR).  

In NYC, only Manhattan and Queens actually need more metro lines; Queens because it basically only has two lines which are parallel a couple of blocks apart, and Manhattan because it&#039;s *REALLY* dense.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Remember, back in the 19th century trams were built out *before* starting metros.  Build metros where the demand is so great that you need them; build (exclusive-lane) trams where it isn&#8217;t.</p>
<p>Brooklyn, the Bronx, and Queens could use more light rail trams.  New Jersey has two (Newark Light Rail and HBLR).  </p>
<p>In NYC, only Manhattan and Queens actually need more metro lines; Queens because it basically only has two lines which are parallel a couple of blocks apart, and Manhattan because it&#8217;s *REALLY* dense.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Nathanael</title>
		<link>http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2010/01/19/paris-officials-push-huge-suburban-transit-investment-to-increase-metropolitan-mobility/#comment-55984</link>
		<dc:creator>Nathanael</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 01 Aug 2010 23:24:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/?p=5399#comment-55984</guid>
		<description>Larger by land area, but we were talking population.  The London conurbation still has truly massive population.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Larger by land area, but we were talking population.  The London conurbation still has truly massive population.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Alon Levy</title>
		<link>http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2010/01/19/paris-officials-push-huge-suburban-transit-investment-to-increase-metropolitan-mobility/#comment-25869</link>
		<dc:creator>Alon Levy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 23 Jan 2010 05:47:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/?p=5399#comment-25869</guid>
		<description>The bus/train split is bad enough in itself, and is one of the many reasons bus/train transfers don&#039;t work well in the city; why is NJT trying to repeat it? The old paradigm of people taking trains only to go to a generic downtown is why Greater New York&#039;s transit mode share is so low by any non-US standards.

At Chatelet-Les Halles, more people get on and off than at Penn. The same is true for Penn&#039;s subway stations, whose platforms do not look like flight decks and do not have many stairways. The issue is the total number of boardings and alightings, not the ratio of boardings and alightings to total traffic.

Complex interlockings are not why Penn has long dwells. They create conflicts and reduce capacity, but they do not increase dwells.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The bus/train split is bad enough in itself, and is one of the many reasons bus/train transfers don&#8217;t work well in the city; why is NJT trying to repeat it? The old paradigm of people taking trains only to go to a generic downtown is why Greater New York&#8217;s transit mode share is so low by any non-US standards.</p>
<p>At Chatelet-Les Halles, more people get on and off than at Penn. The same is true for Penn&#8217;s subway stations, whose platforms do not look like flight decks and do not have many stairways. The issue is the total number of boardings and alightings, not the ratio of boardings and alightings to total traffic.</p>
<p>Complex interlockings are not why Penn has long dwells. They create conflicts and reduce capacity, but they do not increase dwells.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Adirondacker12800</title>
		<link>http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2010/01/19/paris-officials-push-huge-suburban-transit-investment-to-increase-metropolitan-mobility/#comment-25754</link>
		<dc:creator>Adirondacker12800</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 22 Jan 2010 19:13:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/?p=5399#comment-25754</guid>
		<description>&lt;em&gt;NJT train ridership can’t double if the system is restricted to one double-track tunnel, as it will be under ARC (unless NJT chooses to maintain two train stations one on top of the other, which is all manners of stupid).&lt;/em&gt;

There will be four tracks. They will be doubling the number of trains by 2030 or 2035. Some of the trains will go to the new platforms and some of the trains will go to the old platforms. 

NJTransit already has three terminals in Manhattan. People don&#039;t to the Port Authority to catch a train and they don&#039;t go to Penn Station to catch a bus. None of them go to either expecting to get on a PATH train. None of them get on trains going to Jamaica. They&#039;ll look at the departure board at the entrance on 35th St and go to the correct track. 


&lt;em&gt;Chatelet-Les Halles maintains short enough dwells for 30 tph on two tracks for RER Line A&lt;/em&gt;

Les Halles has platforms that are reminiscent of aircraft carrier flight decks. Penn Station has platforms that are narrow filled with a forest of girders and have inadequate stairs. When the train arrives in Les Halles most people stay on it. When the train arrives in Penn Station &lt;em&gt;everybody&lt;/em&gt; gets off. The trains into and out of Les Halles - in normal operation - don&#039;t have to negotiate complex interlockings. Penn Station has a bit of interlocking to run over to get to or away from a platform.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><em>NJT train ridership can’t double if the system is restricted to one double-track tunnel, as it will be under ARC (unless NJT chooses to maintain two train stations one on top of the other, which is all manners of stupid).</em></p>
<p>There will be four tracks. They will be doubling the number of trains by 2030 or 2035. Some of the trains will go to the new platforms and some of the trains will go to the old platforms. </p>
<p>NJTransit already has three terminals in Manhattan. People don&#8217;t to the Port Authority to catch a train and they don&#8217;t go to Penn Station to catch a bus. None of them go to either expecting to get on a PATH train. None of them get on trains going to Jamaica. They&#8217;ll look at the departure board at the entrance on 35th St and go to the correct track. </p>
<p><em>Chatelet-Les Halles maintains short enough dwells for 30 tph on two tracks for RER Line A</em></p>
<p>Les Halles has platforms that are reminiscent of aircraft carrier flight decks. Penn Station has platforms that are narrow filled with a forest of girders and have inadequate stairs. When the train arrives in Les Halles most people stay on it. When the train arrives in Penn Station <em>everybody</em> gets off. The trains into and out of Les Halles &#8211; in normal operation &#8211; don&#8217;t have to negotiate complex interlockings. Penn Station has a bit of interlocking to run over to get to or away from a platform.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Alon Levy</title>
		<link>http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2010/01/19/paris-officials-push-huge-suburban-transit-investment-to-increase-metropolitan-mobility/#comment-25700</link>
		<dc:creator>Alon Levy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 22 Jan 2010 10:33:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/?p=5399#comment-25700</guid>
		<description>NJT train ridership can&#039;t double if the system is restricted to one double-track tunnel, as it will be under ARC (unless NJT chooses to maintain two train stations one on top of the other, which is all manners of stupid). The proposal involves handing half the NJ-Midtown capacity to an underused Amtrak.

The pesky passengers aren&#039;t what keeps dwells high. This of all threads should be the last place where you&#039;d ignore the fact that Chatelet-Les Halles maintains short enough dwells for 30 tph on two tracks for RER Line A, despite much higher boardings + alightings than Penn. The problem at Penn is that all trains dead-end there, forcing a time-consuming direction change.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>NJT train ridership can&#8217;t double if the system is restricted to one double-track tunnel, as it will be under ARC (unless NJT chooses to maintain two train stations one on top of the other, which is all manners of stupid). The proposal involves handing half the NJ-Midtown capacity to an underused Amtrak.</p>
<p>The pesky passengers aren&#8217;t what keeps dwells high. This of all threads should be the last place where you&#8217;d ignore the fact that Chatelet-Les Halles maintains short enough dwells for 30 tph on two tracks for RER Line A, despite much higher boardings + alightings than Penn. The problem at Penn is that all trains dead-end there, forcing a time-consuming direction change.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Adirondacker12800</title>
		<link>http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2010/01/19/paris-officials-push-huge-suburban-transit-investment-to-increase-metropolitan-mobility/#comment-25690</link>
		<dc:creator>Adirondacker12800</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 22 Jan 2010 09:16:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/?p=5399#comment-25690</guid>
		<description>&lt;em&gt;The brand new train station has no reason to be there.&lt;/em&gt;

It gets passengers - the reason passenger trains exist - out of the current Penn Station. There will be more passengers once the tunnels open, they are predicting LIRR ridership at Penn Station will remain the same when East Side Access opens and NJTransit train ridership will eventually double. 


&lt;em&gt; If they fed the new tunnel into the existing Penn Station, and through-routed some trains onto Metro-North to reduce dwell times...&lt;/em&gt;

Except for those pesky passengers who will want to get off the train when they are headed to Manhattan and get on the train when they are headed out of Manhattan.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><em>The brand new train station has no reason to be there.</em></p>
<p>It gets passengers &#8211; the reason passenger trains exist &#8211; out of the current Penn Station. There will be more passengers once the tunnels open, they are predicting LIRR ridership at Penn Station will remain the same when East Side Access opens and NJTransit train ridership will eventually double. </p>
<p><em> If they fed the new tunnel into the existing Penn Station, and through-routed some trains onto Metro-North to reduce dwell times&#8230;</em></p>
<p>Except for those pesky passengers who will want to get off the train when they are headed to Manhattan and get on the train when they are headed out of Manhattan.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Alon Levy</title>
		<link>http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2010/01/19/paris-officials-push-huge-suburban-transit-investment-to-increase-metropolitan-mobility/#comment-25647</link>
		<dc:creator>Alon Levy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 22 Jan 2010 00:04:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/?p=5399#comment-25647</guid>
		<description>Paris already has one of the highest rail ridership to population ratios in Europe, together with London and Berlin. Which of the three has the highest, it&#039;s unclear - all three have an about equal split between metro and commuter rail service, and the figures count inter-system transfers twice.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Paris already has one of the highest rail ridership to population ratios in Europe, together with London and Berlin. Which of the three has the highest, it&#8217;s unclear &#8211; all three have an about equal split between metro and commuter rail service, and the figures count inter-system transfers twice.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Minato</title>
		<link>http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2010/01/19/paris-officials-push-huge-suburban-transit-investment-to-increase-metropolitan-mobility/#comment-25643</link>
		<dc:creator>Minato</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 21 Jan 2010 23:45:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/?p=5399#comment-25643</guid>
		<description>If it was true Paris metro area would not have the transportation problem that it has today. 
Paris and London are two cities that need the most investissement for transport in Europe.

London need renovation and reorganisation. 
Paris need renovation and extention.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>If it was true Paris metro area would not have the transportation problem that it has today.<br />
Paris and London are two cities that need the most investissement for transport in Europe.</p>
<p>London need renovation and reorganisation.<br />
Paris need renovation and extention.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

