|
|
| Re: Archer Avenue at 20 (719696) | |||
 |
|||
| Home > SubChat | |||
|
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ] |
|
||
|
Re: Archer Avenue at 20 |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Sat Dec 13 14:35:38 2008, in response to Re: Archer Avenue at 20, posted by aem7ac on Sat Dec 13 13:16:07 2008. 1. Archer Avenue to 168 St. (and beyond)Of course, this was not done in the original case, and so it would come probably two to three score too late for the area at the former Jamaica Av Line terminal. That said, would the expensive subway extension be worth the cost? The LIRR Main Line runs along almost exactly the same alignment. It has stations at Hillside (180-184 Sts or so, since Hillside-Holban Yards break up the grid, massively underused, since it's 12-car platforms for a handful of employees and occasional visitors); re-locate Hollis station to Francis Lewis Blvd; existing Queens Village station at Springfield Blvd. 2. Second Avenue And someday, part of this may be completed, about a century after it was first talked about. Hopefully instead of MTA spending its limited capital funds unwisely, it will choose to focus on this one project, completing it within another century or so, or just before the time when flying cars become affordable to own and maintain. 3. Conversion of LIRR Lower Montauk Branch to the Penn Station/Grand Central trunk line, conversion of the LIRR Main Line to subway. Because LIRR commuters want to take far longer commutes..... Basically, the far cheaper solution is to (1) increase current service such that every bit of track and terminal capacity is used during peak hours (Roberts, Ravitch, Bloomberg, et al, are just lying when they say that we are already there), (2) subsidize LIRR and MNCR within NYC and alter their fare structure and fare collection system while running rapid transit style trainsets (faster acceleration, more doors, layout designed to move passengers on and off in separate streams) on them and build extensions to terminals in New York and Brooklyn to handle them, and (3) focus on building new trunk lines which would have high ridership one at a time. The alternative you have outlined simply wastes money. Given all of the waste that there already is, taxpayers should scoff at any such suggestion. |
|
|
|