|
|
| Re: Lawmakers: southern Queens commuters need a new railway more than the QueensWay (1139360) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 2 of 3 |
||
|
| (1140164) | |
Re: Lawmakers: southern Queens commuters need a new railway more than the QueensWay |
|
|
Posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Fri Feb 17 10:49:48 2012, in response to Re: Lawmakers: southern Queens commuters need a new railway more than the QueensWay, posted by R 36 ML 9542 on Tue Feb 14 01:39:02 2012. Amen, brother! Their influence is not as strong as it used to be anyway. But that doesn't guarantee they won't get their (Queens)way. Those of us who want the Rockaway Line back as a rail service will have to work hard to get it. Just because a giant international corporation who wants to expand casino gambling at Aqueduct and stated they are intested in paying for additional subway service there, doesn't guarantee they will pony up large sums of money to bring the Rockaway Line back from the dead. Not unless they're convinced there will be something big for them to gain. |
|
|
| (1140167) | |
Re: Lawmakers: southern Queens commuters need a new railway more than the QueensWay |
|
|
Posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Fri Feb 17 11:03:59 2012, in response to Re: Lawmakers: southern Queens commuters need a new railway more than the QueensWay, posted by Edwards! on Tue Feb 14 01:30:23 2012. Right you are. Crawford and CB9 are essentially using this Queensway concept as a way to mask their hostility towards rail transit on the Rockaway Line. By proposing this bikeway, they are trying to make it sound like they are doing something that will.benefit the local community. But in reality, all it will do is benefit themselves and others who have a vested interest in keeping things exactly the same as they have been for 50 years (such as the property owners whose property is illegally encroaching on the r.o.w.). And it condemns a growing number of commuters into being stuck with the same transit infrastructure that has been there for 50 years with no chance of ever having faster or better commuting options. |
|
|
| (1140195) | |
Re: Queens Boulevard-Rockaway Line |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Fri Feb 17 14:11:49 2012, in response to Re: Queens Boulevard-Rockaway Line, posted by Wallyhorse on Fri Feb 17 10:03:24 2012. Agreed, but the only reason that J trains were changes was due to their having been through routed to the Southern Div (as QJs) in 1967. When Ja and M service was swapped, M service then became S/B towards Stl but the J was not changed back. Since the M is now N/B towards Ctl and there is no longer any through routing between the Eastern and Southern Divisions, the J should now be redesignated back to N/B towards Manh and S/B towards Jamaica and this would also be consistent with the track numbering. |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (1140203) | |
Re: Lawmakers: southern Queens commuters need a new railway more than the QueensWay |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Fri Feb 17 14:30:54 2012, in response to Re: Lawmakers: southern Queens commuters need a new railway more than the QueensWay, posted by randyo on Tue Feb 14 14:57:06 2012. That's the problem:They don't realize there is HUGE difference between this and what Moses did 50-60 years ago. This would simply be re-activating a rail line for subway service that is still in place. |
|
|
| (1140213) | |
Re: Lawmakers: southern Queens commuters need a new railway more than the QueensWay |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Fri Feb 17 15:11:09 2012, in response to Re: Lawmakers: southern Queens commuters need a new railway more than the QueensWay, posted by Wallyhorse on Fri Feb 17 14:30:54 2012. That is why Thomas Jefferson in his writings advocated an INTELLIGENT electorate. |
|
|
| (1140214) | |
Re: Queens Boulevard-Rockaway Line |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Fri Feb 17 15:13:45 2012, in response to Re: Queens Boulevard-Rockaway Line, posted by Wallyhorse on Fri Feb 17 10:06:27 2012. With the impending routing of the Q via the SAS in the pseudo near future, the W will need to be resurrected to provide Astoria service so it wouldn't be available for Qns Blvd service. |
|
|
| (1140215) | |
Re: Lawmakers: southern Queens commuters need a new railway more than the QueensWay |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Fri Feb 17 15:16:26 2012, in response to Re: Lawmakers: southern Queens commuters need a new railway more than the QueensWay, posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Fri Feb 17 10:49:48 2012. I think that if KNOWLEDGEABLE MTA planners can demonstrate that a true Rockaway super exp service via Fulton St is not practicable, Genting will have to agree to the additional expenditure if it hopes to get anything additional at all. |
|
|
| (1140237) | |
Re: Lawmakers: southern Queens commuters need a new railway more than the QueensWay |
|
|
Posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Fri Feb 17 17:11:35 2012, in response to Re: Lawmakers: southern Queens commuters need a new railway more than the QueensWay, posted by randyo on Fri Feb 17 15:16:26 2012. Perhaps Genting executives are visiting Subchat. Have a look at this little nugget on Resorts World's website.http://www.rwnewyork.com/about-resorts-world/news-articles/92-long-island-rail-road-should-reactivate-the-northern-section-of-its-old-roackawaybranch-advocates |
|
|
| (1140241) | |
Re: Lawmakers: southern Queens commuters need a new railway more than the QueensWay |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Fri Feb 17 17:23:08 2012, in response to Re: Lawmakers: southern Queens commuters need a new railway more than the QueensWay, posted by randyo on Fri Feb 17 15:11:09 2012. This is a matter of selfishness and narcissism, not intelligence.Queens NIMBY's and political leaders of their time like Donald Manus and Geraldine Ferraro got the Jamaica el prematurely torn down (which damned near got the whole thing to be abandoned back to Crescent Street), and prevented any productive use of the Lower Montauk, then other trouble-makers got tearing out of the busier mezzanine of the 2 at Elderts Lane, Forest Pkwy, and 102nd Street stations. Do not under-estimate their success in keeping any sort of train off the Rockaway line, or any other destruction. Ozone Park wants it, but Woodhaven, Richmond Hill, Parkside section of Forest Hills, and Rego Park do not. |
|
|
| (1140243) | |
Re: Lawmakers: southern Queens commuters need a new railway more than the QueensWay |
|
|
Posted by Avid Reader on Fri Feb 17 17:36:23 2012, in response to Re: Lawmakers: southern Queens commuters need a new railway more than the QueensWay, posted by Joe V on Fri Feb 17 17:23:08 2012. Not all of the residents feel against the Rockaway Line.I would say, just the back yard squatters who think they OWN the ROW footage they invaded. Most locals would be pleased with a closer one seat ride to Manhattan. |
|
|
| (1140245) | |
Re: Lawmakers: southern Queens commuters need a new railway more than the QueensWay |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Fri Feb 17 17:39:16 2012, in response to Re: Lawmakers: southern Queens commuters need a new railway more than the QueensWay, posted by Avid Reader on Fri Feb 17 17:36:23 2012. Not to mention, as I said in previous posts, with a strong money corporation behind it with the blessing of the governor, the NIMBYs won't stand chance. |
|
|
| (1140248) | |
Re: Lawmakers: southern Queens commuters need a new railway more than the QueensWay |
|
|
Posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Fri Feb 17 18:00:44 2012, in response to Re: Lawmakers: southern Queens commuters need a new railway more than the QueensWay, posted by randyo on Tue Feb 14 14:53:42 2012. 1/3rd the 67th ave customers can walk to either it or 63rd drive, another 1/3rd can walk to it or 71st (and those probably do choose 71st). The middle bunch for which 67th ave is the only option would be the only ones to suffer reduced frequency, but they'll still be guaranteed a fresh empty train, so I'm sure they'll adjust. |
|
|
| (1140249) | |
Re: Lawmakers: southern Queens commuters need a new railway more than the QueensWay |
|
|
Posted by RockParkMan on Fri Feb 17 18:09:14 2012, in response to Re: Lawmakers: southern Queens commuters need a new railway more than the QueensWay, posted by Edwards! on Tue Feb 14 02:30:29 2012. stick to buses. |
|
|
| (1140250) | |
Re: Lawmakers: southern Queens commuters need a new railway more than the QueensWay |
|
|
Posted by RockParkMan on Fri Feb 17 18:10:11 2012, in response to Re: Lawmakers: southern Queens commuters need a new railway more than the QueensWay, posted by italianstallion on Mon Feb 13 23:45:41 2012. no republican could EVER be a railfan. |
|
|
| (1140254) | |
Re: Queens Boulevard-Rockaway Line |
|
|
Posted by Dyre Dan on Fri Feb 17 18:28:26 2012, in response to Re: Queens Boulevard-Rockaway Line, posted by randyo on Fri Feb 17 15:13:45 2012. Yeah. The M could actually serve as the Rockaway Branch train, considering only one local station on Queens Blvd. (67th Ave.) would lose service if that were done. The M could then run 24/7 to provide service to the Casino and Convention Center, in the process restoring 24/7 service from 6th Ave. to 53rd St. |
|
|
| (1140264) | |
Re: Queens Boulevard-Rockaway Line |
|
|
Posted by Elkeeper on Fri Feb 17 19:17:31 2012, in response to Re: Queens Boulevard-Rockaway Line, posted by Dyre Dan on Fri Feb 17 18:28:26 2012. Nobody, except a few souls here, want local service between Aqueduct and Manhattan. No one will ride the route because it will take too long as a single seat ride. Probably quicker to ride one of those tin can express buses out of lower Manhattan! |
|
|
| (1140340) | |
Re: Queens Boulevard-Rockaway Line |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Sat Feb 18 05:01:30 2012, in response to Re: Queens Boulevard-Rockaway Line, posted by Elkeeper on Fri Feb 17 19:17:31 2012. That may very well be the case, but there is no way that any sort of super exp service can be operated given the existing constraints of the Fulton St Line either. |
|
|
| (1140343) | |
Re: Queens Boulevard-Rockaway Line |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sat Feb 18 07:42:49 2012, in response to Re: Queens Boulevard-Rockaway Line, posted by randyo on Fri Feb 17 15:13:45 2012. They could instead send the W to Astoria, leave the Q on the express tracks and send via 63rd Street to Queen Blvd. That lessens the switching on Broadway. |
|
|
| (1140347) | |
Re: Queens Boulevard-Rockaway Line |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sat Feb 18 08:25:33 2012, in response to Re: Queens Boulevard-Rockaway Line, posted by Joe V on Sat Feb 18 07:42:49 2012. But then what serves SAS? The Q is supposed to. |
|
|
| (1140348) | |
Re: Queens Boulevard-Rockaway Line |
|
|
Posted by Avid Reader on Sat Feb 18 08:34:01 2012, in response to Re: Queens Boulevard-Rockaway Line, posted by randyo on Sat Feb 18 05:01:30 2012. Any Super Express is only as fast as the train in front of it.Limited stops or not. |
|
|
| (1140350) | |
Re: Lawmakers: southern Queens commuters need a new railway more than the QueensWay |
|
|
Posted by Avid Reader on Sat Feb 18 09:09:09 2012, in response to Re: Lawmakers: southern Queens commuters need a new railway more than the QueensWay, posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Fri Feb 17 18:00:44 2012. Just supposing the line is resurrected, where would the first station south of Queens Blvd. be?Would the line run to a station at Fleet St., Yellowstone Blvd., or Metropolitan Ave.? Would there be a service for the local population? |
|
|
| (1140351) | |
Re: Queens Boulevard-Rockaway Line |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Sat Feb 18 09:21:20 2012, in response to Re: Queens Boulevard-Rockaway Line, posted by randyo on Fri Feb 17 15:13:45 2012. As previously noted, how I would handle that:(Q) runs as planned to 96th-2nd (later 125th-Lex) (D) and (R) swap Brooklyn trunk lines with both lines now 24/7 locals on 4th Avenue (there is nothing that precludes the (D) running to 95th since it has Concourse yard). (R) goes back to being a 24/7 line to Astoria from Coney Island (with the (R) using Coney Island Yard instead of Jamaica Yard). (N) continues to run to Astoria, but as a 16.5/5 line from 5:30 AM-10:00 PM Monday through Friday. Other times, the (N) runs with the (Q) on the SAS to bolster SAS service (terminating with the (Q) on the SAS as well). When needed, the (N) can be shifted back to Astoria outside of scheduled hours. (W) replaces the (R) along Queens Boulevard and connects to the Rockaway Branch at 63rd-Rego Park, running from Whitehall to Rockaway Park (with Rockaway Yard its home base), with some rush-hour put-ins/drop-outs at Canal Street. (G) goes back to running to 71st-Continental 24/7 and along with the (M) are both extended to 179th Street during rush hours, when the (F) would run its full QB route as an express and not switch to the local track. The (W) being the Rockaway line from Queens Boulevard to me is the best option if this connection does happen with the (R) being back to being full-time to Astoria and the (N) going to Astoria on weekdays and with the (Q) nights and weekends. |
|
|
| (1140352) | |
Re: Lawmakers: southern Queens commuters need a new railway more than the QueensWay |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Sat Feb 18 09:35:39 2012, in response to Re: Lawmakers: southern Queens commuters need a new railway more than the QueensWay, posted by randyo on Fri Feb 17 17:39:16 2012. Absolutely: |
|
|
| (1140355) | |
Re: Lawmakers: southern Queens commuters need a new railway more than the QueensWay |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Sat Feb 18 10:29:02 2012, in response to Re: Lawmakers: southern Queens commuters need a new railway more than the QueensWay, posted by RockParkMan on Fri Feb 17 18:10:11 2012. LION is a Republican.LION is a Railfan. RPM is all wet. ROAR |
|
|
| (1140359) | |
Re: Queens Boulevard-Rockaway Line |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sat Feb 18 11:05:31 2012, in response to Re: Queens Boulevard-Rockaway Line, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sat Feb 18 08:25:33 2012. Who cares what is "supposed to".A renewed W makes more operational sense for SAS. |
|
|
| (1140360) | |
Re: Queens Boulevard-Rockaway Line |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sat Feb 18 11:07:14 2012, in response to Re: Queens Boulevard-Rockaway Line, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sat Feb 18 08:25:33 2012. I admit there are multiple agendas.The MTA doesn't recognize the Rockaway Line (yet), but could be dragged into it kicking and screaming as with the #7 extension. |
|
|
| (1140362) | |
Re: Lawmakers: southern Queens commuters need a new railway more than the QueensWay |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sat Feb 18 11:17:39 2012, in response to Re: Lawmakers: southern Queens commuters need a new railway more than the QueensWay, posted by Wallyhorse on Sat Feb 18 09:35:39 2012. Concerning the part about "An electric rail line would reduce pollution by attracting people to mass transit", the article should have mentioned the Ltd stop ex-Triboro Coach route on Woodhaven Blvd, initiated as a replacement for the Rockaway Beach line, should go bye-bye.You take the Q11 and get on at Parkside, rather than up to Woodhaven Blvd/Slattery Plaza station. Further east along Metro Ave, I suspect people in that neighborhood would split between Parkside, and sweating out the meandering Q23 around private streets to Continental Ave. |
|
|
| (1140363) | |
Re: Lawmakers: southern Queens commuters need a new railway more than the QueensWay |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sat Feb 18 11:19:30 2012, in response to Re: Lawmakers: southern Queens commuters need a new railway more than the QueensWay, posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Fri Feb 17 17:11:35 2012. MTA planners are likely too and saying "Oh shit". |
|
|
| (1140365) | |
Re: Lawmakers: southern Queens commuters need a new railway more than the QueensWay |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sat Feb 18 11:24:32 2012, in response to Re: Lawmakers: southern Queens commuters need a new railway more than the QueensWay, posted by Avid Reader on Sat Feb 18 09:09:09 2012. I think it far too early to predict.I see nothing wrong with the traditional LIRR stops, though "Brooklyn Manor" is hard to justify given what the idiots did with the 102nd Street el mezzanine, and is only 0.6 miles to Woodhaven upper level. Which brings to mind, does Woodhaven lower come back ? Do we rebuild a connecting ramp betwen the 2 lines, if not for service, then equipment deliveries that could bypass FRA regs ? |
|
|
| (1140382) | |
Re: Lawmakers: southern Queens commuters need a new railway more than the QueensWay |
|
|
Posted by Q Brightliner Harry on Sat Feb 18 12:52:01 2012, in response to Re: Lawmakers: southern Queens commuters need a new railway more than the QueensWay, posted by Edwards! on Tue Feb 14 02:32:03 2012. Agreed. There is no need to complicate matters on Broadway, and even further by adding all of those services he proposes, services which would be expensive to reintroduce and of questionable justification. The M could provide the Rockaway service and ease the pressure on fumigating trains at Continental Av., as there would only be the R.But I'd have to disagree with you about the Broadway Line right now. It does not work well with the merges north of Canal and north of 34th St. Opening of a terminal on 2nd Av. could help by forcing back the Astoria to lower Manhattan train. My solution would be to have the N run via tunnel and local through Manhattan to Astoria. |
|
|
| (1140407) | |
Re: Lawmakers: southern Queens commuters need a new railway more than the QueensWay |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sat Feb 18 14:26:33 2012, in response to Re: Lawmakers: southern Queens commuters need a new railway more than the QueensWay, posted by Q Brightliner Harry on Sat Feb 18 12:52:01 2012. M is probably better than the R since I don't think there would be need for 600' trains, whether it run just to Aqueduct, or is thru-routed with the "H" shuttle. It would give southern Queens a 6th Avenue service for the 1st time. |
|
|
| (1140438) | |
Re: Lawmakers: southern Queens commuters need a new railway more than the QueensWay |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Sat Feb 18 15:24:35 2012, in response to Re: Lawmakers: southern Queens commuters need a new railway more than the QueensWay, posted by Q Brightliner Harry on Sat Feb 18 12:52:01 2012. Since the Sea Beach (N) was traditionally an express service from its inception, I would keep the N as the 4 Av/Bway exp and run the Q through the tunnel 24/7 as the Brighton Lcl to Astoria the way it did prior to 1967. |
|
|
| (1140439) | |
Re: Lawmakers: southern Queens commuters need a new railway more than the QueensWay |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Sat Feb 18 15:26:42 2012, in response to Re: Lawmakers: southern Queens commuters need a new railway more than the QueensWay, posted by Joe V on Sat Feb 18 11:24:32 2012. The 102 St mezzanine can always be restored if the Bkln Manor or similar station is reopened. |
|
|
| (1140440) | |
Re: Queens Boulevard-Rockaway Line |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Sat Feb 18 15:27:12 2012, in response to Re: Queens Boulevard-Rockaway Line, posted by Avid Reader on Sat Feb 18 08:34:01 2012. My point exactly. |
|
|
| (1140442) | |
Re: Queens Boulevard-Rockaway Line |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Sat Feb 18 15:30:11 2012, in response to Re: Queens Boulevard-Rockaway Line, posted by Joe V on Sat Feb 18 11:05:31 2012. But since you recommended the W to Astoria, how would that help the SAS. Unfortunately, although tunnel infrastructure exists for it, the Bway lcl tracks were not connected to 63 St so without complicated switching moves at 57/7, SAS/Bway service is restricted to the express. |
|
|
| (1140443) | |
Re: Lawmakers: southern Queens commuters need a new railway more than the QueensWay |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Sat Feb 18 15:31:11 2012, in response to Re: Lawmakers: southern Queens commuters need a new railway more than the QueensWay, posted by Q Brightliner Harry on Sat Feb 18 12:52:01 2012. correct..the Q is the headache at 34th st.it should bypass the 49th st station..let the N/R handle the crowds. also..the N should use the tunnel as well |
|
|
| (1140446) | |
Re: Queens Boulevard-Rockaway Line |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Sat Feb 18 15:35:04 2012, in response to Re: Queens Boulevard-Rockaway Line, posted by Wallyhorse on Sat Feb 18 09:21:20 2012. Remember what I said about route letters. R signifies a 4 Av lcl service to 95 St so a new letter would have to be used for such a service. Furthermore, your plan would eliminate one of the 4 Av express services which would not be a good idea. |
|
|
| (1140447) | |
Re: Queens Boulevard-Rockaway Line |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Sat Feb 18 15:38:54 2012, in response to Re: Queens Boulevard-Rockaway Line, posted by randyo on Sat Feb 18 15:30:11 2012. strange..they could just rebuild the junction north of 57th to connect the local row to the 63rd st line..but why? |
|
|
| (1140449) | |
Re: Queens Boulevard-Rockaway Line |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Sat Feb 18 15:44:57 2012, in response to Re: Queens Boulevard-Rockaway Line, posted by randyo on Sat Feb 18 05:01:30 2012. too many bottlenecks on the Fulton line..hoyt st being the main source of this conflict.a new river tunnel? with connections to the fulton st line..and atlantic branch..? yes. but this will never be built with the present mind set. |
|
|
| (1140452) | |
Re: Queens Boulevard-Rockaway Line |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Sat Feb 18 15:56:12 2012, in response to Re: Queens Boulevard-Rockaway Line, posted by Edwards! on Sat Feb 18 15:38:54 2012. For flexibility! NYCT once had a transit system capable of handling many delays by simply rerouting trains. Now thanks the the so called transit managers imported form transit systems not much more complicated than the Toonerville Trolley many switches are being removed as well as entire tracks in some areas. |
|
|
| (1140470) | |
Re: Queens Boulevard-Rockaway Line |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sat Feb 18 17:12:06 2012, in response to Re: Queens Boulevard-Rockaway Line, posted by randyo on Sat Feb 18 15:56:12 2012. The southbound track the E uses from 50th to 42nd was clearly headed for the express track. The current full time move to the local track is a diverging move. IND design was clear they expected the E to be an 8th Av Express. |
|
|
| (1140480) | |
Re: Lawmakers: southern Queens commuters need a new railway more than the QueensWay |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sat Feb 18 17:25:12 2012, in response to Re: Lawmakers: southern Queens commuters need a new railway more than the QueensWay, posted by randyo on Sat Feb 18 15:24:35 2012. The TA does not want to exercise the switches at Dekalb, so the all the Brighton goes over the Bridge, the 4th Ave Expresses bypass Dekalb. |
|
|
| (1140490) | |
Re: Queens Boulevard-Rockaway Line |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Sat Feb 18 17:39:25 2012, in response to Re: Queens Boulevard-Rockaway Line, posted by randyo on Sat Feb 18 15:35:04 2012. Not entirely since the (N) would still be a 4th Avenue express, and in these changes would actually become a 24/7 express (instead of being a local overnights) line since the (D) and (R) would BOTH be 24/7 local lines.I know what you said on route designations, but everything else has changed over time (the (D) has over the years run over all three elevated lines to CI at one time or another) and this would be no different. It would just take some getting used to for Brooklyn passengers. The main issues on this are the yard issues the (R) would have returning to Astoria and the likelihood if the QB-Rockaway connection happens, it will have to be a line that runs from lower Manhattan (which no 6th Avenue service does, eliminating the (M) from contention) as I suspect if they are paying for it (and they very well be told they will have to, something I've noted before I would be willing to do) they will want such a line serving lower Manhattan and the Financial District, hence the (W) from Whitehall-Rockaway Park being that new line. |
|
|
| (1140492) | |
Re: Lawmakers: southern Queens commuters need a new railway more than the QueensWay |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Sat Feb 18 17:40:45 2012, in response to Re: Lawmakers: southern Queens commuters need a new railway more than the QueensWay, posted by Joe V on Sat Feb 18 11:19:30 2012. Very possibly that is the case!! |
|
|
| (1140494) | |
Re: Queens Boulevard-Rockaway Line |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Sat Feb 18 17:45:32 2012, in response to Re: Queens Boulevard-Rockaway Line, posted by Joe V on Sat Feb 18 11:05:31 2012. Or as I would do it, the (R) is back to being the Astoria Line (swapping Brooklyn branches with the (D) and running to Coney Island) while the (N) also runs to Astoria, but from 5:30 AM -10:00 PM Mon-Fri and other times runs with the (Q) to 96th-2nd (later 125th-Lex) and the (W) runs on QB from Whitehall-Rockaway Park. |
|
|
| (1140508) | |
Re: Queens Boulevard-Rockaway Line |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sat Feb 18 18:54:15 2012, in response to Re: Queens Boulevard-Rockaway Line, posted by Wallyhorse on Sat Feb 18 17:39:25 2012. If the R does 95th Street - Rockaway Park, the line could become Pitkin equipment. |
|
|
| (1140514) | |
Re: Queens Boulevard-Rockaway Line |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Sat Feb 18 19:05:39 2012, in response to Re: Queens Boulevard-Rockaway Line, posted by Joe V on Sat Feb 18 18:54:15 2012. That likely would be the case for the (W) from Whitehall Street-Rockaway Park in my version. |
|
|
| (1140561) | |
Re: New Queens Boulevard-Rockaway Branch |
|
|
Posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Sat Feb 18 22:16:07 2012, in response to Re: New Queens Boulevard-Rockaway Branch, posted by Wallyhorse on Wed Feb 15 03:43:51 2012. Heh... if money grows on trees and we're trying to make everyone's transit needs happy, they could revive plans for the "Queens Super Express" via LIRR but have it diverge at Rego Park (whitepot junction is resurrected as a subway!). A new elevated station there with a metrocard transfer to 63rd drive for people who want local service.Thus the route is serviced via a tunnel with plenty of Manhattan capacity, and Rockaway residents / casino-goers get amazingly fast service to Midtown. The "initial operating segment" could be to connect to the Queens Blvd local but if we set our sights a bit higher the Rockaways could return to being a stone throw away... |
|
|
| (1140569) | |
Re: Lawmakers: southern Queens commuters need a new railway more than the QueensWay |
|
|
Posted by Q Brightliner Harry on Sat Feb 18 23:32:46 2012, in response to Re: Lawmakers: southern Queens commuters need a new railway more than the QueensWay, posted by randyo on Sat Feb 18 15:24:35 2012. The Brighton Line has not had a lower Broadway/tunnel service since 1967. Only oldtimers such as you and myself even remember it. Thus, there really is no longer any tradition. In fact, the N via lower Broadway/tunnel is a more recent service, during the Manhattan Bridge repair, and is the current service overnight. I would make this the 24/7 service pattern for the N.More importantly, most passengers on both the Q and the N want to get to midtown and the Q has more passengers than the N. Ergo, fewer people would be inconvenienced by sending the N via tunnel. The N should be going via tunnel at all times. If the switches/wheel detectors or whatever allow switching from the 4th Av. express tracks to the tunnel tracks before Dekalb, it could remain running express in Brooklyn at the same times it does now. |
|
|
| (1140604) | |
Re: Lawmakers: southern Queens commuters need a new railway more than the QueensWay |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sun Feb 19 07:33:13 2012, in response to Re: Lawmakers: southern Queens commuters need a new railway more than the QueensWay, posted by Q Brightliner Harry on Sat Feb 18 23:32:46 2012. Why was it decided in 1967 to make the West End Line the 6th Avenue service, as opposed to the SeaBeach ? |
|
|
|
Page 2 of 3 |
||
