|
|
| Re: Bushwick (Re: Long Island City...) (1147409) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 11 of 12 |
||
|
| (1149647) | |
Re: Bushwick (Re: Long Island City...) |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Sun Apr 8 17:40:36 2012, in response to Re: Bushwick (Re: Long Island City...), posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Apr 8 12:51:04 2012. Yes, but light rail would mean no freight. An FRA compliant DMU would be great because it would allow freight to continue. Plus, what constitutes 'FRA Compliant' might become less expensive very soon. |
|
|
| (1149651) | |
Re: Glendale Re: Long Island City... |
|
|
Posted by Andrew Saucci on Sun Apr 8 17:59:05 2012, in response to Re: Glendale Re: Long Island City..., posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sat Apr 7 05:39:50 2012. This might be a good place to observe that one reason trains terminate at Long Island City or Hunters Point Avenue is not because passengers want or need them to terminate there; it is probably done for the same reason that some rush hour E trains terminate at 179 Street instead of Jamaica Center. They are needed for other purposes, and they have to terminate somewhere but the capacity is not available in a preferred location. Once Grand Central Terminal is available to the LIRR, that will be a more preferred location for whatever electric trains currently go to Long Island City. Then the only thing remaining are the diesels that can't use the 63 St tunnel. Rest assured that if the diesels were all dual-mode and would fit in the tunnel, Long Island City and Hunters Point Avenue would be history. By the way, I would prefer to see Hunters Point Avenue stay open as I have a client within walking distance of there, but I am sure the railroad would just tell me that I could take the 7/E combination from Jamaica or maybe exit at Sunnyside if that is built and take the 7/E that way. |
|
|
| (1149668) | |
Re: Long Island City... |
|
|
Posted by tunnelrat on Sun Apr 8 19:44:22 2012, in response to Re: Long Island City..., posted by gp38/r42 chris on Sun Apr 8 14:28:34 2012. are we forgetting there were just about no passengers? |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (1149681) | |
Re: Long Island City... |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Apr 8 21:08:59 2012, in response to Re: Long Island City..., posted by tunnelrat on Sun Apr 8 19:44:22 2012. No...not forgetting that. But that's why it was relevant. People perceived it as unsafe, so less people ride. |
|
|
| (1149710) | |
Re: Bushwick (Re: Long Island City...) |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Sun Apr 8 23:45:21 2012, in response to Re: Bushwick (Re: Long Island City...), posted by gp38/r42 chris on Sun Apr 8 13:05:50 2012. Tell me exactly what the issue with running R160s at a grade crossing is? How is it any different at all than running light rail (or commuter rail with 3rd rail?). It doesn't change a thing one iota |
|
|
| (1149711) | |
Re: Bushwick (Re: Long Island City...) |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Sun Apr 8 23:46:20 2012, in response to Re: Bushwick (Re: Long Island City...), posted by gp38/r42 chris on Sun Apr 8 13:13:04 2012. But how does it make a difference whether it's an R160, an M3, or an LRT? What exactly is the difference? |
|
|
| (1149713) | |
Re: Glendale Re: Long Island City... |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Sun Apr 8 23:49:52 2012, in response to Re: Glendale Re: Long Island City..., posted by gp38/r42 chris on Sun Apr 8 13:14:02 2012. But why not keep HPA when that's where more of the office development is going to be? That's like when they closed Union Hall St and now they're like, damn we should've kept that open. It's easier to keep the station open then to close, realize we should've kept it, and then try to reopen it |
|
|
| (1149714) | |
Re: Glendale Re: Long Island City... |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Sun Apr 8 23:51:39 2012, in response to Re: Glendale Re: Long Island City..., posted by gp38/r42 chris on Sun Apr 8 13:16:17 2012. Then time to let the RR be venemous to them. RR was there first, no? I hate it when the RR bends over backwards like a bitch to the people who showed up after the fact |
|
|
| (1149732) | |
Re: Bushwick (Re: Long Island City...) |
|
|
Posted by AEM-7AC #901 on Mon Apr 9 02:14:16 2012, in response to Re: Bushwick (Re: Long Island City...), posted by J trainloco on Sun Apr 8 17:40:36 2012. but light rail would mean no freightNewark Stadtbahn sorta skirts around this at the end of the light rail line in Bloomfield where it meets the Erie Orange Branch. IIRC, there's a waiver in which there's no temporal separation, but the freight either operates mid-days when service is less frequent or overnight. For something like the Bushwick branch, you could probably get away with said levels of service, and with modern signalling systems, it would be safe for the rest of the line... |
|
|
| (1149740) | |
Re: Glendale Re: Long Island City... |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Apr 9 06:42:02 2012, in response to Re: Glendale Re: Long Island City..., posted by NIMBYkiller on Sun Apr 8 23:49:52 2012. When have they felt bad about closing Union Hall St? |
|
|
| (1149741) | |
Re: Bushwick (Re: Long Island City...) |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Apr 9 06:43:06 2012, in response to Re: Bushwick (Re: Long Island City...), posted by NIMBYkiller on Sun Apr 8 23:46:20 2012. Again, if you think they would be sending R160 cars with third rail down a ROW like that with grade crossings, its pure fantasty. Not to mention, the ROW is only one trackway wide for most of it's run. |
|
|
| (1149742) | |
Re: Bushwick (Re: Long Island City...) |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Apr 9 06:44:26 2012, in response to Re: Bushwick (Re: Long Island City...), posted by NIMBYkiller on Sun Apr 8 23:45:21 2012. The Commuter rail lines don't run with grade crossings in a very urban environment like that. The port washington line is the closest you would get, and by the time you hit the first grade crossing it's suburbanish. |
|
|
| (1149743) | |
Re: Bushwick (Re: Long Island City...) |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Apr 9 06:44:49 2012, in response to Re: Bushwick (Re: Long Island City...), posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Apr 9 06:44:26 2012. Not to mention the commuter RR vs subway headways |
|
|
| (1149753) | |
Re: Long Island City... |
|
|
Posted by MainR3664 on Mon Apr 9 08:33:11 2012, in response to Re: Long Island City..., posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Apr 8 21:08:59 2012. MTA lets the facility get worse and worse, so fewer and fewr people use it. Then closure is justified by "low use"- that the MTA itself engineered. |
|
|
| (1149763) | |
Re: Long Island City... |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Apr 9 09:53:49 2012, in response to Re: Long Island City..., posted by MainR3664 on Mon Apr 9 08:33:11 2012. Yeah, it's a self fulfilling prophecy. |
|
|
| (1149788) | |
Re: Long Island City... |
|
|
Posted by Elkeeper on Mon Apr 9 13:06:58 2012, in response to Re: Long Island City..., posted by MainR3664 on Mon Apr 9 08:33:11 2012. Sounds like the 3rd Ave el's fate! |
|
|
| (1149811) | |
Re: Long Island City... |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Apr 9 14:50:31 2012, in response to Re: Long Island City..., posted by Elkeeper on Mon Apr 9 13:06:58 2012. And the Myrtle El.... |
|
|
| (1149828) | |
Re: Bushwick (Re: Long Island City...) |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Mon Apr 9 16:08:23 2012, in response to Re: Bushwick (Re: Long Island City...), posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Apr 9 06:44:49 2012. Okay, but what about your light rail argument? That runs more frequency than commuter rail and you were saying it would be fine for this line. But how is a light rail train blocking the crossing any different than a subway train or a commuter train blocking it? How does it matter what is blocking the crossing? |
|
|
| (1149830) | |
Re: Bushwick (Re: Long Island City...) |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Mon Apr 9 16:09:42 2012, in response to Re: Bushwick (Re: Long Island City...), posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Apr 9 06:43:06 2012. Again you haven't answered the question. How is a subway blocking a crossing fantasy but a light rail train blocking it totally plausible? |
|
|
| (1149833) | |
Re: Long Island City... |
|
|
Posted by ebtmikado on Mon Apr 9 16:23:09 2012, in response to Re: Long Island City..., posted by Olog-hai on Sat Mar 31 18:03:10 2012. Here is the NORAC definition of station: "STATION: A place designated on the station pages of the Timetable by name." |
|
|
| (1149834) | |
Re: Bushwick (Re: Long Island City...) |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Mon Apr 9 16:25:10 2012, in response to Re: Bushwick (Re: Long Island City...), posted by NIMBYkiller on Mon Apr 9 16:09:42 2012. any kind of regular service along Bushwick would be a disaster.it's doable when three or four trains pass the crossing a day. when it's 3+ an hour, you're going to have a lot of problems. |
|
|
| (1149835) | |
Re: Glendale Re: Long Island City... |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Mon Apr 9 16:40:36 2012, in response to Re: Glendale Re: Long Island City..., posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Apr 9 06:42:02 2012. They recently were talking about it |
|
|
| (1149849) | |
Re: Glendale Re: Long Island City... |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Mon Apr 9 17:12:28 2012, in response to Re: Glendale Re: Long Island City..., posted by gp38/r42 chris on Sun Apr 8 12:56:48 2012. Still no budget to run nearly as many trains as they did buses. Now that the Road'n'Rail buses are gone, Hampton Jitney stepped in and ate their lunch, and has been doing so for 30 years.Amtrak runs more buses than trains between Stockton and Sacramento. It is due to budget and equipment availability, not an evil desire to kill trains. |
|
|
| (1149858) | |
Re: Glendale Re: Long Island City... |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Mon Apr 9 17:33:21 2012, in response to Re: Glendale Re: Long Island City..., posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Apr 9 06:42:02 2012. They recently were talking about it |
|
|
| (1149874) | |
Re: Glendale Re: Long Island City... |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Apr 9 18:23:39 2012, in response to Re: Glendale Re: Long Island City..., posted by Joe V on Mon Apr 9 17:12:28 2012. Hampton Jitney is a different sort of service. The current people that take the Jitney would not be the types that would have taken the road to rail buses. The Jitney is now more of a luxury service. |
|
|
| (1149876) | |
Re: Bushwick (Re: Long Island City...) |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Apr 9 18:25:38 2012, in response to Re: Bushwick (Re: Long Island City...), posted by LuchAAA on Mon Apr 9 16:25:10 2012. Exactly. This whole thing is one of the biggest railfan fantasy ideas I have seen in a while here. They don't even have three or four trains a day on that line. And for the service to work, it would have to be more than 3 an hour, and that would have LOADs of problems. There is no rational realistic way this will work with all those crossings with subway style service. |
|
|
| (1149878) | |
Re: Bushwick (Re: Long Island City...) |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Apr 9 18:26:58 2012, in response to Re: Bushwick (Re: Long Island City...), posted by NIMBYkiller on Mon Apr 9 16:09:42 2012. Light rail doesn't have third rail right at the road. A light rail vehicle is not the same as a full subway train going through every few minutes. |
|
|
| (1149879) | |
Re: Bushwick (Re: Long Island City...) |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Apr 9 18:27:55 2012, in response to Re: Bushwick (Re: Long Island City...), posted by NIMBYkiller on Mon Apr 9 16:08:23 2012. I didn't say it would be "fine" for the line, I said it would at least be more realistic than ever having a subway line running there. |
|
|
| (1149907) | |
Re: Bushwick (Re: Long Island City...) |
|
|
Posted by Avid Reader on Mon Apr 9 19:41:51 2012, in response to Re: Bushwick (Re: Long Island City...), posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sat Apr 7 20:22:18 2012. Perfect for a AirTrain type, two track, Elevated, silent, and visable, to attract riders .Elevated, until it ducks under ground, to merge with the "L"train. |
|
|
| (1149912) | |
Re: Glendale Re: Long Island City... |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Mon Apr 9 19:48:29 2012, in response to Re: Glendale Re: Long Island City..., posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Apr 9 18:23:39 2012. They also solved the frequency problem that trains do not have, but that the RR bus did have. |
|
|
| (1149934) | |
Re: Glendale Re: Long Island City... |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Apr 9 20:58:51 2012, in response to Re: Glendale Re: Long Island City..., posted by Joe V on Mon Apr 9 19:48:29 2012. The frequency problem was caused because they didn't want to run trains, and wanted to run the buses instead to save money. |
|
|
| (1150015) | |
Re: Bushwick (Re: Long Island City...) |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Tue Apr 10 13:14:25 2012, in response to Re: Bushwick (Re: Long Island City...), posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Apr 9 18:25:38 2012. Yet you said light rail could...for shame amigo. Again, I'm the one here promoting it strictly for commuter rail as an answer 40-50 years from now to west end capacity issues. Hey, at least the NYU students will like it |
|
|
| (1150016) | |
Re: Bushwick (Re: Long Island City...) |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Tue Apr 10 13:16:00 2012, in response to Re: Bushwick (Re: Long Island City...), posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Apr 9 18:26:58 2012. Gate down times differ minimally, and so what if there's third rail? Commuter rail would (could) have 3rd rail. |
|
|
| (1150024) | |
Re: Bushwick (Re: Long Island City...) |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Apr 10 13:32:04 2012, in response to Re: Bushwick (Re: Long Island City...), posted by NIMBYkiller on Tue Apr 10 13:16:00 2012. Commuter rail does, but not in an urban environment on a rapid transit line like that. |
|
|
| (1150027) | |
Re: Bushwick (Re: Long Island City...) |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Apr 10 13:36:50 2012, in response to Re: Bushwick (Re: Long Island City...), posted by NIMBYkiller on Tue Apr 10 13:14:25 2012. Yes, Light rail, which uses overhead wires. |
|
|
| (1150040) | |
Re: Bushwick (Re: Long Island City...) |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Tue Apr 10 14:14:50 2012, in response to Re: Bushwick (Re: Long Island City...), posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Apr 10 13:32:04 2012. What about when rapid transit does it? |
|
|
| (1150041) | |
Re: Bushwick (Re: Long Island City...) |
|
|
Posted by RIPTA42HopeTunnel on Tue Apr 10 14:24:51 2012, in response to Re: Bushwick (Re: Long Island City...), posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sat Apr 7 21:17:30 2012. There is no way they will rebuild a line into a modern heavy rail line in an urban area like Bushwick with all those grade crossings.The CTA Brown Line was just rebuilt from scratch in 2006. |
|
|
| (1150077) | |
Re: Glendale Re: Long Island City... |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Tue Apr 10 17:10:26 2012, in response to Re: Glendale Re: Long Island City..., posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Apr 9 20:58:51 2012. What is this "want " stuff ? This is not an HO set. They have a budget to live by and always did. A bus can achieve a break-even point with 25 passengers, and back then diesel fuel was 30c cents a gallon.The choice was not 6 buses or 6 additional trains (with a 4 man crew) but 6 buses or no additional trains. Those chose the better option. |
|
|
| (1150141) | |
Re: Glendale Re: Long Island City... |
|
|
Posted by gp38/r42 chris on Tue Apr 10 20:58:05 2012, in response to Re: Glendale Re: Long Island City..., posted by Joe V on Tue Apr 10 17:10:26 2012. This correct....and I said all along....they ran the buses INSTEAD of the trains....not to compliment them. |
|
|
| (1150314) | |
Re: Bushwick (Re: Long Island City...) |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Wed Apr 11 23:29:35 2012, in response to Re: Bushwick (Re: Long Island City...), posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Apr 9 18:27:55 2012. Which in the end, it really wouldn't be....not meaning to be like Brian here. Just trying to prove it doesn't really make a difference what's blocking the crossing, subway or light rail |
|
|
| (1150315) | |
Re: Bushwick (Re: Long Island City...) |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Wed Apr 11 23:30:28 2012, in response to Re: Bushwick (Re: Long Island City...), posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Apr 10 13:32:04 2012. And the big difference is? People gotta stay away from the 3rd rail in Mineola as well. |
|
|
| (1150329) | |
Re: Bushwick (Re: Long Island City...) |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Apr 12 07:00:58 2012, in response to Re: Bushwick (Re: Long Island City...), posted by NIMBYkiller on Wed Apr 11 23:30:28 2012. Mineola isn't "Bushwick" or an urban area. |
|
|
| (1150330) | |
Re: Bushwick (Re: Long Island City...) |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Apr 12 07:02:17 2012, in response to Re: Bushwick (Re: Long Island City...), posted by NIMBYkiller on Wed Apr 11 23:29:35 2012. Again, if you think they would EVER put an active subway line in a situation like that, you are most definitely in dream world. |
|
|
| (1150345) | |
Re: Bushwick (Re: Long Island City...) |
|
|
Posted by Avid Reader on Thu Apr 12 10:37:55 2012, in response to Bushwick (Re: Long Island City...), posted by NIMBYkiller on Sat Apr 7 00:36:52 2012. The Bushwick R.O.W. is an ideal R.O.W. to follow for a new service.The new service from Manhattan, on the 14Th St. line, then VIA Bushwick R.O.W., then a merge with the Montauk R.O.W. to Jamaica, and finally to Belmont Race Track. Belmont Race Track having a huge turning Loop with multiple platforms, to allow for trains to have rapid terminal entry, and exit. The Bushwick R.O.W. and the R.O.W. between Jamaica and Belmont to be on Air Train type elevated structures. These may also serve well to eliminate grade crossings thru Glendale and Fresh Pond. Just for S & G , it would be extended in Manhattan from 8Th Ave to a loop at the Javits Center. Now it could claim from a western edge of the city boundaries to an eastern edge of the city. |
|
|
| (1150350) | |
Re: Bushwick (Re: Long Island City...) |
|
|
Posted by tunnelrat on Thu Apr 12 11:00:03 2012, in response to Re: Bushwick (Re: Long Island City...), posted by Avid Reader on Thu Apr 12 10:37:55 2012. there is NO turning loop at belmont. |
|
|
| (1150362) | |
Re: Bushwick (Re: Long Island City...) |
|
|
Posted by Avid Reader on Thu Apr 12 11:16:31 2012, in response to Re: Bushwick (Re: Long Island City...), posted by tunnelrat on Thu Apr 12 11:00:03 2012. Yet. |
|
|
| (1150363) | |
Re: Bushwick (Re: Long Island City...) |
|
|
Posted by tunnelrat on Thu Apr 12 11:17:27 2012, in response to Re: Bushwick (Re: Long Island City...), posted by Avid Reader on Thu Apr 12 11:16:31 2012. nyet |
|
|
| (1150366) | |
Re: Bushwick (Re: Long Island City...) |
|
|
Posted by Avid Reader on Thu Apr 12 11:19:59 2012, in response to Re: Bushwick (Re: Long Island City...), posted by tunnelrat on Thu Apr 12 11:17:27 2012. Touche' |
|
|
| (1150368) | |
Re: Bushwick (Re: Long Island City...) |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Apr 12 11:21:14 2012, in response to Re: Bushwick (Re: Long Island City...), posted by Avid Reader on Thu Apr 12 10:37:55 2012. The Bushwick R.O.W. and the R.O.W. between Jamaica and Belmont to be on Air Train type elevated structures.That would work. Thus far all the speculation wanted it to run on the surface with all the grade crossings through an urban area! These may also serve well to eliminate grade crossings thru Glendale and Fresh Pond. There is no area called "Fresh Pond" anymore. Do you mean Ridgewood? Where are the grade crossings? The only ones east of the old Fresh Pond station that I remember is in Glendale at 88th ST, and another a little further east. Those would have to be removed if this service was to run on the surface on the Montauk Branch. |
|
|
| (1150373) | |
Re: Bushwick (Re: Long Island City...) |
|
|
Posted by Wado MP73 on Thu Apr 12 11:44:35 2012, in response to Re: Bushwick (Re: Long Island City...), posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Apr 12 07:00:58 2012. I still have reservations about calling Bushwick, which is a typical British or European suburban setup, "urban". lol |
|
|
|
Page 11 of 12 |
||
