|
|
| Re: Best Article I've Read on Reasons to Reactivate the Rockaway Beach Line (1154253) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 2 of 11 |
||
|
| (1154421) | |
Re: Best Article I've Read on Reasons to Reactivate the Rockaway Beach Line |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Thu May 3 11:07:58 2012, in response to Re: Best Article I've Read on Reasons to Reactivate the Rockaway Beach Line, posted by Dan on Thu May 3 10:33:25 2012. There is limited street capacity. Any street to Brooklyn College is very slow. There are no highways or boulevards anywhere nearby. While it may cost a $1 billion or more to make the Bay Ridge LIRR line usable for passenger service, that is the cost for less than 1 mile of the Second Avenue Subway. |
|
|
| (1154422) | |
Re: Best Article I've Read on Reasons to Reactivate the Rockaway Beach Line |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Thu May 3 11:15:06 2012, in response to Re: Best Article I've Read on Reasons to Reactivate the Rockaway Beach Line, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu May 3 10:54:04 2012. Improved transportation opens up job opportunities and stimulates development. If our grandparents and great grand parents only thought of current development and current needs, they never would have built he Flushing Line and many others. |
|
|
| (1154423) | |
Re: Best Article I've Read on Reasons to Reactivate the Rockaway Beach Line |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Thu May 3 11:18:25 2012, in response to Re: Best Article I've Read on Reasons to Reactivate the Rockaway Beach Line, posted by Edwards! on Wed May 2 22:25:08 2012. Where is "Robert Moses" when we need him. (Of course not the Robert Moses, but someone with his will who cares about transit.) |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (1154424) | |
Re: Best Article I've Read on Reasons to Reactivate the Rockaway Beach Line |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Thu May 3 11:20:58 2012, in response to Re: Best Article I've Read on Reasons to Reactivate the Rockaway Beach Line, posted by Mitch45 on Thu May 3 07:52:19 2012. Clearly needed only after they demolished the Third Avenue El. |
|
|
| (1154425) | |
Re: Best Article I've Read on Reasons to Reactivate the Rockaway Beach Line |
|
|
Posted by andy on Thu May 3 11:24:52 2012, in response to Re: Best Article I've Read on Reasons to Reactivate the Rockaway Beach Line, posted by R36 #9346 on Thu May 3 00:06:40 2012. But it would need IRT sized equipment to have a #9 on the route signs!! LOL |
|
|
| (1154426) | |
Re: Best Article I've Read on Reasons to Reactivate the Rockaway Beach Line |
|
|
Posted by RIPTA42HopeTunnel on Thu May 3 11:26:27 2012, in response to Re: Best Article I've Read on Reasons to Reactivate the Rockaway Beach Line, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu May 3 10:49:41 2012. People think that all they have to do is cut down the trees and lay some new tracks, and the whole thing is done.While the ROW exists, it would be like completely rebuilding a line from scratch. All the roots of those trees have compromised the ROW, and have to be removed. The bridges all rebuilt. They were never designed to have roots in them from trees. Trees can rip apart the best of concrete, and all you need is one. And there are thousands. This is not to say it's prohibitive, just that it's much more involved than people realize. But it's all possible. The most challenging part of any project is obtaining the ROW. |
|
|
| (1154427) | |
Re: Best Article I've Read on Reasons to Reactivate the Rockaway Beach Line |
|
|
Posted by 3-9 on Thu May 3 11:37:46 2012, in response to Re: Best Article I've Read on Reasons to Reactivate the Rockaway Beach Line, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu May 3 10:44:30 2012. Home Depot was an example, and besides, it sells more things than stuff that requires a lot of trunk space. My point is, how accessible is this line to the places people want to go? Parkside is an example of a possible location, but I'm not so certain of Ozone Park and Woodhaven Blvd. The bus(es) on Woodhaven Blvd are/were pretty quick and cover a lot of the same ground. |
|
|
| (1154428) | |
Re: Best Article I've Read on Reasons to Reactivate the Rockaway Beach Line |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu May 3 11:48:54 2012, in response to Re: Best Article I've Read on Reasons to Reactivate the Rockaway Beach Line, posted by Joe V on Wed May 2 16:49:48 2012. The answer to that may be more severe. 104th St and Woodhaven Blvd are both to far from the Rockaway Branch to connect with a station there, a transfer that would be vital to the Rockaway Branch.I would perhaps suggest abandoning both the Woodhaven station, and the 104th St station, and building a new station at the Rockaway Branch called "Woodhaven Blvd", with it's east end at 98th St, with a connection to the Rockaway Branch, and it's west end at 94th St, a block away from Woodhaven Blvd itself, and which would be around where the east end of the current Woodhaven Blvd station is now. This would allow the continuation of a station at Woodhaven Blvd, as well as a connection to the new station on the Rockaway Branch. The new station on the Jamaica el wouldn't be too hard to make, as it would just be a side platform station with the platforms hanging off the side of the el as it does now. If you want to get really fancy, it could be rebuilt as an express station, in coordination with adding a third track to the Jamaica El, another necessary project. |
|
|
| (1154429) | |
Re: Best Article I've Read on Reasons to Reactivate the Rockaway Beach Line |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu May 3 11:50:55 2012, in response to Re: Best Article I've Read on Reasons to Reactivate the Rockaway Beach Line, posted by R 36 ML 9542 on Wed May 2 18:57:52 2012. No, it's an editorial/opinion piece. |
|
|
| (1154430) | |
Re: Best Article I've Read on Reasons to Reactivate the Rockaway Beach Line |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu May 3 12:01:22 2012, in response to Re: Best Article I've Read on Reasons to Reactivate the Rockaway Beach Line, posted by BrooklynBus on Thu May 3 11:20:58 2012. The real problem was that they were allowed to tear down the 3rd Ave el in ANTICIPATION of the SAS. How it should have been a stipulation that was tear down the el only after the SAS opened.I can guarantee the political pull would have been so extreme to get that el down in the years since, that we would have had a SAS for decades already. |
|
|
| (1154431) | |
Re: Best Article I've Read on Reasons to Reactivate the Rockaway Beach Line |
|
|
Posted by italianstallion on Thu May 3 12:03:33 2012, in response to Re: Best Article I've Read on Reasons to Reactivate the Rockaway Beach Line, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu May 3 10:49:41 2012. One good thing is that it's a ground-level line. Not elevated, not tunneled. Laying tracks on ground is a lot cheaper. |
|
|
| (1154433) | |
Re: Best Article I've Read on Reasons to Reactivate the Rockaway Beach Line |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu May 3 12:07:16 2012, in response to Re: Best Article I've Read on Reasons to Reactivate the Rockaway Beach Line, posted by 3-9 on Thu May 3 11:37:46 2012. Well, any reactivation of that line, a given would have to be a station at Metropolitan Ave, the old Parkside location, as no doubt that would be a used station. I agree about Ozone Park.Woodhaven would be a good location, but in conjunction with reopening the LIRR station there too. The Jamaica Ave station (Brooklyn manor location), would also be a good location, but only if they rebuilt the Woodhaven Blvd station on the J line to connect to it, otherwise it would be a lesser used station too. |
|
|
| (1154435) | |
Re: Best Article I've Read on Reasons to Reactivate the Rockaway Beach Line |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu May 3 12:09:19 2012, in response to Re: Best Article I've Read on Reasons to Reactivate the Rockaway Beach Line, posted by RIPTA42HopeTunnel on Thu May 3 11:26:27 2012. Yes. Totally agreed. As I said, totally not prohibitive at all....but still not just as simple as "cutting down some trees and lying track" as some think |
|
|
| (1154436) | |
Re: Best Article I've Read on Reasons to Reactivate the Rockaway Beach Line |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu May 3 12:10:09 2012, in response to Re: Best Article I've Read on Reasons to Reactivate the Rockaway Beach Line, posted by italianstallion on Thu May 3 12:03:33 2012. Well on embankment.The only part that would need major renovation/reconstruction would be the Ozone Park viaduct of course. But that's not that long of a stretch. |
|
|
| (1154437) | |
Re: Best Article I've Read on Reasons to Reactivate the Rockaway Beach Line |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu May 3 12:11:06 2012, in response to Re: Best Article I've Read on Reasons to Reactivate the Rockaway Beach Line, posted by BrooklynBus on Thu May 3 11:15:06 2012. That's not true, as the Flushing line right away connected right to Manhattan. Manhattan access was always the common denominator for a line becoming sucessful. |
|
|
| (1154438) | |
Re: Best Article I've Read on Reasons to Reactivate the Rockaway Beach Line |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu May 3 12:11:46 2012, in response to Re: Best Article I've Read on Reasons to Reactivate the Rockaway Beach Line, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu May 3 12:11:06 2012. The G line for example....still the least used line in the system because it doesn't connect to Manhattan directly. |
|
|
| (1154439) | |
Re: Best Article I've Read on Reasons to Reactivate the Rockaway Beach Line |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Thu May 3 12:30:59 2012, in response to Re: Best Article I've Read on Reasons to Reactivate the Rockaway Beach Line, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu May 3 12:11:06 2012. I didn't say the line didn't have to go to Manhattan, only that it was built through a non-urban area with the thought of spurring development as well as for bringing people to Manhattan. No one said let's not build it because no one lives there. The LIRR already served Manhattan from Flushing. Was it already so overcrowded in 1910 that another line was sorely needed?The elevated lines to Upper Manhattan also were built when there was nothing there but farmland. Future development was just as important as existing needs. Today we don't consider future needs (unless its for Manhattan). That was my point. |
|
|
| (1154440) | |
Re: Best Article I've Read on Reasons to Reactivate the Rockaway Beach Line |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Thu May 3 12:36:41 2012, in response to Re: Best Article I've Read on Reasons to Reactivate the Rockaway Beach Line, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu May 3 12:01:22 2012. Agreed.What's more is that the need got much worse after the el was torn down. Before Third Avenue was lined with six story buildings. After it was demolished, probably around half those buildings were torn down and replaced with skyscrapers (just like on Water Street) all in anticipation of the Second Avenue Subway. If no subway plans were announced, some of those buildings would have been replaced anyway, but they would never have been that tall, and there wouldn't so many of them. |
|
|
| (1154441) | |
Re: Best Article I've Read on Reasons to Reactivate the Rockaway Beach Line |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu May 3 12:46:47 2012, in response to Re: Best Article I've Read on Reasons to Reactivate the Rockaway Beach Line, posted by BrooklynBus on Thu May 3 12:30:59 2012. Again, the difference was because the new lines went to Manhattan, not because the Flushing line connected let's say Sunnyside with Flushing before going to Manhattan. |
|
|
| (1154445) | |
Re: Best Article I've Read on Reasons to Reactivate the Rockaway Beach Line |
|
|
Posted by Wayne-MrSlantR40 on Thu May 3 13:28:53 2012, in response to Re: Best Article I've Read on Reasons to Reactivate the Rockaway Beach Line, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu May 3 12:10:09 2012. Not particularly difficult to put a 101st Avenue station up there. That's a pretty substantial structure; I wouldn't make many changes to it. Same thing at Woodhaven Junction/Atlantic Avenue. And then, there is the matter of the beese...-w- |
|
|
| (1154449) | |
Re: Best Article I've Read on Reasons to Reactivate the Rockaway Beach Line |
|
|
Posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Thu May 3 14:02:37 2012, in response to Re: Best Article I've Read on Reasons to Reactivate the Rockaway Beach Line, posted by R36 #9346 on Wed May 2 23:34:47 2012. Wow. I knew ridership along Woodhaven Blvd was high, but I never knew that Q53 buses left the Rockaways packed. Along with the high ridership and frequencies of the Q11 and Q21 and the many people riding up to Queens Blvd for the subway, that's a pretty strong case for extending subway service from Queens Blvd onto the Rockaway Branch. |
|
|
| (1154451) | |
Re: Best Article I've Read on Reasons to Reactivate the Rockaway Beach Line |
|
|
Posted by 3-9 on Thu May 3 14:14:38 2012, in response to Re: Best Article I've Read on Reasons to Reactivate the Rockaway Beach Line, posted by BrooklynBus on Wed May 2 20:31:22 2012. It was high enough for decades when the line operated.It was high enough because it was either the main or at least quickest route to and from the Rockaways. That is no longer the case. In addition, note that the LIRR abandoned the part of the line the city didn't take over in 1962, so the traffic wasn't that good. |
|
|
| (1154453) | |
Re: Best Article I've Read on Reasons to Reactivate the Rockaway Beach Line |
|
|
Posted by italianstallion on Thu May 3 14:35:36 2012, in response to Re: Best Article I've Read on Reasons to Reactivate the Rockaway Beach Line, posted by Edwards! on Wed May 2 22:02:09 2012. Those folks would have no standing to complain, as what they have done is illegal. |
|
|
| (1154458) | |
Re: Best Article I've Read on Reasons to Reactivate the Rockaway Beach Line |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu May 3 15:10:19 2012, in response to Re: Best Article I've Read on Reasons to Reactivate the Rockaway Beach Line, posted by Edwards! on Wed May 2 22:02:09 2012. And who would those people be? This "argument" about the school bus company and the apartment complex comes up all the time. Ever heard of leases? Do you really think the apartment complex would have gotten building permits for what they did there without agreement by the city that owns the ROW? |
|
|
| (1154460) | |
Re: Best Article I've Read on Reasons to Reactivate the Rockaway Beach Line |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Thu May 3 15:13:33 2012, in response to Re: Best Article I've Read on Reasons to Reactivate the Rockaway Beach Line, posted by R36 #9346 on Thu May 3 10:55:58 2012. Actually, part of the 1970s plans for subway expansion included a branch off the Qns Blvd Line east of Woodhaven Blvd that would have gone under the LIE to some point past Kissena Blvd but I'm not sure how much past that point. |
|
|
| (1154461) | |
Re: Best Article I've Read on Reasons to Reactivate the Rockaway Beach Line |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Thu May 3 15:15:11 2012, in response to Re: Best Article I've Read on Reasons to Reactivate the Rockaway Beach Line, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu May 3 10:50:34 2012. Yes and for the reasons I mentioned, the rebuilding of the Rocky Bch Line is also less involved. |
|
|
| (1154462) | |
Re: Best Article I've Read on Reasons to Reactivate the Rockaway Beach Line |
|
|
Posted by Mitch45 on Thu May 3 15:17:47 2012, in response to Re: Best Article I've Read on Reasons to Reactivate the Rockaway Beach Line, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu May 3 12:01:22 2012. "How it should have been a stipulation that was tear down the el only after the SAS opened."History repeated itself in the late 1970's when the City was planning to build the Archer Avenue line. The Jamaica El east of 121st Street was closed in the mid '70s and demolished by 1980 in anticipation of being replaced by the Archer Avenue line. Unfortunately, it took until 1988 to open that line and it was an inadequate replacement, as it only went as far as Parsons Boulevard whereas the Jamaica El went to 168th Street. |
|
|
| (1154463) | |
Re: Best Article I've Read on Reasons to Reactivate the Rockaway Beach Line |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Thu May 3 15:21:42 2012, in response to Re: Best Article I've Read on Reasons to Reactivate the Rockaway Beach Line, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu May 3 11:07:43 2012. Probably not many, but the point is not to build a line that only serves people going from Riverside to Co-op city. If you are travelling east west in the Bronx, the subway doesn't do you any good, unless you want to head towards Manhattan and backtrack. The current cross-borough buses are heavily used, probably to the point that many of these routes are inefficient. A crosstown rail line would allow people to have far more use for the subway for trips not headed to the CBD, and would also eliminate some Bus to subway trips for travel to the CBD.FWIW, the 12 and 36 in the Bronx have higher ridership than the Sea Beach. Not that a crosstown line would eliminate all the ridership of those lines, but it would easily attract riders off numerous other cross-borough buses as well, even trips that might not be immediately apparent. |
|
|
| (1154464) | |
Re: Best Article I've Read on Reasons to Reactivate the Rockaway Beach Line |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Thu May 3 15:25:53 2012, in response to Re: Best Article I've Read on Reasons to Reactivate the Rockaway Beach Line, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu May 3 11:48:54 2012. While I have nothing against a third track on the Jamaica el, its usefulness would be compromised unless all the island platforms on the Fulton St portion of the line were converted to side platforms and the center track installed there as well assuming that structure could support it. |
|
|
| (1154466) | |
Re: Best Article I've Read on Reasons to Reactivate the Rockaway Beach Line |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Thu May 3 15:36:03 2012, in response to Re: Best Article I've Read on Reasons to Reactivate the Rockaway Beach Line, posted by 3-9 on Thu May 3 14:14:38 2012. Think for a minute about the Riverside light rail line and the Red Line extension to Braintree in Massachusetts. Both of those were former commuter lines which hadn't seen passenger usage for a number of years before they were taken over for rapid transit use yet they have both been thriving since the takeover. |
|
|
| (1154467) | |
Re: Best Article I've Read on Reasons to Reactivate the Rockaway Beach Line |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Thu May 3 15:38:13 2012, in response to Re: Best Article I've Read on Reasons to Reactivate the Rockaway Beach Line, posted by BrooklynBus on Thu May 3 11:18:25 2012. IAWTP! I have said in many of my posts that what this city needs is a "Robert Moses of mass transit" who will do for mass transit what Moses did for highways and damn the NIMBYS!!! |
|
|
| (1154468) | |
Re: Best Article I've Read on Reasons to Reactivate the Rockaway Beach Line |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Thu May 3 15:44:57 2012, in response to Re: Best Article I've Read on Reasons to Reactivate the Rockaway Beach Line, posted by Mitch45 on Thu May 3 15:17:47 2012. Actually, you can go back a bit further in history to 1938 when the 6 Av El in Manhattan was demolished and the IND 6 Av subway didn't open for another 2 years. The most intelligent planning in recent history is the IND Fulton St Line which was progressively built along the route of the Fulton St El until it could be connected to the Liberty Av portion of the el and only then was the rest of the Fulton St El demolished. |
|
|
| (1154472) | |
Re: Best Article I've Read on Reasons to Reactivate the Rockaway Beach Line |
|
|
Posted by 3-9 on Thu May 3 16:07:27 2012, in response to Re: Best Article I've Read on Reasons to Reactivate the Rockaway Beach Line, posted by randyo on Thu May 3 15:36:03 2012. I'm not aware of the all the circumstances around those lines, but is it safe to assume they represented a quantum leap in service over what was currently there? While it's good to bring back decent service between Queens Blvd and Liberty Ave, it doesn't represent a big leap over what's available now for Liberty Ave and the Rockaways. At best, it provides cross-Queens subway service and a way around the bottleneck in Bklyn that the A and C labor under. |
|
|
| (1154474) | |
Re: Best Article I've Read on Reasons to Reactivate the Rockaway Beach Line |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Thu May 3 16:08:10 2012, in response to Re: Best Article I've Read on Reasons to Reactivate the Rockaway Beach Line, posted by Dan on Thu May 3 10:33:25 2012. I disagree. There comes a point where bus service is simply no longer efficient, due to its slower speeds and higher operating costs per passenger mile. The G is maligned due to its 'low ridership', but compared to a bus line, or even a metro line in other cities, its patronage is actually not bad. Subways are also economic generators, because they raise property values in the vicinity of their stations, something buses do not do. A Bay Ridge ROW rapid transit line could very well pay for itself by way of reduced operating costs with less buses on numerous routes and increased tax receipts due to higher land values. This doesn't even begin to account for the time savings to commuters who use the line instead of slower buses. |
|
|
| (1154476) | |
Re: Best Article I've Read on Reasons to Reactivate the Rockaway Beach Line |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Thu May 3 16:12:55 2012, in response to Re: Best Article I've Read on Reasons to Reactivate the Rockaway Beach Line, posted by 3-9 on Thu May 3 16:07:27 2012. They certainly did represent a quantum leap over what was there since if you read my post carefully, the railroads that formerly operated over those lines had abandoned service over them COMPLETELY for several years prior to their takeover! |
|
|
| (1154480) | |
Re: Best Article I've Read on Reasons to Reactivate the Rockaway Beach Line |
|
|
Posted by 3-9 on Thu May 3 16:23:28 2012, in response to Re: Best Article I've Read on Reasons to Reactivate the Rockaway Beach Line, posted by randyo on Thu May 3 16:12:55 2012. But it wasn't like the light rail/rapid transit options swapped out existing services after a relatively short period, correct? The previous services had been long gone by the time rail service was revived, so it's essentially a new ball game. Plus, the previous service probably wasn't all that great (or as frequent) as the replacements. OTH, Liberty Ave and the Rockaways already have subway service, and we're just sticking in another subway line. Though it might save some time going to Manhattan, it doesn't represent the same quantum leap for those areas. |
|
|
| (1154482) | |
Re: Best Article I've Read on Reasons to Reactivate the Rockaway Beach Line |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Thu May 3 16:38:39 2012, in response to Re: Best Article I've Read on Reasons to Reactivate the Rockaway Beach Line, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu May 3 10:54:04 2012. not only that..it would help the turn around issue we now deal with at Continental avenue local platform..since one train would now be routed along the Rockaway Beach branch.. |
|
|
| (1154483) | |
Re: Best Article I've Read on Reasons to Reactivate the Rockaway Beach Line |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Thu May 3 16:42:50 2012, in response to Re: Best Article I've Read on Reasons to Reactivate the Rockaway Beach Line, posted by randyo on Thu May 3 15:13:33 2012. the other was under Jewel avenue to Union turnpike..[like the LIE Branch] as a MOS route..further extensions would have then operate to FL Blvd.. |
|
|
| (1154486) | |
Re: Best Article I've Read on Reasons to Reactivate the Rockaway Beach Line |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Thu May 3 16:50:55 2012, in response to Re: Best Article I've Read on Reasons to Reactivate the Rockaway Beach Line, posted by randyo on Thu May 3 15:25:53 2012. while That would be real sweet..you know the MTA will never spend the money for it..nor do we hear any public outcry for it since the "powers that be" have drummed it into us that theresno way there can be any worthy projects in the outer boro's..they want our money...but refused to update our service.. |
|
|
| (1154489) | |
Re: Best Article I've Read on Reasons to Reactivate the Rockaway Beach Line |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Thu May 3 16:55:38 2012, in response to Re: Best Article I've Read on Reasons to Reactivate the Rockaway Beach Line, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu May 3 15:10:19 2012. What of those who have done so without a "lease"?are you saying they dont exist? So what they have a lease..if the route is needed..which do YOU THINK is going to take priority..the poachers..or the transit line? |
|
|
| (1154490) | |
Re: Best Article I've Read on Reasons to Reactivate the Rockaway Beach Line |
|
|
Posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Thu May 3 16:57:16 2012, in response to Re: Best Article I've Read on Reasons to Reactivate the Rockaway Beach Line, posted by 3-9 on Thu May 3 16:07:27 2012. Your last sentence actually contains two more good reasons for reviving Rockaway, believe it or not. |
|
|
| (1154491) | |
Re: Best Article I've Read on Reasons to Reactivate the Rockaway Beach Line |
|
|
Posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Thu May 3 17:00:52 2012, in response to Re: Best Article I've Read on Reasons to Reactivate the Rockaway Beach Line, posted by 3-9 on Thu May 3 16:23:28 2012. The new service doesn't necessarily have to go to the Rockaways. It could terminate at Howard Beach.I think it would still be a useful service, even if it doesn't go to the Rockaways and Broad Channel. |
|
|
| (1154494) | |
Re: Best Article I've Read on Reasons to Reactivate the Rockaway Beach Line |
|
|
Posted by Mitch45 on Thu May 3 17:32:05 2012, in response to Re: Best Article I've Read on Reasons to Reactivate the Rockaway Beach Line, posted by randyo on Thu May 3 15:44:57 2012. At least the 6th Avenue IND line was an adequate replacement for the el. It pretty much paralleled the El except that it turned toward Brooklyn in the Lower East Side whereas the El ran to the foot of Manhattan (using 9th Avenue El trackage for part of the trip).The Fulton IND was, in my opinion, only second to the 8th Avenue IND as being the signature IND line. But even so, the Fulton IND left us with a mystery at You-Know-Where Street. |
|
|
| (1154495) | |
Re: Best Article I've Read on Reasons to Reactivate the Rockaway Beach Line |
|
|
Posted by 3-9 on Thu May 3 17:57:15 2012, in response to Re: Best Article I've Read on Reasons to Reactivate the Rockaway Beach Line, posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Thu May 3 16:57:16 2012. Yeah, I'm aware of that, though the first reason has already been batted around in this thread, more or less. |
|
|
| (1154496) | |
Re: Best Article I've Read on Reasons to Reactivate the Rockaway Beach Line |
|
|
Posted by 3-9 on Thu May 3 18:05:27 2012, in response to Re: Best Article I've Read on Reasons to Reactivate the Rockaway Beach Line, posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Thu May 3 17:00:52 2012. If it's going to to Howard Beach, you might as well take that extra (big) step and send it to Rockaway Park, thus eliminating the need for the shuttle. |
|
|
| (1154498) | |
Re: Best Article I've Read on Reasons to Reactivate the Rockaway Beach Line |
|
|
Posted by MainR3664 on Thu May 3 18:24:47 2012, in response to Best Article I've Read on Reasons to Reactivate the Rockaway Beach Line, posted by BrooklynBus on Wed May 2 15:00:34 2012. I'm supportive of reactivating the Rockaway Line(and many others as well).But I don't think the Queens Boulevard subway could handle yet another interterchange, and even more trains and pax than it already has. Let' remember that when the Rockaway connection was planned as part of the IND, the 11th Street and 63rd Street connections didn't exist, and probably weren't conceived. What about simply redtroing the LIRR service and charge a City Fare? Just as people pay extra to use the LIRR from Flushing and (forgive me) Express Buses, I bet enough people would use such an LIRR service to make it worthwhile. Just 'cuase it died 50 years ago doesn't men it'd be no good today... |
|
|
| (1154500) | |
Re: Best Article I've Read on Reasons to Reactivate the Rockaway Beach Line |
|
|
Posted by MainR3664 on Thu May 3 18:27:12 2012, in response to Re: Best Article I've Read on Reasons to Reactivate the Rockaway Beach Line, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu May 3 12:07:16 2012. Yes, I agree- there should be a connection there. Even if my thought to establish LIRR service is done...connecting passage ways would be good there. |
|
|
| (1154501) | |
Re: Best Article I've Read on Reasons to Reactivate the Rockaway Beach Line |
|
|
Posted by MainR3664 on Thu May 3 18:30:43 2012, in response to Re: Best Article I've Read on Reasons to Reactivate the Rockaway Beach Line, posted by JayZeeBMT on Wed May 2 16:02:16 2012. I agree that this line is most unlikely to ever be reactivated. But that doesn't mean it's not a good idea. And us fans are free to fantasize about wha service patterns we'd like to see. |
|
|
| (1154505) | |
Re: Best Article I've Read on Reasons to Reactivate the Rockaway Beach Line |
|
|
Posted by MainR3664 on Thu May 3 18:40:05 2012, in response to Re: Best Article I've Read on Reasons to Reactivate the Rockaway Beach Line, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu May 3 10:49:41 2012. No doubt. But as you've said, doable... |
|
|
| (1154507) | |
Re: Best Article I've Read on Reasons to Reactivate the Rockaway Beach Line |
|
|
Posted by merrick1 on Thu May 3 19:00:53 2012, in response to Re: Best Article I've Read on Reasons to Reactivate the Rockaway Beach Line, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu May 3 10:44:30 2012. I once bought two-by-four at Home Depot, had them cut it into four two-foot lengths and walked home with it in a shopping bag. I used the pieces to install my air conditioner. I had the air conditioner delivered though. |
|
|
|
Page 2 of 11 |
||
