|
|
| 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 4 of 11 |
||
|
| (1154666) | |
Re: Best Article I've Read on Reasons to Reactivate the Rockaway Beach Line |
|
|
Posted by 3-9 on Fri May 4 18:12:05 2012, in response to Re: Best Article I've Read on Reasons to Reactivate the Rockaway Beach Line, posted by randyo on Fri May 4 16:58:47 2012. The E already does that late night, when the R turns into a shuttle. |
|
|
| (1154669) | |
Re: Best Article I've Read on Reasons to Reactivate the Rockaway Beach Line |
|
|
Posted by 3-9 on Fri May 4 18:26:17 2012, in response to Re: Best Article I've Read on Reasons to Reactivate the Rockaway Beach Line, posted by ClearAspect on Fri May 4 18:03:25 2012. Whether it's the V, the M or the R, it's more or less the same spaghetti, just which is more practical at it. None of the suggestions are intended for people riding the entire line. Much as I'd like a line running south to north to solve a couple of major issues, the southern portion is more likely to be done first, and it will have to be routed to something to make it useful. |
|
|
| (1154676) | |
Re: Best Article I've Read on Reasons to Reactivate the Rockaway Beach Line |
|
|
Posted by merrick1 on Fri May 4 19:08:33 2012, in response to Re: Best Article I've Read on Reasons to Reactivate the Rockaway Beach Line, posted by Spider-Pig on Fri May 4 14:30:36 2012. There are Home Depots in Manhattan on Third Avenue at 59th Street and 23rd Street between 5th and 6th Avenue. I doubt if most of their customers drive there. |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (1154678) | |
Re: Best Article I've Read on Reasons to Reactivate the Rockaway Beach Line |
|
|
Posted by N6 Limited on Fri May 4 19:10:28 2012, in response to Re: Best Article I've Read on Reasons to Reactivate the Rockaway Beach Line, posted by ClearAspect on Fri May 4 17:37:07 2012. The QB has the Capacity. It's just extending the Local Lines Further South "north". The route the M takes makes no difference. I don't see why people bring up the argumetn that people ride a line from end to end. The F goes through Midtown, then Downtown brooklyn down to Coney Island. Why take the F when you can take the LIRR to Flatbush and the Q? It doesn't matter, the purpose of the F is not to get people from Jamaica to Coney Island, it's to get people from their respective boroughs to Manhattan. The purpose of the M is not to get people from Middle Village, to 71st Contenental. It's to serve its purpose on whichever trunk route it uses.And so, if the M goes from Aqueduct, and coils to Middle Village , so what? No one is going to ride the whole route besides the C/O and T/O. The purpose is to serve the trunk lies it runs along. |
|
|
| (1154687) | |
Re: Best Article I've Read on Reasons to Reactivate the Rockaway Beach Line |
|
|
Posted by AMoreira81 on Fri May 4 20:04:18 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. Not mentioned, but it should have been: A reactivated Rockaway Beach Line would also provide desperately-needed relief on the Woodhaven Boulevard bus lines (Q11/21/52 (as of summer)/53 and BM5/QM15).That said, it can be debated as to whether this should be a subway route or an LIRR route; I would have it as a subway route and have the M train serve it down to JFK Airport...reason being that the M has the Fresh Pond yard at the other end of the line and the R needs to be out of Jamaica Yard to keep costs down. |
|
|
| (1154688) | |
Re: Best Article I've Read on Reasons to Reactivate the Rockaway Beach Line |
|
|
Posted by AMoreira81 on Fri May 4 20:05:21 2012, in response to Re: Best Article I've Read on Reasons to Reactivate the Rockaway Beach Line, posted by 3-9 on Wed May 2 21:00:42 2012. The Woodhaven Boulevard local bus routes are also swamped and there is a real issue of garage capacity in terms of how many more buses can be added. |
|
|
| (1154691) | |
Re: Best Article I've Read on Reasons to Reactivate the Rockaway Beach Line |
|
|
Posted by AMoreira81 on Fri May 4 20:12:15 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 11:07:58 2012. On the eastern end of the line, however, the LIRR Bay Ridge Line runs through industrial areas. The only real residential area is the area in Midwood and Parkville. |
|
|
| (1154692) | |
Re: Best Article I've Read on Reasons to Reactivate the Rockaway Beach Line |
|
|
Posted by AMoreira81 on Fri May 4 20:13:59 2012, in response to 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. There are also no articulated buses in operation in Brooklyn at this time.The reason for the B6's high ridership---and the B82 by extension---is because they are essentially southern Brooklyn crosstowns. The B6 is largely hampered by Avenue J. |
|
|
| (1154696) | |
Re: Best Article I've Read on Reasons to Reactivate the Rockaway Beach Line |
|
|
Posted by AEM-7AC #901 on Fri May 4 21:18:20 2012, in response to Re: Best Article I've Read on Reasons to Reactivate the Rockaway Beach Line, posted by randyo on Fri May 4 14:42:24 2012. I'm not saying that we need a transit czar who would spend money just for the sake of spending itI suspect you could get away with more if we could build at say $200M to $300M per mile*, but New York's construction industry is rent seeking, we design for 600 ft stations while our contemporaries in Europe use 300 to 500 ft platforms, we use dual tube construction in lieu of single tube for our bores, and we have far stricter fire regs than the rest of the world. Plus, since each line being built is seen as an extension of the network, it's difficult to build isolated branches connected with single track sections, so you're left to use existing bellmouths and other provisions which may not be ideal, or you're stuck trying to cram a connection in like 63rd Street. Once you solve the money issues, then you're left with the whiny NIMBY types, but I would argue that the high costs scare off everybody and saps the energy to fight off the NIMBYs. *For sampling purposes, Montreal's 2007 Laval extension cost $230M per mile or so for three new stations, an additional platform at one station, with all ROW being underground and tunneled. |
|
|
| (1154699) | |
Re: Best Article I've Read on Reasons to Reactivate the Rockaway Beach Line |
|
|
Posted by E and F and sometimes J on Fri May 4 21:56:45 2012, in response to Re: Best Article I've Read on Reasons to Reactivate the Rockaway Beach Line, posted by ClearAspect on Fri May 4 08:55:08 2012. It would be a helluva 'lot cheaper and easier to extend the M from Metropolitan Ave and connect to the airport that way. This also allows for extension to Flushing Main St.north... Metropolitan Ave (new) Elliot Ave Grand Ave Queens Blvd 74th Roosevelt Ave ( in system transfers from open cut, moving sidewalks) Northern Blvd 82nd St Terminal B Terminals C & D 34th Ave Northern Blvd Mets Willets Point Flushing Main St |
|
|
| (1154703) | |
Re: Best Article I've Read on Reasons to Reactivate the Rockaway Beach Line |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Fri May 4 22:48:24 2012, in response to Re: Best Article I've Read on Reasons to Reactivate the Rockaway Beach Line, posted by ClearAspect on Fri May 4 17:37:07 2012. So what? It doesn't matter if the M coils itself. Most people aren't riding from one end of a line to another, even if it rides from "The Bronx" to Rockaway. Most people get on at their station, and go to Manhattan. So what if the line starts in one part of Queens, goes through manhattan and winds up in another part of Queens? It's not like people are riding from Forest Hills to Middle Village via Manhattan and Brookly Either. |
|
|
| (1154705) | |
Re: Best Article I've Read on Reasons to Reactivate the Rockaway Beach Line |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Fri May 4 22:52:13 2012, in response to Re: Best Article I've Read on Reasons to Reactivate the Rockaway Beach Line, posted by ClearAspect on Fri May 4 18:03:25 2012. What difference does it make? How many people do you think ride from COney Island to Astoria via the N line? Or from Coney Island to Jamaica or Forest Hills on the F line? Most lines that go through Manhattan have two totally different and distinct sets of customers, one at one end of the line, and a totally different one at the other end. It doesn't matter where it starts or ends. |
|
|
| (1154706) | |
Re: Best Article I've Read on Reasons to Reactivate the Rockaway Beach Line |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Fri May 4 22:55:31 2012, in response to Re: Best Article I've Read on Reasons to Reactivate the Rockaway Beach Line, posted by 3-9 on Fri May 4 18:26:17 2012. It's probably an EXTREMELY small percentage of people that ride an entire line from end to end. Most people are one end to Manhattan or the other end and Manhattan. That's true for most lines, even ones that begin at opposite ends of the city.How many people ride from Woodlawn in the Bronx to Utica Ave? And so forth. What difference does it make if the terminals are closer together like Forest Hills and Middle Village for example? Most people aren't taking the M via Manhattan via that route either, it wouldn't matter if the M ran between Coney Island and Middle Village either, it's two totally distinct sets of passengers either way. |
|
|
| (1154708) | |
Re: Best Article I've Read on Reasons to Reactivate the Rockaway Beach Line |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Fri May 4 22:59:08 2012, in response to Re: Best Article I've Read on Reasons to Reactivate the Rockaway Beach Line, posted by randyo on Fri May 4 14:22:27 2012. PErhaps, but the line is needed on Fulton, not next to the Cemetery on jamaica Ave. The people are along the Fulton corridor, not Jamaica Ave corridor. |
|
|
| (1154721) | |
Re: Best Article I've Read on Reasons to Reactivate the Rockaway Beach Line |
|
|
Posted by merrick1 on Sat May 5 07:35:18 2012, in response to Re: Best Article I've Read on Reasons to Reactivate the Rockaway Beach Line, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Fri May 4 22:48:24 2012. The Red Line in Washington is U shaped and was part of the original design of the system. |
|
|
| (1154722) | |
Re: Best Article I've Read on Reasons to Reactivate the Rockaway Beach Line |
|
|
Posted by merrick1 on Sat May 5 07:39:09 2012, in response to Re: Best Article I've Read on Reasons to Reactivate the Rockaway Beach Line, posted by AEM-7AC #901 on Fri May 4 21:18:20 2012. But doesn't the presence of NIMBYs indicate that the service is not wanted? It is my impression that most neighborhoods in Queens that don't have subway service don't want it. |
|
|
| (1154727) | |
Re: Best Article I've Read on Reasons to Reactivate the Rockaway Beach Line |
|
|
Posted by Michael549 on Sat May 5 09:32:32 2012, in response to Re: Best Article I've Read on Reasons to Reactivate the Rockaway Beach Line, posted by E and F and sometimes J on Fri May 4 21:56:45 2012. I am intrigued and impressed by the impassioned arguments. I would however like to see proposed "transit maps" of these suggestions, since some of the suggestions are getting confusing.For example there is talk of connecting this new Rockaway Line to the Queens Blvd line at or near the 63rd Street station, while others suggestion extending the line to La Guardia Airports. This begs the question of what is "available ready to be used right of way", and what "would have to built as in new construction". For example there was talk it seems of extending used the former LIRR tracks to Bay Ridge, which begs the question of what is "actually available for usage" versus what's a pipe dream that would be nice. Which means that I'm beginning to get confused with the various ideas, so some kind of clear map of the ideas would be helpful. Mike |
|
|
| (1154730) | |
Re: Best Article I've Read on Reasons to Reactivate the Rockaway Beach Line |
|
|
Posted by Andrew Saucci on Sat May 5 09:36:08 2012, in response to Re: Best Article I've Read on Reasons to Reactivate the Rockaway Beach Line, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Fri May 4 22:59:08 2012. Those sharp jogs in the line have to be eliminated if it is to be a viable alternative to the E as an express line. |
|
|
| (1154736) | |
Re: Best Article I've Read on Reasons to Reactivate the Rockaway Beach Line |
|
|
Posted by tunnelrat on Sat May 5 10:30:30 2012, in response to Re: Best Article I've Read on Reasons to Reactivate the Rockaway Beach Line, posted by Michael549 on Sat May 5 09:32:32 2012. Oh no,now you`ve gone & done it!your gonna get something that resemble`s spaghetti thrown on a wall! |
|
|
| (1154744) | |
Re: Best Article I've Read on Reasons to Reactivate the Rockaway Beach Line |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Sat May 5 12:10:43 2012, in response to Re: Best Article I've Read on Reasons to Reactivate the Rockaway Beach Line, posted by Michael549 on Sat May 5 09:32:32 2012. Several blocks of construction, I think about a quarter mile would be needed from existing bellmouths in Rego Park at Queens Blvd to the existing ROW at the LIRR. The LIRR Bay Ridge Division is a separate issue. Those tracks already go to Bay Ridge so I dont know what new construction you are referring to there. |
|
|
| (1154759) | |
Re: Best Article I've Read on Reasons to Reactivate the Rockaway Beach Line |
|
|
Posted by E and F and sometimes J on Sat May 5 14:25:34 2012, in response to Re: Best Article I've Read on Reasons to Reactivate the Rockaway Beach Line, posted by Michael549 on Sat May 5 09:32:32 2012. I can't draw a map but I will describe it so you can visualize this map by drawing on an existing map with a marker.For ClearAspect's proposal draw use a ruler and draw a straight line from Rockaway Blvd station on the A line going north to between Woodhaven Blvd and 104th St stations. Now draw a straight line between the mid-point of Woodhaven Blvd and 104th St, stations and 63rd Dr station. At 63rd Dr station there would be a connection to the already existing belle mouths to the Queens Blvd southern locals and either a new set of tracks that would either bypass or underpin with a new pedestrian transfer station the existing 63rd Dr station on it's way up Junction Blvd. Next draw a straight line between 63rd Dr station and Junction Blvd Station. Finally draw a straight line between Junction Blvd station and the Airport symbol at LGA. North of 63rd drive under this proposal would require new subway construction north of 63rd Dr. My proposal would only tie into the southern belle mouths once reaching Queens Blvd. From Metropolitan Ave station draw a straight to 74th Roosevelt Ave. From 74th Roosevelt Ave draw a straight line between 74th Roosevelt station and the number 8 in 82nd St Jackson Heights. From the number 8 in 82nd St Jackson heights draw a straight line to the airport symbol at LGA. From LGA draw a straight line to Mets Willets Point and from Mets Willets Point draw a straight line to Flushing Main St. It's not exact, but neither is the subway map, this will give you a rough idea of how the subway map could look in the future. If you want exact placement use the Queens bus map. |
|
|
| (1154778) | |
Re: Best Article I've Read on Reasons to Reactivate the Rockaway Beach Line |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Sat May 5 16:37:29 2012, in response to Re: Best Article I've Read on Reasons to Reactivate the Rockaway Beach Line, posted by AMoreira81 on Fri May 4 20:12:15 2012. The proximity of the Bay Ridge Line to the 14 St Line in Canarsie lends itself to possibly connecting it to the 14 St Line providing residents along the line with a direct, although rather long and roundabout route to Manhattan. |
|
|
| (1154783) | |
Re: Best Article I've Read on Reasons to Reactivate the Rockaway Beach Line |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Sat May 5 16:47:54 2012, in response to Re: Best Article I've Read on Reasons to Reactivate the Rockaway Beach Line, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Fri May 4 22:59:08 2012. There was a plan some years ago, however to relocate the entire line along Jamaica Av and eliminate the Fulton structure. the walking distance between Fulton St and Jamaica Av di not really that great except possibly for Crescent St which is the point of greatest distance between the two thoroughfares. Passengers who live between Fulton and Jamaica Av will experience less inconvenience and depending on their distance from the existing line, none at all. The passengers on the other side of Fulton would of course experience the greatest amount of inconvenience and an origin/destination survey would determine whether of not the possible additional ridership from the outer portions of the line resulting from the consequential lower running time would be worth the slight inconvenience to those along the Fulton corridor. It probably wouldn't be any more significant than the effect of the relocation of the Jamaica Line from Jamaica Av to Archer Av. |
|
|
| (1154784) | |
Re: Best Article I've Read on Reasons to Reactivate the Rockaway Beach Line |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Sat May 5 16:50:49 2012, in response to Re: Best Article I've Read on Reasons to Reactivate the Rockaway Beach Line, posted by tunnelrat on Sat May 5 10:30:30 2012. The present NYCTS looks like that already. |
|
|
| (1154785) | |
Re: Best Article I've Read on Reasons to Reactivate the Rockaway Beach Line |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Sat May 5 16:53:55 2012, in response to Re: Best Article I've Read on Reasons to Reactivate the Rockaway Beach Line, posted by BrooklynBus on Sat May 5 12:10:43 2012. I have heard that the actual tunnel construction from the bellmouths at 63 Dr goes almost all the way to the LIRR ROW and what was at one time visible from the RFW as a bellmouth was actually a false wall that concealed the rest of the subway infrastructure. |
|
|
| (1154787) | |
Re: Best Article I've Read on Reasons to Reactivate the Rockaway Beach Line |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Sat May 5 16:59:16 2012, in response to Re: Best Article I've Read on Reasons to Reactivate the Rockaway Beach Line, posted by merrick1 on Sat May 5 07:39:09 2012. I would suspect that those NIMBYs who scream the loudest will be among the first to cram the trains once service begins. If some sorcerer could wave a magic wand, say "poof" and have a complete modern rapid transit line instantly appear without the inconvenience of enduring construction noise, those people would have no objection at all. |
|
|
| (1154788) | |
Re: Best Article I've Read on Reasons to Reactivate the Rockaway Beach Line |
|
|
Posted by gp38/r42 chris on Sat May 5 17:07:29 2012, in response to Re: Best Article I've Read on Reasons to Reactivate the Rockaway Beach Line, posted by merrick1 on Sat May 5 07:35:18 2012. Exactly. Even the Jamaica Center upper to jamaica center lower route would be fine...its no different than any other line as the terminals dont really matter if the middle goes through manhattan. It would serve two totally groups of people...jist like any other linr that goes through manhattan. |
|
|
| (1154789) | |
Re: Best Article I've Read on Reasons to Reactivate the Rockaway Beach Line |
|
|
Posted by gp38/r42 chris on Sat May 5 17:09:29 2012, in response to Re: Best Article I've Read on Reasons to Reactivate the Rockaway Beach Line, posted by Andrew Saucci on Sat May 5 09:36:08 2012. As i said the local along fulton....the express as a one trak el along jamaica |
|
|
| (1154790) | |
Re: Best Article I've Read on Reasons to Reactivate the Rockaway Beach Line |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Sat May 5 17:14:39 2012, in response to Re: Best Article I've Read on Reasons to Reactivate the Rockaway Beach Line, posted by gp38/r42 chris on Sat May 5 17:07:29 2012. I would suspect that the only passengers going all the way from one end of a line to the other would be Bronx or Queens passengers wanting to go to Coney Island. That was the reason why in 1954, the F which up until then ran to Church Av was taken off the Smith St Line and replaced by the D. The BMT already provided either a one seat ride or cross platform transfer from Queens to Coney Island but until the D was routed down the Culver Line, passengers from upper Manhattan or the Bronx had to change at places like 34/6 or Times Sq to access Coney Island bound trains. |
|
|
| (1154806) | |
Re: Best Article I've Read on Reasons to Reactivate the Rockaway Beach Line |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sat May 5 18:27:27 2012, in response to Re: Best Article I've Read on Reasons to Reactivate the Rockaway Beach Line, posted by randyo on Sat May 5 16:47:54 2012. I don't agree. While now the line goes through the middle of a neighborhood, on Jamaica Ave, it would be on the outskirt of the neighborhood. |
|
|
| (1154824) | |
Re: Best Article I've Read on Reasons to Reactivate the Rockaway Beach Line |
|
|
Posted by numbersix on Sat May 5 21:16:29 2012, in response to Re: Best Article I've Read on Reasons to Reactivate the Rockaway Beach Line, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sat May 5 18:27:27 2012. It wouldn't make sense to re-route an existing line to the edge of a park and several cemeteries. I seem to remember a plan in the late 60's to straighten out the tight curves at Crescent St. and Cypress Hills by re-routing the line in a straight line between Crescent St. and Elderts Lane. This would have involved razing dozens of homes, obliterating much of the neighborhood in between the two stations. |
|
|
| (1154835) | |
Re: Best Article I've Read on Reasons to Reactivate the Rockaway Beach Line |
|
|
Posted by TERRapin station on Sat May 5 22:06:47 2012, in response to Re: Best Article I've Read on Reasons to Reactivate the Rockaway Beach Line, posted by Wado MP73 on Fri May 4 18:06:52 2012. Perfectly played, sir. Notice that BrooklynBus has no response to that. |
|
|
| (1154837) | |
Re: Best Article I've Read on Reasons to Reactivate the Rockaway Beach Line |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Sat May 5 22:24:05 2012, in response to Re: Best Article I've Read on Reasons to Reactivate the Rockaway Beach Line, posted by randyo on Sat May 5 16:47:54 2012. I dont see why they can build a new semi express line over Jamaica Avenue,keep the Elevated line over Fulton st..with a short extension to at least Rockaway Blvd.This way,there is quicker service from Jamaica..Plus a new separate service from City line/Ozone Park area where currently is no rail service. |
|
|
| (1154846) | |
Re: Best Article I've Read on Reasons to Reactivate the Rockaway Beach Line |
|
|
Posted by tunnelrat on Sat May 5 22:37:53 2012, in response to Re: Best Article I've Read on Reasons to Reactivate the Rockaway Beach Line, posted by randyo on Sat May 5 16:53:55 2012. you heard it from me.I saw the tunnel before the bellmouth was sealed up.[middle 1950`s]at the start of the bellmouth is an emergency exit,there was a big blue & white sign stating "motormen beware,tunnel dead ends" |
|
|
| (1154848) | |
Re: Best Article I've Read on Reasons to Reactivate the Rockaway Beach Line |
|
|
Posted by Train Man Paul : Metro-North's Best Conductor FOR ALL 3 LINES!!! on Sat May 5 22:46:34 2012, in response to Re: Best Article I've Read on Reasons to Reactivate the Rockaway Beach Line, posted by ClearAspect on Thu May 3 21:38:24 2012. The costs of rebuilding this line alone would be astronomical!! I mean let's think about:1. Cost of rebuilding ALL the bridges and structures along the right of way to where they can support heavy cars like M-7s and possibly DE/DM engines 2. Cost of roadbed renewal, since multiple portions of this line have suffered major erosion, washouts, not to mention having to completely remove the thousands of trees which have overgrown and retaken the right of way 3. Cost of complete track component replacement and renewal, plus the costs of building CPs (control points; to turn service, reroute to other tracks, etc.) 4. Cost of fully installing the ASC and cab signal signal system with full compliance to the PTC federal requirements 5. Planning and building of stations, parking facilities for each, land purchases for such projects, etc. 6. Any consideration of equipment storage tracks and locations at the terminal, land acquisition should this be planned, etc. The costs alone will forever keep opening this line for any kind of rail service buried!! And yes, with the capacities of Penn already full to the brim, and the limited amount of space the GCT ESA terminal for the LIRR will have added to the service that will be running there already once it is opened, this rail line more than likely will NEVER host a train over it again!! |
|
|
| (1154877) | |
Re: Best Article I've Read on Reasons to Reactivate the Rockaway Beach Line |
|
|
Posted by Michael549 on Sun May 6 02:25:33 2012, in response to Re: Best Article I've Read on Reasons to Reactivate the Rockaway Beach Line, posted by Train Man Paul : Metro-North's Best Conductor FOR ALL 3 LINES!!! on Sat May 5 22:46:34 2012. If instead of an LIRR-type service, a subway type service was suggested, how much of your rebuilding list would have to change? Just wondering.As I see it, item #1 would remain in effect, but with the use of heavy subway rail cars. Item #2 and Item #3 would also stand as a major consideration. Item #4 - I believe would have to modified. Item #5 and Item #6 would have to remain in effect for subway service, it seems. New transit construction is all about money, and this project would be expensive no matter if it were subway service or LIRR service, it seems. Just wondering. Mike |
|
|
| (1154882) | |
Re: Best Article I've Read on Reasons to Reactivate the Rockaway Beach Line |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Sun May 6 09:30:03 2012, in response to Re: Best Article I've Read on Reasons to Reactivate the Rockaway Beach Line, posted by ClearAspect on Fri May 4 17:37:07 2012. As said previously on this, which assumes by the time this is done the SAS would be in place:(R) replaces the (N) as the full-time route to Astoria and also switches terminals with the (D), with the (D) going to 95th Street-Brooklyn and the (R) to Coney Island (this so the (R) has Coney Island for a yard since the (D) has Concourse Yard). (D) is now a 4th Avenue local and no longer skips DeKalb Avenue, while the (R) remains a 4th Avenue local from 36th to Atlantic-Pacific. Both are now 24/7 routes with the current overnight (R) shuttle eliminated. (N) continues to operate as it does to Astoria, but on weekdays only from 5:30-10:00 PM. Late nights and weekends, the (N) goes with the (Q) to 96th Street-2nd Avenue to supplement SAS service during those hours, however, when needed outside of weekdays the (N) can run to Astoria instead. A new (W) train operates Whitehall Street-Rockaway Park via the Queens Boulevard local and the connector to the former LIRR Rockaway Line, replacing the (R) as the Broadway line via QB.. The (M) becomes a 24/7 line to 71-Continental.. The (G) also returns to 71st Continental at all times. Rush hours and other times as needed, both lines are extended to 179th Street while during those hours, the (F) stays express all the way to 179th Street. That to me is how I would handle it. |
|
|
| (1154887) | |
Re: Best Article I've Read on Reasons to Reactivate the Rockaway Beach Line |
|
|
Posted by clearaspect on Sun May 6 10:02:29 2012, in response to Re: Best Article I've Read on Reasons to Reactivate the Rockaway Beach Line, posted by Train Man Paul : Metro-North's Best Conductor FOR ALL 3 LINES!!! on Sat May 5 22:46:34 2012. The cost would be under 200mil a mile so the price tag should be under 1 billion at most 2. |
|
|
| (1154890) | |
Re: Best Article I've Read on Reasons to Reactivate the Rockaway Beach Line |
|
|
Posted by Train Man Paul : Metro-North's Best Conductor FOR ALL 3 LINES!!! on Sun May 6 10:05:53 2012, in response to Re: Best Article I've Read on Reasons to Reactivate the Rockaway Beach Line, posted by Michael549 on Sun May 6 02:25:33 2012. I think the major costs would be pretty much the same be it use for a rapid transit line under NYCT or as a line run by the LIRR. With NYCT, it wouldn't be unusual for the line to be also hooked up for CBTC, which equals continued cost, plus all the other previous points made, not to mention that major factor which shuttered the route as a route to JFK from Manhattan, the ever so famous (or imfamous) NIMBYs.I think this line ever returning to service is nothing more than a railfan fantasy, plain and simple. |
|
|
| (1154892) | |
Re: Best Article I've Read on Reasons to Reactivate the Rockaway Beach Line |
|
|
Posted by Train Man Paul : Metro-North's Best Conductor FOR ALL 3 LINES!!! on Sun May 6 10:18:07 2012, in response to Re: Best Article I've Read on Reasons to Reactivate the Rockaway Beach Line, posted by clearaspect on Sun May 6 10:02:29 2012. Guessing you forgot the costs of signal and track equipment, the costs of complete right of way rebuilding, foliage and tree removal (1000s+ trees), structure replacement, as more than likely ALL overhead bridges and viaducts on this line would need to be replaced in their entirety, especially between 103rd Avenue and Rockaway Blvd, would need to be torn down and rebuilt, construction of stations, land acquisition for parking, intermodal facilities, etc., I think easily the price tag would exceed 3 billion easily. AirTrain JFK cost $1.3B to build, and this is with relatively little land acquisition, no stations serving the communities (which means no need to acquire land for parking facilities, no need to hire a parking agency to run the lots, etc.), no need for completely renewing any right of way or structures to accomodate heavy cars or frequent train movements, foliage removal, dealing with residential and business properties who illegally extended their properties onto the original right of way, which is quite evident in Ozone Park, Woodhaven and Rego Park along the Rockaway Line.Again, the costs will be astronomical, and this line ever running again is a mere railfan fantasy. |
|
|
| (1154894) | |
Re: Best Article I've Read on Reasons to Reactivate the Rockaway Beach Line |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Sun May 6 10:19:45 2012, in response to Re: Best Article I've Read on Reasons to Reactivate the Rockaway Beach Line, posted by Train Man Paul : Metro-North's Best Conductor FOR ALL 3 LINES!!! on Sun May 6 10:05:53 2012. Paul:Whether this line returns as subway service or not largely depends on whether or not the Convention Center is built at Aqueduct. If it is, Genting likely would also be likely asked to help foot the bill for restoring the line, and that and other factors likely would overcome any NIMBY opposition (sure, there would be some, but I don't think enough, especially if Genting wants it and the Governor wants it). |
|
|
| (1154897) | |
Re: Best Article I've Read on Reasons to Reactivate the Rockaway Beach Line |
|
|
Posted by Train Man Paul : Metro-North's Best Conductor FOR ALL 3 LINES!!! on Sun May 6 10:25:24 2012, in response to Re: Best Article I've Read on Reasons to Reactivate the Rockaway Beach Line, posted by Wallyhorse on Sun May 6 10:19:45 2012. overcome any NIMBY opposition (sure, there would be some, but I don't think enough, especially if Genting wants it and the Governor wants it)Keep in mind, HEAVY NIMBYism in Ozone Park, Woodhaven and Rego Park (the latter locale being very vocal and influential in Queens and city politics) shot down the right of way being used as a route from Manhattan to JFK, which thus would have served Aqueduct had it been approved for use as a route between Manhattan and JFK. I think the opposition once again would be enough to keep this line shuttered!! Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see, as I always do, any idled rail line returned to service, especially if it will be for the good of my home borough. But face it, it will be nothing more than just chatter and maybe a drop or two of ink in a newspaper or a letter suggesting its revival. |
|
|
| (1154900) | |
Re: Best Article I've Read on Reasons to Reactivate the Rockaway Beach Line |
|
|
Posted by merrick1 on Sun May 6 10:37:38 2012, in response to Re: Best Article I've Read on Reasons to Reactivate the Rockaway Beach Line, posted by Train Man Paul : Metro-North's Best Conductor FOR ALL 3 LINES!!! on Sun May 6 10:18:07 2012. Very few NYCTA stations have parking lots. The intermodal facility is usually a bus stop on the street (maybe a shelter but CMUSA pays for those) |
|
|
| (1154901) | |
Re: Best Article I've Read on Reasons to Reactivate the Rockaway Beach Line |
|
|
Posted by Michael549 on Sun May 6 10:40:37 2012, in response to Re: Best Article I've Read on Reasons to Reactivate the Rockaway Beach Line, posted by Wallyhorse on Sun May 6 10:19:45 2012. Just why would this new Rockaway line be needed when the A-train Aqueduct station is right there next to the Raceway and Casino property, and a new walkway to the station is being constructed as we speak?Just what is so "BAD" about using the A-train to get to the Casino, and the possible new cenvention center? Thousands of people travel to/from the casino, the airport and the Rockaways by the A-train? Is it the idea that "hey there's a wealthy guy who might pay for something on the wish list - so lets get him for pay for it" or is it "there's something really magical about Queens Blvd"? I still don't understand this push for bigger and bigger convention centers when we can't even fill the ones that we have. The Coliseum at 59th Street-Columbus Circle - a prime transit spot was torn down because it was said to be "too small" for the biggest shows, so we "had" to build the Jacobs Javitts in the middle of "transit nowhere". Now just when the Jacobs Javitts Center is about to get long over-due transit - comes along a proposal to build a convention center at the racetrack in Queens. Now suddenly the Jacob Javitts center is "too small" for the biggest shows - but most of the time the JJCC is not filled with shows. It is like being on a treadmill forever chasing the dream of the biggest convention center. Mike |
|
|
| (1154902) | |
Re: Best Article I've Read on Reasons to Reactivate the Rockaway Beach Line |
|
|
Posted by Train Man Paul : Metro-North's Best Conductor FOR ALL 3 LINES!!! on Sun May 6 10:41:34 2012, in response to Re: Best Article I've Read on Reasons to Reactivate the Rockaway Beach Line, posted by merrick1 on Sun May 6 10:37:38 2012. The reference we were using in that discussion was about its use for the LIRR. And even minus the costs for parking if used for a part of the NYCT system, all the other costs still remain. |
|
|
| (1154916) | |
Re: Best Article I've Read on Reasons to Reactivate the Rockaway Beach Line |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sun May 6 13:14:02 2012, in response to Re: Best Article I've Read on Reasons to Reactivate the Rockaway Beach Line, posted by Train Man Paul : Metro-North's Best Conductor FOR ALL 3 LINES!!! on Sun May 6 10:18:07 2012. Why does every single overhead bridge have to get replaced - has there been a structural analysis ? I don't see any concrete rotting on the retaining walls or under the trestle at Jamaica Av not Park Lane South.There needs to be access from other than places served by the A train. Ozone Park people would welcome it. The NIMBY's are farther north. |
|
|
| (1154919) | |
Re: Best Article I've Read on Reasons to Reactivate the Rockaway Beach Line |
|
|
Posted by Train Man Paul : Metro-North's Best Conductor FOR ALL 3 LINES!!! on Sun May 6 13:35:50 2012, in response to Re: Best Article I've Read on Reasons to Reactivate the Rockaway Beach Line, posted by Joe V on Sun May 6 13:14:02 2012. Well for one, those bridges have not carried train traffic in quite some time, especially when you consider the weight of M-7s, and plus it'd have to be able to accommodate the DE/DM engines in case they should have to be run there, and the weight of the DE/DM engines have already caused stressing to other structures as well as track (all of which I heard from an LIRR track foreman), so it'd be safe to say structures which have not seen a train in some 60 years+ might not be able to handle the load, not to mention they have all been subject to weathering, and corrosion, and had you properly seen the plate girders bridges over Jamaica Avenue, Atlantic Avenue, Metropolitan Avenue and Yellowstone Blvd, they are not in the best of shape to handle newer, heavier trains at current day high traffic frequencies. I am sure before any consideration of service reinstatement on the line, such inspections would certainly need to be done, and I'm quite certain those bridges would indeed have to be replaced, and with the condition of the viaduct along 99th street, a complete teardown and rebuild would certainly be warranted. |
|
|
| (1154928) | |
Re: Best Article I've Read on Reasons to Reactivate the Rockaway Beach Line |
|
|
Posted by Bounad Hanhic on Sun May 6 14:03:26 2012, in response to Re: Best Article I've Read on Reasons to Reactivate the Rockaway Beach Line, posted by merrick1 on Fri May 4 19:08:33 2012. However, you do have Manhattanites that travel to the Northern Boulevard and 50th Street Home Depot for better selection. Many of them take the Q66 to the Subway. |
|
|
| (1154929) | |
Re: Best Article I've Read on Reasons to Reactivate the Rockaway Beach Line |
|
|
Posted by Wayne-MrSlantR40 on Sun May 6 14:21:13 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 12:11:46 2012. The "G" I rode yesterday from Court Sq to Hoyt (1PM) was SRO all the way. I only managed a seat at Metropolitan-Grand when the crowds changed places for the transfer. The north end of this line is certainly popular. Not so much the south end (at least 2PM yesterday), but even then, wasn't totally empty.wayne |
|
|
| (1154947) | |
Re: Best Article I've Read on Reasons to Reactivate the Rockaway Beach Line |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Sun May 6 16:27:56 2012, in response to Re: Best Article I've Read on Reasons to Reactivate the Rockaway Beach Line, posted by Wallyhorse on Sun May 6 09:30:03 2012. Then the R as you have reconfigured it could no longer use that letter since R means 4 Av. Reverting t the old pre Chrystie designation of T would be more appropriate. |
|
|
|
Page 4 of 11 |
||
