|
|
| What's the obsession with making the subway go EVERYWHERE? (1363187) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
|
Page 1 of 4 |
|
|
|
| (1363197) | |
Re: What's the obsession with making the subway go EVERYWHERE? |
|
|
Posted by Union Tpke on Tue Aug 18 20:59:21 2015, in response to What's the obsession with making the subway go EVERYWHERE?, posted by ElectricTraction on Tue Aug 18 20:49:53 2015. I disagree. Many areas of the city are underserved and need to be served by subway trains, such as Eastern Queens, parts of Brooklyn, and Staten Island.I think that we need to have a lot of projects worked on simultaneously, like the dual contracts. |
|
|
| (1363200) | |
Re: What's the obsession with making the subway go EVERYWHERE? |
|
|
Posted by ElectricTraction on Tue Aug 18 21:04:28 2015, in response to Re: What's the obsession with making the subway go EVERYWHERE?, posted by Union Tpke on Tue Aug 18 20:59:21 2015. No doubt many areas are underserved, but I don't think the subway should be stretched out over that long of a distance. It's a subway, not a commuter train. What areas would be still be underserved with a 3-line SIR system on Staten Island, the Brooklyn-Queens light rail, Triboro RX, and the RBB back as LIRR? |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (1363202) | |
Re: What's the obsession with making the subway go EVERYWHERE? |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Tue Aug 18 21:33:32 2015, in response to What's the obsession with making the subway go EVERYWHERE?, posted by ElectricTraction on Tue Aug 18 20:49:53 2015. I'm sorry to learn that you hate trains. |
|
|
| (1363204) | |
Re: What's the obsession with making the subway go EVERYWHERE? |
|
|
Posted by ElectricTraction on Tue Aug 18 22:04:40 2015, in response to Re: What's the obsession with making the subway go EVERYWHERE?, posted by Olog-hai on Tue Aug 18 21:33:32 2015. I hate trains because I'm foaming over building more trains? Your logic is, um, interesting. |
|
|
| (1363205) | |
Re: What's the obsession with making the subway go EVERYWHERE? |
|
|
Posted by Jackson Park B Train on Tue Aug 18 22:15:57 2015, in response to What's the obsession with making the subway go EVERYWHERE?, posted by ElectricTraction on Tue Aug 18 20:49:53 2015. One reason to keep the RBB a subway is...FRA. The stricter FRA rules cost $$. Another is fare integration. While I, of course, want ALL public transit in the 5 boros to be the same fare calling something "commuter rail" muddies the water. |
|
|
| (1363207) | |
Re: What's the obsession with making the subway go EVERYWHERE? |
|
|
Posted by The Silence on Tue Aug 18 23:56:31 2015, in response to What's the obsession with making the subway go EVERYWHERE?, posted by ElectricTraction on Tue Aug 18 20:49:53 2015. So you're opposed to the Subway operating within many segments of the city, but you want it to run to a place it legally can't?Rockaway line The City had been planning the inclusion the Rockaways to the subway since the first drafts of the second system program, and it probably the largest idea from that era to get off the drawing board so far. The line was a serious money loser for the LIRR as a private company. it served the seaside traveler trade much more than a real "Commuter" route. Prior to World War I and the separation of Rail and Transit, the BRT used to offer direct, one seat service via a connection between the Atlantic Branch and the Jamaica line at Chestnut Street. LIRR trains also used to travel via the Jamaica and Centre Street Lines and terminate at Chambers street. The subway offers greater connectivity than the LIRR. $2.75 to go wherever you want. Even with City ticket you are limited to where the railroad goes plus $2.75 for the subway to go further. Staten Island connection to the subway The borough's links to the rest of the city are poor. why is trying to fix that problem a problem in itself? |
|
|
| (1363208) | |
Re: What's the obsession with making the subway go EVERYWHERE? |
|
|
Posted by displaced angeleno on Wed Aug 19 00:21:55 2015, in response to What's the obsession with making the subway go EVERYWHERE?, posted by ElectricTraction on Tue Aug 18 20:49:53 2015. What's the obsession with making roads go everywhere? |
|
|
| (1363247) | |
Re: What's the obsession with making the subway go EVERYWHERE? |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Wed Aug 19 07:24:23 2015, in response to What's the obsession with making the subway go EVERYWHERE?, posted by ElectricTraction on Tue Aug 18 20:49:53 2015. 1) It was politically incorrect at the time to spend city money on a bankrupt RR whose top management and Board of Directors was really the PRR, who could not be more disinterested. The LURR was also philosophically opposed to serving Queens and that mentality went right into the 1980's. Their fare structure still shows it. An OFF peak fare between Zone 1 and 3 of $7.25 is ridiculous.3) #7 would be good cost avoidance of spending money on rebuilding and expanding PABT. The XBL does not work well anymore. Either way, it is $10 Billion. It also gives NJT rail passengers an option to avoid NYPS and Times Square to get to GCT and take about the same time with one net transfer eliminated. |
|
|
| (1363252) | |
Re: What's the obsession with making the subway go EVERYWHERE? |
|
|
Posted by Mitch45 on Wed Aug 19 07:49:30 2015, in response to What's the obsession with making the subway go EVERYWHERE?, posted by ElectricTraction on Tue Aug 18 20:49:53 2015. Having subways go to more places would reduce the need for traffic-clogging buses and also might reduce traffic on the highways, tunnels and bridges. Taking over abandoned lines and converting them to subway use is a hell of a lot cheaper than building a parallel subway line. |
|
|
| (1363288) | |
Re: What's the obsession with making the subway go EVERYWHERE? |
|
|
Posted by MR RT on Wed Aug 19 11:56:01 2015, in response to Re: What's the obsession with making the subway go EVERYWHERE?, posted by Mitch45 on Wed Aug 19 07:49:30 2015. Good point, it's called a one seat ride.Folks don't want to change from bus to train, plus it is cheaper & less stressful then driving & parking in the City. |
|
|
| (1363291) | |
Re: What's the obsession with making the subway go EVERYWHERE? |
|
|
Posted by fdtutf on Wed Aug 19 12:47:58 2015, in response to What's the obsession with making the subway go EVERYWHERE?, posted by ElectricTraction on Tue Aug 18 20:49:53 2015. 1. If you've read the history, then you should know that after one of the many fires on the trestle, the LIRR threw up its hands and essentially refused to operate the Rockaway line anymore. Having the city take the line off the LIRR's hands and operate it as part of the subway was the best solution.This is in addition to the points others have made about fare integration. 2. Transfers add friction (and the possibility of additional delay) to a transit trip. Imagine living on Staten Island, using the SIR, and having to worry every time about whether your train was going to miss the ferry connection due to any delays it might encounter. Providing subway service to and from Staten Island eliminates that problem. 3. No disagreement here. |
|
|
| (1363294) | |
Re: What's the obsession with making the subway go EVERYWHERE? |
|
|
Posted by rbseabeach on Wed Aug 19 13:22:01 2015, in response to Re: What's the obsession with making the subway go EVERYWHERE?, posted by Mitch45 on Wed Aug 19 07:49:30 2015. Although we have been discussing this for years, I think that at this time we could actually be successful. With all of the new residents, new developments, new buildings, more congestion on the roads due to Uber etc and with expanded lines about to come on line we could get it done this time. |
|
|
| (1363296) | |
Re: What's the obsession with making the subway go EVERYWHERE? |
|
|
Posted by Jackson Park B Train on Wed Aug 19 13:25:08 2015, in response to Re: What's the obsession with making the subway go EVERYWHERE?, posted by Mitch45 on Wed Aug 19 07:49:30 2015. Buses don't clog traffic. A bus with even half a load is a better use of street space than cars carrying the same people. |
|
|
| (1363298) | |
Re: What's the obsession with making the subway go EVERYWHERE? |
|
|
Posted by Mitch45 on Wed Aug 19 13:30:04 2015, in response to Re: What's the obsession with making the subway go EVERYWHERE?, posted by Jackson Park B Train on Wed Aug 19 13:25:08 2015. That is theoretically true. But that only applies to places where there are dedicated bus lanes and where local law enforcement makes sure that only buses use those lanes. In those circumstances, buses can be extremely efficient. But in many places in NYC, bus-only lanes are often clogged by passenger cars trying to get around traffic.Places that don't have dedicated bus lanes can be nightmarish during rush hours, especially if multiple bus lines run on the same roads at the same time, or there is "bus-bunching". If bus lanes were grade-separated from the rest of vehicular traffic, I can see it being a very good alternative to driving. But you'd run into the same kind of NIMBYism you'd get if someone proposed an elevated light rail line. |
|
|
| (1363301) | |
Re: What's the obsession with making the subway go EVERYWHERE? |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Wed Aug 19 13:38:50 2015, in response to Re: What's the obsession with making the subway go EVERYWHERE?, posted by Mitch45 on Wed Aug 19 13:30:04 2015. If bus lanes were grade-separated from the rest of vehicular traffic, I can see it being a very good alternative to drivingIf you're going to go that far, you may as well build rails. Buses are less efficient than rail. |
|
|
| (1363305) | |
Re: What's the obsession with making the subway go EVERYWHERE? |
|
|
Posted by Hamilton Express on Wed Aug 19 14:08:06 2015, in response to What's the obsession with making the subway go EVERYWHERE?, posted by ElectricTraction on Tue Aug 18 20:49:53 2015. Well, these exsist because there's always a variety of ideas to expand the subway system. It could be for economic, or community improvement purposes. |
|
|
| (1363312) | |
Re: What's the obsession with making the subway go EVERYWHERE? |
|
|
Posted by Jackson Park B Train on Wed Aug 19 14:37:45 2015, in response to Re: What's the obsession with making the subway go EVERYWHERE?, posted by Olog-hai on Wed Aug 19 13:38:50 2015. correct. We figured that out over a century ago. That said, a bus still is more deserving of road space on the basis of passengers per sqare foot. It is not the buses which clog the streets; it is the SOV drivers. |
|
|
| (1363323) | |
Re: What's the obsession with making the subway go EVERYWHERE? |
|
|
Posted by ElectricTraction on Wed Aug 19 15:42:22 2015, in response to Re: What's the obsession with making the subway go EVERYWHERE?, posted by Mitch45 on Wed Aug 19 07:49:30 2015. How would a subway from Staten Island to Manhattan reduce traffic? All it would do is potentially replace or downsize the ferry. It doesn't compete with autos or busses. And who ever suggested building a parallel subway line to the RBB? No one. |
|
|
| (1363326) | |
Re: What's the obsession with making the subway go EVERYWHERE? |
|
|
Posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Wed Aug 19 15:51:53 2015, in response to What's the obsession with making the subway go EVERYWHERE?, posted by ElectricTraction on Tue Aug 18 20:49:53 2015. The city's population is growing and not showing any signs of stopping. New York is more crowded than it has ever been. We need to have infrastructure that can keep up with the growth and the crowds. Right now, we don't.1. The Rockaway Beach Branch would do almost no one any good if the LIRR took it back and reinstated train service. LIRR stopped running its trains on the RBB over 50 years ago. They didn't want it then and they don't want it now. People who live along the part of the branch used by the A train, many of whom are low- or middle-income folks, aren't asking for premium-priced commuter rail and may not be able to afford the LIRR's absurdly high fares. Or they may need to go to other areas of Queens not served by LIRR, but served by subway and/or bus. Those are good reasons to not only retain the A train on the RBB, but also to extend subway service onto the all-but-abandoned part of the branch between Ozone Park and Rego Park, as an extension of either the M or R train. 2. Staten Island is part of New York City, whether we like it or not. We can go on forever debating whether or not the island's population justifies a subway extension or if they even want it. We can't assume whether they do or don't. Time saved getting to Manhattan shouldn't be the deciding factor in building a subway extension to SI. SI only has two connections to the City, the ferry and the Verrazano Bridge. Both are heavily used and very susceptible to weather conditions. While a rail tunnel can flood, traffic through tunnels, in general, fares better in foul weather conditions. And a Brooklyn-SI tunnel would provide some redundancy to the Verrazano when it gets hit with heavy traffic or major construction. 3. I'm not against a 7 train extension to Secaucus, but I do believe if it ever gets the green signal for construction, it needs to be paid for by New Jersey, the Feds and/or the Port Authority. City taxes and MTA capital funding must not be used to construct such an extension when there are more pressing needs both in the City and the MTA service area that need to be addressed. |
|
|
| (1363328) | |
Re: What's the obsession with making the subway go EVERYWHERE? |
|
|
Posted by ElectricTraction on Wed Aug 19 16:02:24 2015, in response to Re: What's the obsession with making the subway go EVERYWHERE?, posted by fdtutf on Wed Aug 19 12:47:58 2015. 1. Yes, but couldn't the city have had the political power to keep it running? It just doesn't belong as part of the subway. It's too far away from the core of the subway system. It's subway creep, so to speak. Why couldn't a political deal be worked out to have some sort of within-city ticket combo with a Metrocard swipe for LIRR and MN within NYC? It would have to be more than $2.25, but maybe $4 or $5 or something for both, and for better service at that. LIRR also needs to step up operations within NYC on the other lines.2. That sounds like a ferry/SIR operational coordination problem. If they added the North Shore branch, they would have more people on SIR, and could better coordinate their operations. I suppose it still doesn't help on the return trip, since you can't coordinate the entire subway system with the Staten Island Ferry. I guess it would be easier in that sense, but is that worth the big $$$ for a subway connection? It also just seems like subway creep... the system getting larger than what a rapid transit system is really intended to be. In a way, it makes sense, since the SIR is basically a B Division subway without the underground part, but still... The direct tunnel to Manhattan would save a lot of time, but it would be absurdly expensive. Flip side, property values on SI would jump, people could get to work way faster, and it would be an awesome tunnel. If you were to ask me how to speed up travel to SI, I'd say get some faster boats! |
|
|
| (1363330) | |
Re: What's the obsession with making the subway go EVERYWHERE? |
|
|
Posted by ElectricTraction on Wed Aug 19 16:06:33 2015, in response to Re: What's the obsession with making the subway go EVERYWHERE?, posted by The Silence on Tue Aug 18 23:56:31 2015. Maybe the legal barriers should be overcome.But then the question is why the city wanted the Rockaways as part of the subway system? They just don't fit with the core geography of the subway system. They stick out like a sore thumb on a map. It just doesn't seem to make sense. The Brooklyn route doesn't save any time over the ferry, and the straight tunnel route, while it would save a lot of time, would be absurdly expensive. The Brooklyn route has the one-seat (or one-stand) upside, as well as the upside of connecting SI to Brooklyn, but other than that... The better solution might be to give Staten Island back to NJ, where it belongs! |
|
|
| (1363335) | |
Re: What's the obsession with making the subway go EVERYWHERE? |
|
|
Posted by Jackson Park B Train on Wed Aug 19 16:44:47 2015, in response to Re: What's the obsession with making the subway go EVERYWHERE?, posted by ElectricTraction on Wed Aug 19 16:02:24 2015. I am not sure what makes you think "subway creep" The point of mass transit is easy access to all parts of the city (which in many cases includes immediately adjacent "towns" which while "independent" would have no economic reason for existence if not for the large city just over the border--think Evanston, Skokie, Bethesda, Rosslyn. We are fortunate that NYC was formed uniting the five boros unlike for instance here in the SF Bay area where we have midget towns completely surrounded by other cities. Imagine if the UES were a separate city w/a mayor/city council etc and the Chelsea neighborhood the same.Transit provides mobility which facilitates the economy. Extending it to more areas improves conditions for everyone. |
|
|
| (1363346) | |
Re: What's the obsession with making the subway go EVERYWHERE? |
|
|
Posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Wed Aug 19 17:12:55 2015, in response to Re: What's the obsession with making the subway go EVERYWHERE?, posted by ElectricTraction on Wed Aug 19 15:42:22 2015. No, but the city does want to do SBS on Woodhaven and Cross Bay boulevards and has not made any mention of the unused rail corridor sitting just a couple blocks east of Woodhaven from Forest Hills down to Ozone Park. Also, there are those who say the rail line's condition has deteriorated so much over the past 53 years that it would be too expensive to bother putting rail back on it. Then there are those who say the r.o.w. is "too far" east of Woodhaven and points west to be well-used. I honestly don't think it's too far to be useful. I mean, we have the Brighton Line in Brooklyn which is very well-used and it's not directly on a major roadway. Neither are the Sea Beach or Dyre Ave lines and both of those lines get decent ridership. |
|
|
| (1363350) | |
Re: What's the obsession with making the subway go EVERYWHERE? |
|
|
Posted by The silence on Wed Aug 19 17:20:43 2015, in response to Re: What's the obsession with making the subway go EVERYWHERE?, posted by ElectricTraction on Wed Aug 19 16:06:33 2015. You are kinda coming off as saying that if you don't live without a certain proximity to Manhattan, you don't deserve subway service.The subway doesn't have a "core geography" short of trying to follow the Manhattan street grid. Everything else is hap hazard additions to three competing companies. |
|
|
| (1363351) | |
Re: What's the obsession with making the subway go EVERYWHERE? |
|
|
Posted by Mitch45 on Wed Aug 19 17:38:25 2015, in response to Re: What's the obsession with making the subway go EVERYWHERE?, posted by Olog-hai on Wed Aug 19 13:38:50 2015. I think people associate elevated railways with the old and noisy els. I think you could convince people to allow an elevated bus line, especially if the bus is electric. |
|
|
| (1363360) | |
Re: What's the obsession with making the subway go EVERYWHERE? |
|
|
Posted by Michael549 on Wed Aug 19 19:14:22 2015, in response to Re: What's the obsession with making the subway go EVERYWHERE?, posted by ElectricTraction on Wed Aug 19 16:06:33 2015. The better solution might be to give Staten Island back to NJ, where it belongs!----------------- One of the basic reasons why Staten Island is a part of New York State is simple - it is for defense purposes, especially at a time when areas had to defend themselves from attack by warships on the seas. The high natural bluffs both sides of the Narrows (on Staten Island & Brooklyn) provide excellent places for the building of forts that protect New York Bay from a sea attack. Those forts would and could easily protect the bay and Manhattan from a distance. While the current maps that are used today and their limitations, the land use patterns of the last few decades, and the thinking about and methods of war-fare wave changed - does not mean that some of the decisions made during the early years of this country did not have sound reasonings behind them. Knowing your history is a good thing! Mike |
|
|
| (1363365) | |
Re: What's the obsession with making the subway go EVERYWHERE? |
|
|
Posted by Andrew Saucci on Wed Aug 19 20:14:22 2015, in response to What's the obsession with making the subway go EVERYWHERE?, posted by ElectricTraction on Tue Aug 18 20:49:53 2015. From www.nycsubway.org, "History of the Independent Subway," for what it's worth:"It was predicted that this "Second System" would provide everyone in Manhattan, Queens, Brooklyn and the Bronx subway service within 1/2 mile of anyone's home." The idea has been around a while, it seems, so perhaps it's not an obsession, but rather just a good idea. |
|
|
| (1363372) | |
Re: What's the obsession with making the subway go EVERYWHERE? |
|
|
Posted by ElectricTraction on Wed Aug 19 22:39:01 2015, in response to Re: What's the obsession with making the subway go EVERYWHERE?, posted by Andrew Saucci on Wed Aug 19 20:14:22 2015. Building more subway lines, if it's even possible or practical anywhere that it's needed and not already being done (2nd ave) sounds like a fine idea. Extending the subway from here to Timbuktu is not. |
|
|
| (1363374) | |
Re: What's the obsession with making the subway go EVERYWHERE? |
|
|
Posted by ElectricTraction on Wed Aug 19 22:40:17 2015, in response to Re: What's the obsession with making the subway go EVERYWHERE?, posted by Mitch45 on Wed Aug 19 17:38:25 2015. Are you nuts? The NIMBYs are EVERYWHERE! Heck, I can't blame them. I wouldn't want an L in front of my apartment either. |
|
|
| (1363375) | |
Re: What's the obsession with making the subway go EVERYWHERE? |
|
|
Posted by ElectricTraction on Wed Aug 19 22:43:26 2015, in response to Re: What's the obsession with making the subway go EVERYWHERE?, posted by The silence on Wed Aug 19 17:20:43 2015. If you look at the map, there's a pretty clear core. It creates a nice, neat square with all routes except G hitting Manhattan within about 35-40 minutes of their extreme ends. The RBB is the exception to this rule now, and a subway to SI would also be an exception to this rule. |
|
|
| (1363376) | |
Re: What's the obsession with making the subway go EVERYWHERE? |
|
|
Posted by ElectricTraction on Wed Aug 19 22:45:06 2015, in response to Re: What's the obsession with making the subway go EVERYWHERE?, posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Wed Aug 19 17:12:55 2015. Sure, it's in bad shape, but at least there is a ROW there. Anywhere they have to go below streets for a subway is mega-bucks. And forget about building railroads much of anywhere. ESA is a necessary, but expensive monster. |
|
|
| (1363378) | |
Re: What's the obsession with making the subway go EVERYWHERE? |
|
|
Posted by ElectricTraction on Wed Aug 19 22:47:19 2015, in response to Re: What's the obsession with making the subway go EVERYWHERE?, posted by Jackson Park B Train on Wed Aug 19 16:44:47 2015. Boston might be the king of fragmentation. But nonetheless, the NYC subway system makes sense as a rapid transit system. It shouldn't try to be commuter rail. It's not commuter rail.I'm in favor of mass transit. But the right kinds of mass transit in the right places. |
|
|
| (1363381) | |
Re: What's the obsession with making the subway go EVERYWHERE? |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Wed Aug 19 22:58:06 2015, in response to Re: What's the obsession with making the subway go EVERYWHERE?, posted by ElectricTraction on Wed Aug 19 22:40:17 2015. How often do the trains go by? :) |
|
|
| (1363382) | |
Re: What's the obsession with making the subway go EVERYWHERE? |
|
|
Posted by The Silence on Wed Aug 19 23:46:54 2015, in response to Re: What's the obsession with making the subway go EVERYWHERE?, posted by ElectricTraction on Wed Aug 19 22:43:26 2015. It's not really clear when you consider how complex (and large) it is.The Rockaway line is not an exception to a "rule", because that "rule" doesn't exist. Everything about the subway is happenstance. growing in fits and spurts. Second Avenue is the central focus of subway expansion now because that's where it's needed the most, but there is nothing stopping them from extending the 7 to Bayside or the E to Laurelton. The Rockaways may be the most remote part of the subway, but that does not give you the right to suggest New Jersey deserves subway service more than they do. |
|
|
| (1363383) | |
Re: What's the obsession with making the subway go EVERYWHERE? |
|
|
Posted by The Silence on Wed Aug 19 23:59:31 2015, in response to Re: What's the obsession with making the subway go EVERYWHERE?, posted by ElectricTraction on Wed Aug 19 16:02:24 2015. for #1:The city could not force the LIRR to operate the line, even at gun point. the LIRR does not need to "step up service" because the subway exists. The subway allows the LIRR to focus on Nassau and Suffolk. For #2: realying on water crossing is hard enough. Now imagine how often the bosts have trouble with the weather. the system getting larger than what a rapid transit system is really intended to be UM, who made you the judge of how large the subway system should be? If it runs fine, which is does (barring hurricanes), then what's the problem? there are longer subway routes in other cities. The Central Line and District Line in London off the top of my head. |
|
|
| (1363386) | |
Re: What's the obsession with making the subway go EVERYWHERE? |
|
|
Posted by Jackson Park B Train on Thu Aug 20 01:07:38 2015, in response to Re: What's the obsession with making the subway go EVERYWHERE?, posted by ElectricTraction on Wed Aug 19 22:47:19 2015. service that is frequent, direct, and goes to major destinations. |
|
|
| (1363411) | |
Re: What's the obsession with making the subway go EVERYWHERE? |
|
|
Posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Thu Aug 20 11:14:19 2015, in response to Re: What's the obsession with making the subway go EVERYWHERE?, posted by ElectricTraction on Wed Aug 19 22:45:06 2015. Right. That's why I think it should be rehabbed and put back into service. But not with LIRR trains. Putting the LIRR back there is not practical because riders who use the existing transit services in that corridor are paying a lower fare for their local bus, express bus or subway compared to LIRR's premium prices. Why would they want to pay more to ride LIRR, which stops only in one area of Midtown Manhattan (Penn Station) and doesn't offer free transfers to any subways?The much better option would be to extend either the M or R trains from 63rd Drive down the RBB corridor. Riders would have the option of being able to access far more than just the Penn Station area. They would have direct access to other parts of Midtown Manhattan, plus Long Island City and Lower Manhattan (if it's the R). They would have access to many more areas of Queens and the rest of the city through transfers to other subway lines and buses. That's a much more practical option for the RBB. |
|
|
| (1363412) | |
Re: What's the obsession with making the subway go EVERYWHERE? |
|
|
Posted by Q4 on Thu Aug 20 11:29:01 2015, in response to Re: What's the obsession with making the subway go EVERYWHERE?, posted by ElectricTraction on Wed Aug 19 22:39:01 2015. Some of the subway lines when they were originally built, went to and through areas that were farmland, or not well developed and sparsely inhabited at the time. In terms of distance and location, those areas could have been considered to be "Timbuktu" at the time. |
|
|
| (1363446) | |
Re: What's the obsession with making the subway go EVERYWHERE? |
|
|
Posted by ElectricTraction on Thu Aug 20 17:44:40 2015, in response to Re: What's the obsession with making the subway go EVERYWHERE?, posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Thu Aug 20 11:14:19 2015. If they could actually figure out how to connect the Queens Blvd line with the RBB, that would be a decent alternative, but it still leaves the line out to Rockaway as a subway, and it doesn't allow the resurrection of the Rockaway loop, which would provide Far Rockaway with a faster path into Manhattan.Time for some serious foam. What if they used the outer two tracks for the subway with a connection to the Queens Blvd line, and the inner two tracks for LIRR? The LIRR would have a couple of island platforms, with the 4 tracks bowing out around it, and the subway would have many side platform stations. Assuming that the FRA would have too much heartburn over an at-grade crossing between the subway and LIRR, one subway track would fly over the LIRR either just north or just south of the JFK Airtrain station, allowing reversing, and allowing the LIRR to continue on to Rockaway, Far Rockaway, and Jamaica. The LIRR could then restore the connection to the Atlantic Ave branch with a nice fly-under, and the subway could connect to the J-Z lines with a giant flyover the supermarket. However, I still don't see it being terribly easy to connect to the Queens Blvd line, as there is a very tight turn to connect the tracks. I'm not sure exactly what the configuration is down there, but it might involved quite a bit of reconfiguration of the existing line to make a connection. |
|
|
| (1363447) | |
Re: What's the obsession with making the subway go EVERYWHERE? |
|
|
Posted by ElectricTraction on Thu Aug 20 17:55:39 2015, in response to Re: What's the obsession with making the subway go EVERYWHERE?, posted by The Silence on Wed Aug 19 23:46:54 2015. If you look at a map, or calculate the time to cross in Manhattan, the Rockaway Line doesn't fit the mold of the NYC subway. It shows that it was a subway that got dumped onto a commuter railroad.The 7 to Secaucus makes a lot of sense. Maybe a small extension to Bayside, although it has some capacity issues, so we'd have to see how CBTC sorts those out. On the flip side, the Port Wash Branch should have more stations in Queens, as it currently doesn't serve the city itself very well. The 7 train to Secaucus fits the mold of the NYC subway much better than the Rockaway line. |
|
|
| (1363448) | |
Re: What's the obsession with making the subway go EVERYWHERE? |
|
|
Posted by ElectricTraction on Thu Aug 20 17:59:01 2015, in response to Re: What's the obsession with making the subway go EVERYWHERE?, posted by The Silence on Wed Aug 19 23:59:31 2015. The LIRR has a lot of issues, and fixing their issues in NYC proper may not be their top priority, and maybe it shouldn't be their top priority (the third main track should be their singular top priority since it's the logjam in the whole system), but it should still be on the list. They need more and better service within NYC, including the Port Wash branch, the Main Line, Atlantic Ave Terminal, and Long Island City. |
|
|
| (1363453) | |
Re: What's the obsession with making the subway go EVERYWHERE? |
|
|
Posted by ElectricTraction on Thu Aug 20 19:35:24 2015, in response to Re: What's the obsession with making the subway go EVERYWHERE?, posted by Jackson Park B Train on Thu Aug 20 01:07:38 2015. Major destinations within it's scope of operation. Not all over the place. |
|
|
| (1363454) | |
Re: What's the obsession with making the subway go EVERYWHERE? |
|
|
Posted by ElectricTraction on Thu Aug 20 19:44:08 2015, in response to Re: What's the obsession with making the subway go EVERYWHERE?, posted by Q4 on Thu Aug 20 11:29:01 2015. They probably weren't much farther time wise than they are today. How fast did the trains go back then? Also, back then, they didn't really have cars, today we do, so we'd never build any type of mass transit into relatively unpopulated areas.Certainly nowhere anywhere near NYC qualifies, but at some point, you're not breaking even on the energy used to run the trains versus just driving. Shore Line East is about a break-even right now versus everyone just driving. The solution there is electrification, other lines can use DMUs to bring that ratio way up. The NYC subway claims 1/8th the greenhouse gas emissions per passenger-mile compared to cars. That equates to around 160mpg, which is VERY impressive. Most systems get nowhere near that. All that being said, it may not actually be 160mpg per pax in terms of actual energy consumed, because the power is generated from a mix of gas, some of which is combined cycle, nuclear, and renewables, and gas puts out about half the GHG's (arguably) of oil/coal, so if you go BTU for BTU, it might be more like 80mpg per pax, or about the same as a Boeing 737. Still impressive and even if there were the physical space, it still beats everyone driving Prii around. Back to what they did in 1920-something, they didn't have a lot of other options, so the railroad it was. I bet dollar for dollar and BTU for BTU, the railroads of that day performed poorly compared to today's motor vehicles, much less today's commuter rail systems, much less today's NYC subway. |
|
|
| (1363468) | |
Re: What's the obsession with making the subway go EVERYWHERE? |
|
|
Posted by The silence on Thu Aug 20 21:26:46 2015, in response to Re: What's the obsession with making the subway go EVERYWHERE?, posted by ElectricTraction on Thu Aug 20 17:55:39 2015. No, it doesn't "fit" better, because there is no mold. Well there is a sort of mold, but it's the shape of the City of New York, the outright owner of the subway network. |
|
|
| (1363482) | |
Re: What's the obsession with making the subway go EVERYWHERE? |
|
|
Posted by ElectricTraction on Thu Aug 20 22:23:30 2015, in response to Re: What's the obsession with making the subway go EVERYWHERE?, posted by The silence on Thu Aug 20 21:26:46 2015. The subway established a mold for itself. There is a certain distance where heavy rail rapid transit makes sense vice commuter rail. The one line that just doesn't fit is the Rockaway line. |
|
|
| (1363514) | |
Re: What's the obsession with making the subway go EVERYWHERE? |
|
|
Posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Fri Aug 21 07:40:14 2015, in response to Re: What's the obsession with making the subway go EVERYWHERE?, posted by ElectricTraction on Thu Aug 20 22:23:30 2015. In what way? Have you ever even been to any of the areas along the Rockaway Beach Branch? Not just the Rockaways, Broad Channel and Howard Beach, which have the A train, but the areas near the unused part of the branch? Why do you think they should want to have more expensive, less frequent LIRR service as opposed to more frequent, less expensive subway service that can easily get them to other parts of Queens and the rest of the city, either directly or with just one transfer? And a free one at that. |
|
|
| (1363522) | |
Re: What's the obsession with making the subway go EVERYWHERE? |
|
|
Posted by frilter199 on Fri Aug 21 09:21:37 2015, in response to What's the obsession with making the subway go EVERYWHERE?, posted by ElectricTraction on Tue Aug 18 20:49:53 2015. Well, it IS the NYC subways, so serving NYC neighborhoods which the Rockaways are a part of makes sense. It certainly makes more sense than extending a NYC subway line to Secaucus. |
|
|
| (1363523) | |
Re: What's the obsession with making the subway go EVERYWHERE? |
|
|
Posted by TUNNELRAT on Fri Aug 21 10:17:41 2015, in response to Re: What's the obsession with making the subway go EVERYWHERE?, posted by ElectricTraction on Thu Aug 20 17:44:40 2015. no need to figure it out.construction was started in apx.1932 & completed in 1933.a "flying junction" was built at queens blvd to connect the ind.towards the lirr ROW at whitepot junction.rego park. |
|
|
| (1363525) | |
Re: What's the obsession with making the subway go EVERYWHERE? |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Fri Aug 21 10:33:28 2015, in response to Re: What's the obsession with making the subway go EVERYWHERE?, posted by TUNNELRAT on Fri Aug 21 10:17:41 2015. The problem is how to get the LIRR from Austin Street to Queens Blvd. The area has changed considerably since the IND was completed in 1936. It's changed considerably since the mid 1940's, when I lived in Rego Park. |
|
|
|
|
Page 1 of 4 |
|
