|
|
| Re: R46 Technology (was: Re: R-160 Update) (313363) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 4 of 9 |
||
|
| (315000) | |
Re: R46 Technology (was: Re: R-160 Update) |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Sun Sep 24 20:22:54 2006, in response to Re: R46 Technology (was: Re: R-160 Update), posted by Edwards! on Sun Sep 24 17:36:14 2006. Not every plan was shot down...look at what happening today in downtown Brooklyn..where a Airtrain station is being planned near MetroTECHHaha. That wasteful garbage plan?!?!? LOL! along with a extention into Brooklyn for the SAS subway. There are no plans for this on the table. It definitely won't happen in your lifetime. I DO have a few misgivings ...a proposed reroute of the Brighton Local to the Smith Street subway..and a Rutgers to Dekalb connection should have been built! Rutgers to DeKalb is worthwhile only if the Manhattan Bridge needs to be decomissioned as a rail bridge. Seeing as they just invested millions into its rehabilitation, restoring full service, then a Rutgers/DeKalb connection is a waste. Pick one or the other. Regarding the Brighton Local via Smith: that would be a waste of money, spending it in an area that already has a flood of services. Never the less..if the needs of the people come FIRST,Then a way WILL be found to push needed rapid transit to deserving neoghborhoods. Hey..it works. If you need proff..look to the Eastside sometime later this year. LOL. Never use SAS as an example of something positive. It was first announced almost 80 years ago. |
|
|
| (315001) | |
Re: R46 Technology (was: Re: R-160 Update) |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Sun Sep 24 20:26:21 2006, in response to Re: R46 Technology (was: Re: R-160 Update), posted by RonInBayside on Sun Sep 24 18:22:29 2006. Access to the airport from anywhere in the city or Long Island. Which is exactly what it is supposed to do.Think how many more people would benefit if it offered services into manhattan, or was an integrated part of the Subway system. |
|
|
| (315002) | |
Re: R46 Technology (was: Re: R-160 Update) |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Sun Sep 24 20:27:21 2006, in response to Re: R46 Technology (was: Re: R-160 Update), posted by Edwards! on Sun Sep 24 17:40:30 2006. You can keep thinking that Utica is simply on the back burner, but the reality is that there's nobody thinking about even funding a study for this project. |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (315003) | |
Re: R-160 Update |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Sun Sep 24 20:28:04 2006, in response to Re: R-160 Update, posted by TheCanarsieConnection on Sun Sep 24 18:46:10 2006. That's right! We should go back to Horse and Buggy! |
|
|
| (315005) | |
Re: R46 Technology (was: Re: R-160 Update) |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Sun Sep 24 20:28:14 2006, in response to Re: R46 Technology (was: Re: R-160 Update), posted by J trainloco on Sun Sep 24 20:22:54 2006. "Never use SAS as an example of something positive."OK. So let's blame MTA for trying to build it now. Let's cancel it. "It was first announced almost 80 years ago" Our desires to build a moon rocket started 100 years before we accomplished it. Your post shows why it's good your on Subchat, as oposed to running the transit system...:0) |
|
|
| (315006) | |
Re: R46 Technology (was: Re: R-160 Update) |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Sun Sep 24 20:29:49 2006, in response to Re: R46 Technology (was: Re: R-160 Update), posted by J trainloco on Sun Sep 24 20:26:21 2006. "Think how many more people would benefit if it offered services into manhattan"Zero. Since people in Manhattan can already access it. The more elevators we put into Manhattan subway stations, the easier it becomes. "or was an integrated part of the Subway system." It already is integral with it. |
|
|
| (315008) | |
Re: R46 Technology (was: Re: R-160 Update) |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Sun Sep 24 20:34:09 2006, in response to Re: R46 Technology (was: Re: R-160 Update), posted by RonInBayside on Sun Sep 24 20:28:14 2006. Our desires to build a moon rocket started 100 years before we accomplished it.Because the technology was unable to achieve the goal. Would you say that in 1929 they didn't have the technology to build the SAS??? Your post shows why it's good your on Subchat, as oposed to running the transit system...:0) LOL! What do your posts say about you? |
|
|
| (315009) | |
Re: R46 Technology (was: Re: R-160 Update) |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Sun Sep 24 20:35:36 2006, in response to Re: R46 Technology (was: Re: R-160 Update), posted by RonInBayside on Sun Sep 24 20:29:49 2006. Your ability to comprehend simple concepts is severely lacking. Do you even bother to think twice before posting? Scratch that, do you think at all? |
|
|
| (315010) | |
Re: R46 Technology (was: Re: R-160 Update) |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Sun Sep 24 20:38:59 2006, in response to Re: R46 Technology (was: Re: R-160 Update), posted by J trainloco on Sun Sep 24 20:22:54 2006. I do not live in a rose colored world but I do believe that the MTA has the good of it riders at heart..even when they screw up...If they are willing to give LOWER MANHATTAN ACCESS and chance..were willing to TALK about it...get MONEY from the FEDS FOR IT...then IM willing to take a chance on it. 400,000,000 dollars has been spent on the SAS so far..with the ground breaking countdown begining for PHASE ONE. I for one will not believe in what You speak of..its naysayers like yourself that gives pause to most with good intentions. |
|
|
| (315014) | |
Re: R46 Technology (was: Re: R-160 Update) |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Sun Sep 24 20:53:18 2006, in response to Re: R46 Technology (was: Re: R-160 Update), posted by Edwards! on Sun Sep 24 20:38:59 2006. If they are willing to give LOWER MANHATTAN ACCESS and chance..were willing to TALK about it...get MONEY from the FEDS FOR IT...then IM willing to take a chance on it.That project is a waste of money. 400,000,000 dollars has been spent on the SAS so far..with the ground breaking countdown begining for PHASE ONE. Oh, yeah. A countdown that was supposed to end in 2004. Big deal. I for one will not believe in what You speak of..its naysayers like yourself that gives pause to most with good intentions. There's a saying about the road to hell.... |
|
|
| (315015) | |
Re: R46 Technology (was: Re: R-160 Update) |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Sun Sep 24 20:54:58 2006, in response to Re: R46 Technology (was: Re: R-160 Update), posted by J trainloco on Sun Sep 24 20:35:36 2006. Well..Airtrain DOES connect with the Subway AND the LIRR.. On the TABLE...is the PLANNED PARTIALLY FUNDED connection to the CITY SYSTEM... Remember that? Its what you called riduculous before...[the station downtown Brooklyn is PART of this like extention]. |
|
|
| (315016) | |
Re: R46 Technology (was: Re: R-160 Update) |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Sun Sep 24 20:58:18 2006, in response to Re: R46 Technology (was: Re: R-160 Update), posted by Edwards! on Sun Sep 24 20:54:58 2006. On the TABLE...is the PLANNED PARTIALLY FUNDED connection to the CITY SYSTEM...LOL. Silly subchatter. Tricks are for NYCT! AIRTRAIN will not be connected to the rest of the system. What it WOULD do, is result in the amputation of a few parts of the city system. For the Record, AIRTRAIN does not offer new service to people who live in the neighborhoods around the line, unless they're going to the airport. |
|
|
| (315019) | |
Re: R46 Technology (was: Re: R-160 Update) |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Sun Sep 24 21:00:27 2006, in response to Re: R46 Technology (was: Re: R-160 Update), posted by J trainloco on Sun Sep 24 20:27:21 2006. Your reality...My "REALITY" is sitting right here..on printed paper...talking about how it was placed on the "back burner" for the "time being"..from the MTA itself. You may believe as you wish as NOBODY will be trying to "convince" you. |
|
|
| (315020) | |
Re: R46 Technology (was: Re: R-160 Update) |
|
|
Posted by South Brooklyn Railway on Sun Sep 24 21:00:43 2006, in response to Re: R46 Technology (was: Re: R-160 Update), posted by J trainloco on Sun Sep 24 20:58:18 2006. "Silly subchatter"LOL! I like that one, that will be my new word. |
|
|
| (315023) | |
Re: R46 Technology (was: Re: R-160 Update) |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Sun Sep 24 21:03:34 2006, in response to Re: R46 Technology (was: Re: R-160 Update), posted by J trainloco on Sun Sep 24 20:58:18 2006. Humm silly boy.How would it do that..if it getting its own rail tunnel under the EAST RIVER..using LIRR or Fulton st subway trackage...? Likewise some SUBWAY service would be introduced on these lines[LIRR transfered to city service] and INTERLINED with other routes... Who s silly? You. |
|
|
| (315025) | |
Re: R46 Technology (was: Re: R-160 Update) |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Sun Sep 24 21:04:59 2006, in response to Re: R46 Technology (was: Re: R-160 Update), posted by South Brooklyn Railway on Sun Sep 24 21:00:43 2006. Then you would be a fool to play "Follow the Leader" with him.Take a GOOD look at His POST..then You will gather my meaning..IF your Smart enough,that is. |
|
|
| (315027) | |
Re: R46 Technology (was: Re: R-160 Update) |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Sun Sep 24 21:05:57 2006, in response to Re: R46 Technology (was: Re: R-160 Update), posted by Edwards! on Sun Sep 24 21:00:27 2006. LOL. You're living in the same reality as the people waiting for the 'temporary' suspension of Brooklyn F Peak direction express service to end. You know, the temporary work where they removed the necessary switches.How can something be on the back burner when no one's doing anything in regard to it. I mean, they're doing NOTHING. I've got a bridge I want to sell you. |
|
|
| (315028) | |
Re: R46 Technology (was: Re: R-160 Update) |
|
|
Posted by South Brooklyn Railway on Sun Sep 24 21:08:08 2006, in response to Re: R46 Technology (was: Re: R-160 Update), posted by Edwards! on Sun Sep 24 21:04:59 2006. I just like that term, that's all. |
|
|
| (315030) | |
Re: R46 Technology (was: Re: R-160 Update) |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Sun Sep 24 21:10:26 2006, in response to Re: R46 Technology (was: Re: R-160 Update), posted by Edwards! on Sun Sep 24 21:03:34 2006. On the TABLE...is the PLANNED PARTIALLY FUNDED connection to the CITY SYSTEM...If either the Cranberry or Montague options are taken, then parts of the City's present system would be amputated. IF it gets it's own tunnel, it remains a premium service that is of little value to anyone except commuters to and from the airport. Likewise some SUBWAY service would be introduced on these lines[LIRR transfered to city service] and INTERLINED with other routes... Where has there been any mention of this? Let me help you: nowhere except subchat. Who s silly? You. I'm not going to worry about your opinion of me, especially since you think work on the Utica Ave subway is right around the corner.... Along with a brooklyn connection to the SAS in Lower manhattan. |
|
|
| (315040) | |
Re: R46 Technology (was: Re: R-160 Update) |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Sun Sep 24 21:19:13 2006, in response to Re: R46 Technology (was: Re: R-160 Update), posted by J trainloco on Sun Sep 24 21:10:26 2006. Do you live in a closet or something?Who said anything about it a UTICA AVENUE SUBWAY being around the courner? "BACK BURNER" is EXACTLY what it means..Waiting For Funding.. And if you READ CAREFULLY..you would see that the BROOKLYN portion of the SAS is INCLUDED in the NEW EAST RIVER RAIL TUNNEL. And lastly...My opinion of YOU matters very little..simply due to the fact that You have to live with YOU,not me. Maybe you don't make good company..but who am I to say? In any case,this is one that can be discussed untill the cows come home,and it really wouldn't make a dent as far as solutions go. |
|
|
| (315044) | |
Re: R46 Technology (was: Re: R-160 Update) |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Sun Sep 24 21:23:06 2006, in response to Re: R46 Technology (was: Re: R-160 Update), posted by J trainloco on Sun Sep 24 20:58:18 2006. Which PART of a neighborhood WON'T IT SERVE?ItS slated to travel thur SEVERAL....along it PLANNED route. So NAME them,please. |
|
|
| (315047) | |
Re: R46 Technology (was: Re: R-160 Update) |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Sun Sep 24 21:23:59 2006, in response to Re: R46 Technology (was: Re: R-160 Update), posted by Edwards! on Sun Sep 24 21:19:13 2006. Who said anything about it a UTICA AVENUE SUBWAY being around the courner? "BACK BURNER" is EXACTLY what it means..Waiting For Funding..LOL! This is quite humorous! What else did they tell you? Did you write them about whether or not they're going to do anything with the S 4th street station? Hahahaha! And if you READ CAREFULLY..you would see that the BROOKLYN portion of the SAS is INCLUDED in the NEW EAST RIVER RAIL TUNNEL. And what is it going to be connected to? Unlike the Utica Av subway, the Lower Half of SAS actually IS waiting for Funding. And lastly...My opinion of YOU matters very little..simply due to the fact that You have to live with YOU,not me. Maybe you don't make good company..but who am I to say? In any case,this is one that can be discussed untill the cows come home,and it really wouldn't make a dent as far as solutions go. Blah, Blah, Blah. Cut the philosophical babble out in the future. |
|
|
| (315052) | |
Re: R46 Technology (was: Re: R-160 Update) |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Sun Sep 24 21:27:56 2006, in response to Re: R46 Technology (was: Re: R-160 Update), posted by Edwards! on Sun Sep 24 21:23:06 2006. What difference do the names of these neighborhoods make? Every one of them along the route between JFK and Jamaica got zero stations. These people still have to hop on buses to get to the nearest subway station... Even though there's a perfectly good elevated structure that could have been built as an extension of one of the lines that terminate at Jamaica. But you and Ron don't see that. All you guys see is that something was built, and for you 2, that's all you need. |
|
|
| (315053) | |
Re: R46 Technology (was: Re: R-160 Update) |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Sun Sep 24 21:29:04 2006, in response to Re: R46 Technology (was: Re: R-160 Update), posted by J trainloco on Sun Sep 24 21:23:59 2006. Ahh..so I was correct.You are a bore. |
|
|
| (315058) | |
Re: R46 Technology (was: Re: R-160 Update) |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Sun Sep 24 21:33:48 2006, in response to Re: R46 Technology (was: Re: R-160 Update), posted by Edwards! on Sun Sep 24 21:29:04 2006. Ha. no defense left for your own foolishness, eh? |
|
|
| (315061) | |
Re: R46 Technology (was: Re: R-160 Update) |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Sun Sep 24 21:43:09 2006, in response to Re: R46 Technology (was: Re: R-160 Update), posted by J trainloco on Sun Sep 24 21:27:56 2006. Okay...That what I figured... Talking about what BUILT not whats PLANNED to be added. If you are so upset about what NOT THERE...why not WRITE FIGHT..SCREAM whatever it is that YOU DO..for a station in OZONE PARK along the AIRTRAIN elevated? Better than whining about it here. Also..the MTA choose not to build the line to the Airport..for reasons that only they could answer... But I can guess... Money.. The 1968 PLAN FOR ACTION included a line along the former Rockaway line from the LIRR Main line..that would "share" space with the NYCTA A line from Librety avenue to Howard Beach..where the line would diverge to the MTA/NYCTA ROW to the AIRPORT PROPER. As we BOTH know..the 1968 plan failed to product any real substantial routing..other than the small 6 miles of subway the combined 63rd/Archer projects bought about. The City ran out of funds. The Port Authority was better suited to build it...at the time they chose to..and it was THEIR CHOICE as to what kind of services would be provided...[Not a good choice,mind you].. If your beef is with the MTA for NOT BUILDING the Airport line..then take it up with them...not whine to US about it. Now if you want to talk SERIOUSLY..then Im game for it... Station stops= WOODHAVEN..ENY..NOSTRAND..ALANTIC/FLATBUSH..METROTECH.. Terminal would be the WORLD TRADE CENTER...with the SAS diverting to it Water Street subway. |
|
|
| (315067) | |
Re: R46 Technology (was: Re: R-160 Update) |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Sun Sep 24 21:46:20 2006, in response to Re: R46 Technology (was: Re: R-160 Update), posted by J trainloco on Sun Sep 24 21:33:48 2006. No..I just tire of you childish whining. No beef just pork. |
|
|
| (315069) | |
Re: R46 Technology (was: Re: R-160 Update) |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Sun Sep 24 21:46:49 2006, in response to Re: R46 Technology (was: Re: R-160 Update), posted by Edwards! on Sun Sep 24 21:43:09 2006. I'm not crying about it on the board. I'm merely pointing out that the MTA is inept at getting anything built, and when something DOES get built, it's never as useful as it could have been, often thanks to the MTA. If you and Ron can preach to us about how great the MTA is (you guys bubble optimism like its going out of style), I'm going to point out how bad they are.Writing to them has no effect on what happens. |
|
|
| (315072) | |
Re: R46 Technology (was: Re: R-160 Update) |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Sun Sep 24 21:49:57 2006, in response to Re: R46 Technology (was: Re: R-160 Update), posted by Edwards! on Sun Sep 24 21:46:20 2006. And I, equally, tire of your childish excitement. |
|
|
| (315082) | |
Re: R46 Technology (was: Re: R-160 Update) |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Sun Sep 24 21:56:16 2006, in response to Re: R46 Technology (was: Re: R-160 Update), posted by J trainloco on Sun Sep 24 21:46:49 2006. Oh stop it...I use to be JUST LIKE YOU. I bitched them out COMPLETLY about how the exantion program was wasted..while other cities managed to build COMPLETE SYSTEMS [WASHINGTON..BART..MTA MARYLAND..METRODADE..even recent systems like L.A]... I bitch them out when my service is lousy.. I bitch them out because my train doesn't go where it use to..and I have to take an around about way to get to work now because of it[to accommondate some Queens Blvd riders]. So Im the VERY LAST person willing to kiss the MTA ASS. I give them credit when I feel the deserve it..and not before. So You telling me that your the "Chair" for the opposition hardly fazes me. I was the President. |
|
|
| (315087) | |
Re: R46 Technology (was: Re: R-160 Update) |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Sun Sep 24 21:59:33 2006, in response to Re: R46 Technology (was: Re: R-160 Update), posted by J trainloco on Sun Sep 24 21:49:57 2006. OKAY..lets end this ..before it gets really silly..We can talk about the issue with out flippin out on each other. Cool? |
|
|
| (315090) | |
Re: R46 Technology (was: Re: R-160 Update) |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Sun Sep 24 22:01:24 2006, in response to Re: R46 Technology (was: Re: R-160 Update), posted by Edwards! on Sun Sep 24 21:59:33 2006. Before it gets silly? Heh, it already went way past that.Of course we're cool. If I took this place personally, I'd still be making "I'M LEAVING THIS PLACE FOR GOOD!!!!" posts. |
|
|
| (315091) | |
Re: R46 Technology (was: Re: R-160 Update) |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Sun Sep 24 22:03:00 2006, in response to Re: R46 Technology (was: Re: R-160 Update), posted by J trainloco on Sun Sep 24 22:01:24 2006. LOL!I remember that...and its a good thing you didn't..or I would be have talks like this! Your cool people. |
|
|
| (315094) | |
Re: R46 Technology (was: Re: R-160 Update) |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Sun Sep 24 22:03:36 2006, in response to Re: R46 Technology (was: Re: R-160 Update), posted by Edwards! on Sun Sep 24 22:03:00 2006. Yeah, you too.Peace. |
|
|
| (315106) | |
Re: R-160 Update |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Sun Sep 24 22:16:36 2006, in response to Re: R-160 Update, posted by J trainloco on Sat Sep 23 22:34:02 2006. No, but it does allow the train directly behind the one at Roosevelt to get in the station more quickly.That's not really true. The blocks leading into stations are much shorter than between stations. There are also timers that limit the approaching train's speed, when it is close to the leaving train. This permits following trains to creep into stations at the same speed as one controlled by CBTC. N.B. a train that creeps into a station is taking more time to decelerate and come to a stop than one that approaches the station at full speed. Longer deceleration times mean longer headways mean less capacity. Introducing a "safe" version of keying with CBTC does not increase capacity. |
|
|
| (315110) | |
Re: R-160 Update |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Sun Sep 24 22:21:53 2006, in response to Re: R-160 Update, posted by Stephen Bauman on Sun Sep 24 22:16:36 2006. That's not really true. The blocks leading into stations are much shorter than between stations. There are also timers that limit the approaching train's speed, when it is close to the leaving train. This permits following trains to creep into stations at the same speed as one controlled by CBTC.If CBTC works as I understand ir, then there are 2 things CBTC improves upon when compared to current signaling: 1. It doesn't take into account the operator's ability. 2. As soon as the train in the station begins to move, the one behind can do the same. (CBTC is supposed to involve moving blocks as I understand it, not 100 stationary ones. Correct me if that's wrong). N.B. a train that creeps into a station is taking more time to decelerate and come to a stop than one that approaches the station at full speed. Longer deceleration times mean longer headways mean less capacity. Introducing a "safe" version of keying with CBTC does not increase capacity. True, but sometimes, trains catch up to their leader. CBTC will allow trains to move into the station quicker than present rules allow. If keying by were not only allowed, but encouraged, CBTC would not be necessary. |
|
|
| (315113) | |
Re: R46 Technology (was: Re: R-160 Update) |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Sun Sep 24 22:25:46 2006, in response to Re: R46 Technology (was: Re: R-160 Update), posted by J trainloco on Sun Sep 24 20:34:09 2006. That when I make suggestions to MTA, sometimes they get implemented. |
|
|
| (315118) | |
Re: AirTrain and underserved areas |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Sun Sep 24 22:30:41 2006, in response to Re: R46 Technology (was: Re: R-160 Update), posted by J trainloco on Sun Sep 24 21:27:56 2006. That's probably the only part of your complaint about AirTrain that makes any sense.There are two areas, actually, that are underserved. One is South Ozone Park. The other you did not mention: The employment center formed by the cargo services at Kennedy. Starting from our current situation, today: Can a train be reasonably extended so that it can serve some of the "ozones" and deposit subway passengers along Springfield Blvd where the big cargo operations are? |
|
|
| (315120) | |
Re: R46 Technology (was: Re: R-160 Update) |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Sun Sep 24 22:31:30 2006, in response to Re: R46 Technology (was: Re: R-160 Update), posted by J trainloco on Sun Sep 24 20:35:36 2006. Obviously I do a much better job of it than you do, or you wouldn't have posted the nonsense I replied to. |
|
|
| (315121) | |
Re: R46 Technology (was: Re: R-160 Update) |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Sun Sep 24 22:34:12 2006, in response to Re: R46 Technology (was: Re: R-160 Update), posted by RonInBayside on Sun Sep 24 22:31:30 2006. Sadly that's only obvious to you, as even a casual observer would be able to note. |
|
|
| (315122) | |
Re: R46 Technology (was: Re: R-160 Update) |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Sun Sep 24 22:35:17 2006, in response to Re: R46 Technology (was: Re: R-160 Update), posted by J trainloco on Sun Sep 24 21:46:49 2006. "when something DOES get built, it's never as useful as it could have been, often thanks to the MTA."No, thanks to YOU. YOUR FAULT and your fellow citizens. Whenever MTA wants to build something, YOU 1) turn NIMBY in front of the media 2) Complain to your elected officials that you don't want a subway in your neighborhood 3) Vote against bond issues to make sure MTA has no capital funds to wrk with (except the most recent election, where the bond issue did pass). 4) Whine and complain about everybody in govt and MTA is so stupid (but YOU are so smart!) So don't complain if you don't get anything. You don't deserve it. |
|
|
| (315123) | |
Re: AirTrain and underserved areas |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Sun Sep 24 22:37:32 2006, in response to Re: AirTrain and underserved areas, posted by RonInBayside on Sun Sep 24 22:30:41 2006. Starting from our current situation, today: Can a train be reasonably extended so that it can serve some of the "ozones" and deposit subway passengers along Springfield Blvd where the big cargo operations are?What do you mean by reasonable? I think doing that would be a waste of tax dollars, considering there's already rail in place. |
|
|
| (315126) | |
Re: AirTrain and underserved areas |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Sun Sep 24 22:38:41 2006, in response to Re: AirTrain and underserved areas, posted by RonInBayside on Sun Sep 24 22:30:41 2006. Ozone Park could be served by a shuttle bus..or a "add on station" along the AIRTRAIN el...the same could be said of the CARGO AREA...Another way could be an extention of the NEW LOTS ELEVATED to the Airport area..as layed out in the AIRTRAIN plan. |
|
|
| (315127) | |
Re: AirTrain and underserved areas |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Sun Sep 24 22:38:48 2006, in response to Re: AirTrain and underserved areas, posted by J trainloco on Sun Sep 24 22:37:32 2006. Which subway stations serve the cargo area and the warehouse businesses? Can you name them? |
|
|
| (315128) | |
Re: R46 Technology (was: Re: R-160 Update) |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Sun Sep 24 22:40:32 2006, in response to Re: R46 Technology (was: Re: R-160 Update), posted by RonInBayside on Sun Sep 24 22:35:17 2006. 1) turn NIMBY in front of the media2) Complain to your elected officials that you don't want a subway in your neighborhood 3) Vote against bond issues to make sure MTA has no capital funds to wrk with (except the most recent election, where the bond issue did pass). 4) Whine and complain about everybody in govt and MTA is so stupid (but YOU are so smart!) I never do anything like that. MAYBE you could stretch and say #4. I'm one of the most Anti-NIMBY around (unlike most in my 'hood, I support the Atlanitc Railyards project), and I have no problem with construction of new rail projects. Provided they make sense. Yes, Airtrain is better than nothing, but as long as we're relegated to just accepting anything, we'll never get anything great. BTW, as an outside observer, your opinion in the matter really means squat. |
|
|
| (315130) | |
Re: AirTrain and underserved areas |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Sun Sep 24 22:41:14 2006, in response to Re: AirTrain and underserved areas, posted by Edwards! on Sun Sep 24 22:38:41 2006. That's an interesting plan. Indeed the #3 train could be brought around to there. Then you would have a reverse commute going on, where people would be headed to the cargo businesses in the morning and returning to Brooklyn in the evening.I am not looking to extend that train into the passenger areas. This is strictly to feed workers into one of the biggest business and job generators in the city. |
|
|
| (315133) | |
Re: AirTrain and underserved areas |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Sun Sep 24 22:44:10 2006, in response to Re: AirTrain and underserved areas, posted by J trainloco on Sun Sep 24 22:37:32 2006. So what can or Should be done to SOLVE the problem,so AIRTRAIN can be MORE viable to it riders? |
|
|
| (315134) | |
Re: R46 Technology (was: Re: R-160 Update) |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Sun Sep 24 22:44:11 2006, in response to Re: R46 Technology (was: Re: R-160 Update), posted by J trainloco on Sun Sep 24 22:40:32 2006. "I never do anything like that."Except in your posts here. :0) "as an outside observer, your opinion in the matter really means squat." As an inside observer (Istill have family in NYC) the MTA has implemented more of my ideas than they ever will of yours. Of course, you could change your attitude. :0) |
|
|
| (315136) | |
Re: AirTrain and underserved areas |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Sun Sep 24 22:46:50 2006, in response to Re: AirTrain and underserved areas, posted by RonInBayside on Sun Sep 24 22:41:14 2006. Could be done...with a transfer to the Airtrain proper..on Airort Property.Let the PORT AUTHORITY share the cost of the construction... |
|
|
| (315139) | |
Re: AirTrain and underserved areas |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Sun Sep 24 22:47:42 2006, in response to Re: AirTrain and underserved areas, posted by Edwards! on Sun Sep 24 22:46:50 2006. Agreed. It would fit the airport business plan. |
|
|
|
Page 4 of 9 |
||
