|
|
| Re: TEAR DOWN THE ASTORIA EL (Was: Future expansion wish list?) (876585) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 5 of 9 |
||
|
| (877931) | |
Re: TEAR DOWN THE ASTORIA EL (Was: Future expansion wish list?) |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Fri Dec 25 23:00:18 2009, in response to Re: TEAR DOWN THE ASTORIA EL (Was: Future expansion wish list?), posted by Terrapin Station on Fri Dec 25 15:35:58 2009. Something you don't even have, so don't talk. |
|
|
| (877932) | |
Re: Future expansion wish list? |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Fri Dec 25 23:01:01 2009, in response to Re: Future expansion wish list?, posted by Olog-hai on Fri Dec 25 22:59:24 2009. Heh. Yep ... snake oil is more popular than ever now - which is why the banks keep getting robbed. :) |
|
|
| (877933) | |
Re: Future expansion wish list? |
|
|
Posted by AEM-7AC #901 on Fri Dec 25 23:01:44 2009, in response to Re: Future expansion wish list?, posted by trainsarefun on Fri Dec 25 20:33:35 2009. the current MAS is set lower than it would be under CBTCI thought the timers were basically installed as a realization that the rolling stock is incapable of braking within current signal distances, and thus, MAS was lowered to maintain a safe envelope. What I'd like to see is what is the trackage is capable of in terms of design speed, and whether or not we're operating at the maximum limits of the design, or if there's still some room for safe operation on curves and straight sections of track. PCCs are a classic example of 4 mphps Either the PCCs in operation in San Francisco and Boston have been neutered, or the 4.0 mphs meme is legend of PCC foamers. I've been on rapid transit and light rail cars that have delivered better acceleration. Paris a contemporary one, I think, using the smoothing. Per Wikipedia, RATP's modern fleet seems to hover around 2.25 mphs to 3.0 mphs. |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (877937) | |
Re: Future expansion wish list? |
|
|
Posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Fri Dec 25 23:19:59 2009, in response to Re: Future expansion wish list?, posted by NIMBYkiller on Fri Dec 25 20:25:51 2009. "For NEC, why not just do that with MN to NYP? Much less costly and probably effective enough."Are you suggesting running Metro-North service to Dyre Avenue? This is not meant to be a commuter service on the NEC. It's only a subway line sharing the NEC right-of-way for a short portion of its route. It's similar to how WMATA's Orange Line shares the NEC from New Carrollton to Cheverly, MD. Would you also suggest replacing Metrorail service there with additional MARC commuter rail service? It's much less costly. "NO SUBWAY TAKE OVER OF PW LINE!!!!!! No no and HELL NO! There's zero reason for it. The PW line doesn't need it for sure and you eliminate the entire north west Nassau County and northern Queens connection to regional services at NYP." Did you really need to use six exclamation points when one would have done just fine? Stop shouting and find a better, more mature way to express your disagreement. IT'S JUST A WISH LIST! Don't take it so seriously. Nobody's getting rid of LIRR service to PW tomorrow! Second of all, are most PW riders transferring to other commuter rail services when they get to Penn Station? Or are they transferring to the subway to get to jobs elsewhere in Manhattan? I think it's the second option. "Just leave SI alone with 2 rail lines and improved bus service to the ferry and have express buses to midtown ONLY (anyone going downtown can catch the ferry), and HBLR." Agree about HBLR. Disagree with the rest. |
|
|
| (877938) | |
Re: Future expansion wish list? |
|
|
Posted by Easy on Fri Dec 25 23:20:35 2009, in response to Future expansion wish list?, posted by rbseabeach on Wed Dec 23 13:49:32 2009. Purple line to the VA HospitalExpo/Blue lines to gold line Blue line express tracks Vermont subway from red line to green line (or light rail from red line to Harbor Gateway) Pink line from WeHo to Purple line extension Crenshaw line from LAX to Pink line in WeHo |
|
|
| (877939) | |
Re: Future expansion wish list? |
|
|
Posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Fri Dec 25 23:23:02 2009, in response to Re: Future expansion wish list?, posted by LuchAAA on Fri Dec 25 17:30:56 2009. Exactly. A little bit and it would be on the 6 train. The 4 and 5 will still get whacked heavily with crowds at 86th Street and Grand Central, especially once ESA comes on line. |
|
|
| (877940) | |
Re: Future expansion wish list? |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Fri Dec 25 23:23:37 2009, in response to Re: Future expansion wish list?, posted by AEM-7AC #901 on Fri Dec 25 15:14:58 2009. You mean patent, don't you? |
|
|
| (877941) | |
Re: Future expansion pipe-dream list? |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Fri Dec 25 23:27:50 2009, in response to Re: Future expansion pipe-dream list?, posted by Edwards! on Fri Dec 25 19:09:55 2009. What also killed the Expressway was Mayor Lindsay's Plan for "Linear City" (housing) to be built above the expressway. |
|
|
| (877946) | |
Re: Future expansion wish list? |
|
|
Posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Fri Dec 25 23:32:40 2009, in response to Re: Future expansion wish list?, posted by Olog-hai on Fri Dec 25 20:27:39 2009. There sure is:) But that's why it's called a "wish list." 1968 MTA expansion plan, remember that? IND Second System? Every major attempt to expand transit service starts out with some pipe dream as part of it. |
|
|
| (877949) | |
Re: Future expansion wish list? |
|
|
Posted by Easy on Fri Dec 25 23:36:49 2009, in response to Re: Future expansion wish list?, posted by LuchAAA on Fri Dec 25 17:30:56 2009. That's not exactly a "wish" is it? It's already funded to 96th street and under construction, isn't it? |
|
|
| (877955) | |
Re: Future expansion wish list? |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Fri Dec 25 23:47:19 2009, in response to Re: Future expansion wish list?, posted by BrooklynBus on Fri Dec 25 23:23:37 2009. Copyright already applied, software patents particularly in derivative works and modifications is excessively expensive to pursue and to make things even more fun, 99% of all "software patents" are rejected on a basis of being "non-transformative" ... Microsoft and a few others abused the process and caused the laws to be changed since those days.The issue on this end is strictly financing ... none to be had at this time. New businesses are not being financed even if I had a working teleporter. |
|
|
| (877956) | |
Re: Future expansion wish list? |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Fri Dec 25 23:47:36 2009, in response to Re: Future expansion wish list?, posted by Easy on Fri Dec 25 23:36:49 2009. they are taking too long. trains already go to 63/Lex, so their priority should be to get the next station on 2nd ave open ASAP.Yes, it's a "wish" until the project actually happens. |
|
|
| (877961) | |
Re: TEAR DOWN THE ASTORIA EL (Was: Future expansion wish list?) |
|
|
Posted by SUBWAYSURF on Fri Dec 25 23:52:23 2009, in response to Re: TEAR DOWN THE ASTORIA EL (Was: Future expansion wish list?), posted by Olog-hai on Fri Dec 25 23:00:18 2009. haha |
|
|
| (877965) | |
Re: Future expansion wish list? |
|
|
Posted by SUBWAYSURF on Sat Dec 26 00:02:34 2009, in response to Re: Future expansion wish list?, posted by SelkirkTMO on Thu Dec 24 23:13:46 2009. Numba Plhuleeese.One ringy dingy |
|
|
| (877967) | |
Re: Future expansion wish list? |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Sat Dec 26 00:10:09 2009, in response to Re: Future expansion wish list?, posted by SUBWAYSURF on Sat Dec 26 00:02:34 2009. Olog9-9999 |
|
|
| (877969) | |
Re: Future expansion wish list? |
|
|
Posted by Easy on Sat Dec 26 00:12:44 2009, in response to Re: Future expansion wish list?, posted by LuchAAA on Fri Dec 25 23:47:36 2009. As they say, it's not over until the fat lady sings but it's past the "wish" stage. I think that there are a number of good reasons why they don't open the stations one at a time, so I don't think that's necessarily a good idea. |
|
|
| (877970) | |
Re: Future expansion wish list? |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Sat Dec 26 00:16:01 2009, in response to Re: Future expansion wish list?, posted by Easy on Sat Dec 26 00:12:44 2009. Opening just one station on 2nd Ave north of 63/LEX would help reduce overcrowding at 77, 68, and 59th, which would be a tremendous help. That's not to difficult. |
|
|
| (877973) | |
Re: Caesareans (was: Re: TEAR DOWN THE ASTORIA EL (Was: Future expansion wish list?) |
|
|
Posted by f179dj on Sat Dec 26 00:17:50 2009, in response to Re: Caesareans (was: Re: TEAR DOWN THE ASTORIA EL (Was: Future expansion wish list?), posted by randyo on Fri Dec 25 15:54:54 2009. Gaius Julius Caesar: praenomen, nomen, and cognomen.Gaius Octavius (better know as Augustus) was adopted by C. Julius Caesar in his will and made his heir. The Senate finally recognized him as Caesar's adopted son under the name of Gaius Julius Caesar Octavianus. Leaving out much; if interested, consult the OCD or a good history of the late Roman Republic/early Roman Empire. In 27 B.C. Octavian received the title of Augustus from the Senate. Hence Caesar Augustus. |
|
|
| (877976) | |
Re: Future expansion wish list? |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Sat Dec 26 00:19:45 2009, in response to Re: Future expansion wish list?, posted by Easy on Sat Dec 26 00:12:44 2009. The modified track plan with the elimination of the three tracks north of the turn kinda blows the crap out of any flexibility to do something like that. :( |
|
|
| (877977) | |
Re: Future expansion wish list? |
|
|
Posted by SUBWAYSURF on Sat Dec 26 00:21:09 2009, in response to Re: Future expansion wish list?, posted by LuchAAA on Sat Dec 26 00:16:01 2009. If it's "not too difficult" then explain why it's taken 80 years, so far. |
|
|
| (877984) | |
Re: Future expansion wish list? |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Sat Dec 26 00:28:57 2009, in response to Re: Future expansion wish list?, posted by SUBWAYSURF on Sat Dec 26 00:21:09 2009. Because it's not being handled by the only department in TA that is on top of things: Labor Relations. |
|
|
| (877985) | |
Re: Future expansion wish list? |
|
|
Posted by newlots#2 on Sat Dec 26 00:30:32 2009, in response to Re: Future expansion wish list?, posted by SUBWAYSURF on Sat Dec 26 00:21:09 2009. Rebuilding all of the els they knocked down would be a good start. Life would be good with a full length myrtle, the 5th ave el in brooklyn, the 2nd 3rd and 9th ave els in manhattan and the 3rd ave el in the BX. Let's just start there.Then build a line along the lower Montauk next to it actually to serve those hell holes Ridgewood, Glendale and Middle Village and even Maspeth. Turn it south onto the airtrain route add stations along the van wyck and take it to JFK. Build it for high speed operation. |
|
|
| (877989) | |
Re: Future expansion wish list? |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Sat Dec 26 00:43:45 2009, in response to Re: Future expansion wish list?, posted by LuchAAA on Sat Dec 26 00:28:57 2009. If it was handled by Labor Relations, then the tunnel would just be a river of piss. :( |
|
|
| (877991) | |
Re: Future expansion wish list? |
|
|
Posted by Easy on Sat Dec 26 00:49:11 2009, in response to Re: Future expansion wish list?, posted by SelkirkTMO on Sat Dec 26 00:19:45 2009. I didn't realize that. But they still have a crossover there right?On a somewhat related note I'm probably one of the few that likes that the SAS won't have express tracks. |
|
|
| (877993) | |
Re: Future expansion wish list? |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Sat Dec 26 00:55:40 2009, in response to Re: Future expansion wish list?, posted by Easy on Sat Dec 26 00:49:11 2009. I don't remember actually. Since I live far away from there now, about all I remember was that there was a track configuration where there were supposed to be three tracks to allow bypass and turnarounds, and the modified plan eliminated it. As BEST as I can remember, there's only a crossover planned around 96th but I could be wrong ... there was a lengthy discussion about it among the foamers as to it completely destroying any possible flexibility when the funds for it were cut and the plan modified. Hopefully someone who cares will spot this and supply the correct answer.Sorry ... I worked there a long time ago and thus any foam that was in my arteries prior got the cure ages ago. I'm CURED! :) |
|
|
| (877998) | |
Re: Future expansion wish list? |
|
|
Posted by Easy on Sat Dec 26 01:04:27 2009, in response to Re: Future expansion wish list?, posted by SelkirkTMO on Sat Dec 26 00:55:40 2009. Ok thanks. When I just looked at the FEIR it shows three tracks with two crossovers and at 96th two tracks with another crossover. |
|
|
| (878000) | |
Re: Future expansion wish list? |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Sat Dec 26 01:19:09 2009, in response to Re: Future expansion wish list?, posted by Easy on Sat Dec 26 01:04:27 2009. I'm pretty sure those three tracks are GONE ... dunno about the rest of the territory ... at the time of the hoohah, didn't have a machine that would do PDF and Flash since there were just too many viruses around so killed that stuff. Got it NOW though. :)I guess the only thing I'm not sure of is whether or not whatever was going on at the three track section was replaced with a crossover or not. I'm CERTAIN someone else who knows will spot this and provide a real answer. |
|
|
| (878006) | |
Re: Future expansion wish list? |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Sat Dec 26 01:37:15 2009, in response to Re: Future expansion wish list?, posted by NIMBYkiller on Fri Dec 25 20:33:44 2009. I don't like it much either....but this is the plan they are floating when ESA opens...You can find it under the 2010/14 Capitol Improvement Program proposal MTA.INFO.. |
|
|
| (878017) | |
Re: Future expansion wish list? |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Sat Dec 26 01:46:22 2009, in response to Re: Future expansion wish list?, posted by NIMBYkiller on Fri Dec 25 20:07:13 2009. I don't think LRT's will see S.I anytime soon..the bridge is under review..for replacement.A tunnel would be too expensive... its a non issue until the bridge problem is figured out. |
|
|
| (878024) | |
Re: Future expansion wish list? |
|
|
Posted by Grand Concourse on Sat Dec 26 01:58:04 2009, in response to Re: Future expansion wish list?, posted by randyo on Thu Dec 24 14:10:35 2009. Cool to know :) |
|
|
| (878029) | |
Re: Future expansion wish list? |
|
|
Posted by Grand Concourse on Sat Dec 26 02:00:00 2009, in response to Re: Future expansion wish list?, posted by Gene B. on Thu Dec 24 19:22:02 2009. True, but at least it's an 8th Av line in southern Brooklyn. Thus making it potentially a 2-seat ride across the platform than to walk from the 6th Av to 8th Av platforms at W4th ;) |
|
|
| (878080) | |
Re: Future expansion wish list? |
|
|
Posted by Q46 LTD Glen Oaks on Sat Dec 26 05:11:30 2009, in response to Re: Future expansion wish list?, posted by Mitch45 on Wed Dec 23 15:22:46 2009. I'd rather just see the Q46 replaced with a light rail ala the MBTA Green Line |
|
|
| (878081) | |
Re: Future expansion wish list? |
|
|
Posted by 33rd Street on Sat Dec 26 06:19:29 2009, in response to Re: Future expansion wish list?, posted by Grand Concourse on Wed Dec 23 20:00:15 2009. Cortlandt to Whitehall annexed to the E - E extended to Bay Parkway.This is actually doable since both stations are about the same level. I've analyzed this by looking at photos of the former WTC Mall. I concluded that Cortlandt Street BMT and World Trade Center stations are at the same level. |
|
|
| (878082) | |
Re: Future expansion wish list? |
|
|
Posted by 33rd Street on Sat Dec 26 06:23:51 2009, in response to Future expansion wish list?, posted by rbseabeach on Wed Dec 23 13:49:32 2009. A one-stop extension of the V line to Avenue C and East Houston Street. This would benefit a vastly isolated part of Manhattan. In addition, this could possibly take the load off the M14 and help out the L line. This would make the V line even more useful than what it already is. |
|
|
| (878093) | |
Re: Future expansion wish list? |
|
|
Posted by Kew Gardens Teleport on Sat Dec 26 08:00:18 2009, in response to Re: Future expansion wish list?, posted by Grand Concourse on Wed Dec 23 20:00:15 2009. I agree with sending the E to Brooklyn through the Rathole, but not with then merging the W and the T into it. All this merging and demerging wastes core capacity.My suggestions for the E and lines affected by it are as follows: 6th Avenue Local (F train) - Separate its express run in Queens by building a new line under Queens Blvd between the 63rd St tunnel and Woodhaven Blvd station (where the local would be diverted up the LIE). Intermediate stations: Queens Plaza, 46th St, 69th St. - Extend beyond 179/Hillside to East Williston LIRR station (maybe not all at once!). Intermediate stations at: 188th, 197th, Francis Lewis Blvd (208th), 214th, Springfield Blvd, Winchester Blvd, Commonwealth Blvd, Little Neck Pkwy, Langdale St, Lakeville Rd, New Hyde Park Rd, Marcus Av, Herricks Rd, Park Av (Williston Park). - Add a branch in Brooklyn after 7th Av station, running under the park to Prospect Park station, then becoming a Flatbush Avenue subway to Kings Plaza. Intermediate stations: Prospect Park, Church Av, Foster Av, Nostrand Av, Kings Hwy, Fillmore Av. - Kill the V train (or label one branch in Brooklyn the V), so that the F train can run twice as frequently. Crosstown Line (G train) - Rebuild the flying junction west of Hoyt/Schermerhorn so that the tracks continue at the same grade as the transit museum leads, cross the eastbound one at grade, then curve into Boerum Place to terminate at Bergen St. This moves the G train out of the way of running the current service level from Manhattan to the Culver Line whilst giving an equal Manhattan service to the Flatbush Av subway. - Consider somehow extending beyond Bergen St to Red Hook. It looks as if it would end up being a slowpoke load of zig-zags though. - Build an underground moving walkway to link Fulton St station (and one might as well include Lafayette on the C too, as the additional cost would be minimal) to Atlantic Av station on the IRT/BMT. - At the Queens end, close Court Sq and 21st St stations. Instead, switch to left-hand running somewhere, before ramping up to a cross-platform interchange with the Flushing line at Hunters Point Av (i.e. so the cross-platform works as Greenpoint↔Manhattan), then run alongside the LIRR to Queens Plaza. This is dependent on conversion of the Port Washington Branch to metro operations, or it would just massively overload the Flushing Line. 8th Avenue Local (E train) - Double its frequency in Queens, thanks to the separate F Line. - Extend beyond Parsons/Archer as a Merrick Blvd Subway running out to Valley Stream LIRR, with a branch under Linden Blvd and Albany St to Dutch Broadway. Intermediate stations on the common stretch: South Rd, Brinkerhoff Av, Linden/Merrick Blvds. Then on the Merrick Blvd Line: Baisley Blvd, Farmers Blvd, Springfield Blvd, 224th St, 230th Pl, Hook Creek Blvd, Arlington Av, Terrace Pl, Central Av. And on the Linden Blvd Line: St Albans LIRR, 198th St, Nashville Blvd, 224th St, 230th St, Elmont Rd. - Connect it to the BMT at Cortlandt St. - Extend the line beyond 95th St in the median of Shore Pkwy, before curving into Stillwell Av - Coney Island station (a new island platform east of the Sea Beach Line). Intermediate stations: 16th Av, 19th Av, 24th Av, Bay 41st St, Cropsey Av. - Add a branch after Lawrence St to run under Myrtle Av, before becoming elevated just after Marcus Garvey Blvd, taking over the Myrtle Av El (and extending all the platforms!). Intermediate stations on the new section: Gold St/Flatbush Av, Vanderbilt Av, Franklin Av, Union Av. - Possibly run through from Metropolitan Av into a Queens-Bronx crosstown line (this looks absolutely crazy on a map, but overlapping sections make sense), under 69th St, the BQE, 41st Av, 74th St, the Grand Central Pkwy, 149th St in the Bronx, and 145th St in Manhattan, to terminate at Broadway. Intermediate stations at: Eliot Av, Grand Av, Maurice Av, Queens Blvd, Roosevelt Av/Broadway (yes, this could mean E trains in four directions!), Northern Blvd, 30th Av, LGA Terminals A&B, Southern Blvd (E149 on the Pelham Line), 3rd Av, Grand Concourse, 7th-Lenox Avs, St Nicholas Av. Broadway Local (R/W trains) - Extend the Astoria El, transitioning somewhere into a 19th Av - LGA subway, then rising up to run in the median of the Grand Central Pkwy, before curving to run alongside the Port Washington Branch to Flushing Main St. Intermediate stations: Steinway St, Marine Air Terminal, Terminals A&B, Terminals C&D, 31st Dr, - After Woodhaven Blvd, the separate F train takes over the existing local tracks, so the R train needs to be diverted to the LIE median. Eventually, this should go to E Hampton Blvd (Alley Park). Intermediate stations: 99th, 108th, Main St, Kissena Blvd, 164th, Utopia Pkwy, 188th, Francis Lewis Blvd, Oceania St, Springfield Blvd. - At the other end, it's the E train that's taken over the R train's route. Instead, it should run into the upper level of a two level station at the WTC, then under the Hudson River, duplicating PATH to Journal Sq, then taking the obvious surface route to Secaucus Junction Lower, then paralleling the Erie Main Line (the original one!), rising up to bridge the Hackensack River at a high level (so the bridge doesn't have to move), and going into a subway through Passaic, and terminating at Paterson NJT station. Intermediate stations: WTC, Exchange Pl, Grove St, Journal Sq, Secaucus Junction, Rutherford, Jackson Av, Passaic (Passaic/Main Sts), Clifton Av, Crooks Av, California Av. After Passaic, a branch of the subway would swing east (following where the population density is) to serve Garfield (NJT), Lodi, Essex St (NJT), Central Av, Anderson St (NJT), Temple Av, and New Bridge Landing (NJT). New E-W Regional Line via Downtown - I mentioned that the WTC station on the R/W would have a lower level. This would be a regional metro line. On the NJ side, it would run alongside the Morris/Essex Line from Summit to East Orange, with a spur west of Orange station to allow short-turns at a new West Orange station alongside I-280. After this, it would have stations at Orange/Duryea Sts (i.e. Orange St on the Newark City Subway), Newark Broad St (in a subway), Newark Penn Station, East Ferry St, and Journal Sq, where it would join the Broadway local to WTC. It would then pass under the East River between the Clark St and Cranberry St Tunnels, have an interchange with the IRT and IND at Hoyt/Livingston Sts, then recapture the LIRR at Flatbush Av. Woodhaven station would re-open, then the Atlantic, Far Rockaway, and Long Beach branches would be recaptured, with new local tracks added for the regional metro as far as Wantagh. Central Park West IND (A/B/C/D trains) - With the E train using all of the capacity of the 8th Avenue local, 50th St would have to be rebuilt to serve the express tracks -- probably by removing that part of the local tracks. The C train would no longer serve 23rd St and Spring St stations, which probably isn't a big loss. This then leaves two options: 1) add crossovers to allow everything north of this to be left alone; and: 2) flip the northern end of the C and D trains. |
|
|
| (878111) | |
Re: Future expansion wish list? |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sat Dec 26 09:22:07 2009, in response to Re: Future expansion wish list?, posted by NIMBYkiller on Fri Dec 25 01:20:30 2009. I'd still rather see a regional rail agency. I know, politics, blah blah blahNo, the bigger problem is bureaucracy blah blah blah. |
|
|
| (878135) | |
Re: Future expansion wish list? |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Sat Dec 26 10:20:08 2009, in response to Re: Future expansion wish list?, posted by SelkirkTMO on Fri Dec 25 23:47:19 2009. How about trying to get on that summer TV show on ABC where billionaires lend money to new businesses with great ideas in exchange for a portion of the business. I just can't remember the name of the show right now. |
|
|
| (878139) | |
Re: Future expansion wish list? |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sat Dec 26 10:21:28 2009, in response to Re: Future expansion wish list?, posted by BrooklynBus on Sat Dec 26 10:20:08 2009. The waffling ought to speak for itself . . . |
|
|
| (878163) | |
Re: Future expansion wish list? |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Sat Dec 26 11:07:23 2009, in response to Re: Future expansion wish list?, posted by SelkirkTMO on Fri Dec 25 23:01:01 2009. and borrowing more of our money. |
|
|
| (878187) | |
Re: Future expansion wish list? |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Sat Dec 26 11:26:19 2009, in response to Re: Future expansion wish list?, posted by NIMBYkiller on Fri Dec 25 22:03:07 2009. OB line will get the ridership it should be getting with either more direct service or electrifying.But why should a line with a circuitous alignment and low ridership get any of that? Those people want a one seat ride. Who doesn't? It's not the job of transit to give some people and their second favorite uncles one seat rides. By wasting resources trying to do that, you assure many other people that they will be given no rides at all, or horribly slow rides, or mostly standing rides. I live on the Port Washington branch. A one seat ride to Lower Manhattan would be nice. Does it make sense for MTA to build me one, or does it make sense for me to change for subway service when I get off the train? You had the ferry from Glen Cove years ago What happened to that? now you've got Long Island Transit running direct to midtown and downtown. Notice something about their schedule? It's essentially a peak direction only service. You want to put LIRR OYster Bay Branch operations on that model? Fine. 3 trains, peak direction only. And how do you figure that 10 tph more on the main line is wasteful? I'd say it is definitely needed. It is wasteful because that is more service than is required and there are other transit concerns in our region where that precious resource of a subsidy could and should go. LIRR will fill the main line even after 3rd track with reverse peak and boosted Ronkonkoma and PJ service That was taken into account by LIRR's own ridiculously ambitious numbers. Doubling of Port Jefferson branch EMU service (+6 trains) and more than doubling (+4 trains) on Ronkonkoma EMU service. that's where the 10 trains figure comes from, all of it to ESA, with not cuts anywhere. along with possible new MU service from Babylon if they electrify the central branch Speculation? Already with ESA, LIRR's too ambitious plan is +4 trains, all to ESA, no cuts. and possibly more OB trains if they can get their act together in the distant future The distant future when Towns of Oyster Bay and North Hempstead planning and land use gets with 21st century; perhaps this will happen in 22nd century. Until then, even the present amount of service is overkill. That's just the reality of it. but to cut down capacity when LI could have so much more in store for the future (IE office development in Nassau Hub I know quite a bit about the difficulties of development in Nassau and Suffolk Counties. It is freakishly difficult to do anything, let alone anything remotely large scale. They make NYC look great on development (most of our mistakes in NYC are in giving sweetheart deals to fat cats), in part because the Long Island towns have a stranglehold on development. Anyone who does even contemplates doing major development knows that it will take years of expensive litigation and even then it's probably all for nothing. I'm amazed that people will even put up with this business environment. You want development on LI? Better make it fit into a pre-existing office park zone. If not, too bad. Nassau Hub to be served via the secondary You spend all of this money on Oyster Bay HSR and doubling or more than doubling service needlessly and you'll never have money for actually viable projects. Unlike the US treasury, the debt can't pile on forever. |
|
|
| (878190) | |
Re: Future expansion wish list? |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Sat Dec 26 11:28:07 2009, in response to Re: Future expansion wish list?, posted by Edwards! on Sat Dec 26 11:07:23 2009. and borrowing more of our money.Don't hold your breath expecting to be paid back! |
|
|
| (878196) | |
Re: Future expansion wish list? |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Sat Dec 26 11:31:56 2009, in response to Re: Future expansion wish list?, posted by NIMBYkiller on Fri Dec 25 22:04:04 2009. Light rail only brings you to the subway though where you are forced to transfer again.It's simply not possible to bring the subway to everyone. Plans that ignore this fact are doomed to fail. If you can't pay for best or second-best, but third-best will do a lot of good to reduce travel time for many people, then why not do that, instead of waiting for subway funding to everywhere and Godot? |
|
|
| (878206) | |
Re: Future expansion wish list? |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Sat Dec 26 12:00:03 2009, in response to Re: Future expansion wish list?, posted by AEM-7AC #901 on Fri Dec 25 21:44:28 2009. I'm operating under the cokeheaded idea that the City of New York would subsidize the LIRR's operations.Just checking. :) The City already does, just indirectly. I wouldn't expect more than that. Given what happened to development in the Rockaways, I've suggested that the switch to a slow subway to the core made the area unattractive for development. Historically, what were the running times in the Rockaways, before and after the takeover? I'm skeptical of this claim. Probably what made the area unattractive for development was dropping massive public housing projects teeming with the less affluent. Empty storefronts, lowest tier retail, not many services, low desirability of housing stock, etc. But future gentrification, as dirty a word as that is to some, may yet revitalize the Rockaways. Really. As with all things it would certain depend on the station spacing. And the trackage. Take my example of the WOOD-SHEA run on LIRR. Mind you, given the operations characteristics of NYCTA over the Rockaway trackage, I'm still inclined to believe that LIRR at 65 mph is better than NYCTA at 45 mph. Perhaps speedier, but maybe not faster or more convenient. |
|
|
| (878208) | |
Re: Future expansion wish list? |
|
|
Posted by rashidas on Sat Dec 26 12:03:35 2009, in response to Re: Future expansion wish list?, posted by NIMBYkiller on Fri Dec 25 19:47:41 2009. In an earlier post someone wrote that Astoria residents are dead against an extension of the R from Ditmars Blvd. to LGA. Would they tolerate an Airtrain over the Grand Central from LGA to Astoria Blvd? |
|
|
| (878211) | |
Re: TEAR DOWN THE ASTORIA EL (Was: Future expansion wish list?) |
|
|
Posted by JayZeeBMT on Sat Dec 26 12:12:39 2009, in response to Re: TEAR DOWN THE ASTORIA EL (Was: Future expansion wish list?), posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Thu Dec 24 14:24:27 2009. There is no such thing as a "benevolent dictator". Totalitarian rule is, by definition, malevolent and oppressive. See Stalin, Papa and Baby Doc, Idi Amin, et. al. All of them (and countless others) believed themselves "benevolent", but the masses thought otherwise, albeit in private... |
|
|
| (878213) | |
Re: Future expansion wish list? |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sat Dec 26 12:13:14 2009, in response to Re: Future expansion wish list?, posted by rashidas on Sat Dec 26 12:03:35 2009. Of course not. |
|
|
| (878221) | |
Re: Future expansion wish list? |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Sat Dec 26 12:23:40 2009, in response to Re: Future expansion wish list?, posted by AEM-7AC #901 on Fri Dec 25 21:16:29 2009. It depends on determining who can attract the pandering of local politicians, Staten Island residents with high voter turnout, or the sometimes despised transit workers.I agree. It's a volatile brew, though, and not something on which to pin expansion plans. Or it's certainly premature, in my view. While you do note the complications of the DBOM, the contract for its operation will end at some point (15 year contract, IIRC) I think that's right. There is an option to renew though. and it remains to be seen if New Jersey Transit will self-operate upon the end of such contracts, or if O&M will be handed off again to a contractor. Regardless, there's always to potential for the slightly inefficient It's not a certainty, but NJT feels that it has received a bargain on O&M, so I'd predict the contractor handoff again. Regardless, there's always to potential for the slightly inefficient, but operationally feasible method of having NYCTA crews operate the MTA paid for branch, and NJT operations for the service north of whatever transition point is selected. Of course, given TWU, there's probably some other means of bribing them in exchange for the ability of NJT's crews to operate. Maybe. I'm not sure that MTA SIRTOA employees are TWU local 100; they may be, I just don't know. (Maybe someone like Hank Eisenstein would?). The less unions to deal with, the better for your proposal, since while a union/non-union debate stands maybe some chance of resolution, a many-way turf war between several unions is more of a conflagration. Express bus riders seem to be in a demographic that's politically "noisy", and I don't see politicians interfering with the buses to sustain the votes of that demographic. You are correct. Although their noisiness is most because the "great silent majority" doesn't know about the sweetheart subsidy. Admittedly, there's a part of me that wonders about the effects on local real estate if the express network is killed off. Considering the ridership number, not too much, I would think. And you also have to factor in that it's the removal of a subsidy that's doing the killing, not the imposition of a tariff. Given your emphasis on efficiency, I don't see you planning a multi-billion dollar line to pander to such groups... Certainly not. Local buses, SIR, ferry, maybe this HBLR thing you talk about although I'm skeptical about its prospects. If and when SI radically changes, the issue should then be revisited. |
|
|
| (878222) | |
Re: Future expansion wish list? |
|
|
Posted by JayZeeBMT on Sat Dec 26 12:26:38 2009, in response to Future expansion wish list?, posted by rbseabeach on Wed Dec 23 13:49:32 2009. I'd like to see some light-rail development in NYC. I think the city made a huge mistake in permitting its trolley routes to be motorized during the mid-20th century. The trolleys were slow, yes, but no more so than today's buses, and they were (and are) much more environmentally friendly. LRV's burn no fossil fuels and emit no greenhouse gases. They have longer service lives than buses, require less maintenance per seat mile, and their tracks and other infrastructure are relatively easy (and inexpensive, compared with subway construction) to build.Before anyone gets on me about the probelems inherent with LRV's on fixed routes vs. the flexibility of buses, I should like to point out that many cities (Philly, San Fran) have had continuous trolley service, which the public in those towns wants to ride. I would like to see light rail from Brooklyn College down Flatbush Ave to Kings Plaza, along Jamaica Avenue (again!) to Belmont Park, a private light-rail ROW on the present Bay Ridge branch of the LIRR, and a light-rail corridor on either 42 St. or 34 St. Light rail connecting the piers on the west Side Highway might be attractive as well. |
|
|
| (878228) | |
Re: Future expansion wish list? |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Sat Dec 26 12:31:45 2009, in response to Re: Future expansion wish list?, posted by AEM-7AC #901 on Fri Dec 25 22:10:26 2009. Plus, you're shunting riders onto the same crowded railway. I view the new lines as a capacity building exercise...By and large, though, capacity is not the problem that we face. So I think that we disagree on diagnoses. The Queens railway, as you colorfully call it, can handle 60-80 tph on the trackage; 30-40 tph on the Flushing Line. The issues are operational and they are even formidable, but they are not, in the main, about capacity. Mostly our capacity problems in NYCT have to do with terminals, and there it is a capital issue, but pretty much only there. |
|
|
| (878248) | |
Re: Future expansion wish list? |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Sat Dec 26 12:46:59 2009, in response to Re: Future expansion wish list?, posted by rashidas on Sat Dec 26 12:03:35 2009. In an earlier post someone wrote that Astoria residents are dead against an extension of the R from Ditmars Blvd. to LGA.The N/W routes, the Astoria Line, you mean? Would they tolerate an Airtrain over the Grand Central from LGA to Astoria Blvd? 'Tolerate' is an interesting word. If you told them that they had to tolerate one or the other alternative, then they would have to make a choice. That doesn't imply endorsement of the choice, though. Personally, I think that rapid transit to LGA is overkill, and not even friendly to the people we would want to use the service at that. (My idea of getting to the airport doesn't involve schelpping around a subway car with luggage). LGA doesn't/can't handle the larger aircraft. And if you apply the AirTrain percentage of users at EWR or JFK to the smaller passenger count at LGA, the number you obtain is quite small. So either I would say that the LGA issue is a non-issue or that if you really want to provide a decent service, create an LIRR spur from SHEA to LGA; alternatively, in the event that the City's newest Queens crush actually sees development, branch the Flushing Line, although I'm much more iffy on this, because of the burgeoning development in Flushing and the relatively easy fix with the money that would be blown on an LGA extension of a proper northern Flushing Line terminal. |
|
|
|
Page 5 of 9 |
||
