Home · Maps · About
Home > The Reef

[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
[ First in Thread | Next in Thread ]

view flat

Re: Ron's Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch

Posted by WillD on Sun Jul 30 02:45:08 2006, in response to Re: Ron's Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch, posted by J trainloco on Sun Jul 30 02:16:57 2006.

A subway is going to carry with it a significantly greater amount of noise than a light rail would. If we accept the NIMBYs as even half as effective as Ron makes them out to be then they'd fight the heavy rail line tooth and nail, and would undoubtedly be dissatisfied after construction is complete. The Rockaway Beach Branch ROW is basically a cross-queens route, and any subway built along it will basically end up making a 90 degree turn at Queens Blvd to get into NYC, which increases travel time. Even with a one-seat ride you could have a hard time justifying the headways and train lengths of the V line on such that route. An LRV could come to the rescue as providing a less intensive, more unobtrusive transit solution more amenable to the NIMBYs while still more than capable of providing sufficient capacity for a crosstown route. With the construction of a subway-surface style terminal featuring a nearly level (or at least fully ADA compliant) transfer at (perhaps) Woodhaven Blvd and Queens Blvd the basis could be created for a fully fledged Queens LRV network bringing people into the subway without the need for buses. Through creative routing (taking a few lessons from the Europeans couldn't hurt) an LRV network could be shoehorned in with a significant percentage of private right of way to move large numbers of passengers quickly at a fraction the cost of subway construction. One only has to look to France, they've built quite extensive light rail lines based around their Citadis model where no trams ran before. If the French can do it, then surely Queens, with it's abandoned ROWs and broad boulevards can accomodate a few LRVs replacing some bus lines.

Your charge of an LRV being useless is unfounded and likely incorrect. Simply assuming something won't work because it hasn't been tried is an extremely poor way to look at life. There's nothing special about NYC that you won't find in Minneapolis, Portland, Houston, or Denver. They all have traffic woes to rival Midtown Manhattan, but they've actually done something about their problems, have set up light rail networks which can accomodate their people, and have given those LRTs reserved lanes free of traffic congestion. NYC on the other hand has it's subway, but has seemingly decided to roll over and accept surface traffic as an inevitable part of daily life. The big question is whether Manhattan exists for the pedestrian or for the car, and if you honestly believe a surface running LRV will not work within Manhattan then clearly you believe the latter. Anything that moves 3 or 4 busloads of people with a single operator and emits nothing more harmful than a buzz and a bit of ozone cannot be useless, and when it can be built for less than one tenth what the SAS costs per mile it certainly merits considerable attention.

Too bad the MTA shares your close minded outlook.

Responses

 Thread is locked Responses disabled

[ Return to the Message Index ]