|
|
| Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch (12718) | |
 |
|
| Home > The Reef | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 12 of 17 |
||
|
| (13268) | |
Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Thu Jul 27 22:41:29 2006, in response to Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch, posted by streetcarman1 on Thu Jul 27 14:47:26 2006. Actually, the section along the LIRR is until Woodhaven Blvd, which takes care of the problem of running on Queens Blvd south of the LIE. |
|
| (13269) | |
Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Thu Jul 27 22:53:00 2006, in response to Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch, posted by J trainloco on Thu Jul 27 17:30:32 2006. Remember, the Q60 bus just goes via Queens Blvd, and down Sutphin a little bit, just like the originally trolley did, and yet, it is PACKED. I know it sounds crazy, and it's hard for even me to believe, considering both LIRR and the subway are there, but a reversion of the Q60 to LRT would work(only problem is how to get it to Manhattan, since everyone here says the 59th St bridge can't handle the weight of trolleys anymore).I would say the only downfall to LRT on the Rockaway ROW is the lack of a tunnel to Manhattan, yes. That's the only reason I would say subway is better. However, if there was some way into Manhattan(such as the 59th St bridge), then I think LRT would be the best bet. And just because you don't think a certain place in a boro isn't practical for LRT, doesn't mean you're right. Look at the bus lines, the ones that have frequent service and run on roads that are wide enough to support LRT. Don't you think that it would make sense to convert these lines to LRT? Maybe the Bronx needs a crosstown line? I believe in Brooklyn, the crosstown buses are packed. If one of them can be converted to LRT, don't you think it'd be worth it? Hey, I am all for a trolley around Coney Island. I think it would be a great tourist attraction. I think it could even be tied in with an LRT/trolley line along the Brooklyn waterfront if/when the Gowanus is sunk, and tie that in with the downtown Brooklyn area trolley project. |
|
| (13270) | |
Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Thu Jul 27 22:54:45 2006, in response to Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch, posted by The Port of Authority on Thu Jul 27 17:46:24 2006. IDK, even with the headways on the Q60, it is packed. I think reverting the Q60 to trolley and tying it in with the Rockaway LRT project would be a smart move. The only problem with LRT is that there is no way into Manhattan, unless the 59th St bridge can handle LRVs or if trolley cars are enough for the Rockaway line. |
|
| (13271) | |
Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Thu Jul 27 22:56:37 2006, in response to Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch, posted by RonInBayside on Thu Jul 27 16:07:49 2006. I'm not being closed minded. I'm stating that I know about the ROW. I know that it is clear. I know that everything you have posted about the ROW has been false. You are the closed minded one, refusing to learn anything but instead sticking with your rediculous assumptions. |
|
| (13272) | |
Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch |
|
|
Posted by The Port of Authority on Thu Jul 27 23:00:54 2006, in response to Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch, posted by David of Broadway on Thu Jul 27 21:56:26 2006. The "Jamaica" in Jamaica-Van Wyck refers to Jamaica Avenue, not Jamaica as a neighborhood.Don't forget about Broad Channel (unless that counts as a terminal.) |
|
| (13273) | |
Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch |
|
|
Posted by The Port of Authority on Thu Jul 27 23:05:12 2006, in response to Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch, posted by NIMBYkiller on Thu Jul 27 22:54:45 2006. But you'd still have the same capacity problems if the Q60 were to be LRT-ized (probably even more, because buses can in theory run on shorter headways than LRVs as they're not bound by a signalling system.)The only real way to solve the problems with the Q60 is to substantially add service and short-turn some of the runs at strategic locations, making the runs shorter and more reliable (plus, who rides the Q60 end to end anyway?) |
|
| (13274) | |
Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch |
|
|
Posted by David of Broadway on Thu Jul 27 23:12:06 2006, in response to Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch, posted by The Port of Authority on Thu Jul 27 23:00:54 2006. I doubt that. In official signage, NYCT never leaves off the street name suffix (Avenue, in this case).(Hmmm, I may have to take that back. Is Parsons/Archer official? But that's the only exception I can think of.) Certainly when Van Wyck Boulevard became Briarwood-Van Wyck, the analogy assumed that Jamaica referred to the neighborhood. Sheepshead Bay clearly refers to the neighborhood, not the street, even though one of the station exits fronts on Sheepshead Bay Road. Broad Channel is a terminal, so I omitted it. |
|
| (13275) | |
Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch |
|
|
Posted by The Port of Authority on Thu Jul 27 23:18:19 2006, in response to Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch, posted by David of Broadway on Thu Jul 27 23:12:06 2006. I doubt that. In official signage, NYCT never leaves off the street name suffix (Avenue, in this case).(Hmmm, I may have to take that back. Is Parsons/Archer official? But that's the only exception I can think of.) Parsons/Archer and Jamaica/Van Wyck were victims of the dumbed-down station naming conventions adapted by most other transit systems in this country (i.e. excluding "Street" or "Avenue" or "Boulevard" etc, and in some cases condensing the entire name into one word, such as Alewife |
|
| (13276) | |
Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch |
|
|
Posted by David of Broadway on Thu Jul 27 23:38:17 2006, in response to Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch, posted by The Port of Authority on Thu Jul 27 23:18:19 2006. Come to think of it, you're probably right. Van Wyck also gave up its suffix.NYCT is the only system I know of that drops words at the other end. The station at Gravesend Neck Road is called Neck Road! (There is one C/R on the Q who gives the full street name. He also announces the next stop down as Sheepshead Bay Road.) Do most transit systems in this country really do that? The CTA certainly does, and it gets on my nerves there. Newer systems tend not to use street names at all. |
|
| (13277) | |
Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Thu Jul 27 23:42:45 2006, in response to Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch, posted by David of Broadway on Thu Jul 27 23:38:17 2006. Better then WMATA...If there is a neighborhood cat, theyll add its name to the station... |
|
| (13278) | |
Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Thu Jul 27 23:43:10 2006, in response to Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch, posted by The Port of Authority on Thu Jul 27 23:18:19 2006. Jamaica/Van Wyck was also named to distinguish it from Van Wyck Blvd, which was subsequently renamed Briarwood/Van Wyck but not on station signs. Is Brarwood really a neighborhood? |
|
| (13279) | |
Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Thu Jul 27 23:43:33 2006, in response to Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch, posted by R30A on Thu Jul 27 23:42:45 2006. LOL! |
|
| (13280) | |
Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch |
|
|
Posted by David of Broadway on Thu Jul 27 23:48:13 2006, in response to Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch, posted by RonInBayside on Thu Jul 27 23:43:10 2006. Yes. |
|
| (13281) | |
Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Thu Jul 27 23:54:48 2006, in response to Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch, posted by David of Broadway on Thu Jul 27 23:48:13 2006. Sorry, the correct answer is "no", there is no neighborhood of "Brarwood". |
|
| (13282) | |
Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Thu Jul 27 23:58:14 2006, in response to Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch, posted by David of Broadway on Thu Jul 27 23:48:13 2006. Thank you. I note the article says mnany Queens residents do not know about it!To which I'll add a note about the Briarwood Playground. http://www.nycgovparks.org/sub_your_park/historical_signs/hs_historical_sign.php?id=12812 Link |
|
| (13283) | |
Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Fri Jul 28 00:23:23 2006, in response to Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch, posted by RonInBayside on Thu Jul 27 19:48:15 2006. No, from your own first hand experience. |
|
| (13284) | |
Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch |
|
|
Posted by The Port of Authority on Fri Jul 28 00:39:44 2006, in response to Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch, posted by RonInBayside on Thu Jul 27 23:43:10 2006. Briarwood's a residential neighborhood to the east of Main Street.They should have called that station "Main Street/Van Wyck" instead. |
|
| (13285) | |
Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Fri Jul 28 00:39:53 2006, in response to Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch, posted by J trainloco on Fri Jul 28 00:23:23 2006. Correct. Watching you AND Pigs... |
|
| (13286) | |
Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Fri Jul 28 00:42:01 2006, in response to Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch, posted by The Port of Authority on Fri Jul 28 00:39:44 2006. Thank you. |
|
| (13287) | |
Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch |
|
|
Posted by The Port of Authority on Fri Jul 28 00:45:05 2006, in response to Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch, posted by David of Broadway on Thu Jul 27 23:38:17 2006. Do most transit systems in this country really do that?MBTA is the prime example of a transit system that likes to condense its station names -- omitting "street", "avenue" and even "square." Jackson Square -> Jackson Porter Square -> Porter Central Square -> Central Interestingly enough, Porter and Central only have their condensed names on maps and signs. The automated announcements on the Red Line's newer rolling stock announce "Porter Square" and "Central Square" respectively. Green Street -> Green (it's on the Orange Line, though) Savin Hill Avenue -> Savin Hill (sounds like a neighborhood name) The only "avenue" that still remains is Massachusetts Avenue on the Orange Line. I guess "Massachusetts" would have been too CTA-ish for a station name so they didn't change it. And the worst name conversion: Columbia Road -> JFK/UMass |
|
| (13288) | |
Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Fri Jul 28 00:50:53 2006, in response to Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch, posted by The Port of Authority on Fri Jul 28 00:45:05 2006. In Puerto Rico, Tren Urbano does the same thing. Pinero, Roosevelt, and Dominech stations are actually streets that the station runs across. There may be one more like that. |
|
| (13289) | |
Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch |
|
|
Posted by David of Broadway on Fri Jul 28 00:55:30 2006, in response to Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch, posted by Terrapin Station on Thu Jul 27 23:54:48 2006. Thank you. I stand corrected. My reading comprehension skills obviously leave much to be desired. |
|
| (13290) | |
Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Fri Jul 28 01:08:27 2006, in response to Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch, posted by NIMBYkiller on Thu Jul 27 22:53:00 2006. Remember, the Q60 bus just goes via Queens Blvd, and down Sutphin a little bit, just like the originally trolley did, and yet, it is PACKED. I know it sounds crazy, and it's hard for even me to believe, considering both LIRR and the subway are there, but a reversion of the Q60 to LRT would work(only problem is how to get it to Manhattan, since everyone here says the 59th St bridge can't handle the weight of trolleys anymore).First off, I don't think an area that already has 2 subway lines is an area where a large, and costly, capitol improvement needs to be made. Second, the Q60 only runs at an 8 minute headway. It hardly qualifies as a line where LRT would be a better alternative. I would say the only downfall to LRT on the Rockaway ROW is the lack of a tunnel to Manhattan, yes. That's the only reason I would say subway is better. However, if there was some way into Manhattan(such as the 59th St bridge), then I think LRT would be the best bet. Not at all. The problem with LRT is that if it's going into manhattan, it will become overburdened with riders to the point that it would need to be heavy rail (unless it's fashioned after the useless B51 bus). You would be spending a lot of money on infrastructure, and once your costs get that high, you'd really be better served by building heavy rail. As far as the Queensboro Bridge, Even if it could support LRT (i'm sure that a light weight LRT could be devised for the bridge) it's not likely to happen, as the car traffic on the bridge is already too great to sacrifice a lane of traffic. |
|
| (13291) | |
oops. the full post. (Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Fri Jul 28 01:13:13 2006, in response to Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch, posted by NIMBYkiller on Thu Jul 27 22:53:00 2006. Remember, the Q60 bus just goes via Queens Blvd, and down Sutphin a little bit, just like the originally trolley did, and yet, it is PACKED. I know it sounds crazy, and it's hard for even me to believe, considering both LIRR and the subway are there, but a reversion of the Q60 to LRT would work(only problem is how to get it to Manhattan, since everyone here says the 59th St bridge can't handle the weight of trolleys anymore).First off, I don't think an area that already has 2 subway lines is an area where a large, and costly, capitol improvement needs to be made. Second, the Q60 only runs at an 8 minute headway. It hardly qualifies as a line where LRT would be a better alternative. I would say the only downfall to LRT on the Rockaway ROW is the lack of a tunnel to Manhattan, yes. That's the only reason I would say subway is better. However, if there was some way into Manhattan(such as the 59th St bridge), then I think LRT would be the best bet. Not at all. The problem with LRT is that if it's going into manhattan, it will become overburdened with riders to the point that it would need to be heavy rail (unless it's fashioned after the useless B51 bus). You would be spending a lot of money on infrastructure, and once your costs get that high, you'd really be better served by building heavy rail. As far as the Queensboro Bridge, Even if it could support LRT (i'm sure that a light weight LRT could be devised for the bridge) it's not likely to happen, as the car traffic on the bridge is already too great to sacrifice a lane of traffic. And just because you don't think a certain place in a boro isn't practical for LRT, doesn't mean you're right. Look at the bus lines, the ones that have frequent service and run on roads that are wide enough to support LRT. Most of said buses run on roads not wide enough for such a project. For example, in brooklyn, the most heavily used bus is the B41 (and the B44/46 aren't far behind). None of these buses are candidates for LRT, because of the roads they run on. In some circumstances, it would be better to operate a subway alternative to decrease bus overcrowding. Maybe the Bronx needs a crosstown line? I believe in Brooklyn, the crosstown buses are packed. If one of them can be converted to LRT, don't you think it'd be worth it? No, I don't. It would be money wasted that could be spent on improving subway service in Queens or Brooklyn. Hey, I am all for a trolley around Coney Island. I think it would be a great tourist attraction. I think it could even be tied in with an LRT/trolley line along the Brooklyn waterfront if/when the Gowanus is sunk, and tie that in with the downtown Brooklyn area trolley project. Such a project would be a GREAT tourist attraction, but I don't think the Gowanus will be sunk anytime soon, and I don't consider tourist type trollies to be transit. |
|
| (13292) | |
Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Fri Jul 28 01:14:42 2006, in response to Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch, posted by J trainloco on Fri Jul 28 01:08:27 2006. When I say go into Manhattan, I mean just into the abandonned underground trolley terminal at 59th St and 2nd Av. Also, I don't think the trolley lanes were converted to vehicular lanes on the bridge. |
|
| (13293) | |
Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Fri Jul 28 01:16:34 2006, in response to Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch, posted by The Port of Authority on Thu Jul 27 23:05:12 2006. LRVs often arent always signalled either i believe...The great thing about LRVing the Q60 is it provides a main for other lines to funnel into... Like if you LRVd the Q10/11, you could send them into manhattan... |
|
| (13294) | |
Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Fri Jul 28 01:19:43 2006, in response to Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch, posted by The Port of Authority on Thu Jul 27 23:05:12 2006. The Q60 only runs on 8 minute headways. The obvious, practical solution is to increase the headways. MANY buses run a better headway than that. |
|
| (13295) | |
Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch |
|
|
Posted by The Port of Authority on Fri Jul 28 01:20:14 2006, in response to Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch, posted by R30A on Fri Jul 28 01:16:34 2006. Why would anyone want to ride a street-running LRV all the way from Ozone Park to Manhattan? I could understand if it were some kind of subway-surface operation with express trains, but if the line runs down Queens Boulevard on the surface then that basically ruins it. |
|
| (13296) | |
Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch |
|
|
Posted by The Port of Authority on Fri Jul 28 01:21:59 2006, in response to Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch, posted by J trainloco on Fri Jul 28 01:19:43 2006. Heh, 8-minute headways. It may say that on the schedule but standard headways are quickly lost by the time a Q60 gets across the Queensboro Bridge... |
|
| (13297) | |
Re: oops. the full post. (Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Fri Jul 28 01:22:29 2006, in response to oops. the full post. (Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch, posted by J trainloco on Fri Jul 28 01:13:13 2006. So are you biased against The Bronx? I'm not trying to start a flame war. I'm being serious. Why is it that Queens and Brooklyn deserve more attention then The Bronx? Why not improve a transit corridor that can be improved?And in Brooklyn, I've read several times that some of the crosstown buses are PACKED. I don't know if maybe Kings Hwy or Church St can handle LRT. Look at my post again. I said heavily used bus lines on roads that can handle LRT. Not just heavily used bus lines. I know B41 LRT wont happen. That's why I'm looking for other candidates. |
|
| (13298) | |
Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Fri Jul 28 01:23:45 2006, in response to Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch, posted by RonInBayside on Fri Jul 28 00:39:53 2006. No, you're own FIRST-HAND EXPERIENCE. |
|
| (13299) | |
Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Fri Jul 28 01:25:01 2006, in response to Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch, posted by The Port of Authority on Fri Jul 28 01:20:14 2006. I think Lincoln may be going with the same idea I have, loose a lane each way on Queens Blvd, or street running only in absolutely necesary sections. |
|
| (13300) | |
Re: oops. the full post. (Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch |
|
|
Posted by The Port of Authority on Fri Jul 28 01:25:24 2006, in response to Re: oops. the full post. (Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch, posted by NIMBYkiller on Fri Jul 28 01:22:29 2006. Pelham Parkway, especially the eastern section, would be a great candidate for LRT or at least a dedicated busway with stations (it's definitely wide enough)... the Bx12 buses are packed enough as they are. |
|
| (13301) | |
Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Fri Jul 28 01:25:25 2006, in response to Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch, posted by R30A on Fri Jul 28 01:16:34 2006. EXACTLY! My idea is to LRV the Q60 and tie it in with Rockaway ROW LRT |
|
| (13302) | |
Re: oops. the full post. (Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Fri Jul 28 01:26:54 2006, in response to Re: oops. the full post. (Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch, posted by The Port of Authority on Fri Jul 28 01:25:24 2006. That's EXACTLY the road I was thinking of! It's got room on each side of the road I believe. |
|
| (13303) | |
Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch |
|
|
Posted by The Port of Authority on Fri Jul 28 01:28:43 2006, in response to Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch, posted by NIMBYkiller on Fri Jul 28 01:25:01 2006. But why run the LRVs into Manhattan? Why not institute a hub-and-spoke system with LRTed Q10s and Q11s serving transit centers at former subway stations? |
|
| (13304) | |
Re: oops. the full post. (Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Fri Jul 28 01:31:12 2006, in response to Re: oops. the full post. (Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch, posted by NIMBYkiller on Fri Jul 28 01:22:29 2006. Queens has had huge increases in demads for transit but the fewest subway lines. |
|
| (13305) | |
Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Fri Jul 28 01:50:07 2006, in response to Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch, posted by NIMBYkiller on Fri Jul 28 01:14:42 2006. What use is going to a terminal at 59th and 2nd ave? |
|
| (13306) | |
Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch |
|
|
Posted by bill west on Fri Jul 28 01:51:36 2006, in response to Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch, posted by WillD on Sat Jul 22 21:16:54 2006. The City Finance Dept has a site called ACRIS that will give all the ownership and lease info. Just write down the block and lot number from OASIS and enter it. The list can get you lost for half the night but everything legal that has happened with the land since the early 60’s is there. If somebody is using a RR lot without a lease then ejecting them is probably pretty straightforward. For the old LIRR Substation No 3 land at Atlantic Ave the lack of entries implies no legal activity in all those years which is to be expected for a long running transit property. The Union Turnpike apartment by comparison brings up a 20 item modern history which is typical for private lots. The busses at Atlantic could just be there on a property rental agreement or on a written permission across the Civic Gov’t and School Board. I also found an old lien on the Bayridge line in here from the MTA in favor of the PRR. And leases between the RRs in Penn Station too.Bill |
|
| (13307) | |
Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Fri Jul 28 01:51:49 2006, in response to Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch, posted by The Port of Authority on Fri Jul 28 01:21:59 2006. Undobutedly. The B38 has a listed headway of 4 mins, but that usually means 4 buses show up at once, and then you wait for more then 10 minutes. |
|
| (13308) | |
Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Fri Jul 28 01:58:22 2006, in response to Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch, posted by The Port of Authority on Fri Jul 28 01:28:43 2006. One seat ride atleast into Manhattan, even if it is just one stop in Manhattan. I don't know, not much of a benefit really, just for a very few working on the upper eastern corner of the CBD |
|
| (13309) | |
Re: oops. the full post. (Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Fri Jul 28 01:59:08 2006, in response to Re: oops. the full post. (Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch, posted by RonInBayside on Fri Jul 28 01:31:12 2006. Good for Queens, doesn't mean The Bronx doesn't need relief on some lines |
|
| (13310) | |
Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Fri Jul 28 02:00:26 2006, in response to Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch, posted by J trainloco on Fri Jul 28 01:50:07 2006. It brings it into Manhattan. I know it's not much, and not many will benefit from a one seat ride to just one stop in Manhattan, but once SAS is done, it may mean something more. Also, it's the northeast corner of the CBD. |
|
| (13311) | |
Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Fri Jul 28 02:11:22 2006, in response to Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch, posted by J trainloco on Fri Jul 28 01:50:07 2006. dont turn it there...Hook it into 1 2 3 and LEX LRVs... |
|
| (13312) | |
Re: oops. the full post. (Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Fri Jul 28 02:21:06 2006, in response to Re: oops. the full post. (Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch, posted by NIMBYkiller on Fri Jul 28 01:22:29 2006. So are you biased against The Bronx?No, but the Bronx has few areas not served by transit that need it. A crosstown LRT would be an immense waste of money that could be better spent on some other improvement. Crosstown routes are not good candidates for LRT. LRT invloves huge investments in the front, and I find it hard to justify such a use of money to transport what is a relatively small amount of passengers. Why is it that Queens and Brooklyn deserve more attention then The Bronx? Why not improve a transit corridor that can be improved? Unlike the Bronx, Queens and Kings both have large swaths of land uncovered by transit. Maybe the only part of the Bronx needing better mass transit is Co-op city. The way to do that is obvious. And in Brooklyn, I've read several times that some of the crosstown buses are PACKED. When did a line being PACKED mean that it needed to be replaced by LRT? Buses are often crowded, but not for very long; usually for a short distance from important travel points. Building an LRT would certainly help in the immediate vicinity of the Subway stations, but would mark wasteful spending once you get away from them. I.E. my time on the B6 has revealed to me that it is crowded Right at Nostrand, but by Utica, it's comfortable. That does not justify building an LRT. I don't know if maybe Kings Hwy or Church St can handle LRT. Kings Hwy could physically handle LRT, but really doesn't have the ridership for it. Church has neither the ridership (as defined above) nor the physical ability to handle it. That's why I'm looking for other candidates. Exactly the problem here. You're looking for candidates, but there are none. As I stated before, LRT is best served by street running in areas where traffic is lighter, and then ducking into tunnels (or other dedicated ROWs) in the downtown areas. Buses in outerboroughs may get crowded, but generally they only reach capacity where they get nearer to the subway, and they don't need the kind of capacity offered by LRT. Additionally, IF you're building a seperate ROW for LRTs, then most often, it would make the most sense to run heavy rail on it, and then re-organize bus service accordingly. The best place I can think of to do this is Hillside, where you could cut the number of buses that run all the way to 165th if you extended the subway to Francis Lewis, and built a terminal there (you'd eliminate lots of traffic problems for those buses). Or if you extended the E along one of the LIRR branches in the area (either the one that has a stop at St. Albans, or the one that goes to Locust Manor and Laurelton. I don't know which sees more service. LRT in NYC would be a waste of money that could be better spent on expanding the Heavy Rail network. |
|
| (13313) | |
Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch |
|
|
Posted by Kevin from Midwood on Fri Jul 28 02:21:10 2006, in response to Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch, posted by David of Broadway on Thu Jul 27 23:12:06 2006. I doubt that. In official signage, NYCT never leaves off the street name suffix (Avenue, in this case).In the case of Broadway-Lafayette Street, the suffix appears on maps and on platform signs but not on entrance signs.  |
|
| (13314) | |
Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Fri Jul 28 02:25:20 2006, in response to Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch, posted by NIMBYkiller on Fri Jul 28 02:00:26 2006. IT doesn't justify the hundreds of millions that would be spent on it. |
|
| (13315) | |
Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Fri Jul 28 02:26:44 2006, in response to Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch, posted by R30A on Fri Jul 28 02:11:22 2006. That would never fly. |
|
| (13316) | |
Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch |
|
|
Posted by Brighton Private on Fri Jul 28 08:16:07 2006, in response to Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch, posted by R30A on Thu Jul 27 23:42:45 2006. Boy is that the truth. I think my station -- U Street - Cardozo -- African Americans Civil War Memorial -- may be the longest subway stop name in the the world. Certainly the US.I think they should just change the name to "Ben's Chili Bowl" and be done with it. |
|
| (13317) | |
Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch |
|
|
Posted by RIPTA42HopeTunnel on Fri Jul 28 08:17:08 2006, in response to Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch, posted by NIMBYkiller on Fri Jul 28 01:14:42 2006. Also, I don't think the trolley lanes were converted to vehicular lanes on the bridge.The eastbound trolley ROW is the "upper-outer" roadway, and the westbound ROW is the pedestrian & bicycle path. |
|
|
Page 12 of 17 |
||