|
|
| 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 3 of 17 |
||
|
| (12818) | |
Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Sat Jul 22 19:24:53 2006, in response to Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch, posted by RonInBayside on Sat Jul 22 18:16:09 2006. I can't find a single place on the satelite pictures that shows the ROW encroaching on homes. |
|
| (12819) | |
Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Sat Jul 22 19:27:11 2006, in response to Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch, posted by NIMBYkiller on Sat Jul 22 19:24:53 2006. Satellite pictures don't show property lines. The satellite photos are worthless for this. You have to go to the county assessor (or whoever does the title survey work in Queens). |
|
| (12820) | |
Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Sat Jul 22 19:30:52 2006, in response to Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch, posted by RonInBayside on Sat Jul 22 17:58:32 2006. Once again, you have absolutely no clue what you're talking about. There is not a single point on the entire ROW that only has enough space for one track. Please, check your facts when posting, or don't post at all. The level of bullshit here would go down tremendously. |
|
| (12821) | |
Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Sat Jul 22 19:31:57 2006, in response to Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch, posted by RonInBayside on Sat Jul 22 19:22:32 2006. The ROW is there. It's clear. It doesn't encroach on anyones property. End of story. |
|
| (12822) | |
Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Sat Jul 22 19:33:02 2006, in response to Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch, posted by RonInBayside on Sat Jul 22 19:27:11 2006. And the county assessors maps will show you the same exact thing. Not a single property is encroached upon by the ROW. |
|
| (12823) | |
Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Sat Jul 22 19:34:28 2006, in response to Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch, posted by RonInBayside on Sat Jul 22 19:06:37 2006. And a rail line, which IS possible, is better than a park. And do you know what's better? A rail line with a park/bike trail running adjacent, which is certainly possible in this case. |
|
| (12824) | |
Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Sat Jul 22 19:36:45 2006, in response to Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch, posted by NIMBYkiller on Sat Jul 22 19:30:52 2006. If saying that makes you feel better, I understand. But I take ideas from here to MTA and others at times, and the better ones have a shot at implementation. Certain aspects of AirTrain, the 63rd st service plan and the refundable MetroCard are a reality now and there are elements of each that started as ideas which were bounced around and refined on Subtalk.Instead of getting defensive and posting like a child, do some real research. You'll find out I'm not wrong and you'll also understand why Rockaway rail proposals, which are a dime a dozen coming from foamers like you, get tossed in the trash at MTA headquarters because theyhave little basis in fact. |
|
| (12825) | |
Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Sat Jul 22 19:38:08 2006, in response to Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch, posted by NIMBYkiller on Sat Jul 22 19:33:02 2006. And you are the County Assessor, so you would know. |
|
| (12826) | |
Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch |
|
|
Posted by Transit Guy on Sat Jul 22 19:42:19 2006, in response to Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch, posted by mambomta on Sat Jul 22 18:51:35 2006. Trust me guys if a park were to be built there, I think it would soon become a mess with vandalism. Besides, if they want a park so bad, why not stick a park sign and call it a trail/park without using any money I am sure there would be good trails for bikes :) (but I don't support this park thing). |
|
| (12827) | |
Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Sat Jul 22 19:43:01 2006, in response to Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch, posted by RonInBayside on Sat Jul 22 19:36:45 2006. I am hardly the foamer you are. You run around getting all defensive calling others foamers when you run out of your fairy logic. Posting like a child? You should really reconsider being a member on this board.I've done my research over and over again while you are yet to do it once. Stating that the ROW is only wide enough for one track at certain points proves that. If there's anyone who needs to stop acting like a child here, it's you. |
|
| (12828) | |
Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Sat Jul 22 19:44:00 2006, in response to Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch, posted by RonInBayside on Sat Jul 22 19:38:08 2006. No, but like everyone has said here, and like you yourself has even admitted, no government document is going to show property lines extending onto the ROW. |
|
| (12829) | |
Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Sat Jul 22 19:48:37 2006, in response to Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch, posted by Transit Guy on Sat Jul 22 19:42:19 2006. "Trust me guys if a park were to be built there, I think it would soon become a mess with vandalism"Not any worse than any other park and that's no reason not to build a park - in fact, even worse, it's often a reason for people in richer neighborhoods to practice discrimination against people in poorer neighborhoods. So no I don't trust you because you're not making sense. |
|
| (12830) | |
Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch |
|
|
Posted by R7 Torresdale Express on Sat Jul 22 19:49:00 2006, in response to Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch, posted by RonInBayside on Sat Jul 22 17:58:32 2006. There are no single-track sections on the ROW. |
|
| (12831) | |
Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Sat Jul 22 19:52:18 2006, in response to Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch, posted by R7 Torresdale Express on Sat Jul 22 19:49:00 2006. False. There are now. |
|
| (12832) | |
Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Sat Jul 22 19:53:50 2006, in response to Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch, posted by RonInBayside on Sat Jul 22 19:52:18 2006. And how do you know this. Where is your evidence of this. I'm very curious b/c I can't find a single inch. |
|
| (12833) | |
Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Sat Jul 22 19:54:34 2006, in response to Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch, posted by NIMBYkiller on Sat Jul 22 19:53:50 2006. You have to get off your ass and leave your house. Sitting at the computer won't do it. |
|
| (12834) | |
Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch |
|
|
Posted by The Port of Authority on Sat Jul 22 20:03:11 2006, in response to Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch, posted by NIMBYkiller on Sat Jul 22 19:34:28 2006. And do you know what's better? A rail line with a park/bike trail running adjacent, which is certainly possible in this case.And that's where a LRT would help the most, because it can be incorporated into a park (as in Kenosha's trolley line.) |
|
| (12835) | |
Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Sat Jul 22 20:16:06 2006, in response to Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch, posted by RonInBayside on Sat Jul 22 19:54:34 2006. And you need to stop talking out of your ass. I've asked for your evidence and you go and avoid my request, again, just like you've done with anyone else who asks you to prove how you know. |
|
| (12836) | |
Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Sat Jul 22 21:16:54 2006, in response to Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch, posted by RonInBayside on Sat Jul 22 19:27:11 2006. Satellite pictures don't show property lines.Yes they do. Just zoom in on the area of the Rockaway Line and turn on the 'Block/Lot Boundaries' layer, the first layer under the 'Property/Land Use' options. You'll see that none of the private properties adjoining the Rockaway Line right of way actually cross onto the ROW. However, there are several incursions on that right of way which involve the former LIRR lots which may or may not be legal. At Union Turnpike what looks like a former factory and a semi-circular tower have both used the ROW for their parking lots. Those lots are separate from the buildings adjacent to them and the legality of the use is likely highly debatable. Further south at Atlantic Avenue what I guess was once a junction between the two LIRR lines is now a parking lot for a schoolbus company. In this case the lot encompasses the full area, and I believe somebody on Subtalk said the bus company's occupation of that lot is not totally legal. I see nowhere where private homes come right up to the right of way, and indeed for much of it there seems to be plenty of room to have two light rail tracks, a bike trail, and some trees on what used to be a four track ROW. Three quite minor right of way incursions seem to be a very minor issue over the entire length of the line. |
|
| (12837) | |
Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Sat Jul 22 21:32:00 2006, in response to Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch, posted by RonInBayside on Sat Jul 22 17:53:31 2006. That is only in your humble opinion, and that clearly is quite up for debate. Don't try to pass off your opinion as fact. I will readily admit that what I've written here is opinion, but I believe it to be grounded in fact far better than your argument.Your open cut or cut and cover tunnel would entail far more complex and lengthy construction than a light rail would ever have. The potential for construction or engineering errors resulting in catestrophic damage to the surrounding roads and property would be much greater. The open cut subway running the same equipment used in NYC's subways would likely minimize noise relative to the same train operating on the surface, but a light rail train on the surface would likely be quieter than either. Much of the Rockaway Line right of way is grade separated, so there's little operational advantage to be gained in attempting to construct a subway or open cut rapid transit line. Indeed a strong case could be made for the fact that Queens could have a grade separated bike path adjacent to the light rail line, something that would be extremely difficult to do with the subway or open cut plan. |
|
| (12838) | |
Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Sat Jul 22 21:40:11 2006, in response to Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch, posted by RonInBayside on Sat Jul 22 19:27:11 2006. Your saying that the property ower Illeagally claimed property that didn't belong to them. |
|
| (12839) | |
Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Sat Jul 22 22:38:17 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. pwnge |
|
| (12840) | |
Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Sat Jul 22 23:24:09 2006, in response to Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch, posted by WillD on Sat Jul 22 21:32:00 2006. "Don't try to pass off your opinion as fact. "Sorry Will, but it is fact. The problem with your post is that you're confusing two issues. I'm not bgrudging you your engineering analysis, but you're talking engineering, and I'm talking politics. So you missed the point entirely. The NIMBYS don't give a rat's ass about what you posted. All they know is they can see the train or they can't. While we're on the subject: "The potential for construction or engineering errors resulting in catestrophic damage to the surrounding roads and property would be much greater." False statement, as WMATA proved several times. Expensive yes, problem plagued no. Look up WMATA's Blue line extension. "The open cut subway running the same equipment used in NYC's subways would likely minimize noise relative to the same train operating on the surface, but a light rail train on the surface would likely be quieter than either." I'm not saying light rail isn't quiet. I'm not anti light rail. I'm saying the NIMBYs don't want it and will block it. NIMBY isn't about rationality. It's about perception, class bias, elitism, racism, fear of change, just plain fear. That's whyyou have to broaden your education, so you don't miss out on learning the "softer" sciences. Drexel is a great place to do that. Take advantage of what you have available. It will keep you from being just another foamer with an engineer's book learning. |
|
| (12841) | |
Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch |
|
|
Posted by Dand124 on Sat Jul 22 23:45:03 2006, in response to Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch, posted by WillD on Sat Jul 22 21:32:00 2006. Actually Ron's proposal sounds very similar to the MBTA's southwest corridor orange line project. The line was previously an embankment and was rebuilt into an open cut some parts covered some parts not. There is a bike pedestrian trail and park along the entire length. IIRC the line is about 4.5 miles long and cost about 900 million dollars to construct (this was between 1979 and 1987). |
|
| (12842) | |
Re: Maps and Problems with Rockaway ROW |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Sat Jul 22 23:57:01 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. First, thank you for posting a link to this resource. I was not aware of it and have now bookmarked it.It's beautifully done and nicely laid out. My only gripe with it is the speed of update. I could eat a sandwich waiting for each refresh, and if I had dial-up Internet access only, I could eat a 3-course meal waiting for it to update. Is that typical for it? But now let's get to the problems. Yes I looked at the map. Your descriptions are correct, but again, you lack context, so you draw an inappropriate conclusion. "You'll see that none of the private properties adjoining the Rockaway Line right of way actually cross onto the ROW." The map does confirm that. However, landowners still don't want trains coming even close to their property lines. I'm not happy with their attitudes, I don't agree with them, but there you have it. "Those lots are separate from the buildings adjacent to them and the legality of the use is likely highly debatable." Without knowing anything about how they were created you cannot reach that conclusion. I'm not saying you are wrong, but you are speculating. Throw some dice and get a low number... "I believe somebody on Subtalk said the bus company's occupation of that lot is not totally legal." Which means what? "I see nowhere where private homes come right up to the right of way," But their yards do, right? If I am a NIMBY and you want to run your train right by where I say my kids will be playing, what do you think I will be telling my city council member? "Three quite minor right of way incursions seem to be a very minor issue over the entire length of the line." That's because you look at trains and tracks and not people. Let your perspective broaden and you'll understand. |
|
| (12843) | |
Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch |
|
|
Posted by SUBWAYMAN on Sun Jul 23 00:07:21 2006, in response to Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch, posted by The Port of Authority on Sat Jul 22 17:57:36 2006. I disagree. The ROW looks like it is big enough to handle heavy rail. Building LRT on the ROW would be a waste. Since there is a potential connection to the NY Subway in Ozone Park, why waste the money on Light Rail here? Queens can use a subway line to the airport utilizing the ROW (it would of course go underground in Rego Park before the LIRR Main line). Some of the planned Lower Manhattan-Jamaica/JFK trainsportation proposals would utilize the Rockaway line from Howard Beach to Atlantic Ave with a track connection to the LIRR Atlantic Ave Branch. |
|
| (12844) | |
Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Sun Jul 23 01:39:39 2006, in response to Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch, posted by RonInBayside on Sat Jul 22 23:24:09 2006. There's another part to engineering; Having balls. I guess in the professional world, that's called ambition. The ambition to complete a project. The ambition to overcome adversities. It seems you never learned that, or did they take that away from you in medical school?And Will said that there is the POTENTIAL for greater errors, not that there will be. Yes, WMATAs blue line shows how a project can be done without errors. On the other hand however, the Big Dig shows how a project can be done with numerous errors. I tell ya, I'm surprised you haven't had any malpractice suits brought upon you given the fact that you seem to ignore facts quite often and tend to not read everything as carefully as you probably should. A shame really. |
|
| (12845) | |
Re: Maps and Problems with Rockaway ROW |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Sun Jul 23 01:42:14 2006, in response to Re: Maps and Problems with Rockaway ROW, posted by RonInBayside on Sat Jul 22 23:57:01 2006. Is that typical for it?Yes, I believe it is, but I've only had minor delays with it. Without knowing anything about how they were created you cannot reach that conclusion. I'm not saying you are wrong, but you are speculating. Throw some dice and get a low number... At the very least Oasis tells us that the building and the parking lot constructed on the Rockaway Line are separate parcels. In the eventuality that those parking lots were constructed completely legally it'd be very simple for the MTA to reacquire the land for the construction of a light rail and a bike trail. The map does confirm that. However, landowners still don't want trains coming even close to their property lines. I'm not happy with their attitudes, I don't agree with them, but there you have it... But their yards do, right? If I am a NIMBY and you want to run your train right by where I say my kids will be playing, what do you think I will be telling my city council member? But their yards do, right? If I am a NIMBY and you want to run your train right by where I say my kids will be playing, what do you think I will be telling my city council member? Why can't you be this big a wuss in the debates here? If you're just going to put your tail between your legs and run at the slightest hint of a dispute with the neighbors then what the hell is the point of talking about transit improvements. I have some shocking news for you, some folks will ALWAYS be against something that has the potential to disrupt their neighborhood. However, a vocal minority should not be allowed to hold a minimum impact project such as this one up. If the MTA actually cared about building a Rockaway Line transit line then undoubtedly they'd be able to get out a message to fight the misinformation put out by the NIMBYs. In the absense of that information from the MTA the NIMBY's message has permiated and clearly folks such as yourself have fallen for it hook line and stinker. The right of way is largely almost 50 feet wide, and provides plenty of room for a light rail line, bike path, and a healthy number of trees to be built to screen the houses from the line. That's because you look at trains and tracks and not people. Let your perspective broaden and you'll understand. Haha. Next you'll undoubtedly call me 'immature' because I'm laughing at your astonishingly condescending statement. How could I happen to look beyond the shortsighted objections of these NIMBYs and think of the improvement to Queens transit which the light rail would provide? And why on earth would we want to build a 30 million dollar a mile LRT when we could instead build a 150 to 200 million dollar a mile open cut or cut and cover subway? I guess you only look at the vast minority of people and ignore the many many more people who would benefit from this LRT. |
|
| (12846) | |
Re: Maps and Problems with Rockaway ROW |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Sun Jul 23 01:46:05 2006, in response to Re: Maps and Problems with Rockaway ROW, posted by RonInBayside on Sat Jul 22 23:57:01 2006. "Without knowing anything about how they were created you cannot reach that conclusion. I'm not saying you are wrong, but you are speculating. Throw some dice and get a low number..."That's not speculation. Everyone here, including you, knows that the ROW is still owned by NYC and has not sold a single bit of it to private homeowners. That's not speculation. That is fact. "But their yards do, right? If I am a NIMBY and you want to run your train right by where I say my kids will be playing, what do you think I will be telling my city council member?" You can't be serious. I mean, are you really so stupid as to actually think that is a legit argument. You ARE a NIMBY. First of all, most of the homes have fences between the yard and the ROW. Second of all, if any home does not have a fence, I'm sure that who ever is building the rail line would be more than happy to put up a fence for the homeowner, especially with all this terrorism paranoia. Hell, send the surveyor to Home Depot with the homeowner! |
|
| (12847) | |
Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Sun Jul 23 01:50:17 2006, in response to Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch, posted by BrooklynBus on Fri Jul 21 23:45:39 2006. Thanks. More people need to prove Ron wrong daily. |
|
| (12848) | |
Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Sun Jul 23 01:52:28 2006, in response to Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch, posted by SUBWAYMAN on Sun Jul 23 00:07:21 2006. It's called compromising. Think about it, which will be easier to pass off, LRT, or subway? And there will never be a direct one seat ride to JFK. Airtrain killed any hope of that. PANYNJ is not going to give up the system to the MTA. They will not give the MTA the ROW. They will not give the MTA operating rights. They are a bunch of stubborn jackasses who actually got something done while the MTA sat with their thumbs up their asses just staring at their ROW into the airport.Now, in order for their to be a track connection to the Atlantic Branch, that means the Rockaway would have to be LIRR, so there goes your dream of subway on the line right there(and no, the Atlantic will NEVER become a subway line). |
|
| (12849) | |
Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Sun Jul 23 01:55:19 2006, in response to Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch, posted by NIMBYkiller on Sat Jul 22 19:44:00 2006. Correct. The ROW is owned by the City of New York. By definition, private property lines cannot extend into the existing ROW unless the City sold it the owners. (which it hasn't). If any yard, or other property is encroaching unto the ROW, it's illegal and the City can just go in and demolish it and charge te offending individual or business for the cost. (and any applicable fine) This is the case whether they will re-activate as rail or build public trails. |
|
| (12850) | |
Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Sun Jul 23 02:10:16 2006, in response to Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch, posted by RonInBayside on Sat Jul 22 18:43:44 2006. Encroachment is fine and tolerable since the line is abandoned (dormant would be a better term), but the City doesn't need to use eminent domain anyway since any encroachment was illegal to begin with. If anything they can charge the "encroacher" for the cost of any necessary demolition. If they leased any parts of the ROW (the bus company near Atlantic comes to mind), they need not to renew the lease and have them vacate once it expires. A Right Of Way means exactly that, a RIGHT of Way for something of public benefit such as transportation or even the proposed trailway. |
|
| (12851) | |
Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Sun Jul 23 02:19:59 2006, in response to Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch, posted by NIMBYkiller on Sat Jul 22 20:16:06 2006. What he probably means is that encroachment on the ROW may have reduced certain parts to the equivalent of room for one track. However, I reject that argument since such encroachment is illegal and what the City may have tolerated for the last few decades can be ended tomorrow should they have any plans for that ROW. (be it rail, trails or both) |
|
| (12852) | |
Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Sun Jul 23 02:22:57 2006, in response to Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch, posted by NIMBYkiller on Sat Jul 22 19:34:28 2006. Truth |
|
| (12853) | |
Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Sun Jul 23 03:01:33 2006, in response to Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch, posted by Dand124 on Sat Jul 22 23:45:03 2006. I'm not sure an open cut would be feasible on the old Rock since it has numerous trestles over existing roads and other rail lines (like the Lower Montauk). The part in Ozone Park has a Queens Blvd-like viaduct. Burying it would be so expensive that it would not be worth doing, considering its minor importance within the bigger NYC transit picture. If they ever re-activate it, it needs to be done with its current form (but with modern soundproofing upgrades and possibly an adjacent trail), otherwise just do the planned park/trail/bikepath thing. |
|
| (12854) | |
Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Jul 23 07:24:22 2006, in response to Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch, posted by RonInBayside on Sat Jul 22 17:53:31 2006. If you think just restoring service to the existing grade separated ROW is expensive, just trying to make an enbanment line an open cut would almost be cost prohibitive.If anything, they can cheaperly (I know that's not a word) just put one of those noise walls along the ROW like they do on highways if noise would be that much of a concern for traditional subway service. Or as others have mentioned, use the existing grade separated ROW for light rail instead, which is mush quieter than traditional trains. |
|
| (12855) | |
Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Jul 23 07:28:29 2006, in response to Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch, posted by RonInBayside on Sat Jul 22 17:55:15 2006. Private property is too close.It's no closer than the LIRR on the St Albans route, or the Laurelton Route, or most of the LIRR routes within the City of New York. |
|
| (12856) | |
Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Jul 23 07:37:44 2006, in response to Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch, posted by SUBWAYMAN on Sun Jul 23 00:07:21 2006. disagree. The ROW looks like it is big enough to handle heavy rail.Of course it's wide enough. It was used for heavy rail for decades. Ron seems to forget that that it is an IMPROVED grade separated rail line, that was completely rebuilt by the LIRR to grade separate it (unlike some other branches). We are not talking about an unimproved rail line with grade crossings, like the Lower Montauk Branch (which is still an active line too, and just as narrow as the Rockaway line in some points), or completely unimproved rail lines such as the Bushwick Branch or the old Whitestone branch, etc. |
|
| (12857) | |
Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Jul 23 07:50:17 2006, in response to Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch, posted by RonInBayside on Sat Jul 22 17:58:32 2006. Wrong. There are places where you have room enough for one track only (unless you stack them).False. The LIRR completely rebuilt the line in the 1930's, grade eliminated it, and put it on embankment. It is more improved than many existing LIRR lines. It is fully two tracks wide, with embanment slope on either side. South of Woodhaven, it is even 4 tracks wide (4 tracks aren't needed, but the ROW is 4 tracks wide there). No section after the rebuild was only 1 track wide. Yes, in later years, when the LIRR was downscaling the line in the 50's, it was converted to one track operation to save money, but it original ran as two running tracks. |
|
| (12858) | |
Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Jul 23 07:52:26 2006, in response to Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch, posted by NIMBYkiller on Sat Jul 22 20:16:06 2006. When Ron can't show evidence of one of his statements, he resorts to name calling and belittling. |
|
| (12859) | |
Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Sun Jul 23 07:53:09 2006, in response to Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch, posted by NIMBYkiller on Sun Jul 23 01:39:39 2006. If you really want me to treat you like a five year old, I will. |
|
| (12860) | |
Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Jul 23 07:55:01 2006, in response to Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch, posted by SMAZ on Sun Jul 23 02:19:59 2006. The Rockaway line was grade separated and put on enbankment in the 1930's for TWO tracks, and either side has embanment slope next to it. The viaduct portion south of Woodhaven is 4 tracks wide.No part of the ROW has been sold off. Any encroachment is not due to land sold off of the ROW, which is ownership intact. |
|
| (12861) | |
Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Jul 23 07:57:47 2006, in response to Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch, posted by RonInBayside on Sat Jul 22 19:36:45 2006. The LIRR Rockaway line was fully improved, and had two running tracks for it's entire length. It was only downgraded to single track when they were scaling down operation in the 50's, and didn't run enough service to warrant two running tracks, so they converted to single track operation. However, it's not like they ripped half the ROW away at that point. The Rockaway line is wider than some existing LIRR lines. |
|
| (12862) | |
Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Jul 23 07:59:27 2006, in response to Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch, posted by SMAZ on Sat Jul 22 18:39:45 2006. Didn't it have two tracks between Whitepot and Atlantic when it was running back in the day?Yes it did have two running tracks for it's entire length. And four tracks south of the old Woodhaven station. |
|
| (12863) | |
Re: Maps and Problems with Rockaway ROW |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Jul 23 08:04:23 2006, in response to Re: Maps and Problems with Rockaway ROW, posted by RonInBayside on Sat Jul 22 23:57:01 2006. But their yards do, right? If I am a NIMBY and you want to run your train right by where I say my kids will be playing, what do you think I will be telling my city council member?The old Rockaway is wider than some existing LIRR lines (use the same site to trace the line through St Albans), as well as others. Any kids that are or have been playing on the ROW were tresspassing, even if it has been abandoned. As for backyards, many existing (and busy) LIRR lines but right up against people's homes. Again, trace many of the existing LIRR lines in Queens (and even Nassau), but especially Queens). |
|
| (12864) | |
Re: Maps and Problems with Rockaway ROW |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Sun Jul 23 08:07:54 2006, in response to Re: Maps and Problems with Rockaway ROW, posted by WillD on Sun Jul 23 01:42:14 2006. "At the very least Oasis tells us that the building and the parking lot constructed on the Rockaway Line are separate parcels. In the eventuality that those parking lots were constructed completely legally it'd be very simple for the MTA to reacquire the land for the construction of a light rail and a bike trail."No, it wouldn't be simple at all. Title transfer would be simple, that's true. But the intended use leads to complications. If I were living there I would not oppose this. But my neighbors would, and probably would hang me in effigy for my attitude. "I have some shocking news for you, some folks will ALWAYS be against something that has the potential to disrupt their neighborhood. However, a vocal minority should not be allowed to hold a minimum impact project such as this one up." I agree with you 100% "If the MTA actually cared about building a Rockaway Line transit line then undoubtedly they'd be able to get out a message to fight the misinformation put out by the NIMBYs. In the absense of that information from the MTA the NIMBY's message has permiated and clearly folks such as yourself have fallen for it hook line and stinker. The right of way is largely almost 50 feet wide, and provides plenty of room for a light rail line, bike path, and a healthy number of trees to be built to screen the houses from the line." I sympathize with you. However: Look what happened when MTA tried to extend the N train to La Guardia Airport. The train would pass behind, what a block's worth of apattment buildings? And MTA was going to use modern elevated construction methods (probably a T or Y-bent structure with noise barriers and welded rail). But the "opinion leaders" got a hold of the City Council speaker and he basically jammed everything up. I think the real reason is that Astoria residents have a sense of entitlement to empty seats when they get on and they don't want to have to stand because the Manhattan-bound train arrives full of airline passengers with their suitcases. MTA fought the battle for a while and then gave up. If you want to explore the whys of this, start a conversation with the agency and they will clue you in to some reality. "How could I happen to look beyond the shortsighted objections of these NIMBYs and think of the improvement to Queens transit which the light rail would provide? And why on earth would we want to build a 30 million dollar a mile LRT when we could instead build a 150 to 200 million dollar a mile open cut or cut and cover subway?" I'm not criticizing that. I like that. I admire your idealism. Maybe I should have said that from the start. OK, I apologize for not doing that. So now you know. But telling you you don't consider all the pieces of the puzzle isn't condescending; it's reality. Give it 5 years and you'll understand what I'm talking about. |
|
| (12865) | |
Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Jul 23 08:09:23 2006, in response to Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch, posted by RonInBayside on Sat Jul 22 18:02:00 2006. There's no reason to widen the line, as it is fully two tracks wide, on enbankment. |
|
| (12866) | |
Re: Maps and Problems with Rockaway ROW |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Jul 23 08:12:41 2006, in response to Re: Maps and Problems with Rockaway ROW, posted by RonInBayside on Sun Jul 23 08:07:54 2006. The train would pass behind, what a block's worth of apattment buildings? And MTA was going to use modern elevated construction methodsNo elevated construction would be necessary for the Rockaway Line, as it is already a grade separated ROW on enbankment, except for the existing, 4 track wide viaduct in Ozone Park. |
|
| (12867) | |
Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Jul 23 08:15:55 2006, in response to Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch, posted by R7 Torresdale Express on Fri Jul 21 21:54:09 2006. Yes, unlike the LOwer Montauk, the Bay Ridge line is a grade separated, FOUR track ROW (yes, downgraded years ago to basically one track).The freight can't be thrown off, as it's necessary, but the ROW is amble enough for two freight and two rapid transit tracks. |
|
|
Page 3 of 17 |
||