|
|
| 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 15 of 17 |
||
|
| (13418) | |
Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch |
|
|
Posted by R7 Torresdale Express on Sat Jul 29 01:19:13 2006, in response to Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch, posted by American Pig on Fri Jul 28 13:53:38 2006. Doesn't Jamaica end at Hillside Avenue? |
|
| (13419) | |
Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch |
|
|
Posted by The Port of Authority on Sat Jul 29 01:34:23 2006, in response to Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch, posted by R7 Torresdale Express on Sat Jul 29 01:19:13 2006. Not if you include Jamaica Estates, which ends at the Grand Central Parkway. |
|
| (13420) | |
Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Sat Jul 29 02:14:42 2006, in response to Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch, posted by R7 Torresdale Express on Fri Jul 28 23:27:26 2006. Germantown Av is too narrow in many places and traffic has increased to the point where the trolleys are no longer feasible. Trolleys get in the way of emergency vehicles, they block traffic, their tracks chew up tires. I've lived on the Avenue and fully agree with SEPTA's decision. Maybe electric trolley buses could work - because they're steerable to a point - and SEPTA already has plenty of experience operating them.On the other hand, Erie Av is nicely set up for a trolley, had one complete with Island platforms, and SEPTA let that go. Considering the resurgence of business there and the presence of institutions like St. Christopher's Hospital for Children, a trolley would make sense. WillD and I have argued about this back and forth. He thinks SEPTA is being ridiculous and I think SEPTA is being sensible on this issue. |
|
| (13421) | |
Re: So I've Drawn a MAP. (R36 #9346's Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Bran |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sat Jul 29 07:54:40 2006, in response to Re: So I've Drawn a MAP. (R36 #9346's Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Bran, posted by NIMBYkiller on Fri Jul 28 20:56:34 2006. Why loose the Metropolitan stop and the 101st St stop? That's just the stops on the ROckaway line that go through an area with no service! Metropolitan is the old Parkside stop, and 101ST is the old Ozone Park LIRR stop! |
|
| (13422) | |
Re: So I've Drawn a MAP. (R36 #9346's Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Bran |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sat Jul 29 07:57:18 2006, in response to Re: So I've Drawn a MAP. (R36 #9346's Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Bran, posted by The Port of Authority on Fri Jul 28 16:27:03 2006. Wouldn't it make more sense to have the Rocket skip all stops between Whitepot and Aqueduct and have the (V) serve those stations?Sure, the whole section of the ROckaway line through the areas that have no subway service, make them skip all those stations through that section. It makes no sense to skip there! The NIMBY's would love it, send all the trains through their neighborhood, and not give them any benefit. |
|
| (13423) | |
Re: So I've Drawn a MAP. (R36 #9346's Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Bran |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Sat Jul 29 08:52:44 2006, in response to Re: So I've Drawn a MAP. (R36 #9346's Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Bran, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sat Jul 29 07:54:40 2006. I meant on the Rockaway Rocket. The V can still make those stops. |
|
| (13424) | |
Re: So I've Drawn a MAP. (R36 #9346's Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Bran |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sat Jul 29 16:59:35 2006, in response to Re: So I've Drawn a MAP. (R36 #9346's Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Bran, posted by NIMBYkiller on Fri Jul 28 21:16:19 2006. Yeah, I don't think it's easily possible, the line is 2 tracks on enbankment, but then you have the needed slope downwards on either side to allow for drainage, etc. While technically space-wise there may be enough room, you couldn't do it without concreting flat sides all along the enbankment, and that would probably be an eyesore. You would lose the tree buffer on either side of the enbankment, and NIMBYs would never go for that. |
|
| (13425) | |
Re: So I've Drawn a MAP. (R36 #9346's Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Bran |
|
|
Posted by The Port of Authority on Sat Jul 29 17:21:12 2006, in response to Re: So I've Drawn a MAP. (R36 #9346's Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Bran, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sat Jul 29 07:57:18 2006. It's the "Rockaway Rocket." It's not the "Woodhaven Rocket" or the "Rego Park Rocket" or anything like that; its primary purpose is to provide a super-express service to the Rockaways.That being said, Woodhaven residents still have the (V) making local stops on the Rockaway ROW. I don't think that's the end of the world. |
|
| (13426) | |
Re: So I've Drawn a MAP. (R36 #9346's Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Bran |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sat Jul 29 20:02:32 2006, in response to Re: So I've Drawn a MAP. (R36 #9346's Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Bran, posted by The Port of Authority on Sat Jul 29 17:21:12 2006. The thing is, would such a service like that work with the V makng all stops? Remember, there are only two tracks.It's nice in theory, but also, how useful would a service that rushes people from Manhattan to some of the least used stations in the entire Subway system. Where the service is needed most is the in between of the line. |
|
| (13427) | |
Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch |
|
|
Posted by David of Broadway on Sat Jul 29 22:29:09 2006, in response to Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch, posted by BrooklynBus on Fri Jul 28 23:10:17 2006. You're almost certainly right that the demand doesn't justify the expense. As I said from the outset, I'm biased, as I'd benefit tremendously from the line.It certainly seems to me that the situation has improved tremendously since I started working at KCC in 2003 -- but, then again, my schedule has changed also, so the situation may be just as bad as always on my earlier schedule. When the part-time dispatcher at Mackenzie Loop is on duty, I agree that outbound service (from the Loop) is good. But at other times, many of the drivers seem to make up their own schedules. A few months ago, I watched a B1 with one passenger pull out a minute or two early, even though the driver saw me running and waving. (Naturally, its follower was late -- the driver apparently extended his break.) And about a year ago, in the middle of the afternoon, I had to wait a triple headway, and when I simply asked the driver if there had been a problem, he gave me attitude. (When we got to Coney Island Avenue, he diverted off-route without first letting the passengers off, I suspect to "get back" at me.) From everything I've heard, indeed NYCT would be quite happy to move the terminal past the gate. It would be great for the drivers as well, with restroom facilities and a cafeteria right there. The problem, it seems, is that the College wants to retain the right to check ID cards of everyone entering campus -- even though, in my three years of working there, I have never had my ID card checked at the gate (except when I enter when the campus is officially closed, such as 10:30 at night on Christmas), not even when a "100% ID CHECK IN PROCESS" sign was posted following a rape on campus. Even then, that shouldn't be a problem -- leave the Loop in place as a backup terminal. |
|
| (13428) | |
Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Sat Jul 29 22:58:39 2006, in response to Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch, posted by RonInBayside on Sat Jul 29 02:14:42 2006. So ban the car traffic. |
|
| (13429) | |
Ron hates Transit Infrastructure (was:Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR...) |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Sat Jul 29 23:50:53 2006, in response to Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch, posted by RonInBayside on Sat Jul 29 02:14:42 2006. No, you're simply for the destruction of valuable transit infrastructure and the creation of a light rail network which would require costly trucking of vehicles for maitenance. If you were to actually live in the area you'd see that SEPTA has rebuilt the Subway Surface tracks to the point where they're a simple T-rail with a plastic or rubber flangeway mounted in concrete. This design has a minimal effect on tires when compared to the previous girder rail installations. The cobblestones or belgian paving blocks are an issue, but the northern end of Germantown Avenue is being rebuilt by PennDOT with the tracks being reinstalled. Clearly PennDOT and the City of Philadelphia's Streets Department disagree with your and SEPTA's assessment that such street construction is deleterious to cars that travel that road. Since you have a history of simply siding with NIMBYs that's well documented in this thread, and SEPTA has a history of destroying perfectly good trolley and electric rail routes for no good reason it'd seem the weight of credibility falls largely on PennDOT and the Streets Dept. At least they seem to have the city's best interests at heart.We've been over the emergency vehicle issues and while you can claim all you want that the fire department needs Germantown I've actually talked to firefighters and ambulance drivers who have explicitly stated that unless an emergency is located on Germantown they'll take alternate routes to get to a call. Even if we were to accept your wrong-headed notion that trolleys would impede emergency traffic then you must also believe that buses do the same. Parking along Germantown Ave is such that no SEPTA bus is ever going to find 60 or even 40 feet to get out of traffic for an emergency vehicle to overtake so your 'steerable' trolleybus may as well be fixed to those rails. In addition it would be extremely easy to order a 96 inch wide Skoda Astra for around 1.5 million dollars. OTOH one 40 foot 102 inch wide E40LF would set you back three quarters of a million dollars, and a 96 inch wide one-off ETB designed for Germantown Avenue would increase costs even more, and as I've stated would offer no appreciable increase in the ability for emergency vehicles to overtake. I suppose I should just be glad that you finally pulled your head out of your ass and stopped advocating diesel or hybrid buses where there's a ready supply of 600 volts DC. You do realize that without the 23 a restored 56 is an isolated line, right? You'd be forced to truck LRVs with significant mechanical problems from whatever depot you're proposing to use down to Woodland depot to be repaired. With the 23 restored you could simply couple the broken LRV up to a working one and tow it from one depot to another, saving a huge amount of money in heavy haulage fees. Unless you want to keep the 23's tracks between Girard and Erie, but if you're going to do that then you'd have a hard time running ETBs on the 23. It's clear you haven't thought any of your stances through to completion, you simply side with the uninformed NIMBYs and bolster their arguments through your own naive ignorance. |
|
| (13430) | |
Re: So I've Drawn a MAP. (R36 #9346's Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Bran |
|
|
Posted by Grand Concourse on Sun Jul 30 00:46:10 2006, in response to Re: So I've Drawn a MAP. (R36 #9346's Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Bran, posted by NIMBYkiller on Fri Jul 28 20:54:07 2006. If the area doesn't need that much service then why increase it? His Rockaway super line seems good enough. |
|
| (13431) | |
Re: So I've Drawn a MAP. (R36 #9346's Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Bran |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Sun Jul 30 01:47:41 2006, in response to Re: So I've Drawn a MAP. (R36 #9346's Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Bran, posted by NIMBYkiller on Fri Jul 28 20:46:52 2006. Then which line would you give it to? The E and F are already express,And they're packed to the gills. Meanwhile, the Rockaways do not have enough PASSENGERS to support such a service. IF a super exp was added to Queens Blvd, the sensible thing to do would be to operate 3 express trains going to eastern queens, NOT the Rockaways. |
|
| (13432) | |
Re: Ron hates Transit Infrastructure (was:Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR...) |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Sun Jul 30 01:49:31 2006, in response to Ron hates Transit Infrastructure (was:Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR...), posted by WillD on Sat Jul 29 23:50:53 2006. Good post. |
|
| (13433) | |
Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Sun Jul 30 02:02:13 2006, in response to Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch, posted by David of Broadway on Fri Jul 28 18:22:40 2006. I wish I had the luxury of riding such crowded trains on the 1.Amen to that. I ride against peak direction, and I rarely get a train anywhere near that empty on the 1. |
|
| (13434) | |
Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Sun Jul 30 02:07:49 2006, in response to Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch, posted by David of Broadway on Fri Jul 28 18:10:07 2006. Nah. Just their new operating techniques. |
|
| (13435) | |
Re: oops. the full post. (Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Sun Jul 30 02:12:35 2006, in response to Re: oops. the full post. (Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch, posted by SMAZ on Fri Jul 28 22:22:12 2006. I stand corrected. An LRT on the Bay Ridge ROW that doesn't disrupt freight would be a great idea.That would be a terrible idea. With all the subway lines that have capacity that cross the Bay Ridge ROW, you could tie it into one of them, and run direct, subway service along it. |
|
| (13436) | |
Re: oops. the full post. (Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Sun Jul 30 02:13:32 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 20:15:29 2006. In NYC, LRT IS a waste of money, for exactly the reasons I mentioned before, which still stand. |
|
| (13437) | |
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, in response to Re: Ron's Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch, posted by The Port of Authority on Sun Jul 23 21:43:30 2006. It's been established that a LRT is the least offensive and cheapest option.And, the most useless. |
|
| (13438) | |
Re: oops. the full post. (Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch |
|
|
Posted by David of Broadway on Sun Jul 30 02:16:59 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 21:16:42 2006. Yeah, passengers just love long headways.In the context of the Bx12, what does light rail provide that buses can't? |
|
| (13439) | |
LRV foolishness(Re: Ron's Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch) |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Sun Jul 30 02:21:04 2006, in response to Re: Ron's Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch, posted by WillD on Sun Jul 23 22:26:52 2006. A light rail on the other hand could be built likely 5 to 10 times cheaper than your needless subway, would fit much better with the ridership numbers a crosstown Queens line would have.And would be a huge waste of money that would make no sense to build when placed of the context of NYC! Why can't people get over this: Light Rail in NYC is a non-starter. |
|
| (13440) | |
Re: oops. the full post. (Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch |
|
|
Posted by Newkirk Plaza David on Sun Jul 30 02:22:13 2006, in response to Re: oops. the full post. (Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch, posted by David of Broadway on Sun Jul 30 02:16:59 2006. It would provide an exclusive lane in each direction that is 80% immune from vehicular traffic along congested Fordham Road. The other 20 percent would be to contend vehicles making turns at some intersections likk Webster Ave and Kingsbridge Road.My question is this; the BeenLine routes 60 through 62 will be reduced to chopped liver as they can't use the LRT bus lane. |
|
| (13441) | |
Re: oops. the full post. (Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch |
|
|
Posted by David of Broadway on Sun Jul 30 02:24:54 2006, in response to Re: oops. the full post. (Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch, posted by Newkirk Plaza David on Sun Jul 30 02:22:13 2006. An exclusive bus lane provides the exact same benefit, but without the massive capital costs of installing trackage and purchasing/storing/maintaining LRV's.And an exclusive bus lane can be used by any authorized bus route |
|
| (13442) | |
Re: oops. the full post. (Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Sun Jul 30 02:42:33 2006, in response to Re: oops. the full post. (Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch, posted by J trainloco on Sun Jul 30 02:12:35 2006. The only thing along those lines that I can think of would be to run the (V) thru Christie to the Willy B, then to Canarsie after Bway Jnct and then onto the Bay Ridge Line. The 60s Plan for Action had a plan like that for the (L). |
|
| (13443) | |
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. |
|
| (13444) | |
Re: LRV foolishness(Re: Ron's Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch) |
|
|
Posted by AEM-7AC #901 on Sun Jul 30 02:46:54 2006, in response to LRV foolishness(Re: Ron's Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch), posted by J trainloco on Sun Jul 30 02:21:04 2006. Why can't people get over this: Light Rail in NYC is a non-starter.Why can't people get over this. Light Rail can work easily in New York City, and it makes for a great intermediate capacity system especially in replacing shitty bus routes where a subway would be massive overkill. La Grande Anse |
|
| (13445) | |
Re: oops. the full post. (Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Sun Jul 30 02:50:10 2006, in response to Re: oops. the full post. (Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch, posted by SMAZ on Sun Jul 30 02:42:33 2006. A central element of the discussions, although not directly addressed in the city’s offer, is extension of the No. 7 subway line from Times Square to a new station at 11th Avenue and 34th Street. The new line has always been considered crucial to Far West Side development. The city had planned to pay $2 billion to build the line as part of its proposal to develop a football stadium.Mr. Kalikow said Wednesday that the latest proposal by the city “allows us to firm up building” the No. 7 extension, suggesting the city would be required to build it. |
|
| (13446) | |
Re: Ron's Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch |
|
|
Posted by AEM-7AC #901 on Sun Jul 30 02:50:11 2006, in response to Re: Ron's Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch, posted by WillD on Sun Jul 30 02:45:08 2006.
|
|
| (13447) | |
Re: oops. the full post. (Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Sun Jul 30 02:51:15 2006, in response to Re: oops. the full post. (Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch, posted by Terrapin Station on Sun Jul 30 02:50:10 2006. Thanks |
|
| (13448) | |
Re: LRV Close-mindedness(Re: Ron's Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch) |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Sun Jul 30 03:02:20 2006, in response to LRV foolishness(Re: Ron's Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch), posted by J trainloco on Sun Jul 30 02:21:04 2006. How is it a non-starter?Yeah, I know NIMBYkiller was talking about running it into Manhattan, and that's probably a bad idea. However what is wrong with running a Rockaway Line LRT up to the Queens Blvd Subway and creating an underground transfer station there? Get the Rockaway Line LRV running down to Howard Beach, then start looking for other lines which can be created out of that terminal to act as collectors for the subway. At roughly 10% the cost you can get a significant amount of LRT network built while saving operational costs relative to the buses they replace. Squeeze another track or pair of tracks next to the Bay Ridge Line and give that a northern terminus at this transfer facility. Heck, you could go north from there by grabbing the Hell Gate tracks north of where the LIRR crosses under them and then doing combined street running and private ROW to reach LGA or Flushing. NYC has crowded buses, and unless you want to drive operator and fuel costs through the roof the viable alternative is to massively increase the vehicle capacity. You're not likely to get an 80 foot AGG300 past the NYDMV, but a mid-sized LRV could certainly work. Even on the streets in Manhattan you could reserve a lane or two and install a street running LRV to replace the M15 or other buses. Second Avenue would make sense in particular because of the large distances being proposed between stations on the SAS. A surface running LRV could easily form the local counterpart to the subway express and do so at a lower operational cost than any bus. |
|
| (13449) | |
Re: oops. the full post. (Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Sun Jul 30 03:15:36 2006, in response to Re: oops. the full post. (Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch, posted by David of Broadway on Sun Jul 30 02:24:54 2006. A bus lane may provide savings in capital expenditures but it provides no savings in operational funding. Even then a mile of roadway isn't much cheaper than a mile of shallow slab LRT track construction, so you're mostly paying for the ancillary items to get the LRVs going. The Orange Line busway in LA ran around 20 million dollars a mile, while the Pittsburgh Airport Busway (which doesn't go to the airport) cost them 50 million dollars a mile, the Portland Streetcar cost roughly 25 million dollars a mile. While PSC uses a relatively low capacity Skoda Astra vehicle the same construction techniques could just as easily be adapted to create a system running high capacity 30 meter Citadis, Combino or Flexity vehicles for less than 30 million dollars a mile. The cost of procuring LRVs (which would decrease if off the shelf, standardized vehicles were used) and building the support facilities, which PSC and Tacoma Link demonstrate need not be overly large, would likely be saved by the decreased operational cost of the vehicles themselves. |
|
| (13450) | |
Re: oops. the full post. (Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Sun Jul 30 03:39:49 2006, in response to 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. You're massively overstating the cost to start up an LRV line. It's clear that a high capacity, relatively high speed LRT service can be initated for roughly 20 to 25 million dollars a mile, you'd be hard pressed to build a subway for ten times that price. For every year you run that LRV after it's built it will save money relative to the buses it replaced, and for some reason LRVs usually attract considerably more passenger than the buses they replace, so you'd also likely see a ridership increase.You also greatly overstate the difficulties storage and maitenance of LRVs would present. NYCTA clearly has considerable experience with 600-750 volt DC IGBT driven AC powertrains, they have experience with articulation joints, and they certainly can repair a body, so I fail to see how LRVs are supposed to be some great new surprise for them. You think they'll be confused by the track brakes or something? Yes, NYCTA would have to either acquire property for an LRT depot, or would have to designate space within an existing facility to the storage and repair of those vehicles, but that's hardly something which should eliminate them from consideration. 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. So if I ride the 6 train and I'm cheek to jowl with my fellow passengers until East 149th then I shouldn't look to the SAS to help out any? By the standards you appear to be setting the SAS, with it's 750 million to one billion dollar per mile pricetag, would be wasteful spending since it'd only alleviate crowding in the vicinity of Manhattan. I admit you've crafted a wonderful argument for those who oppose all transit construction, but when comparing one mode to another a non-sequitor such as this doesn't help us much. Your insistence on a heavy-rail only system shows a shortsighted pennywise, poundfoolish approach to transit planning. For the 8 to 10 miles of the Second Avenue Subway you could potentially have 80 to 100 route miles of light rail track filling in the gaps the subway system was created with. By no means am I saying that the 2nd Ave Subway should not be built or that a light rail system be built in it's stead, I am merely advocating for a system in which the existing subway, with some extensions, coexists efficiently with a light rail network which fills in the subway system's gaps. The Feds are never going to supply NYC with enough money to build subways through all the neighborhoods that need them, so light rail can easily provide an intermediate capacity system for those areas that do not warrent subway construction. |
|
| (13451) | |
Re: So I've Drawn a MAP. (R36 #9346's Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Bran |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Sun Jul 30 09:50:20 2006, in response to Re: So I've Drawn a MAP. (R36 #9346's Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Bran, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sat Jul 29 16:59:35 2006. Exactly |
|
| (13452) | |
Re: oops. the full post. (Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch |
|
|
Posted by David of Broadway on Sun Jul 30 09:52:34 2006, in response to Re: oops. the full post. (Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch, posted by WillD on Sun Jul 30 03:15:36 2006. You're talking about busways. I agree that, if a substantial portion of the route runs off-street, light rail is worthy of consideration.I'm talking about bus lanes on existing streets. The operational savings would have to be truly enormous to offset the capital costs. And then there are the operational problems that you haven't addressed. As Newkirk Plaza David, other bus routes operate along bits and pieces of the Bx12 route. They can take advantage of a bus lane as is, but they can't take advantage of a light rail line unless they too are converted to light rail. (And then what do you do with the bus lines routes that overlap with them?) The Bx12 has both local and limited service. With one track in each direction, the limited will get stuck behind the local. The solutions seem to be (a) build a passing siding at each local stop, (b) eliminate limited service, and (c) eliminate local service. Option (a) is very expensive, and options (b) and (c) would seriously degrade the quality of service to a segment of the ridership. And what about headways? You're proposing a shift from a 60-foot (18-meter) bus to a 30-meter LRV. To keep the current level of service, headways will nearly double. Again, a service degradation. The smaller the vehicle and the shorter the headway, the better for the passenger. |
|
| (13453) | |
Re: oops. the full post. (Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch |
|
|
Posted by David of Broadway on Sun Jul 30 09:55:13 2006, in response to Re: oops. the full post. (Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch, posted by WillD on Sun Jul 30 03:39:49 2006. "In the vicinity of Manhattan" is a lot larger than "right at Nostrand." And more B6's can be scheduled on the part of the line that's overcrowded, while no (or few) more 6 trains can be scheduled in the vicinity of Manhattan. |
|
| (13454) | |
Re: So I've Drawn a MAP. (R36 #9346's Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Bran |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Sun Jul 30 10:04:43 2006, in response to Re: So I've Drawn a MAP. (R36 #9346's Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Bran, posted by Grand Concourse on Sun Jul 30 00:46:10 2006. If the area doesn't need that much service, then why not just get rid of the S and have just Rockaway Rocket service? I'll tell you why. It's b/c the Rockaway Rocket can run in the peak direction ONLY. Having the S is pointless if the V is going to be going to Broad Channel. Might as well have the V replace the S |
|
| (13455) | |
Re: So I've Drawn a MAP. (R36 #9346's Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Bran |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Sun Jul 30 10:12:39 2006, in response to Re: So I've Drawn a MAP. (R36 #9346's Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Bran, posted by J trainloco on Sun Jul 30 01:47:41 2006. The only way I see any other line being useful on that line is if they extend the F east. Then you can have a super express running all stops to 179th, then Parsons, then maybe Union Tpke, and from there, super express. |
|
| (13456) | |
Re: oops. the full post. (Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch |
|
|
Posted by R7 Torresdale Express on Sun Jul 30 10:21:18 2006, in response to Re: oops. the full post. (Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch, posted by David of Broadway on Sun Jul 30 09:55:13 2006. More B6s are scheduled for the part of the line that's overcrowded. It still moves a lot slower than a Bay Ridge LRT would. |
|
| (13457) | |
Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Sun Jul 30 10:24:24 2006, in response to Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch, posted by David of Broadway on Sat Jul 29 22:29:09 2006. The problem, it seems, is that the College wants to retain the right to check ID cards of everyone entering campusThat seems like a pretty flimsy excuse to me. They could always set up an ID check at the new bus terminal although they might need a second guard. They could also do spot checks as people leave the bus. I beieve there is a route that enters Queens Community College property, whereever that is, so it makes no sense they can't do it at Kingsborough since it is also CUNY. |
|
| (13458) | |
Re: oops. the full post. (Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch |
|
|
Posted by R7 Torresdale Express on Sun Jul 30 10:28:24 2006, in response to Re: oops. the full post. (Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch, posted by David of Broadway on Sun Jul 30 09:52:34 2006. They can take advantage of a bus lane as is, but they can't take advantage of a light rail line unless they too are converted to light rail. (And then what do you do with the bus lines routes that overlap with them?)Funny, the 100-series SEPTA bus routes don't seem to have any problem running on the 101/102's tracks... |
|
| (13459) | |
Re: oops. the full post. (Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Sun Jul 30 10:31:16 2006, in response to Re: oops. the full post. (Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch, posted by J trainloco on Sun Jul 30 02:12:35 2006. And what routing would you have for this?I can see perhaps V via Chrystie St, over the Willy B, then down the L to Atlantic, and then onto the Bay Ridge. It can then stay on the Bay Ridge to either Bay Ridge and terminate there, or it can connect to the McDonald Av line and run it to Coney Island. Another thing I can see is something comming off the N, possibly a loop. Bay Ridge Line, N, then along the J/M/Z, over the Willy B, via the L, then onto the Bay Ridge, making a loop. |
|
| (13460) | |
Re: oops. the full post. (Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Sun Jul 30 10:31:56 2006, in response to Re: oops. the full post. (Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch, posted by J trainloco on Sun Jul 30 02:13:32 2006. I dont buy your reasons |
|
| (13461) | |
Re: oops. the full post. (Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch |
|
|
Posted by David of Broadway on Sun Jul 30 10:33:50 2006, in response to Re: oops. the full post. (Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch, posted by R7 Torresdale Express on Sun Jul 30 10:21:18 2006. I'm not automatically opposed to light rail lines that run off-street, remember? |
|
| (13462) | |
Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch |
|
|
Posted by David of Broadway on Sun Jul 30 10:36:14 2006, in response to Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch, posted by BrooklynBus on Sun Jul 30 10:24:24 2006. At the gate, the guards can turn people away. At a bus stop, with people getting off the bus, they can't. (What if the passenger isn't willing to pay another fare? What if the bus isn't remaining in service?)Different colleges set different policies. The M18 runs through the middle of the City College campus -- also CUNY -- but Convent Avenue is a public street (albeit closed to general traffic during the day). |
|
| (13463) | |
Re: oops. the full post. (Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Sun Jul 30 10:38:13 2006, in response to Re: oops. the full post. (Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch, posted by David of Broadway on Sun Jul 30 09:52:34 2006. Run the buses on the tracks. Also, if LRVs are too much, use PCCs |
|
| (13464) | |
Re: LRV Close-mindedness(Re: Ron's Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch) |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Sun Jul 30 10:40:35 2006, in response to Re: LRV Close-mindedness(Re: Ron's Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch), posted by WillD on Sun Jul 30 03:02:20 2006. I was only suggesting to run LRT into the existing trolley terminals at the foot of the 59th St(or also the WillyB) Bridge |
|
| (13465) | |
Re: oops. the full post. (Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch |
|
|
Posted by R7 Torresdale Express on Sun Jul 30 10:43:38 2006, in response to Re: oops. the full post. (Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch, posted by David of Broadway on Sun Jul 30 10:33:50 2006. Then why'd you use the B6 as an example? |
|
| (13466) | |
Re: oops. the full post. (Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch |
|
|
Posted by David of Broadway on Sun Jul 30 10:54:33 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 Sun Jul 30 10:38:13 2006. Again, what is the transportation benefit that justifies the expense?And I'm still waiting to hear what happens with local and limited service. |
|
| (13467) | |
Re: oops. the full post. (Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch |
|
|
Posted by David of Broadway on Sun Jul 30 10:55:53 2006, in response to Re: oops. the full post. (Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch, posted by R7 Torresdale Express on Sun Jul 30 10:43:38 2006. I didn't. J trainloco did. You'll have to ask him. |
|
|
Page 15 of 17 |
||