|
|
| 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 4 of 17 |
||
|
| (12868) | |
Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Sun Jul 23 08:16:43 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. It's incredible how subway construction has been inflated in cost. MTA built the first 3 miles of the 63rd st line for $898 million, and even the last portion, which cost $645 million due to the requirement to build around an active subway service, did not rise to the $1 billion+ per mile subways can cost now. |
|
| (12869) | |
Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Jul 23 08:18:05 2006, in response to Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch, posted by NEPONSIT2006 on Sat Jul 22 10:53:59 2006. Idealy, the Rockaway Park shuttle should be abolished, and one of the Queens Blvd locals (either the V or R), currently terminating at Continental-71st St should be diverged off Queens Blvd instead at 63rd Drive, and run to Rockaway Park. |
|
| (12870) | |
Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Jul 23 08:19:30 2006, in response to Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch, posted by Jeff Rosen on Fri Jul 21 17:29:52 2006. Yes, a small section between Ozone Park and Queens Blvd....however, through an area of Queens that has NO subway service. |
|
| (12871) | |
Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Jul 23 08:21:29 2006, in response to Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch, posted by SMAZ on Sat Jul 22 17:49:39 2006. That would probably be the Rockaway Blvd station, moved a but south.\, so you can have a transfer point to the Fulton Subway. |
|
| (12872) | |
Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Jul 23 08:22:33 2006, in response to Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Jul 23 08:21:29 2006. (And to be clear, south of the old Ozone Park station to a new station at the Liberty El). |
|
| (12873) | |
Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Sun Jul 23 08:25:39 2006, in response to 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. I haven't forgotten at all. What you and the other foamers forget, though, is that we're not living in the 1930s and people's expectations are different. Stop drooling over trains and spend your time learning about people and you'll see what I mean. |
|
| (12874) | |
Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Jul 23 08:25:52 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 22:25:36 2006. I actually got a phone call back from the LIRR back in the early 90's when they tried to quietly make a particular train skip a station. I wrote a letter, and I got a phone call from the LIRR saying that they were going to reinstate the stop on that train in the next timetable. And they did. |
|
| (12875) | |
Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Jul 23 08:27:53 2006, in response to Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch, posted by RonInBayside on Sun Jul 23 08:16:43 2006. Yes, and that cost increased way faster and more than the rate of inflation. But that's because of the endless paperwork they must do now too. Just look at the millions (perhaps billions?) already spent on the Second Ave subway, and a shovel has yet to be turned. |
|
| (12876) | |
Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Sun Jul 23 08:29:45 2006, in response to 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. "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,"While true, it should be noted that many freight railroads reduced double-track lines to single-track when signaling technology improved in the 1950s and 1960s. The issue isn't always frequency of service, but rather, operating expense at the same frequency of service with less infrastructure. Advances in signaling have made possible single-track plus sidings where previously there was double-track. Of course you can only go so far with that; the threshold where you need two tracks has been set higher, but it is still there. |
|
| (12877) | |
Re: Maps and Problems with Rockaway ROW |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Sun Jul 23 08:30:55 2006, in response to Re: Maps and Problems with Rockaway ROW, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Jul 23 08:04:23 2006. I agree with your post. Unfortunately it's all not relevant, because that's not how politics works. |
|
| (12878) | |
Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Sun Jul 23 08:33:33 2006, in response to 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. I don't want to widen the line. If anything I would want to shrink its width to deal with NIMBY.That is, if I were going to reactivate it. The reality is that it's going to become a trail and rather than obsess over it, you're better off moving on and thinking about something else. There's plenty of new rail projects and priorities going on elsewhere in NY. |
|
| (12879) | |
Re: Maps and Problems with Rockaway ROW |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Sun Jul 23 08:34:10 2006, in response to Re: Maps and Problems with Rockaway ROW, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Jul 23 08:12:41 2006. True, but you missed the point. |
|
| (12880) | |
Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Sun Jul 23 08:36:35 2006, in response to Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch, posted by Jeff Rosen on Fri Jul 21 17:29:52 2006. "And as a homeowner I couldn't blame them."As a homeowner I could certainly blame their stupid, ignorant, uninformed attitude. Because that's what it really is. But as long as they have the ear of influential politicians, there's nothing I could do about it. |
|
| (12881) | |
Re: Thank you |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Sun Jul 23 08:37:34 2006, in response to Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Jul 23 08:25:52 2006. Very nice work by you. |
|
| (12882) | |
Re: Thank you |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Jul 23 08:41:59 2006, in response to Re: Thank you, posted by RonInBayside on Sun Jul 23 08:37:34 2006. I have a feeling they were probably going to reinstate it anyway (probably other people complained too), however, to me, it showed that they really do listen, as they actually took the time to give me a personal phone call, instead of just sending out some form letter. |
|
| (12883) | |
Re: Thank you |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Sun Jul 23 08:43:23 2006, in response to Re: Thank you, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Jul 23 08:41:59 2006. Good for you! You made a difference. |
|
| (12884) | |
Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Sun Jul 23 08:45:05 2006, in response to 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. Again, we're not living in the 1930s anymore. |
|
| (12885) | |
Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch |
|
|
Posted by David of Broadway on Sun Jul 23 09:32:06 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. In other words, you can't answer his question. |
|
| (12886) | |
Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Sun Jul 23 09:58:32 2006, in response to Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch, posted by RonInBayside on Fri Jul 21 23:49:05 2006. You are partially right. But the number is 1,000 not 500. They seem to regard 1,000 or more as a magic number, maybe because it has three digits. You know this when you read any of the analyses they do.When they discontinued the B18, 500 daily bus passengers no longer had access to a bus route. They considered that number too low to keep the route. When they want a small number to sound like a big number, they will express it in annual numbers rather than daily or per trip so the number is over 1,000. As far as meetings with the MTA, I've had many. They know who I am. Here is what I was told privately. "You don't dictate how we plan. We do the planning." |
|
| (12887) | |
Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Sun Jul 23 10:02:50 2006, in response to Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Jul 23 08:25:52 2006. I told them about an error in the subway map that has existed since the 1970s without being caught. They wrote telling me that it would be corrected in the next printing. They've already reprinted the map and the error is still there.For those wnting to know what it is-- Liberty Avenue is shown as Bergen Street in East New York because East New York Avenue is not shown showing where Bergen Street becomes Liberty Avenue. |
|
| (12888) | |
Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Sun Jul 23 10:05:08 2006, in response to Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch, posted by BrooklynBus on Sun Jul 23 09:58:32 2006. I believe you. And your point about numbers is good. The more signatures the betterBut you don't have to take no for an answer. "You don't dictate how we plan. We do the planning" 21 st-Queensbridge was built due to community pressure. The Franklin Shuttle was rebuilt due to community pressure. The Port Washington stations got rebuilt thanks to pressure from Assemblyman Marc Weprin and senator Frank Padavan, who in turn got pressure from residents (myself included). They secured appropriations outside the formal Capital Plan. You won't get everything you want. Nobody does. But you can make a difference. |
|
| (12889) | |
Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Sun Jul 23 10:08:29 2006, in response to Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch, posted by RonInBayside on Fri Jul 21 14:52:05 2006. And now we're all suffering for it. The Rockaway Line would have cost much less and would have made a lot more sense.In addition to the NIMBYs, there were many transportation groups fighting long and hard for the Rockaway Line instead of AirTrain. AirTrain only benefits people coming from the Island and improves circulation within the Airport which no one was opposing. |
|
| (12890) | |
Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Sun Jul 23 10:09:38 2006, in response to Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch, posted by BrooklynBus on Sun Jul 23 10:02:50 2006. Write them again. Don't give up. Don't let 'em off the hook!I asked MTA to improve the depiction of AirTrain, to make it clearer on the printed map after their first try was poor. MTA Public affairs sent me a new map after that, with a thank you note, and they had fixed the problem. |
|
| (12891) | |
Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Sun Jul 23 10:12:36 2006, in response to Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch, posted by Brighton Private on Fri Jul 21 10:03:12 2006. "but the residents along the line made it clear they will not tolerate resumption of rail service on the ROW."I thought it was only the Rego Park residents who opposed it. |
|
| (12892) | |
Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Sun Jul 23 10:15:35 2006, in response to Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch, posted by BrooklynBus on Sun Jul 23 10:08:29 2006. "The Rockaway Line would have cost much less and would have made a lot more sense."False. It would have cost more and would only operate after the year 2012 when east Side Access is totally finished (maybe they can do it by 2010 but I doubt it). "there were many transportation groups fighting long and hard for the Rockaway Line instead of AirTrain." Also false. There was one transportation engineer who pretended he was a "community group" (George Haikalis) whose presentation was laughable at best and a couple of other people who used the same tactic. That's it. Everyone else just laughed and couldn't give a shit - with good reason. They all knew it was ridiculous. And then there are a few railbuffs who obsess about it. Considering that, in the end, you'd have to have an airTrain type vehicle meet the commuter train on the Rockaway Line anyway, you end up with a much poorer version of what you have now. |
|
| (12893) | |
Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Sun Jul 23 10:19:46 2006, in response to Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch, posted by Brighton Private on Fri Jul 21 10:03:12 2006. After the LIRR line to GCT is open for business (and it will happen) perhaps we can revisit the issue. A Rockawauy service could be operated.The NIMBY problem would still be there, but maybe we get lucky, as in gasoline costs $5 a gallon. If that happened, enough residents might change their minds about it so you have a chance to build something (or rebuild, in this case). |
|
| (12894) | |
Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Sun Jul 23 10:21:44 2006, in response to 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. But unfortunately you still have to deal with the NIMBY component and there are much more of them along the Bay Ridge Line because there are more apartment buildings there. |
|
| (12895) | |
Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Sun Jul 23 10:23:40 2006, in response to Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch, posted by RonInBayside on Fri Jul 21 23:50:40 2006. Also substantially less quiet then what is there now. |
|
| (12896) | |
Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Jul 23 10:26:06 2006, in response to Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch, posted by RonInBayside on Sun Jul 23 10:19:46 2006. While it would be nice to have the LIRR go right to JFK (or at least the Howard Beach station), we already have a similar LIRR connection at Jamaica now. It's water under the bridge, as in the 60's, they had their direct LIRR/subway connection to the airport right there in the palm of their hands, and allowed it to rot. The LIRR could have used the ROckaway branch as they always did, and diverge to only the center tracks south of the Liberty El, and the subway could run on the outer two tracks as they do now, with the LIRR in the unused center tracks.However, that being said, at this point, the line is much better suited to subway or Light rail, as opposed to the LIRR. The line could use rapid transit service (as no subway anywhere near it), not commuter rail service. The LIRR is no longer in the rapid transit-like service. That area needs subway headways, not hourly or half hourly LIRR commuter service. |
|
| (12897) | |
Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Sun Jul 23 10:26:59 2006, in response to Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch, posted by R30A on Sun Jul 23 10:23:40 2006. False statement. |
|
| (12898) | |
Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Sun Jul 23 10:28:29 2006, in response to Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch, posted by NIMBYkiller on Sat Jul 22 15:46:44 2006. Just make it along the LIRR from WOODSIDE to JFKthere is space on that entire portion of line. |
|
| (12899) | |
Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Sun Jul 23 10:29:16 2006, in response to Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Jul 23 10:26:06 2006. If you could get enough political support to build light rail on that line, I would support that.I don't agree with the NIMBYs. But they get to vote and express their opinions and politicians listen to them. |
|
| (12900) | |
Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Sun Jul 23 10:29:38 2006, in response to Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch, posted by RonInBayside on Sun Jul 23 10:26:59 2006. Go stand next to a line that is an open cut, and one that is an embankment. Embankments are quieter then practically anything else. |
|
| (12901) | |
Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Sun Jul 23 10:30:16 2006, in response to Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch, posted by Olog-hai on Sat Jul 22 16:02:06 2006. You don't like Light Rail? |
|
| (12902) | |
Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Sun Jul 23 10:30:51 2006, in response to Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch, posted by R30A on Sun Jul 23 10:29:38 2006. And a tunnel box is quieter than either. |
|
| (12903) | |
Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Jul 23 10:30:56 2006, in response to Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch, posted by BrooklynBus on Sun Jul 23 10:21:44 2006. Yes, but it never was abandoned. While the traffic on it isn't even a fraction of what was there until the 60's, the railroad has always had a presence on it, right to this day. |
|
| (12904) | |
Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Sun Jul 23 10:39:50 2006, in response to Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch, posted by RonInBayside on Sun Jul 23 10:30:51 2006. Ahh. I get it, you mean cut and cover.But what I dont get is, How does calling cut and cover something different make it any cheaper? |
|
| (12905) | |
Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch |
|
|
Posted by David of Broadway on Sun Jul 23 10:42:48 2006, in response to Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch, posted by R30A on Sun Jul 23 10:39:50 2006. You won't understand until you give up the foamer mentality.If you stop obsessing over it like a railbuff, then you'll understand. |
|
| (12906) | |
Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Jul 23 10:45:57 2006, in response to Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch, posted by R30A on Sun Jul 23 10:39:50 2006. Yes, spend the money on removing an entire grade separated, improved embanmkent, then cut out an equal amount or more below the surface. Cost prohibitive. |
|
| (12907) | |
Re: Cut and Cover explanation |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Sun Jul 23 10:46:28 2006, in response to Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch, posted by R30A on Sun Jul 23 10:39:50 2006. "How does calling cut and cover something different make it any cheaper?"Cut and cover refers to a construction method wherein you work under decking while traffic, pedestrians etc travel on top of you. It lets you keep streets open while you work but since your work space and access is confined it takes you longer to do the work than an open-cut construction method. On the Rockaway Line, the construction work would proceed in an open-cut fashion, which is much quicker and easier. Recall how fast the south Ferry IRT branch was rebuilt after 9/11. However, once you put in the tracks and signals and lights and power, you then enclose the whole thing in a tunnel box. So in the end, the train operates in this "tunnel" but when you were building it it was an open-cut situation. Therefore, cheaper. |
|
| (12908) | |
Re: Cut and Cover explanation |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Sun Jul 23 10:50:53 2006, in response to Re: Cut and Cover explanation, posted by RonInBayside on Sun Jul 23 10:46:28 2006. What you describe is Cut and cover.Cut and cover has nothing to do with decking above a tunnel. Cut and cover is what the name says. When you Cut into the ground, build the tunnel, and cover it. Whether a street you keep open with decking is there, nothing is there, or buildings are there, it is still cut and cover. |
|
| (12909) | |
Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Sun Jul 23 11:02:14 2006, in response to Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch, posted by RonInBayside on Sun Jul 23 10:05:08 2006. Believe me I'm trying. Check out my website: Here |
|
| (12910) | |
Re: Cut and Cover explanation |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Sun Jul 23 11:24:50 2006, in response to Re: Cut and Cover explanation, posted by R30A on Sun Jul 23 10:50:53 2006. Sorry, no. You need to do a little reading.Cut and cover means you've placed the decking at the beginning of work. You work under the decking. Open cut means you work in an open construction area. after you are done you can put a deck over the finished line if that is what the plan calls for. Open cut construcion costs much less than cut and cover construction because you don't restrict the work crews. LIRR is currently building a tunnel extension into Sunnyside Yard. It will have a deck over it when it's done but it is not a cut and cover project. |
|
| (12911) | |
Re: Cut and Cover explanation |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Sun Jul 23 11:31:32 2006, in response to Re: Cut and Cover explanation, posted by RonInBayside on Sun Jul 23 11:24:50 2006. Cut and cover has nothing to do with decking.Many cut and cover areas werent decked over while building the new york city subway. I HAVE done significant reading on the construction of the subway. Open cut involves Cutting but NOT covering. |
|
| (12912) | |
Re: Cut and Cover explanation |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Sun Jul 23 11:33:17 2006, in response to Re: Cut and Cover explanation, posted by R30A on Sun Jul 23 11:31:32 2006. "Many cut and cover areas werent decked over while building the new york city subway."Then they were not cut and cover projects, by definition. I don't know what you're reading, but it isn't factual. |
|
| (12913) | |
Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Sun Jul 23 11:35:49 2006, in response to Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch, posted by BrooklynBus on Sun Jul 23 11:02:14 2006. I have bookmarked your website.Very nice design and nicely written too! Congratulations. Thanks for posting the link! I'm going to go through it and check all of it out. |
|
| (12914) | |
Re: Cut and Cover explanation |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Sun Jul 23 11:52:51 2006, in response to Re: Cut and Cover explanation, posted by RonInBayside on Sun Jul 23 11:33:17 2006. Well, although this isnt where I read it, according to wikipedia "Cut-and-cover is a simple method of construction for shallow tunnels where a trench is excavated and roofed over. Strong supporting beams are necessary to avoid the danger of the tunnel collapsing."I suspect your definition is from the MTA's website. While decking is irrellevant to the style of construction, it is a way to make cut and cover more livable when the line is being constructed. |
|
| (12915) | |
Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Sun Jul 23 11:54:27 2006, in response to Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch, posted by RonInBayside on Sun Jul 23 08:25:39 2006. You just don't have any ambition. |
|
| (12916) | |
Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Sun Jul 23 11:57:41 2006, in response to Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch, posted by RonInBayside on Sun Jul 23 07:53:09 2006. If that's the level I have to stoop to in order to communicate with you in a manner which you will understand, then fine. But there you go once again, when someone says something logical and contradictory to what you said, you start making your childish and belitting remarks. Shows just how immature you really are. |
|
| (12917) | |
Re: Cut and Cover explanation |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Sun Jul 23 11:58:18 2006, in response to Re: Cut and Cover explanation, posted by R30A on Sun Jul 23 11:52:51 2006. "While decking is irrellevant to the style of construction, it is a way to make cut and cover more livable when the line is being constructed."True statement. It also adds to the expense, but it is justified when you otherwise have to close off city streets. "I suspect your definition is from the MTA's website" MTA's definition is the appropriate one. |
|
|
Page 4 of 17 |
||