Open South Channel Bridge

[MAA89]

Also since the Far Rockaway line crosses back into zone 4, doesn't that make it ineligible to count for the CityTicket?

 

As to the LIRR giving up the current A line ROW, yes low ridership was a reason, but when someone's cigarrete or such lit up the bridge and burnt it down. That was the last straw for the LIRR and forced them to give up on the line.

 

It currently is ineligible (I already mentioned that in an earlier post on this thread), but Bloomberg says that restriction too will be lifted (not sure how he plans to go about it, if he gets elected AND actually does all he says about transit.

 

I heard about the fire but didn't know about its cause, I wonder if it was a cigarette. http://www.nycsubway.org/lines/rockaway.html states that the (NYCT) rehab of the line involved installing a "fire-proof" bridge (don't know whether the North Channel or South Channel one), but one day a few months ago, southbound trains terminated at Howard Beach because of a "fire on the bridge (presumably North Channel Bridge)". Sometimes I honestly don't know what to believe about the subway.

[INDman]

I heard about the fire but didn't know about its cause, I wonder if it was a cigarette. http://www.nycsubway.org/lines/rockaway.html states that the (NYCT) rehab of the line involved installing a "fire-proof" bridge (don't know whether the North Channel or South Channel one), but one day a few months ago, southbound trains terminated at Howard Beach because of a "fire on the bridge (presumably North Channel Bridge)". Sometimes I honestly don't know what to believe about the subway.

 

That was "a" cause but after several fires the LIRR wanted to dump the line.

[Grand Concourse]

Oh ok, thank you both for correcting me.

[lilbluefoxie]

The reason I suggested the LIRR was it was a mass transit alternative if the was stuck because of the bridge, like how Jamaica, Flushing, Woodside, and East New York people have the LIRR as a backup train option

[Eric B]

I don't know why they would make laws on the right of way based solely on which mode of transportation came first, but since trains are restricted to rails, and run on schedules, I would think they should come before boats, unless it is emergency craft (Coast Guard, etc). Pleasure boats, and even cargo, have more time, as their schedules )in the latter case) are a bit more flexible. Sounds almost like some sort of class thing, where subway riders are just less important than boat owners (who often have money).

[MAA89]

The reason I suggested the LIRR was it was a mass transit alternative if the was stuck because of the bridge, like how Jamaica, Flushing, Woodside, and East New York people have the LIRR as a backup train option

 

Yeah, it is an alternative, especially if for some reason the line is down (e.g. fires (there was one at Canal St two months ago), bridge openings and the like, but so far it has never occurred to me to take it. Next time I face a problem on the , I will consider going to Penn Station and transferring to a LIRR train. The much higher fares are an issue though. I would also have to take the Q22 bus to get to my house. People who live in Far Rockaway (the easternmost neighborhood in the Rockaways) are better positioned to take it. However, the train takes the same amount of time to get to Midtown as the and costs more, so its only if it is a substantial improvement over the subway in terms of comfort will anyone want to take it.

[MAA89]

I don't know why they would make laws on the right of way based solely on which mode of transportation came first, but since trains are restricted to rails, and run on schedules, I would think they should come before boats, unless it is emergency craft (Coast Guard, etc). Pleasure boats, and even cargo, have more time, as their schedules )in the latter case) are a bit more flexible. Sounds almost like some sort of class thing, where subway riders are just less important than boat owners (who often have money).

 

Well the law is fair enough. If I have always used a trail in the fields for my ox-drawn cart and you come along with a big tractor, to be fair to the guy who had original use of the road, the right-of-way should be given to the guy with the ox. However, it is certainly not universally applied. Traffic is always stopped when a train crosses at an intersection with a road. While cars are newer than trains, draft animals are much older and bicycles nearly as old. When was the last time a train was prevented from crossing a road because some bikers needed to go by? Cow catchers on train locomotives are a good indication of exactly what train companies think of animals.

 

My initial impression (given that the bridge isn't often opened) is that only emergency craft were let through. When told that cargo and fishing boats pass through it too, I was a bit perturbed. If the bridge is opened today for one or two cargo boats, tomorrow a hundred boats might turn up. Plus, it does seem pretentious to sail up to a bridge, radio the control tower and say "I don't care if your trains and cars are running late, open the bridge or else I shall sue everybody". Coming to an understanding (e.g. preventing or minimizing boat traffic during rush hours) would be a sensible, democratic thing to do. Since many more people ride the trains than sail in boats, the majority should have more of a say.

 

Of course, the most important thing is to be able to close the bridge promptly after the boat leaves. Why the cannot improve its bridges is something I don't understand?

[Zman]

Well the law is fair enough. If I have always used a trail in the fields for my ox-drawn cart and you come along with a big tractor, to be fair to the guy who had original use of the road, the right-of-way should be given to the guy with the ox. However, it is certainly not universally applied. Traffic is always stopped when a train crosses at an intersection with a road. While cars are newer than trains, draft animals are much older and bicycles nearly as old. When was the last time a train was prevented from crossing a road because some bikers needed to go by? Cow catchers on train locomotives are a good indication of exactly what train companies think of animals.

 

My initial impression (given that the bridge isn't often opened) is that only emergency craft were let through. When told that cargo and fishing boats pass through it too, I was a bit perturbed. If the bridge is opened today for one or two cargo boats, tomorrow a hundred boats might turn up. Plus, it does seem pretentious to sail up to a bridge, radio the control tower and say "I don't care if your trains and cars are running late, open the bridge or else I shall sue everybody". Coming to an understanding (e.g. preventing or minimizing boat traffic during rush hours) would be a sensible, democratic thing to do. Since many more people ride the trains than sail in boats, the majority should have more of a say.

 

Of course, the most important thing is to be able to close the bridge promptly after the boat leaves. Why the cannot improve its bridges is something I don't understand?

 

The first paragraph I am totally with.

 

In regards to the second, the policy with bridges isn't as rigid as that. When the boat operator signals to the bridge operator that he/she would like to pass, the bridge operator gives him/her an approximate time. If train traffic is seriously backed up, he might have the boats wait for a little while so that some of the train congestion can be alleviated; I've seen it where it would take 15-20 minutes for the bridge to open. However, if train traffic is running normal, then the bridge operator opens the bridge when the opportunity exists. It's as simple as that.

[MAA89]

The first paragraph I am totally with.

 

In regards to the second, the policy with bridges isn't as rigid as that. When the boat operator signals to the bridge operator that he/she would like to pass, the bridge operator gives him/her an approximate time. If train traffic is seriously backed up, he might have the boats wait for a little while so that some of the train congestion can be alleviated; I've seen it where it would take 15-20 minutes for the bridge to open. However, if train traffic is running normal, then the bridge operator opens the bridge when the opportunity exists. It's as simple as that.

 

I see. Most of the time I have been held up due to boat traffic has been outside of rush hours (9:00am to 4:00pm), and like I said I didn't mind a wait most of those occasions, but it is possible to have important appointments outside of rush hour. However, I was really disappointed the few times the 8:13 or the 8:25 is held up for over 20 minutes, as this qualifies as genuine rush-hour traffic with people trying to get to work. Much like many cities won't let trucks/trailers into city limits during certain hours, boat owners should be asked to wait a few minutes longer (or simply come back later) during rush hours simply because they are a very small minority. (Besides, on an individual level, it is very likely that these boaters have only been working on a boat for a few years, while the subway started operating in the Rockaways in 1956, so it can be argued that the subway got there first and these boat owners are later arrivals).

[Y2Julio]

(Besides, on an individual level, it is very likely that these boaters have only been working on a boat for a few years, while the subway started operating in the Rockaways in 1956, so it can be argued that the subway got there first and these boat owners are later arrivals).

*sigh* You're really showing your age badly here. Boating has been around since man learned how to put reeds together to make boats.

[MAA89]

I've been dealing with this problem for a while now. I live in Seaside by the train. So like you said the LIRR is useless. I don't understand the routes or the schedules. Plus it's too expensive. It's bad enough the subway and buses cost $2.25. So I have to freeze my ass off!:mad:

 

I feel your pain. The Rockaway only runs once every 15 minutes during rush hours and once every 30 late nights, so service is not the best. And if you get stuck behind an open bridge, or are waiting at Broad Channel and the doesn't show up because it's stuck behind an open bridge, it can be a pain.

 

I have been using the Rockaway from Broad Channel to Beach 90th St a lot more recently, since the Far Rockaway bound platform at B67th is closed. I usually get a transfer fast enough, but I guess so far I have been lucky.

[MAA89]

*sigh* You're really showing your age badly here. Boating has been around since man learned how to put reeds together to make boats.

 

I didn't say boats weren't around before subways. I am saying the people using the boats in the Jamaica Bay have only been doing so for a few years, while the subway has been around in these parts fro 53 years.

[Y2Julio]

I didn't say boats weren't around before subways. I am saying the people using the boats in the Jamaica Bay have only been doing so for a few years, while the subway has been around in these parts fro 53 years.

How do you know?

[MAA89]

How do you know?

 

Not many people lived in the Rockaways (and Broad Channel) back when the subway started service. It was primarily a seaside resort with hotels and bungalows for rent and amusement parks, piers, theaters etc. While Far Rockaway was always a well-populated year round community, probably a very small number of Far Rockaway residents, then or now, own boats.

 

As for Edgemere, Arverne and Rockaway Beach, much of the area and its buildings were condemned and demolished by 1964, leaving mostly wide open, undeveloped land (mostly sand dunes and weeds), as can still be seen in Edgemere south of Beach Channel Drive (see http://www.forgotten-ny.com/NEIGHBORHOODS/edgemere/edgemere.html), and public housing for low-income people (who presumably didn't own boats). If no one lived here who could afford boats (or no one lived here at all), then there could have been no boats.

 

Recent redevelopment of the area has led to more boat users, but they should not be given priority because the subway carries far more people, and ( they are probably recent arrivals. I am not saying a guy with a boat who moves to the Rockaways should be prevented from boating. There should simply be restrictions on crossing bridges during rush hours.

 

Commercial and fishing boats from other parts of New York/Long Island should be subject to the same regulations. It is not fair to put the locals at a disadvantage because they refuse to fish elsewhere or at a different time. (In this case a little bit of NIMBY-ism is fair and justified).

 

EDIT: By the way, I didn't appreciate your snide remark about my age. Just so you know, I am 20 years old and a sophomore at a very reputable college. I know a lot more about transportation history than most people. My dad was an airline pilot and I have flown in aircraft and ridden trains in Bangladesh, India, Singapore, UAE, Belgium and the USA, so my experiential knowledge is by no means lacking.

[Zman]

It is not fair to put the locals at a disadvantage because they refuse to fish elsewhere or at a different time.

 

Nobody ever said that life is fair. The rules are what they are, they're never going to change (nor should they) and the subway passengers are just going to have to continue to live with the occasional inconvenience.

 

Like Bruce Hornsby said, "That's just the way it is."

[MAA89]

Nobody ever said that life is fair. The rules are what they are, they're never going to change (nor should they) and the subway passengers are just going to have to continue to live with the occasional inconvenience.

 

Like Bruce Hornsby said, "That's just the way it is."

 

Yeah I know life isn't fair. But what ever happened to the very American notion that a measure cannot be imposed on a community without the community benefiting from it in some way. In case of the subway, we keep talking about how proposed changes should benefit the communities it affects. The , for example, allowed Howard Beach residents to ride it for less than the premium fare because it used their station as a terminus.

 

I understand the boating public will claim that harsh measures are being imposed on them if we prevent them from sailing during rush hours. I just wanted to highlight the other side. I guess this one's bound to remain a stalemate, but as you said, not without the occasional inconvenience.

[Zman]

Yeah I know life isn't fair. But what ever happened to the very American notion that a measure cannot be imposed on a community without the community benefiting from it in some way. In case of the subway, we keep talking about how proposed changes should benefit the communities it affects. The , for example, allowed Howard Beach residents to ride it for less than the premium fare because it used their station as a terminus.

 

 

The bridge and boat traffic running under it existed before 98% of the Rockaway population was even in diapers, so that idea is blown out of the water. Finally, Howard Beach residents did indeed have to pay a premium fare in order to ride the . There used to be a special fare control area right on the platform that separated the area from the 70(A) 70(CC) area.

[MAA89]

The bridge and boat traffic running under it existed before 98% of the Rockaway population was even in diapers, so that idea is blown out of the water. Finally, Howard Beach residents did indeed have to pay a premium fare in order to ride the . There used to be a special fare control area right on the platform that separated the area from the 70(A) 70(CC) area.

 

Howard Beach residents paid $3.50 while travelers to Aqueduct or the Airport paid $6.50 (in 1989), according to this article:

 

http://www.nytimes.com/1989/10/22/nyregion/transit-agency-wants-to-end-airport-express.html

 

While the $3.50 was still a "premium fare", it was also a deep discount on the usual fare for airport or racetrack bound passengers.

 

According to an online inflation calculator, $3.50 in 1989 is worth $6.00 today, so in many ways the fare for Howard Beach commuters was almost the same as an express bus ride today.