Jump to content

Best article I've read about reactivating the Rockaway Beach line

BrooklynBus

By BrooklynBus,
in New York City Subway

Recommended Posts

NY1635

NY1635

Posted
Posted

I'd flip that NY1635 since the ROW is already there for Rockaway Beach, whereas they still have to dig the entire Second Avenue subway before that can be used.

 

 

But the NIMBY residents are what's stopping the Rockaway Beach line from reactivating. Its going to take years to reason with them, or just flat out ignore them and reactivate the line.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 274
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Guest Lance

Guest Lance

Posted
Posted

There are going to be NIMBYs in whatever they do, whether it's on Second Avenue or the old Rockaway Beach line. If need be, the option to buy out some of the residents closest to the line is always available. Besides, we shouldn't let a few NIMBYs block what could be a very beneficial transit expansion for the entire area, including those closest to the line.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Roadcruiser1

Roadcruiser1

Posted
Posted

There are going to be NIMBYs in whatever they do, whether it's on Second Avenue or the old Rockaway Beach line. If need be, the option to buy out some of the residents closest to the line is always available. Besides, we shouldn't let a few NIMBYs block what could be a very beneficial transit expansion for the entire area, including those closest to the line.

 

 

These NIMBY's don't even own the ROW. Their backyards which I am going to point out again are illegally on the Rockaway Beach Branch ROW. Why buy out someone when that land is technically yours?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Threxx

Threxx

Posted
Posted

These NIMBY's don't even own the ROW. Their backyards which I am going to point out again are illegally on the Rockaway Beach Branch ROW. Why buy out someone when that land is technically yours?

 

 

They'll sue and make a big stink. To avoid that, you just make a few of them offers they can't refuse and you're good!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Roadcruiser1

Roadcruiser1

Posted
Posted

They'll sue and make a big stink. To avoid that, you just make a few of them offers they can't refuse and you're good!

 

 

Are you suggesting to bribe people? That is illegal sir in the United States. They will lose the lawsuit either way. It isn't theirs. The (MTA) can just hold the proof they own the land. What can they do about it? All they can do is sit there and cry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Threxx

Threxx

Posted
Posted

Are you suggesting to bribe people? That is illegal sir in the United States. They will lose the lawsuit either way. It isn't theirs. The (MTA) can just hold the proof they own the land. What can they do about it? All they can do is sit there and cry.

 

 

It's not bribery, per say... ;)

 

But the (MTA) can't just wave that in their faces and expect an easy fight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grand Concourse

Grand Concourse

Posted
Posted

Are you suggesting to bribe people? That is illegal sir in the United States. They will lose the lawsuit either way. It isn't theirs. The (MTA) can just hold the proof they own the land. What can they do about it? All they can do is sit there and cry.

 

I'm sure under Eminent Domain, they can at least buy out (fair market value) the actual land the owners own (sans illegal portion). It is for the greater good of the population at the expense of a few irate landowners.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Vistausss

Vistausss

Posted
Posted

It's not bribery, per say... ;)

 

But the (MTA) can't just wave that in their faces and expect an easy fight.

 

 

So you basically say the (MTA) will lose a lawsuit regarding their land? MTA wins no matter what 'cause they own the ROW, no matter what's on top of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
KeystoneRegional

KeystoneRegional

Posted
Posted

Well, whether the (MTA)/NYC's land or not. CB6 is not on board, we need a plan to get CB6 on board. It's not like eminent domain is gonna solve it, it's not like giving CB6 a blow in the face will make anything better, in fact it's gonna get worse, much worse! Especially with a Governor who has little interest in public transit, and a County Executive in Nassau partially influencing any transit plans in (MTA) territory, and CB6 not on board. It's gonna be like the (N) to LGA but on a different twist but all over again. Forest Hills/Rego Park = Astoria = Park Slope, and so on, so forth.

 

Keep in mind, the Manhattan Community Boards were on board with SAS on day one, some lost interest as the project drags on, but really they understand that some pain would lead to gain in the future. As for Queens and Brooklyn, it is a different case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Wallyhorse

Wallyhorse

Posted
Posted
But the NIMBY residents are what's stopping the Rockaway Beach line from reactivating. Its going to take years to reason with them, or just flat out ignore them and reactivate the line.

 

Or simply tell the NIMBYs "Too bad. What was built on the ROW was illegal in the first place. You should have been more careful and thought it out better."

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Vistausss

Vistausss

Posted
Posted

Wish i had that hope.

If the issue of reactivation becomes a definite, i can see a long, tiresome court process with appeal after appeal happening dispite the land being owned by the MTA.

Every loophole known to man will come out then.

 

Not really. Since MTA has the papers, they can just shove the papers under the court's nose which'll make the court rule in favor of the MTA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Wallyhorse

Wallyhorse

Posted
Posted

LOL, believe me, it's going to be hard, people haven't dealt with CB6 yet, but many projects here has been killed, including high-rises.

 

 

High rises, certainly, but they may very well meet their match if this comes, and especially if the (MTA)/City can prove they own the land.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grand Concourse

Grand Concourse

Posted
Posted

Which goes to show, you should wait till the news is approved before making all types of suggestions...

 

Can't say I'm very surprised. Plus what the hell is the point of this new convention when there's already an existing one on the west side and at least the main reason the (7) is being extended there? IF this new convention center were to be built, what happens to that Javits Center? Scrapped? Repurposed? Seems like a massive waste to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Wallyhorse

Wallyhorse

Posted
Posted
No. A good push could come from Rockaway residents if they truly get tired of their BS service.

 

Key words in what I said are "for now." I fully expect this to be re-visted down the road since the state owns the land at Aqueduct. As I said in my response to the article (as Wallyhorse over at The Paulick Report:)

 

What hopefully happens in the meantime is everyone realizes a convention center CAN be built at Aqueduct AND the racetrack CAN be kept as well as I would be looking to do. As I would do it, I would be building such a convention Center from portions of the parking lots and on top of the existing Casino/Clubhouse facility that would include a pedestrian bridge to the subway and another portion of such a convention center that would be built on relatively deserted land and could be built as a garage below the pedestrian bridge and additional convention space above it. In addition, the infield at Aqueduct could have a tunnel built to access it from the parking lots that would now be partially covered by some of the additional convention space as well as the racetrack/casino so the infield could be used for outdoor conventions in warm weather and winter-related events at that time of the year.

 

That to me in the end I think would prove to be cheaper to build than to do it as proposed and as a bonus keep Aqueduct as a racetrack, with views of the track and the racing (along with perhaps wagering?) available from the Convention Center floors as well.

 

As for the (7), regardless of what happens with the Convention Center, that expansion is going to be very important, and actually more so if the Convention Center is moved because of what will replace it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest Lance

Guest Lance

Posted
Posted

And I imagine that any convention center at Aqueduct ideas will go nowhere just like the one scrapped the other day. Face it, Aqueduct is just too damn far away from everything. In a city where the convention center is the only tourist trap in town, that may fly, but here in New York, something all the way out in Eastern Queens is a bit isolated from the rest of the city. Unlike with the Javits Center on the west side, where it's only a short bus or taxi ride to let's say Times Square for instance (and next year it will be an even shorter subway ride), anything over at Aqueduct would require quite a bit more time to get from one place to another.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Interested Rider

Interested Rider

Posted
Posted

On June 8, 1962, the last Long Island Railroad train operated to Brooklyn Manor. On June 9, 1962, the Green Bus Lines began operating a bus line from Penn Station to Brooklyn Manor and was unfranchised until 1969 when it became the QM23.

 

Source: Bromberger, Alan. "Green Bus Lines: Venerable firm migrates from Manhattan to Queens and endures to this day" Motor Coach Age, (October - December 2000 (V.51 # 6). The entire issue is available for research purposes only at the Queens Library - Archives Division, 89-11 Merrick Boulevard, Jamaica New York. You must get a pass from the front desk for the area and copies (of pages only, not complete articles) are available at 15 cents per page. I found this article to be quite interesting as some of the bus companies had different corporate names but Green Bus Lines however was the actual owner.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.

  I accept