Wallyhorse Posted December 25, 2012 Share #26 Posted December 25, 2012 It's been said previously that the real reason they don't it turned into the park is that some people's property illegally breaches into the ROW. Even for a park, this could be an issue. I don't think a park is a sure bet either. I can see NIMBYs on that too, concerned about crime and rough kids and the like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m7zanr160s Posted December 25, 2012 Share #27 Posted December 25, 2012 Queens needs more subway. I'm continually wishing that the ran all the way to Francis Lewis, as was planned. That would end my sometimes really slow, 20 min. Q85 ride to/from Jamaica Center. Whatever though, I'm kinda done arguing about these things. Some things that I think would be cool--such as the West Side rail yard stadium, for example--others just don't see it that way. A park...? OK... Whatever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
67thAve Posted December 25, 2012 Share #28 Posted December 25, 2012 In case of emergency (as in if this wretched proposal goes through and is the fate of the ROW), there could always be a SBS line on Woodhaven... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eric B Posted December 25, 2012 Share #29 Posted December 25, 2012 Something I had thought about for the High Line as well, when I first saw how they integrated the rails into the park: a park with a light rail meandering through it. (Might not really be enough space for that, though). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BM5 via Woodhaven Posted December 25, 2012 Share #30 Posted December 25, 2012 I like this idea. It will stop the foamer ideas. I know that those residents along the abandoned line would not like a rail line or subway line. For this I think we need to stop thinking about our hobby and think of the benefits to our city. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R10 2952 Posted December 25, 2012 Share #31 Posted December 25, 2012 Good lord, they can't be serious. I really hope this proposal falls through. But on the bright side, if they do get this park for themselves, they will no longer have any right to bitch about the lack of subway service in their area. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mysterious2train Posted December 25, 2012 Share #32 Posted December 25, 2012 Aren't you kind of lumping the people who want the park and the people who want better subway service together? If we're going to generalize here, the people who want to park seem like the kind of people who wouldn't want expanded subway service anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
checkmatechamp13 Posted December 26, 2012 Share #33 Posted December 26, 2012 It's all about what the neighborhoods want. I'm a big supporter for increased transit in Queens, but there isn't much of a demand for rail service here. If they want to replace an abandoned railway with a park, then so be it. The Q11/21/52/53 get over 25,000 riders a year, but yeah, there isn't any demand for it. Yeah, but the high line was never going to be reactivated again and isn't it now segmented/split up at points? This otoh is more or less untouched since its last use. There has to be vacant lots that could be turned into parks before they spend 'millions of dollars' into this '2nd high line'*. This is all just a way to get rid of any attempts to revive the ROW for rail service. If they really wanted park space, they would demand improvements or expansions in their existing ones. *The Manhattan high line is also used as a tourist attraction, this one in Queens, I kinda doubt it will be the same economic generator to justify as it's in a residential area. IMO, I just don't see how they are the same. Exactly. It's comparing apples to oranges. The High Line was in worse shape, and aside from that, the surrounding area was more built-up and urbanized (so you would have trains running right past people's windows, not exactly a good situation if you're trying to gentrify the area). Plus, it would be harder to connect it to an existing rail line (Because it's all subway lines in the area, and you'd probably have to demolish a bunch of expensive buildings to build the connection). Plus, like you said, it's in the middle of a touristy area, rather than being all the way out in the outer boroughs. I like this idea. It will stop the foamer ideas. I know that those residents along the abandoned line would not like a rail line or subway line. For this I think we need to stop thinking about our hobby and think of the benefits to our city. Which would be far greater if it were a rail line compared to turning it into a park. There's nothing "foamerish" about it. There is an actual demand & need for a rail line in that corridor, much more than the need for a park, considering there's already one in that area. On a side note, for those who say it could be a light rail line, I think it would be better as a subway line. Even if you don't intend to hook it up to the QBL and send it to Manhattan, at least it allows for that possibility. Also, it allows for service to the Rockaways (probably combining it with the Rockaway Park shuttle), saving them from having to transfer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
error46146 Posted December 26, 2012 Share #34 Posted December 26, 2012 This ROW pretty much runs right through people's backyards.. I don't think the people living in the Crescents will like this idea at all... I currently don't live too far from the abandoned Rockaway line (and used to live right down the block from it on Yellowstone Blvd) so I know the area and the people that live there, and I personally don't think they would appreciate the masses of people that would invade their quiet streets.. but who knows I guess we will just wait and see what happens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grand Concourse Posted December 26, 2012 Share #35 Posted December 26, 2012 People along the Brighton line seems to put up with all 4 tracks being used 18/5. The point is the row was there before people moved in. Rather than to keep blocking the measure, why not offer noise absorbing walls like on the highways and build them along the row and build new stations so they don't need to take the local buses to get around? I would think it'd be in the overall benefit for the borough as a whole than to just plop a park on it for a short term benefit. Use eminent domain if needed - give ppl a fair market value for their homes and let them move out. So I am more against turning the row into a park than I am in favor of restoring it for rail service. I would prefer to just leave the line alone as is for now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IntExp Posted December 26, 2012 Author Share #36 Posted December 26, 2012 People along the Brighton line seems to put up with all 4 tracks being used 18/5. The point is the row was there before people moved in. Rather than to keep blocking the measure, why not offer noise absorbing walls like on the highways and build them along the row and build new stations so they don't need to take the local buses to get around? I would think it'd be in the overall benefit for the borough as a whole than to just plop a park on it for a short term benefit. Use eminent domain if needed - give ppl a fair market value for their homes and let them move out. So I am more against turning the row into a park than I am in favor of restoring it for rail service. I would prefer to just leave the line alone as is for now. Tell that to Queens CB 6 and you will be quitely greeted by a lynch mob - they are extremely ungrateful, given the fact that they enjoy reltively good transit access, while they want to deny their neighbors to the south the transit access they deserve. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CenSin Posted December 26, 2012 Share #37 Posted December 26, 2012 It's all about what the neighborhoods want. I'm a big supporter for increased transit in Queens, but there isn't much of a demand for rail service here. If they want to replace an abandoned railway with a park, then so be it. But to get from A to B, you have to go through all the points in between. A happens to be the Rockaways, and B happens to be Midtown Manhattan. Currently, the train ride gets from A to B by avoiding all the points in between and taking several detours. I'm sure all those people don't want highways right next to their backyards either… but the cars have to pass through some neighborhood for that faster ride. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BM5 via Woodhaven Posted December 26, 2012 Share #38 Posted December 26, 2012 This ROW pretty much runs right through people's backyards.. I don't think the people living in the Crescents will like this idea at all... I currently don't live too far from the abandoned Rockaway line (and used to live right down the block from it on Yellowstone Blvd) so I know the area and the people that live there, and I personally don't think they would appreciate the masses of people that would invade their quiet streets.. but who knows I guess we will just wait and see what happens. Well this idea in Wassaic works, so why not here http://hvrt.org/index.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qjtransitmaster Posted December 26, 2012 Share #39 Posted December 26, 2012 People along the Brighton line seems to put up with all 4 tracks being used 18/5. The point is the row was there before people moved in. Rather than to keep blocking the measure, why not offer noise absorbing walls like on the highways and build them along the row and build new stations so they don't need to take the local buses to get around? I would think it'd be in the overall benefit for the borough as a whole than to just plop a park on it for a short term benefit. Use eminent domain if needed - give ppl a fair market value for their homes and let them move out. So I am more against turning the row into a park than I am in favor of restoring it for rail service. I would prefer to just leave the line alone as is for now. DUDE this is brilliant and may make NIMBYs STFU. I salute you. The Q11/21/52/53 get over 25,000 riders a year, but yeah, there isn't any demand for it. Exactly. It's comparing apples to oranges. The High Line was in worse shape, and aside from that, the surrounding area was more built-up and urbanized (so you would have trains running right past people's windows, not exactly a good situation if you're trying to gentrify the area). Plus, it would be harder to connect it to an existing rail line (Because it's all subway lines in the area, and you'd probably have to demolish a bunch of expensive buildings to build the connection). Plus, like you said, it's in the middle of a touristy area, rather than being all the way out in the outer boroughs. Which would be far greater if it were a rail line compared to turning it into a park. There's nothing "foamerish" about it. There is an actual demand & need for a rail line in that corridor, much more than the need for a park, considering there's already one in that area. On a side note, for those who say it could be a light rail line, I think it would be better as a subway line. Even if you don't intend to hook it up to the QBL and send it to Manhattan, at least it allows for that possibility. Also, it allows for service to the Rockaways (probably combining it with the Rockaway Park shuttle), saving them from having to transfer. I see the argument for a subway line BUT I also see the argument for light rail. The subway thing is to link to existing overcrowded lines BUT if light rail it can become compatible with Hell's gate and not only create connections to LIRR and the subway but it can link to jackson heights and astoria it can bring rail service to randall's island and with 1 new track and 2 connecting tracks it can link to existing ROW next to but not on the hudson line as there is a lightly or just plain unused track there in the bronx and can link to GWB terminal and new stations to link to in the bronx however it will be 100% above ground. You can create a complete crosstown line linking almost all lines in queens and to LIRR for faster train rides to midtown manhattan and links to upper manhattan as well as NW queens OR a busway HOV can be built on I-87 or HRD to allow buses to avoid traffic completely towards GWB and let the rail line focus on serving the bronx. But with MNRR penn access the rail option may be better. Well this idea in Wassaic works, so why not here http://hvrt.org/index.html simple wassiac is THE MIDDLE OF NOWHERE!!!!!!!!!! HERE actually has people commuting from point A to B. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BM5 via Woodhaven Posted December 26, 2012 Share #40 Posted December 26, 2012 DUDE this is brilliant and may make NIMBYs STFU. I salute you. I see the argument for a subway line BUT I also see the argument for light rail. The subway thing is to link to existing overcrowded lines BUT if light rail it can become compatible with Hell's gate and not only create connections to LIRR and the subway but it can link to jackson heights and astoria it can bring rail service to randall's island and with 1 new track and 2 connecting tracks it can link to existing ROW next to but not on the hudson line as there is a lightly or just plain unused track there in the bronx and can link to GWB terminal and new stations to link to in the bronx however it will be 100% above ground. You can create a complete crosstown line linking almost all lines in queens and to LIRR for faster train rides to midtown manhattan and links to upper manhattan as well as NW queens OR a busway HOV can be built on I-87 or HRD to allow buses to avoid traffic completely towards GWB and let the rail line focus on serving the bronx. But with MNRR penn access the rail option may be better. simple wassiac is THE MIDDLE OF NOWHERE!!!!!!!!!! HERE actually has people commuting from point A to B. It's not only Wassaic, but nearby Amenia, and several other towns Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qjtransitmaster Posted December 26, 2012 Share #41 Posted December 26, 2012 It's not only Wassaic, but nearby Amenia, and several other towns do you know how deserted those places are exactly I rest my case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brooklyn Posted December 27, 2012 Share #42 Posted December 27, 2012 Look, I am all for nature, but damned, there HAS to be a better use for this. Having SOME sort of rail (light or heavy) would make people's lives so much easier. I understand the concern about losing the "character" of the neighborhood. That's legit. Some real estate people would salivate over the opportunity, no doubt. But if there can be an "in-between"....I have seen plans where a potential rail line would bypass certain neighborhoods. I am all for biking and hikes, but that line has to be put to better use. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevenFrancis Posted December 27, 2012 Share #43 Posted December 27, 2012 Oh please, NYC doesnt need anymore parks, we got, Pelham, Bay, Van Cortlandt, Bronx Park, Soundview, Lafayette, Riverbank, Riverside, Inwood Hill, Fort Tryon, Highbridge, Central, High Line, Battery, Socrates, Flushing Meadows, Cypress Hills, and even the little parks, so either leave it be or make a new line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qjtransitmaster Posted December 28, 2012 Share #44 Posted December 28, 2012 Oh please, NYC doesnt need anymore parks, we got, Pelham, Bay, Van Cortlandt, Bronx Park, Soundview, Lafayette, Riverbank, Riverside, Inwood Hill, Fort Tryon, Highbridge, Central, High Line, Battery, Socrates, Flushing Meadows, Cypress Hills, and even the little parks, so either leave it be or make a new line. PREACH BROTHER PREACH!!!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quill Depot Posted December 29, 2012 Share #45 Posted December 29, 2012 PREACH BROTHER PREACH!!!!!!!! Shut up, won't you! All your shit has been nonsense. Hear this by QJT: BUT if light rail it can become compatible with Hell's gate and not only create connections to LIRR and the subway but it can link to jackson heights and astoria Are you kidding... via Hell's Gate. By the way, the LIRR is not light rail, it is heavy rail. The two are not compatible with each other. Please... stop the foam. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevenFrancis Posted December 29, 2012 Share #46 Posted December 29, 2012 PREACH BROTHER PREACH!!!!!!!! Lmfaooo!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qjtransitmaster Posted December 29, 2012 Share #47 Posted December 29, 2012 Shut up, won't you! All your shit has been nonsense Hear this by QJT: Are you kidding... via Hell's Gate. By the way, the LIRR is not light rail, it is heavy rail. The two are not compatible with each other. Please... stop the foam. No one asked for your crap kid. No you are an immature kid who likes to talk shit. This is why I don't take you seriously. SO do yourself a favor do not reply to any of my posts or quote them unless you want to speak in a mature manner. Otherwise keep your mouth shut instead of spewing petty crap. Seriously WHY BOTHER at the end of the day I am living my life normally you don't get a medal for insulting me nor do you get honors you just waste your time cause in the end of the day your words mean diddly squat so give it a rest. Read I WILL BREAK IT DOWN SO YOU CAN UNDERSTAND LRT will have it's own separate ROW. It will go from the rockaway line over queens blvd(SEPARATE FROM LIRR) or LIRR elevated but separate from LIRR then onto abandoned ROW to jackson heights it's electrification will be catenary so it will have no problems using hells gate for a short time. In english IT WILL NOT SHARE TRACKS WITH LIRR MAIN LINE!!!! The line does NOT need to be compatible with LIRR. I really wish there was a fail button. And reply in red. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quill Depot Posted December 29, 2012 Share #48 Posted December 29, 2012 I don't get how this is practical. Sorry for standing up for common sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TwoTimer Posted December 29, 2012 Share #49 Posted December 29, 2012 I wonder how much of this is a railfan's desire to have a new line to fan (like those that wait anxiously for SAS and EAS)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BM5 via Woodhaven Posted December 29, 2012 Share #50 Posted December 29, 2012 I wonder how much of this is a railfan's desire to have a new line to fan (like those that wait anxiously for SAS and EAS)? Past the first page, its Bascially fantasy thoughts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.