Jump to content
Attention: In order to reply to messages, create topics, have access to other features of the community you must sign up for an account.
Sign in to follow this  
LaGuardia Link N Tra

Rockaway Beach Branch

Recommended Posts

12 hours ago, Lawrence St said:

Ok, we don't need to make every single dam abandoned rail line into a park that no one will use. The High Line is the first and LAST line to be converted because it's in actual location where you can actually see shit.

 

As for the line itself, I revisted it back in October, it is really falling apart. You got houses extending their backyards into there when they aren't suppose to,  you got a dam school bus parking lot taking up half of WOODHAVEN Junction, you got the ball park tearing up the only track remaining towards Rego Park, it really is a shame.

I saw that in Google maps the other day, and funny part is, I'm a Rego Park Resident. I'm just disappointed that our politicians aren't Making good/useful decisions. If this was under my jurisdiction, I would've reactivated and converted the line into subway service in a heartbeat

Edited by LGA Link N train

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, LGA Link N train said:

I saw that in Google maps the other day, and funny part is, I'm a Rego Park Resident. I'm just disappointed that our politicians aren't Making good/useful decisions. If this was under my jurisdiction, I would've reactivated and converted the line into subway service in a heartbeat

If it were only that simple.

While there's a business case for it for network purposes, you still have to identify a funding source for operations, find labor to operate it and determine how likely it is the route will generate enough utilization to not need enormous subsidy from the rest of the system or if it'll relieve another (MTA) service substantively enough to make it worth it.

I imagine this is still in the "Nice to have" category and not in the "Operational Need" category - otherwise it'd be supported substantially by political heavyweights now.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Deucey said:

If it were only that simple.

While there's a business case for it for network purposes, you still have to identify a funding source for operations, find labor to operate it and determine how likely it is the route will generate enough utilization to not need enormous subsidy from the rest of the system or if it'll relieve another (MTA) service substantively enough to make it worth it.

I imagine this is still in the "Nice to have" category and not in the "Operational Need" category - otherwise it'd be supported substantially by political heavyweights now.

Ok then what would you do with it if you had jurisdiction 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, LGA Link N train said:

Ok then what would you do with it if you had jurisdiction 

Having jurisdiction is immaterial since it still comes down to whether there's a business case for it and if it could be funded to retrofit and operate.

If you're asking if I'd advocate for it, I would if only because I think you can't truly solve the car utilization issue if you don't minimize the number of transit deserts in the city.

But do I think it's the most pressing issue? I think there are other corridors more in need with better immediate benefits than RBB:

  • I think SAS with express and local trackage between Red Hook and the Bronx is more urgent;

    a 125th St crosstown line between Columbia and LGA and JFK would benefit more uptown and Queens people (even if routes onto the RBB);

    A 34th St crosstown connecting to Broadway Junction or the (L) through Maspeth and Ridgewood (because of the express bus density) to supplement QBL;

    A Fordham-Pelham crosstown local between Inwood and Co-Op city to connect that big transit desert in the East Bx with the IRT and two IND lines whilst relieving the busiest bus line(s) in the city; 

    A Utica Av subway;

    Fixing the Rogers Junction to eliminate the merge then split to/from the Nostrand line; 

    Connecting the HBLR to SI/rebuild the North Shore line to the Goethals Bridge; and

    Build a crosstown Light Rail between Bay Ridge and Broadway Junction and Jamaica Station to save SIers and Brooklynites time traveling to JFK and/or reduce traffic on the Belt and Southern State Parkway to jobs and stuff in Nassau County.

(I wrote these from most to least worth it.)

And I'd also:

a) set up separate construction authorities separate from (MTA) to plan and build them to prevent the SAS cutbacks and East Side Access debacles - with the power to issue bonds and admin transit funding and receive lease payments from (MTA) or NYC DOT until bonds are paid off

b) add a sales tax on purchases made in the city - 3/4¢ of every dollar dedicated solely to (MTA) infrastructure utilization - operating trains and buses so that EVERY person in NYC - whether resident, tourist or worker - is paying for system management equally without discrimination against one particular group for the satisfaction of another

c) I'd get Albany to reform (MTA) and NYCTA/Mabstoa from corporation structures based on political appointees and patronage to a structure where the borough presidents have board membership as an ex officio responsibility, and the mayor and governor appointment two members each and the other counties get seats that don't vote unless the proposal affects their county's service levels. And

d) I'd reform civil service rules so fewer white collar jobs within the MTA are unionized sinecures that draw huge salaries.

If you wanted to know...

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Deucey said:

Having jurisdiction is immaterial since it still comes down to whether there's a business case for it and if it could be funded to retrofit and operate.

If you're asking if I'd advocate for it, I would if only because I think you can't truly solve the car utilization issue if you don't minimize the number of transit deserts in the city.

But do I think it's the most pressing issue? I think there are other corridors more in need with better immediate benefits than RBB:

 

  • I think SAS with express and local trackage between Red Hook and the Bronx is more urgent;

    a 125th St crosstown line between Columbia and LGA and JFK would benefit more uptown and Queens people (even if routes onto the RBB);

    A 34th St crosstown connecting to Broadway Junction or the (L) through Maspeth and Ridgewood (because of the express bus density) to supplement QBL;

    A Fordham-Pelham crosstown local between Inwood and Co-Op city to connect that big transit desert in the East Bx with the IRT and two IND lines whilst relieving the busiest bus line(s) in the city; 

    A Utica Av subway;

    Fixing the Rogers Junction to eliminate the merge then split to/from the Nostrand line; 

    Connecting the HBLR to SI/rebuild the North Shore line to the Goethals Bridge; and

    Build a crosstown Light Rail between Bay Ridge and Broadway Junction and Jamaica Station to save SIers and Brooklynites time traveling to JFK and/or reduce traffic on the Belt and Southern State Parkway to jobs and stuff in Nassau County.

     

 

(I wrote these from most to least worth it.)

And I'd also:

a) set up separate construction authorities separate from (MTA) to plan and build them to prevent the SAS cutbacks and East Side Access debacles - with the power to issue bonds and admin transit funding and receive lease payments from (MTA) or NYC DOT until bonds are paid off

b) add a sales tax on purchases made in the city - 3/4¢ of every dollar dedicated solely to (MTA) infrastructure utilization - operating trains and buses so that EVERY person in NYC - whether resident, tourist or worker - is paying for system management equally without discrimination against one particular group for the satisfaction of another

c) I'd get Albany to reform (MTA) and NYCTA/Mabstoa from corporation structures based on political appointees and patronage to a structure where the borough presidents have board membership as an ex officio responsibility, and the mayor and governor appointment two members each and the other counties get seats that don't vote unless the proposal affects their county's service levels. And

d) I'd reform civil service rules so fewer white collar jobs within the MTA are unionized sinecures that draw huge salaries.

If you wanted to know...

But the thing is with RBB, it is more worthy since it will improve access from the Rockaways and stops the line turning into a park. 

-Connecting SAS to Fulton is more important since it will allow the (C) express to Lefferts. 

-Serve LGA with an extension of the Astoria Line (N)(W), realistically. I don't personally see the need for a 125 St crosstown. 

-I don't think this can be done because there are too many tunnels under 34 St, INCLUDING NORTH-SOUTH ones. Plus. not too sure if demand would warrant it since it is far from QB.

-I do see the need but an extension of the (D) across Gun Hill would make more sense. 

-Fully agree with Utica.

-Same with Rogers.

-Also agree with the North Shore Line and the HBLR to SI since 8 St is close to the Bayonne Bridge.

-I somewhat agree tho this should just be the proposed Triboro RX. 

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, D to 96 St said:

But the thing is with RBB, it is more worthy since it will improve access from the Rockaways and stops the line turning into a park. 

-Connecting SAS to Fulton is more important since it will allow the (C) express to Lefferts. 

-Serve LGA with an extension of the Astoria Line (N)(W), realistically. I don't personally see the need for a 125 St crosstown. 

-I don't think this can be done because there are too many tunnels under 34 St, INCLUDING NORTH-SOUTH ones. Plus. not too sure if demand would warrant it since it is far from QB.

-I do see the need but an extension of the (D) across Gun Hill would make more sense. 

-Fully agree with Utica.

-Same with Rogers.

-Also agree with the North Shore Line and the HBLR to SI since 8 St is close to the Bayonne Bridge.

-I somewhat agree tho this should just be the proposed Triboro RX. 

 

 

My thinking has two basēs:

1) the entire NYC system is hub and spoke centered on Manhattan, and because there's traffic lights at 95% of every Manhattan intersection below 96th St - especially on east-west corridors, crosstown travel by bus takes as long as walking outside of Central Park (because the park is designed with meandering footpaths to prevent thru pedestrian traffic). So if building tunnels and bridges across LI sound between Q and Bx is financially infeasible, building links between M and Q to benefit Bronxites that work in Queens or folks in Queens that work on the westside that pay for Express buses because it takes just as long or longer to get to the QBL or (7) as it does sitting in traffic in the QMT makes the cost for new crossings somewhat worth it while relieving crowding in Midtown on roads and rails; and

2) going crosstown within a borough is, for lack of a better term, a bitch. Bay Ridge have to go to Downtown Bk to get to JFK; Co-Op city has no reason to use the subway because it's an overcrowded 20-30 minute bus (possibly with transfer(s)) to get to a local train for a 40 minute ride to switch to an express train. Since buses weren't routed to be feeders to trains, it makes many of these zones deserts where you have to go where you away from the direction you need to eventually go where you want. 

It's asinine.

So building systems that a) reduce road congestion, b) relieve currently impacted lines and c) cut travel times by eliminating the backtrack or use of the overcrowded bus is where my "priority" lies.

I don't see the RBB really doing anything except priority "c", and for it to go from "nice to have" to "operational need", it'd need to do "a" and "c" without making "b" worse.

Now if it tied into a new trunk line that went to Manhattan - or even could continue on PATH - and had an express/local configuration, then it'd be "operational need" in my mind, since it'd actually relieve QBL and connect the Rockaways with Midtown quickly and directly.

But making it an extended (M) is just doing something for the sake of appearing to do something beneficial.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The other thing I think is lost here is that the current system is already beyond capacity and isn't fit for purpose, so turning RBB into a QBL or IND Fulton spur isn't adding capacityit's reducing capacity. More riders and more trains on overworked corridors - they might get seats, but the QBL already is SRO, so now you'll have SRO happening sooner. Not to mention that a longer (M) will have the same issue as the (R) - longer route and uneven service being the norm.

So a new corridor is needed. Build that and connect to RBB, don't make RBB a spur.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, BreeddekalbL said:

As I (barely) understand NYC property tax, properties are either over- or under-assessed based on the average value of housing in a particular area or block (so your property could be appraised by lenders at $1 million, but the Assessor's office could only tax you at $400,000 if other properties on your block are worth only $250-300,000, meaning you're underpaying while your neighbors overpay.), so taxing commercial property should be done but the property assessment process needs to be reformed so the tax assessed matches closer the actual valuation of the property (or lot).

But I'd still want a Measure R style consumer sales tax - even if it over funds (MTA) accounts just because the money is needed to make NYCTA fit for purpose (and I'd make to where MNRR, TBTA and LIRR only received a share of that money based on a ratio of its ridership or utilization to that of NYCTA.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Deucey said:

As I (barely) understand NYC property tax, properties are either over- or under-assessed based on the average value of housing in a particular area or block (so your property could be appraised by lenders at $1 million, but the Assessor's office could only tax you at $400,000 if other properties on your block are worth only $250-300,000, meaning you're underpaying while your neighbors overpay.), so taxing commercial property should be done but the property assessment process needs to be reformed so the tax assessed matches closer the actual valuation of the property (or lot).

But I'd still want a Measure R style consumer sales tax - even if it over funds (MTA) accounts just because the money is needed to make NYCTA fit for purpose (and I'd make to where MNRR, TBTA and LIRR only received a share of that money based on a ratio of its ridership or utilization to that of NYCTA.)

That's absurd. MNRR and LIRR riders being suburban riders are far less than their subway counterparts, and our fares have to be subsidized more, and even with those subsides, we still pay through the nose. My trip is $12.00 one-way ($9.25 for MNRR + $2.75 for the Hudson Raillink shuttle bus) from Riverdale to Grand Central during peak periods versus $2.75 for a subway rider. That way of thinking would bring the railroads back in time, not forward. With the current system, I already don't feel like I get enough based on what I pay. Some trains are packed and I'm forced to stand for my 22-25 minute commute into Grand Central.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, D to 96 St said:

But the thing is with RBB, it is more worthy since it will improve access from the Rockaways and stops the line turning into a park. 

-Connecting SAS to Fulton is more important since it will allow the (C) express to Lefferts. 

-Serve LGA with an extension of the Astoria Line (N)(W), realistically. I don't personally see the need for a 125 St crosstown. 

-I don't think this can be done because there are too many tunnels under 34 St, INCLUDING NORTH-SOUTH ones. Plus. not too sure if demand would warrant it since it is far from QB.

-I do see the need but an extension of the (D) across Gun Hill would make more sense. 

-Fully agree with Utica.

-Same with Rogers.

-Also agree with the North Shore Line and the HBLR to SI since 8 St is close to the Bayonne Bridge.

-I somewhat agree tho this should just be the proposed Triboro RX. 

 

 

I think the failure in logic with RBB is shown above. We shouldn't build rail lines solely because the line may be turned into a park. What's more, given that there are myriad dense transit deserts in the city, we definitely shouldn't be building them in areas of low density, and also not in ones that already have subway service. 

I agree with all the other proposals you/Deucey have outlined, save for maybe LMB subway conversion because of the effect it may have on regional freight ops. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, RR503 said:

I think the failure in logic with RBB is shown above. We shouldn't build rail lines solely because the line may be turned into a park. What's more, given that there are myriad dense transit deserts in the city, we definitely shouldn't be building them in areas of low density, and also not in ones that already have subway service. 

I agree with all the other proposals you/Deucey have outlined, save for maybe LMB subway conversion because of the effect it may have on regional freight ops. 

Who remembers my RBB -Queens Bypass proposal 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, RR503 said:

I think the failure in logic with RBB is shown above. We shouldn't build rail lines solely because the line may be turned into a park. What's more, given that there are myriad dense transit deserts in the city, we definitely shouldn't be building them in areas of low density, and also not in ones that already have subway service. 

I agree with all the other proposals you/Deucey have outlined, save for maybe LMB subway conversion because of the effect it may have on regional freight ops. 

So if I'm not mistaken, you wouldn't do anything with it?? And you do realize that putting the (M) on RBB would only be a short short term thing though I would only put what people prefer. Oh and people have been trying to reactivate it before the idea of the Queensway was even born. Also, the only congestion that it can truly relive is car congestion on Woodhaven Boulevard. One Las thing, any subway or rail that hits these dense areas are east-west lines. RBB is a North-South line 

Edited by LGA Link N train

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes - it's a waste of money which could be better spent on many more important projects. I wish they would go ahead and build the park so you would let it alone.

 

I just went through this thread, and it's literally all @LGA Link N train saying the same thing over and over again.

Edited by quadcorder
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, quadcorder said:

Yes - it's a waste of money which could be better spent on many more important projects. I wish they would go ahead and build the park so you would let it alone.

excuse me?

I just went through this thread, and it's literally all @LGA Link N train saying the same thing over and over again.

are you sure about that??

 

Edited by LGA Link N train

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, LGA Link N train said:

@Deucey when you said your thing from A) to C) would this be a good time to reconsider the Queens Bypass?

Doesn’t LIRR already run an express from the ass end of Queens/Nassau to Penn?

If not, why not do it now, have NYCTA subsidize it and make the fare $4-5 or equal to the express bus fare?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, quadcorder said:

Yes - it's a waste of money which could be better spent on many more important projects. I wish they would go ahead and build the park so you would let it alone.

 

I just went through this thread, and it's literally all @LGA Link N train saying the same thing over and over again.

Do you add anything to any thread? All you do is complain about what other people post yet you add nothing to the discussion. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Deucey said:

Doesn’t LIRR already run an express from the ass end of Queens/Nassau to Penn?

If not, why not do it now, have NYCTA subsidize it and make the fare $4-5 or equal to the express bus fare?

Ok, thanks for your response. Have a nice day 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, LGA Link N train said:

Who, me or @quadcorder or both?

Quadcorder.

1 hour ago, Deucey said:

Doesn’t LIRR already run an express from the ass end of Queens/Nassau to Penn?

If not, why not do it now, have NYCTA subsidize it and make the fare $4-5 or equal to the express bus fare?

Yes they do, but the stations are not that accessible in some parts of Southeast Queens and apparently too expensive for some residents (this was talked about previously so I won't delve into it further). Northeast Queens (areas like Douglaston and Little Neck), which is more upper middle and upper class uses their LIRR stations despite the high cost because it's seen as the professional thing to take; that and getting to the subway takes forever.

2 hours ago, LGA Link N train said:

So if I'm not mistaken, you wouldn't do anything with it?? And you do realize that putting the (M) on RBB would only be a short short term thing though I would only put what people prefer. Oh and people have been trying to reactivate it before the idea of the Queensway was even born. Also, the only congestion that it can truly relive is car congestion on Woodhaven Boulevard. One Las thing, any subway or rail that hits these dense areas are east-west lines. RBB is a North-South line 

I think a park should go there and they should run more express bus service and call it a day. You can run the bus lanes further down Woodhaven Blvd and extend them to Cross Bay Blvd if need be.

Edited by Via Garibaldi 8
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

I think a park should go there and they should run more express bus service and call it a day. You can run the bus lanes further down Woodhaven Blvd and extend them to Cross Bay Blvd if need be.

On a respective criticism note. I still disagree with having a park that runs into another park. It's just unlogical. As for an express bus plan. I do agree with that and I'll consider that as part of my "Woodhaven Plan". I'd still convert the line for subway use since I got something in mind for the long term. As for the Queensway proposal, I'd still build the rail line but keep most of the Queensway elements (even though I oppose to it) http://www.vanshnookenraggen.com/_index/?s=Queensway&submit=Search

This link should give an idea towards what I'm saying, just so I don't piss off supporters from either side (though I think the rail/park should be done in phases)

Phase 1 - Reactivate and convert the line, reserve some space for a greenway

Phase 2 - begin work on the Queensway 

I will explain this in my Woodhaven Plan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok guys.  We all get the point of this thread. However, bus service STILL WON'T BE ENOUGH. And express buses won't even get high ridership at ALL.  I STILL SUPPORT THE RBB, but I'm just tired of seeing people continuously add the same argument over and over again. Not to mention critizcing one's behavior, which is out-of-scope. 

This is what should therefore happen:

lock-smiling-10203611.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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