BreeddekalbL Posted January 8, 2018 Share #376 Posted January 8, 2018 Well what i posted with the great gavones townhall in glendale was the latest 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LGA Link N Train Posted January 8, 2018 Author Share #377 Posted January 8, 2018 1 hour ago, BreeddekalbL said: Well what i posted with the great gavones townhall in glendale was the latest A) Thanks. What I don't understand is that any LRT Related proposal to the Rockaway Beach Branch that is proposed is, where would the northern terminal be? C) I think this is the 400th post in this thread 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N6 Limited Posted January 11, 2018 Share #378 Posted January 11, 2018 If there was a QB Bypass then they could have shut the line down and gotten CBTC done already. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LGA Link N Train Posted January 11, 2018 Author Share #379 Posted January 11, 2018 58 minutes ago, N6 Limited said: If there was a QB Bypass then they could have shut the line down and gotten CBTC done already. Have you been on QBL? Queens bypass (with or without CBTC) would be beneficial regardless. Unless you imply connecting it to RBB in a post CBTC QBL otherwise that would be an idiodic thing to say in an alternate timeline 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N6 Limited Posted January 11, 2018 Share #380 Posted January 11, 2018 16 hours ago, LGA Link N train said: Have you been on QBL? Queens bypass (with or without CBTC) would be beneficial regardless. Unless you imply connecting it to RBB in a post CBTC QBL otherwise that would be an idiodic thing to say in an alternate timeline I'm saying if there was a bypass (To 71st ave) they could've shut the QBL down on weekends/late nights and get CBTC installed quicker, instead of having 30+ minute delays after 10PM on weekdays and all day weekends and stretching the project out for years. If they connected the bypass to the RBB it would be a waste, you'd have this "express" service to Manhattan with barely enough riders to justify it. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BreeddekalbL Posted January 11, 2018 Share #381 Posted January 11, 2018 16 minutes ago, N6 Limited said: If they connected the bypass to the RBB it would be a waste, you'd have this "express" service to Manhattan with barely enough riders to justify it. I partially agree but it could connect from a potential 2nd ave service that could fit into a cbd to jfk service 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LGA Link N Train Posted January 11, 2018 Author Share #382 Posted January 11, 2018 2 hours ago, N6 Limited said: I'm saying if there was a bypass (To 71st ave) they could've shut the QBL down on weekends/late nights and get CBTC installed quicker, instead of having 30+ minute delays after 10PM on weekdays and all day weekends and stretching the project out for years. If they connected the bypass to the RBB it would be a waste, you'd have this "express" service to Manhattan with barely enough riders to justify it. Ah I misunderstood, thanks 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RR503 Posted January 11, 2018 Share #383 Posted January 11, 2018 (edited) 3 hours ago, BreeddekalbL said: I partially agree but it could connect from a potential 2nd ave service that could fit into a cbd to jfk service Mmmmath time!!! In 2016, JFK served 58.9 million passengers, of which 77.6%, or 45.7 million, began or their trips at the airport. Of those, 58.4% began their trips in manhattan. That’s 26.7 million passengers a year — not a quantity to laugh at. Divided evenly out across a year (which is not at all how travel patterns work, but it’s the best we’ve got), we have 73,130 people a day. So let’s assume we have about 100,000 people going to the airport on weekdays from Manhattan. If every last person going from Manhattan to JFK took your SAS RBB service to the airport, with all their bags, paraphanalia, and weird flight times, you’d have 1/12th the ridership of the Lex. Given that such a scenario where everyone takes the train to the plane is, frankly, unrealistic (especially given that you’d still have to xfer to the airtrain), is this really a good use of money? Yes? No? Let’s delve deeper. Airtrain captured 16% of all O&D passengers in 2016. Even if the RBB magically doubled that share to 32%, and then took exactly a third of the resulting public transit users from Manhattan to the airport, you’re looking at only 10,667 people per day. And would it even get a third? From Lexington 53 to Terminal 1 via the to the Airtrain is 48 minutes. Assuming RBB trains via Bypass move about as fast as QB expresses, and then move at 20mph over the branch to Howard Beach (~3.8 mi), we’re looking at a trip time from 53rd st and Second Avenue to Howard Beach of 34 minutes. Airtrain from Howard Beach to JFK T1 takes 18 minutes, for a total trip time of 52 minutes — 4 slower than the . So why, dear god, why, is this so often proposed as an airport link? It would not attract passengers even from existing public transit options, let alone from the roads... Finally, let’s look at some other ways to spend the $$$. In 2015, 63,617 people commuted from the third avenue corridor in the Bronx to Manhattan and Brooklyn. Those people suffered through average commutes averaging 43 minutes, and had a median household income of just 25,500 dollars. Why don’t we save their a$$es before we cater to some folks who want to save negative 4 minutes getting to the airport via a new line surrounded with more parkland than houses. This is not pragmatism. This is foamer insanity. Dont believe any of my numbers? Here: https://onthemap.ces.census.gov/ https://www.panynj.gov/airports/pdf-traffic/ATR2016.pdf https://www.socialexplorer.com/ Chew on this for a while. Edited January 11, 2018 by RR503 7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Vandelay Posted January 11, 2018 Share #384 Posted January 11, 2018 1 hour ago, RR503 said: Mmmmath time!!! In 2016, JFK served 58.9 million passengers, of which 77.6%, or 45.7 million, began or their trips at the airport. Of those, 58.4% began their trips in manhattan. That’s 26.7 million passengers a year — not a quantity to laugh at. Divided evenly out across a year (which is not at all how travel patterns work, but it’s the best we’ve got), we have 73,130 people a day. So let’s assume we have about 100,000 people going to the airport on weekdays from Manhattan. If every last person going from Manhattan to JFK took your SAS RBB service to the airport, with all their bags, paraphanalia, and weird flight times, you’d have 1/12th the ridership of the Lex. Given that such a scenario where everyone takes the train to the plane is, frankly, unrealistic (especially given that you’d still have to xfer to the airtrain), is this really a good use of money? Yes? No? Let’s delve deeper. Airtrain captured 16% of all O&D passengers in 2016. Even if the RBB magically doubled that share to 32%, and then took exactly a third of the resulting public transit users from Manhattan to the airport, you’re looking at only 10,667 people per day. And would it even get a third? From Lexington 53 to Terminal 1 via the to the Airtrain is 48 minutes. Assuming RBB trains via Bypass move about as fast as QB expresses, and then move at 20mph over the branch to Howard Beach (~3.8 mi), we’re looking at a trip time from 53rd st and Second Avenue to Howard Beach of 34 minutes. Airtrain from Howard Beach to JFK T1 takes 18 minutes, for a total trip time of 52 minutes — 4 slower than the . So why, dear god, why, is this so often proposed as an airport link? It would not attract passengers even from existing public transit options, let alone from the roads... Finally, let’s look at some other ways to spend the $$$. In 2015, 63,617 people commuted from the third avenue corridor in the Bronx to Manhattan and Brooklyn. Those people suffered through average commutes averaging 43 minutes, and had a median household income of just 25,500 dollars. Why don’t we save their a$$es before we cater to some folks who want to save negative 4 minutes getting to the airport via a new line surrounded with more parkland than houses. This is not pragmatism. This is foamer insanity. Dont believe any of my numbers? Here: https://onthemap.ces.census.gov/ https://www.panynj.gov/airports/pdf-traffic/ATR2016.pdf https://www.socialexplorer.com/ Chew on this for a while. And every assumption in that post is generous to the RBL. The argument for it as an airport connection is really that poor. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coney Island Av Posted January 12, 2018 Share #385 Posted January 12, 2018 (edited) 2 hours ago, RR503 said: Mmmmath time!!! In 2016, JFK served 58.9 million passengers, of which 77.6%, or 45.7 million, began or their trips at the airport. Of those, 58.4% began their trips in manhattan. That’s 26.7 million passengers a year — not a quantity to laugh at. Divided evenly out across a year (which is not at all how travel patterns work, but it’s the best we’ve got), we have 73,130 people a day. So let’s assume we have about 100,000 people going to the airport on weekdays from Manhattan. If every last person going from Manhattan to JFK took your SAS RBB service to the airport, with all their bags, paraphanalia, and weird flight times, you’d have 1/12th the ridership of the Lex. Given that such a scenario where everyone takes the train to the plane is, frankly, unrealistic (especially given that you’d still have to xfer to the airtrain), is this really a good use of money? Yes? No? Let’s delve deeper. Airtrain captured 16% of all O&D passengers in 2016. Even if the RBB magically doubled that share to 32%, and then took exactly a third of the resulting public transit users from Manhattan to the airport, you’re looking at only 10,667 people per day. And would it even get a third? From Lexington 53 to Terminal 1 via the to the Airtrain is 48 minutes. Assuming RBB trains via Bypass move about as fast as QB expresses, and then move at 20mph over the branch to Howard Beach (~3.8 mi), we’re looking at a trip time from 53rd st and Second Avenue to Howard Beach of 34 minutes. Airtrain from Howard Beach to JFK T1 takes 18 minutes, for a total trip time of 52 minutes — 4 slower than the . So why, dear god, why, is this so often proposed as an airport link? It would not attract passengers even from existing public transit options, let alone from the roads... Finally, let’s look at some other ways to spend the $$$. In 2015, 63,617 people commuted from the third avenue corridor in the Bronx to Manhattan and Brooklyn. Those people suffered through average commutes averaging 43 minutes, and had a median household income of just 25,500 dollars. Why don’t we save their a$$es before we cater to some folks who want to save negative 4 minutes getting to the airport via a new line surrounded with more parkland than houses. This is not pragmatism. This is foamer insanity. Dont believe any of my numbers? Here: https://onthemap.ces.census.gov/ https://www.panynj.gov/airports/pdf-traffic/ATR2016.pdf https://www.socialexplorer.com/ Chew on this for a while. I have to agree with you that the 3rd avenue corridor is in need of subway service more than RBB. Even a Hillside extension to Springfield is more necessary! Or even a subway line to SI, which is so isolated from the rest of the system. But wouldn't ppl just ignore going to the airport via RBB to begin with. I mean, the is full-local. But the #1 reasons for opposition to RBB is: -adding more crowding to an already congested corridor -the being much faster -other areas are more dense than RBB to justify subway service However, I STILL support it. It's quite inconvenient to get to the from QB. But it's not meant to faster. Edited January 12, 2018 by D to 96 St 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T to Dyre Avenue Posted January 12, 2018 Share #386 Posted January 12, 2018 On 1/8/2018 at 6:57 PM, LGA Link N train said: A) Thanks. What I don't understand is that any LRT Related proposal to the Rockaway Beach Branch that is proposed is, where would the northern terminal be? C) I think this is the 400th post in this thread Or its southern terminal(s) for that matter. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BreeddekalbL Posted January 12, 2018 Share #387 Posted January 12, 2018 1 hour ago, T to Dyre Avenue said: Or its southern terminal(s) for that matter. Cant so lrt cause row links into existing and provisioned subway row and 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LGA Link N Train Posted January 17, 2018 Author Share #388 Posted January 17, 2018 On 1/12/2018 at 1:13 AM, BreeddekalbL said: Cant so lrt cause row links into existing and provisioned subway row and Can you elaborate? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coney Island Av Posted January 17, 2018 Share #389 Posted January 17, 2018 19 minutes ago, LGA Link N train said: Can you elaborate? He means that putting LRT on the RBB would be infeasible because it's end part is the line, and the is provisioned to extend on it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LGA Link N Train Posted January 17, 2018 Author Share #390 Posted January 17, 2018 (edited) 1 minute ago, D to 96 St said: He means that putting LRT on the RBB would be infeasible because it's end part is the line, and the is provisioned to extend on it. Ah that's right, thanks (can't react anymore for the day) At the end of the day, subway extension is the MOST feasible, especially since you bring up the fact that the is on the southern half and the provisions on the Northern Half And the Queensway (despite the "growing support") is more of a dream instead of a reality. It's just a bunch of people complaining about trains if you think about it Edited January 17, 2018 by LGA Link N train 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BreeddekalbL Posted January 17, 2018 Share #391 Posted January 17, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, LGA Link N train said: Can you elaborate? Shoot my mistake, i meant lrt cant be done on the rbb because on south end you have the and on the north side they are provisioned into queens blvd Edited January 17, 2018 by BreeddekalbL 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wallyhorse Posted January 18, 2018 Share #392 Posted January 18, 2018 On 1/16/2018 at 9:50 PM, LGA Link N train said: Ah that's right, thanks (can't react anymore for the day) At the end of the day, subway extension is the MOST feasible, especially since you bring up the fact that the is on the southern half and the provisions on the Northern Half And the Queensway (despite the "growing support") is more of a dream instead of a reality. It's just a bunch of people complaining about trains if you think about it More like (to me anyway) it's people fearful those "not their kind" will suddenly invade the neighborhood and property rates will go down and so forth (something I've elaborated on numerous times). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LGA Link N Train Posted January 18, 2018 Author Share #393 Posted January 18, 2018 7 hours ago, Wallyhorse said: More like (to me anyway) it's people fearful those "not their kind" will suddenly invade the neighborhood and property rates will go down and so forth (something I've elaborated on numerous times). Well they saw what happened with the Second Avenue Subway so all of that is just how they view it and how I view as BS 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobtehpanda Posted January 18, 2018 Share #394 Posted January 18, 2018 5 hours ago, LGA Link N train said: Well they saw what happened with the Second Avenue Subway so all of that is just how they view it and how I view as BS Not really, the main issue is that the Second Avenue Subway is out of sight, out of mind, whereas the subway is literally right in their backyards, aboveground, and noisy. The RBB doesn't really improve transportation. So it really shouldn't be built. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BreeddekalbL Posted January 18, 2018 Share #395 Posted January 18, 2018 1 hour ago, bobtehpanda said: Not really, the main issue is that the Second Avenue Subway is out of sight, out of mind, whereas the subway is literally right in their backyards, aboveground, and noisy. The RBB doesn't really improve transportation. So it really shouldn't be built. Ahh the newest Scarborough subway boondoggle... Plus you can build grinded welded rails which are much quieter 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LGA Link N Train Posted January 18, 2018 Author Share #396 Posted January 18, 2018 1 hour ago, bobtehpanda said: Not really, the main issue is that the Second Avenue Subway is out of sight, out of mind, whereas the subway is literally right in their backyards, aboveground, and noisy. The RBB doesn't really improve transportation. So it really shouldn't be built. At the very least it's being stidied. And you have potential to create a new trunk south of liberty, apparently the noise issue was the same case with the Laguardia Extension which never came to be because of NIMBY's. RBB is different. It'll supplement to Q52/53 SBS and (hopefully) takes cars off the road. And who cares if it's right in front of their back yards. The LIRR is literally a block away from where I live and the noise doesn't bother me at all. Same case with the and the entire line. So yes, that's BS 2 minutes ago, BreeddekalbL said: Ahh the newest Scarborough subway boondoggle... Plus you can build grinded welded rails which are much quieter ? My brain is being a little child after having to take 5 tests today. So what you're saying is that @bobtehpanda's statement is incorrect or something? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BreeddekalbL Posted January 18, 2018 Share #397 Posted January 18, 2018 59 minutes ago, LGA Link N train said: ? My brain is being a little child after having to take 5 tests today. So what you're saying is that @bobtehpanda's statement is incorrect or something? In a way yes, i am saying get it right and build it right, and it there are measurements that can be taken to alleviate noise concerns 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Vandelay Posted January 18, 2018 Share #398 Posted January 18, 2018 1 hour ago, LGA Link N train said: At the very least it's being stidied. And you have potential to create a new trunk south of liberty, apparently the noise issue was the same case with the Laguardia Extension which never came to be because of NIMBY's. RBB is different. It'll supplement to Q52/53 SBS and (hopefully) takes cars off the road. And who cares if it's right in front of their back yards. The LIRR is literally a block away from where I live and the noise doesn't bother me at all. Same case with the and the entire line. So yes, that's BS ? My brain is being a little child after having to take 5 tests today. So what you're saying is that @bobtehpanda's statement is incorrect or something? It is only being studied because a few politically connected people want it to be studied. The difference between an LGA connection and a RBL reactivation is that the LGA connection actually has a potential market, with an airport which does not have an existing rail transit connection, running through dense neighborhoods which do not have adequate transit. RBL has an airport which is already connected to Manhattan- VIA 4 LINES! It would go through neighborhoods which would go through less dense neighborhoods which ALREADY HAVE TRANSIT (and underutilized transit at that). IF the RBL was already built and connected on both ends, the first thing the MTA would do is abandon it. It is truly a useless line. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobtehpanda Posted January 19, 2018 Share #399 Posted January 19, 2018 (edited) 7 hours ago, LGA Link N train said: At the very least it's being stidied. And you have potential to create a new trunk south of liberty, apparently the noise issue was the same case with the Laguardia Extension which never came to be because of NIMBY's. RBB is different. It'll supplement to Q52/53 SBS and (hopefully) takes cars off the road. And who cares if it's right in front of their back yards. The LIRR is literally a block away from where I live and the noise doesn't bother me at all. Same case with the and the entire line. So yes, that's BS ? My brain is being a little child after having to take 5 tests today. So what you're saying is that @bobtehpanda's statement is incorrect or something? 6 hours ago, BreeddekalbL said: In a way yes, i am saying get it right and build it right, and it there are measurements that can be taken to alleviate noise concerns Who is asking for this, besides a bunch of foamy railfans on this forum and an amount of politicians you can count on one hand? There is no transit desert. The trip time from Woodhaven Blvd station to Jamaica Av is twenty minutes on the bus; no one in the corridor is more than a ten minute subway ride from any subway line! Airport travelers already have a way of reaching Manhattan that is faster, namely the AirTrain and the LIRR. It's all wasted money. The neighbors aren't asking for it. The bus riders aren't. Who needs this? Edited January 19, 2018 by bobtehpanda 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BreeddekalbL Posted January 19, 2018 Share #400 Posted January 19, 2018 24 minutes ago, bobtehpanda said: Who is asking for this, besides a bunch of foamy railfans on this forum and an amount of politicians you can count on one hand? There is no transit desert. The trip time from Woodhaven Blvd station to Jamaica Av is twenty minutes on the bus; no one in the corridor is more than a ten minute subway ride from any subway line! Airport travelers already have a way of reaching Manhattan that is faster, namely the AirTrain and the LIRR. It's all wasted money. The neighbors aren't asking for it. The bus riders aren't. Who needs this? The people of the rockaways are asking for it 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.