It is Not Over
Vložit
- čas přidán 23. 03. 2024
- Yes, Queenslink is still going. No way with Queensway.
Letter Writing Campaign
thequeenslink.org/get-involve...
Sources/Further Reading
patch.com/new-york/new-york-c...
www.gillibrand.senate.gov/new...
www.transportation.gov/sites/...
www.tpl.org/our-work/atlanta-...
www.atlantamagazine.com/news-...
Have you written a letter to your elected officials yet? If not, take a few minutes and write one here.
thequeenslink.org/get-involved/tell-our-leaders/
New York Trying To Do Something Smart Challenge: Impossible
based
nyc had great leaders thats why its the biggest city but right now brains are braining
I STAND with Queenslink!!!
Send your prayers and petitions to make this a reality!
It's my firm belief that the NIMBYs just dont want the poor having access to their neighborhoods.
I can safely say most people who live along the corridor are floating on the provety line.....plus the J train stop perpendicular to the corridor nobody had objections to that.
To be fair, I think a lot of them see "above ground train" and immediately think of loud early 1900s els. Many people have never seen trains on modern concrete guideways so they don't know how much less intrusive they are.
Bingo
Poor people bring in crime 😂
This is deep in Queens…it’s not the Hamptons. Who exactly are the NIMBYs you are talking about here?
I like both parks and transit, so Queenslink is the one to pick!
Me too
Wow. Another instance of why voting matters. If you don't elect public officials who commit to advancing transit, don't expect them to advance transit.
Even if you vote in those who commit to transit (those are not that common), you still have to contend with them not holding their promise. That's why we advocate and contact our representatives directly. And sometimes, it works.
You are absolutely right. I am a member of QueensLink and urge all your viewers to join. We need to end the transit desert in central Queens.
Mind you it’s the end of March and it’s still 32 degrees out? It’s gonna get used 5 months out of the year. Additionally, it’s incredibly ableist to say “3 miles of cycling and walking is transit for the masses.” As a cyclist, I love seeing more people cycle and gaining new protected bike lanes in the city, but expecting everyone to use it in December to cross an entire borough is insane.
Also good cycling infrastructure can’t happen with good public transport! Cycling is good for solving the last mile problem, but the rest of the miles need to be solved by mass rapid transit.
Since the last video, I found that Queensway is funded by private companies looking to profit by a new park being built.
Somehow they got approval
This is gonna be really really hard
Edit: The TPL is a non profit but they still would benefit from Queensway and want to block transit access so badly. This is legitimately crazy.
Great video, as always. Infuriating that a video like this even needs to be made. This is a no brainer. A ready made, pre-existing ridght of way being turned into a park. What a joke.
You see, i lived in the Rockaways most of my childhood life. I remember when the "subway" came to the sea. I remember riding the inaugural train from Howard Beach. I also remember riding the "subway" after it opened and the ugly, interminable ride to Manhattan that was foisted on the residents of the Rockaways. If the city had merely taken over the rebuilding of the trestle and converting it to the land mass it is now, the original LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch could have been saved as it was with good service to Manhattan from both Rockaway Park and Far Rockaway. It is now 2024, over 60 years since the end of
rockaway branch? use it
I am highly against Queensway. Queenslink please!
I am 100 percent in favor of reactivating the line. A linear park/walkway would destroy a viable transportation corridor. The MTA, state and local government inflates the price of reactivating the rail line ten to twenty times what it would really cost!
It’s not about the train and moving people.. it’s about the money form made form business and kick backs to to local government
Alot of businesses went under when the BMT Jamaica Avenue line was torn down from 168 Street . It was promised the replacement bus lines would improve those districts north of 121 Street which never happened
We need to get BanksRail on this. He's from the City, even if not this part of town.
I would want the Queenslink to happen over the Queensway and if anyone who supports the Queensway project reads this comment think about how long it takes to get from the north side of Queens to the south side by subway it takes a very long time cause you have to take the train to Manhattan first to get from one part of Queens to the other and that is very tiring and exhausting at times but the Queenslink project can fix all that cause it would be a direct link from the north side to the south side.
Queens already has tons of parkland. We need more, not less mass transit options. The borough has also shown more population growth than Manhattan in recent years, so a revived rail link is a win-win situation for all! Say no to another High Line.
Yes, and an important factor that seems to be overlooked when finding similarities with the High Line is the High Line was viable as a park because of its location.
Despite being on the Far West Side, the High Line is bookended by the Meatpacking District to the south and Hudson Yards to the north, and traverses a densely populated, gentrified Chelsea, and is therefore a tourist attraction in and of itself that connects pedestrian traffic to even more tourist attractions.
The High Line is also technically in Midtown, the tourist hub of NYC, and is more easily accessible from existing transit lines (the 7 train stop notwithstanding, a wooden footbridge was recently built to link it with Monyhan Station).
By contrast, the Queensway would be very isolated and very inconvenient to reach from Manhattan, so would draw fewer visitors and would ostensibly be of benefit only to those living immediately near it.
In an era where new subway lines cost billions, utilizing an already existing right of way is simply common sense. This is a once in a blue moon opportunity. If this park is built, a subway extension along this route would have to be deep bored, making it twice as expensive.
Another reason for Queenslink: a one seat ride from Manhattan to JFK Airport.
@@the-renegade The A takes a meandering route through Brooklyn, is infrequent, and is inaccessible to Queens. Queenslink solves these issues.
Or you would have to take a slow J train Cuase of those darn curves or a overcrowded E Train@@techtransitassociation
Don’t just connect Queenslink to the current Rockaway Line. Several redesigns can be made to de-interline:
-East of Euclid, due to the provision to extend the line further eastward, replace the elevated section from Grant Ave to Lefferts Blvd with a 4-track underground line. Rockaway Blvd can be an express station and the others local. The Lefferts branch can continue as the local tracks in the same manner as Chambers St to South Ferry or 59th St to Bay Ridge-95th St.
-The express tracks can continue as the Rockaway Line’s express tracks which have been left inactive for years and Queenslink can continue as the current local tracks.
-Due to its connection to JFK Airport, Howard Beach-JFK Airport can be converted to an express station.
-South of there, replace the bridges to make room for a 4-track line and rebuild Broad Channel as a local station due to extremely low ridership.
-Add an elevated infill express station called Hammels just where the Rockaway Line splits. It can have stacked island platforms with the express tracks on one side and the local tracks on the other. That way, the Far Rockaway branch can continue as the express tracks and the Rockaway Park branch as the local tracks.
So if this is done, the service patterns would be as follows and they would all be de-interlined:
-A to Far Rockaway
-C to Lefferts
-Whatever service to run via Queenslink to Rockaway Park
Thanks for providing the link. We have Forest Park and thats big of a park for everyone. We need more transit options in Queens.
I think it should be turned into a park but the subway should be built underground. I know it would be expensive but it’s the best of both worlds
your idea is dum there are better projects if they need to build the right of way
Well if Queenlink did advanced first. It would not work either ways as we still have the NIMBY problem
If you talk to Forest Hill residents (or any NYers), they want a train, they want Queenslink. It is the minority trying to speak for the majority.
Its honestly just depressing how desperate the temu high line is to block transit that they actually gotten some real intelligence which is just bonkers #NoWayWithQueensWay@@techtransitassociation
Wheeewww over 4K letters signed IKR
They will be building the most expensive gang hangout in the world if they go with the park.
I see great minds think alike. My plan was to have the F and V go via the abandoned tracks, with the F going to Far Rockaway and V going to Rockaway Park, while still keeping the link to the IND Fulton St Line. I infact walked along the abandoned line 1 month ago to see the remains, very cool experience
Why keep the link to the Fulton Street Line?
@@cats0182 Between 6 am to 12 am C line terminates at Howard Beach instead of Euclid Av, also alternatives in case of an obstruction
I was in Rockaway last month staying close to Rockaway Park-116 Street. I was taking the subway almost every day to Brooklyn and Manhattan, which from Rockaway Park-116 Street required taking the shuttle to Broad Channel and transferring to the A Train and enduring another 5-15 minute wait.
While I enjoyed the ride across Jamaica Bay, it was while waiting at between trains at Broad Channel that I truly appreciated the potential benefit of Queenslink routing the M Train to Rockaway Park-116 Street and eliminating the Rockaway Shuttle. I don't understand how anyone in support of better, more convenient transit in NYC could oppose Queenslink for that reason alone.
The solution might be this overlap Queensway with Queenslink between Forest Park and Far Rockaway then from points north of forest park all the way to 63rd Drive Rego Park Queenslink. Otherwise go Queenslink basically the New York City version of Philadelphia PRR R6 Norristown to Cynwyd
You’re my new favorite channel
Hate how they’re framing queensway as this perfect thing
We hopefully get a green light for Queenslink
I will do bought…. We need more open spaces and mini forest to lessen the polution and effects of climate change and to introduce humans to nature it helos to remove stress and give life. And can be a home for animals nearby. And the other side transporation and revetalization of rail network. Lets do bought their good and win win projects
Tech Transiiit 😃
We must vote in a mayor next year who will fight for Queenslink and reduce the Democrat majority in the City Council. Then, Kathy Hochul has to be voted out in 2026.
Since Queenslink lacks political support, we have to elect new politicians.
I don't think Republicans are any better on the issue of public transit than Democrats. Especially with Hochul and Zeldin, the distinction was clear as day. Hochul at least is continually throwing her weight behind the IBX, trying to get it built, while Zeldin makes some vague statement on opposing public transit funding. In NYC, especially in the Democratic primary, it is to pick the correct politician that supports public transit, like Kathryn Garcia in the 2021 Mayoral Race.
@techtransitassociation If I remember correctly, Zeldin opposed congestion pricing, which is an additional tax, not an adequate funding source for public transit. How are we supposed to raise money to fix the subway if fewer people end up driving into the CBD?
The bottom line is that no political party is better than the other on this issue. Kathy Hochul = bad ideas.
Lee Zeldin = no ideas.
The democrat establishment would have never allowed Kathryn Garcia to become mayor of NYC. So if they're unwilling to support Queenslink and those who live in the vicinity of the abandoned railroad are unwilling to give Republicans a shot, it'll never have a shot at being built.
@@CLBT7437
"How are we supposed to raise money to fix the subway if fewer people end up driving into the CBD?"
It is part of it and totals to $1 billion per year. That is something.
"The bottom line is that no political party is better than the other on this issue."
Actually, the Republicans are far worse on the issue on public transit than Democrats are.
For example, Rudy Guilani and George Pataki systemically cut the MTA billions of dollars during the 1990s after Democrats like Mario Cuomo increased funding for the MTA to get it out of its deplorable state.
In Wisconsin, the Republican Governor, Scott Walker, defunded transit on multiple occasions, while spending billions on a single highway. He repeatedly called public transit a "boondoggle." The Democratic Governor Tony Evers, reversed course and opted to fund public transit, like in 2021, where Evers granted $25 million to improve Madison transit services.
In Arizona, Republican billionaires like Charles and David Koch tried to stop light rail expansion by proposing Prop 105. Thankfully that failed due to multiple Democratic officials trying to defeat it.
During President Trump's administration, it took twice as many days to receive federal funding for a transit project than President Obama's administration.
During President Reagan's administration, the US rolled back key aspects of the Mass Transit Act of 1964, passed by LBJ, which reduced funding to block grants.
As you can see here, Republicans are WAY worse than Democrats on the issue of public transit. All Republicans know how to do is to cut spending for public transit. I know this is way different from other countries, where conservatives actually know that public transit is good for the economy, again, it shows the outlier of the US.
@techtransitassociation
When we concentrate on NYS specifically, neither party is better than the other on this issue. While Guiliani and Pataki cut MTA funding, so did Andrew Cuomo. He didn't attempt to take the MTA seriously until 2017's summer of hell. Then, there was the Andy Byford debacle when he was at the helm. I was NOT referring to former presidents or other states.
@@CLBT7437 You have a point, though if you look at who is sponsoring the bill to include Queenslink EIS funding, it are Dems.
Democrats are the ones in the Assembly and State Senate advancing this. Also, Hochul is backing the IBX. I highly doubt Zeldin will do the same, given his hostility to public transit. For example, he opposed the Payroll Mobility Tax, which would have avoided the 2010 MTA service cuts.
This is not to excuse the Democrats, obviously. I think the Democrats are corrupt and way too milquetoast on many issues. But Hochul is still miles ahead of Zeldin, no doubt about it.
My TTT trams also run on pathways too so they’d also run on Queensway too so if unfortunately this happens I’ve a solution
Queenslink is a better choice, not queensway park. Stop making vague and cheap ideas! 😠
Can they fit a track and a bike path into the space available?
Yup! The ROW had 4 tracks, and is even wider than that in many places, so there's plenty of room for 2 tracks and a bike path
@@khybersen4822
Great! I hope they do that.
why cant it just be a Shuttle subway from Rego Park to the Rockaway's? you'd have space for a rail and bike path if needed. get best of both worlds, including the transfer points for the subway
After studying the path of the abandoned line, it seems there are no stations near it on the subway lines that it crosses.
Maybe it's a similar issue as the Paris "Petite Ceinture" and circular T3a & T3b tram saga.
A kind of seemingly good idea that actually was a bad one.
Let me explain : Paris' Petite Ceinture ("small belt" in French) was a ring rail line circling Paris' core that was active in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Then it stayed mostly abandoned and full of vegetation for decades.
When the idea of a new circular tram line was floated, many were supporting the repurpose of the Petite Ceinture, from self proclaimed fiscally responsible to transit enthusiasts, with arguments claiming common sense etc.
Except that the city, professional transit experts and urbanists were strongly against reusing the Petite Ceinture and very supportive of laying new tram tracks on the parallel circular boulevards.
This, for a few reasons : the vegetation on the abandoned rail line was wild and natural, being a strong biodiversity pocket and reducing heat island effect during summer.
The layout of the line would have limited the number of stations and connections, the stations would have been difficult and expensive to properly link to other lines for efficient connections and the expected ridership was far lower than a boulevard running tram.
The other main reason was that reusing the abandoned line prevented the massive urban renewal and traffic calming modifications that would come with the new tram lines built on the boulevards.
The Petite Ceinture was mostly left "wild" and the tram lines were built on the boulevards with green track (grassy tracks), creating an important reduction in car space, noise, heat and much better connections to other lines (metro, RER, tram) than would have been possible with reusing the Petite Ceinture.
What seemed "evident" to many, was actually anything but evident for the professionals which saw many other aspects and dimensions that made the idea of reusing the Petite Ceinture much less appealing and frankly obsolete.
Not to mention the thousands of people living above the Petite Ceinture after choosing the location with the guarantee that the line would remain calm vegetation.
Sure, even with full stoplight priority, the circular trams are still pretty slow despite having their exclusive tracks. (That could be substantially improved with proper intersection clearing).
But it greatly reduced car space and saved an important and much needed green space.
Now the ring tram lines carry well over 600k passengers daily, thanks to their good connectivity.
eusing the Petite Ceinture wouldn't have permitted to carry anywhere close to half a million daily due to the poor connections.
I see a real similarity here, just like with the Highline that was inspired by La Coulée Verte in Paris, another abandoned rail line turned linear park in 1993.
Or like the "Coulée Verte du Sud Parisien", which is yet another linear park, this time over covered rail tracks forming the beginning of a high-speed line in Paris' suburbs.
A proper euro-style tram with refined green right-of-way running on Woodhaven boulevard with great (and short) connections at Rockaway Blvd station and both Woodhaven Blvd stations would be extremely similar to the circular trams in Paris running somewhat parallel to the Petite Ceinture left as an oasis.
It would serve the purpose needed here while preserving the linear park and vegetation.
This can be a great opportunity to reform and revive an asphalt river like Woodhaven boulevard into a green path.
Plus, isn't there a kind of ghost LIRR station at the corner or Woodhaven boulevard and Atlantic avenue? (Built or partially built but never used or something like that?).
I'm usually warry of the so-called "evident" things. Because it sometimes is so on-the-nose that it blinds us from seeing the big picture and what we miss.
Interesting video as always.
Greetings from Paris!
I forgot to mention that the circular boulevards also had a set of bus lines running on them, the conveniently named PC1, PC2, 3 and 4...
They were made to replace the former Petite Ceinture trains, but they were packed to the brim, super slow and absolutely not up to the task.
The tram massively increased ridership beyond all expectations, improved speed (though a bit less than expected but there are a number of things to improve it that have yet to be implemented), and greatly improved comfort.
From what I understood, there are the Q52 and Q53 bus lines on Woodhaven Blvd, which sound like perfect candidates to be replaced by trams, just like the PC1 to PC4 were replaced by the T3a & T3b trams.
Passengers were kept in the corridor they knew and used, but in a different, more efficient transportation mode and better environment.
This revived shops, and overall urban life by improving walkability and safety along the path of the boulevards.
It's so similar that I'm really wondering if there is a real project (maybe not yet publicly announced) to build trams on this corridor in conjunction to preserving the abandoned line as a linear park, biodiversity reserve and heat island prevention.
Maybe there is such a project, and they are just pushing for the Queensway park to make the former line's right-of-way unusable for transit in order to prevent the local car brained NIMBY's from using the abandoned line's right-of-way as their totem argument against the traffic calming, car space reduction and improved walkability associated with green track trams on Woodhaven boulevard.
This would be a bit tortuous but a very cunning and pretty efficient political strategy of disarming in advance the car brained NIMBY's.
Don't you think?
The abandoned LIRR station is directly beneath the RBB ROW, so that would be an excellent transfer. There's no station at Woodhaven Blvd.
Also, even without excellent transfers to the A and JZ (though still transfers), QueensLink helps strengthen the existing network. It frees up terminal capacity at Forest Hills so that the G can return to QBL and the QBL local will see 50% more trains. And it reduces the travel time from the Rockaways to Midtown significantly. And it significantly increases frequency in the Rockaways by providing it another line vs. the 1/2 line and shuttle it currently gets. That means Lefferts can also get increased service, too. And finally, a subway train would have much higher speeds and capacity than a mixed ROW tram.
COME ON, NEW YORKERS! Support Queenslink! Don't end up stuck riding in buses like the local and select bus service😒.
Buses aren't train replacement.😠
Stop using vague and shallow ideas! You Build a Second Avenue Subway, but can't build a Queenslink. All you want to build a boring queensway park. This is nonsense.
Queenslink is getting close to being built. Hopefully we get a mayor who supports queenslink
Edit: (oops never mind I saw the first 2 minutes of the video)
I dont see the issue as to why people cant share this area of a greenway with a transit link. It will literally satisfy both sides of the coin rather if we just satisfy people with a greenway.
It's just the MTA doesn't see it as useful.
Why does queenslink need to happen to have a line going from Rego park to far Rockaway?
Because it parallels the slow Q52 and Q53 on Woodhaven Blvd that sees 30,000 riders daily.
@@techtransitassociationWhat if this were a ploy to not build a heavy rail project, but a busway like those already existing in Pittsburgh? A "split the baby" solution, especially if it involves use of "clean bus" technology?
Not enough capacity. Better to give a faster alternative than another greenway.
@@aqua2poweros699So, it's not a GOOD idea, necessarily, but it's a half-a-loaf to the transit advocates
@@guyfaux3978There is already the High Line, the city does not need another one that is vastly inferior. Plus, this is a vital corridor to serve, and buses are not enough, given the capacity.
Queenslink cost 6 to 8 billion and 5 times longer to complete though.
Queenslink does not cost $6 to 8 billion, it was inflated. The real cost is somewhere between $3.4 to $3.7 billion.
And also, it doesn't matter how long it will take when Queensway will make it near impossible to build a train line if pursued, and a rail line would see upwards of 47,000 riders daily, which is more than the IBX on a per mile basis.
There is significant evidence that found that the MTA inflated the cost of line in their study of reactivating the line. An independent study using FTA guidelines recalculated the results to be around $3.4 billion, not even close to $8 billion. How is using cut and cover worth $8 billion? Also, the payoff for a transit line is worth the length of time. Is it worth closing off transit to the commuters who have to rely on 8-10 minute frequencies on the J and A trains or have to use the Q52/53, a bus line that has a higher ridership than the Dyre Avenue Line?
@@darkgalaxyi_o_l_o_i7831if they improve the service on the existing train and bus lines, is it still worth paying billions to repurpose a handful of rail stations?
Can the goverment even afford any of these options?
A view from an outsider.
It does sound like a good idea to use this right of way and use to it to improve connectivity to this area but dismissing the other claims as NIMBYism seems wrong as the other claim has a point. Rail is far better than highways but, just like the highways, it does divide neighbourhoods and activating a line that is in large parts at grade is not a great idea.
What's happening here is that both sides are right but fighting each other for crumbs instead of joining together and demanding the obvious - underground line + park that will connect the neighborhood on top. It will be more expensive but that's why all must demand it as this seems to be the best solution and you have a golden opportunity for much lower costs as you have an unused right of way that allows using cut and cover. This is the way many places around the world are doing it and I keep hearing that the US is the richest country on the planet but you can't finance a cut and cover underground rail line?
The ROW is not at grade. It's fully grade separated on an embankment already. Also, QueensLink tried to work with QueensWay to create a plan together that would include both, but QueensWay refused. I agree a cut and cover line with a park built on the roof is an excellent idea that's not too much more expensive since it's fully cut and cover, and it is one of the ideas QueensLink has considered, and does plan for the tunnel portal where it heads to join QBL.
@@khybersen4822It is at grade (at least for most of the rout) which means it's at street level so the separation results in blocking free passing, apart from designated crossings and the rest of the streets are basically dead ends. It's OK if it only blocks cars from crossing but it's bad when it comes to pedestrians and bicycles.
An underground tracks with a park above it will allow pedestrians and bicycles crossing at all points without the the need to look for a specific crossing point or go up/down in order to cross it in designated ones.
Yes, it is more expensive but because it has very few crossing that are grade separated cut and cover for most of the route is possible and much chipper than tunnel boring, and, more importantly, station costs.
If NYC can spend $4.5B on a 1.8 mi 3 stations section an $6B for the 1.5 mi phase 2 they can and should invest in this line and for that all of you should fight for it together.
If you accept the premise that money is the issue you'll loose as the rail line estimates reaches up to $8B (MTA estimation, the QueensLink group sets it at around $3.5B) while just the park is estimated at $150M.
@@AL5520 The existing RBB is fully grade separated. Where are these grade crossings you're seeing? There's rail bridges over all of those streets.
@@AL5520The MTA already admitted their $8.1 billion cost estimate was overblown, as it's been reduced to only $5.9 billion. It's still way above the independent cost estimate of course, but it goes to show the MTA is terrible at cost estimates. They also screwed up ridership estimates (only accounting for riders at new stations and ignoring service increases in the Rockaways and QBL).
Also, the park is not just $152 million. That's just the funds for Met Hub ($35 million) and for the Forest Park section ($117 million). The majority of the ROW is still not funded for the park, and it's not clear either if the existing funds are enough to build those sections, as it's just how much was funded, not how much it'll cost.
@@khybersen4822 You keep repeating the same things instead of thinking on ways to make it work, even if it won't be exactly as you want it to be.
Again, I'm not from the US. We do things like that all the time and for far lower costs, but there are still debates and compromises that both must accept, especially when it seams that you do not have the upper hand.
The fist step is recognize that the other side might have a valid point and not label them immediately as NYMBYs |(even if there are some among this group) .
The next one is to find a solution that will satisfy both sides (or at least most people on both sides) so you can fight together for this solution. The best option is moving the line underground, something that should be the default IMO, but if it's not viable it is possible to try other things , like some underground sections, building a tram, which is less disruptive and does not divide areas (and trams I know trams line that carry 100,000-200,000+ people each day - at grade). You can do what you want but in the end sticking to one plan whit no will to change or compromise and while villainizing the other side is, IMO, not a great way to get something done.
I like to see the queens way because it will provide more parks and areas to take pictures and having a good bbq with your friends and family 🥰
Queenslink has both parks and trains. Queenway has ONLY Parks.
@@darkgalaxyi_o_l_o_i7831 thanks
Not really.
@meek_kballa Where? In between homeless encampments, drug addicts shooting up, and gangs? The city/state need to deal with those problems before they start worrying about public spaces they refuse to hire actually competent police to patrol (and actually put problems in jail or mental institutions where they belong).
QueensLink does this too *and* reactivates a train as well! Maybe you can take the train to the park and have photos and BBQ instead of driving.
#MoreRailTransitNoTrailPark 🚆🚆🚇😤😤