Subject: New and simpler Rockaway Cut-off operations
Date: Monday, January 02, 2006 1:04 AM
Carl --
I have walked more than 10 miles today, all the while kicking myself in the ass. There is a very simple way of getting a Rockaway express to midtown that we all should have thought of months ago. But hell, I'm 77 -- what's your excuse? Here's how it goes: Coming from 57th Street/Broadway in Manhattan, the Q-express goes through the 63rd Street tunnel and runs along the new "super-express" route next to the LIRR to reach the Forest Hills/Queens Boulevard station, after which it follows the present E-train route to Jamaica Center. And coming from Manhattan, the E-express just follows its present route along Queens Boulevard to Rego Park, and then turns down the new Rockaway Cut-Off route to Howard Beach. So we get a Rockaway Express to midtown and midtown-via-Queens access to the Air Train -- but with no equipment compatibility problems, no Port Authority malingering, and no scheduling problems. I now think that the idea of the Air Train Loop while very clever (hell, I
thought of it) is very seductive but not really necessary. And leaving the Port Authority to run its own little Toonerville Trolley eliminates a lot of problems. So I have rewritten my entire paper, no longer first addressing all the problems of the various proposals but merely laying out the case for this one and leaving the proponents of other solutions to put out their own papers giving reasons why they think theirs is better (which is probably what I should have done in the first place). I think this latest will get us the most support and the least opposition, but unfortunately that still leaves us with the problem of those stupid, shallow, and corrupt politicians and a lack of available capital funds. I'll e-mail you the revised paper tomorrow -- and a map, if I ever figure out how to scan it and find out where the image went.
Til then. Jeff Chase
Jeff,
You have great ideas but they need
to be presented and written better so that the public and the MTA Study
Group doesn't see our previous transit plans as
problems. Every paragraph talks about
problems and even though you try to suggest ways to improve the
plans you would get many readers unnecessarily against our plans by
addressing all aspects of all previous plans as
problems.
Hopefully George Haikalis, Joe Clift and
others will be able to rewrite your suggestions as a separate plan
without the need to address other transit proposals or aspects of transit
proposals as problems. We need to gain support for
all of our transit plans even though some maybe technically flawed.
Carl
