|
|
| Re: SAS Phase 2 (1199193) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 5 of 7 |
||
|
| (1201600) | |
Re: SAS Phase 2 |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Thu Jan 31 18:22:52 2013, in response to Re: SAS Phase 2, posted by randyo on Thu Jan 31 14:24:10 2013. 1 never was true.Although it is probably safe to say that such will not happen in Manhattan, and certainly safe to say it won't happen for SAS. 2 depends on whether the Mets win before the 2020s... |
|
|
| (1201622) | |
Re: South Ferry (1) Train Station Fix Could Take Up To 3 YEARS!!! |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Thu Jan 31 19:49:02 2013, in response to Re: South Ferry (1) Train Station Fix Could Take Up To 3 YEARS!!!, posted by randyo on Thu Jan 31 14:59:55 2013. Dunno ... I suppose back when they bought the R-11's, the idea was that they could do three there. |
|
|
| (1201636) | |
Re: South Ferry-MTA urged to consider re-opening 'old' South Ferry subway station |
|
|
Posted by SUBWAYMAN on Thu Jan 31 21:28:29 2013, in response to Re: South Ferry-MTA urged to consider re-opening 'old' South Ferry subway station, posted by zuckie13 on Thu Jan 31 12:36:44 2013. +1 |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (1201640) | |
Re: South Ferry-MTA urged to consider re-opening 'old' South Ferry subway station |
|
|
Posted by Elkeeper on Thu Jan 31 21:46:06 2013, in response to Re: South Ferry-MTA urged to consider re-opening 'old' South Ferry subway station, posted by zuckie13 on Thu Jan 31 12:36:44 2013. He's right! The new South Ferry station is at a good location. The MTA decided to save money and build it without the proper waterproofing. They don't give a damn because it's not their money- it's ours! Don't worry, guys, they will piss away more of our money on rehabbing the damage ans will award the contracts to their mib connected cronies, as usual. Such is life in the Big City! |
|
|
| (1201645) | |
Re: SAS Phase 2 |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Thu Jan 31 21:59:49 2013, in response to Re: SAS Phase 2, posted by Edwards! on Thu Jan 31 16:59:01 2013. Exactly!To me, the lesson learned from Sandy is that everything needs to be re-elvaluated. |
|
|
| (1201647) | |
Re: South Ferry-MTA urged to consider re-opening 'old' South Ferry subway station |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Thu Jan 31 22:04:57 2013, in response to Re: South Ferry-MTA urged to consider re-opening 'old' South Ferry subway station, posted by zuckie13 on Thu Jan 31 12:36:44 2013. Zuckie:Don't get me wrong, the construction of the new (1) station WAS needed and had to be done, however, my point was I would have simultaneously set it up so when that station was ready, the old loop station could have been transferred to use by mainly the (6) plus the (5) evenings and weekends and a revived shuttle for the times the (6) because of capacity can't go to old SF while the (4) and (5) are both running to Brooklyn. Had they done THAT, they likely could have fixed the old station enough so it would already be back in use by both the (1) and the Lexington lines and the MTA would not be under pressure to re-open the station now. |
|
|
| (1201650) | |
Re: South Ferry-MTA urged to consider re-opening 'old' South Ferry subway station |
|
|
Posted by murray1575 on Thu Jan 31 22:26:29 2013, in response to Re: South Ferry-MTA urged to consider re-opening 'old' South Ferry subway station, posted by zuckie13 on Thu Jan 31 12:36:44 2013. I would agree that the old station was dangerous since there was only one stairway leading from the entrance to the platform in addition to the severe curvature which also required the use of high maintenance gap fillers. It's unfortunate that the presence of the other lines passing above it required the new station to be built to the depth that it was but the other lines were built at the beginning of the previous century so we can't blame the MTA for that. What the MTA is responsible for is the poor execution of the concept which allowed water to enter the station before it was even opened and of course the other problems such as escalators which didn't work much of the time even before Sandy hit. |
|
|
| (1201664) | |
Re: South Ferry Inner Loop station |
|
|
Posted by Wayne-MrSlantR40 on Thu Jan 31 23:46:47 2013, in response to Re: South Ferry Inner Loop station, posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Fri Jan 25 23:34:31 2013. Especially at BANK on the Central line.=w= |
|
|
| (1201666) | |
Re: SAS Phase 2 |
|
|
Posted by snarf368 on Fri Feb 1 00:01:57 2013, in response to Re: SAS Phase 2, posted by WillD on Thu Jan 31 16:32:04 2013. Although elevated, i dont think airtrain over the Van Wyck can be in the same classification as subway/rapid transit. Probably closer to light rail. |
|
|
| (1201675) | |
Re: SAS Phase 2 |
|
|
Posted by Grand concourse on Fri Feb 1 01:10:16 2013, in response to Re: SAS Phase 2, posted by snarf368 on Fri Feb 1 00:01:57 2013. Yup. |
|
|
| (1201676) | |
Re: SAS Phase 2 |
|
|
Posted by Grand concourse on Fri Feb 1 01:12:01 2013, in response to Re: SAS Phase 2, posted by Gene B. on Thu Jan 31 12:11:15 2013. If they sold the team and moved the tb rays to Chicago :) the rays are a very good team in a tough al east. If they were transplanted to the no central, I think they can easily lock up that division. |
|
|
| (1201677) | |
Re: SAS Phase 2 |
|
|
Posted by Grand concourse on Fri Feb 1 01:12:22 2013, in response to Re: SAS Phase 2, posted by Grand concourse on Fri Feb 1 01:12:01 2013. NL* |
|
|
| (1201681) | |
Re: SAS Phase 2 |
|
|
Posted by CSWKings8847 on Fri Feb 1 02:07:57 2013, in response to Re: SAS Phase 2, posted by Wallyhorse on Thu Jan 31 21:59:49 2013. Yeah, but this is not Chicago.... |
|
|
| (1201682) | |
Re: South Ferry (1) Train Station Fix Could Take Up To 3 YEARS!!! |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Fri Feb 1 02:45:35 2013, in response to Re: South Ferry (1) Train Station Fix Could Take Up To 3 YEARS!!!, posted by SelkirkTMO on Thu Jan 31 19:49:02 2013. When the R-11s were purchased, there was no 63 St subway planned. The subway to Queens was to be farther uptown around the East 70s and would probably have been more directly connected to the 6 Av Line N/O 57/6 with no BMT connection at all. |
|
|
| (1201683) | |
Re: South Ferry (1) Train Station Fix Could Take Up To 3 YEARS!!! |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Fri Feb 1 03:14:49 2013, in response to Re: South Ferry (1) Train Station Fix Could Take Up To 3 YEARS!!!, posted by randyo on Fri Feb 1 02:45:35 2013. I remember hearing WAY back when that they were supposedly ordered as prototypes for the "2nd avenue subway" so went with that ... unless I remember wrong, which happens more frequently with age. :) |
|
|
| (1201694) | |
Re: SAS Phase 2 |
|
|
Posted by RIPTA42HopeTunnel on Fri Feb 1 08:20:19 2013, in response to Re: SAS Phase 2, posted by snarf368 on Fri Feb 1 00:01:57 2013. Although elevated, i dont think airtrain over the Van Wyck can be in the same classification as subway/rapid transit. Probably closer to light rail.The AirTrain cars are 60' x 10', just like B-division stock. |
|
|
| (1201716) | |
Re: SAS Phase 2 |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Fri Feb 1 12:01:28 2013, in response to Re: SAS Phase 2, posted by snarf368 on Fri Feb 1 00:01:57 2013. not so much..Air Train cars are the exact same size of the B division 60 ft rail cars..I figure the line was built that way so subway trains could operate over the line one day...but dont quote me..i might be wrong. |
|
|
| (1201728) | |
Re: South Ferry (1) Train Station Fix Could Take Up To 3 YEARS!!! |
|
|
Posted by 3-9 on Fri Feb 1 13:42:28 2013, in response to Re: South Ferry (1) Train Station Fix Could Take Up To 3 YEARS!!!, posted by SelkirkTMO on Fri Feb 1 03:14:49 2013. No, you remember right, that's one of the official reasons for the R-11's existance. |
|
|
| (1201735) | |
Re: South Ferry (1) Train Station Fix Could Take Up To 3 YEARS!!! |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Fri Feb 1 13:59:34 2013, in response to Re: South Ferry (1) Train Station Fix Could Take Up To 3 YEARS!!!, posted by 3-9 on Fri Feb 1 13:42:28 2013. If I remember seeing a Budd Company ad for the R-11, it mentioned that the R0-11 was the prototype for a possible order of 400 cars for the SAS. Although the subway was not built at that time, it would have been nice if those 400 cars had been ordered. It would likely have changed the future of NYCTS car purchases from that time forward and the R-15s and all subsequent car orders would probably have been stainless steel. Imagine if you will a fleet of stainless steel R-36s on the Flushing Line or stainless steel R-27/30s on the C Line. |
|
|
| (1201740) | |
Re: South Ferry-MTA urged to consider re-opening 'old' South Ferry subway station |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Fri Feb 1 14:13:09 2013, in response to Re: South Ferry-MTA urged to consider re-opening 'old' South Ferry subway station, posted by Michael549 on Thu Jan 31 11:24:07 2013. The problem with that defense is that the courts might very well rule that if the station were as "dangerous" as the MTA claims then it should have been removed from service sooner than it was. Also since there are gap fillers at 14 on the Lex, the courts might decide that if the MTA thinks that such a station is "dangerous, " the the possibly similar station at 14 St should also be closed. The sword could swing 2 ways on this one. |
|
|
| (1201746) | |
Re: South Ferry-MTA urged to consider re-opening 'old' South Ferry subway station |
|
|
Posted by Grand concourse on Fri Feb 1 14:42:52 2013, in response to Re: South Ferry-MTA urged to consider re-opening 'old' South Ferry subway station, posted by randyo on Fri Feb 1 14:13:09 2013. +1. And not that I think the loop needs to be reopened, but I think it's over exaggeration by some to say its 'dangerous' when it operated for several decades. |
|
|
| (1201752) | |
Re: South Ferry (1) Train Station Fix Could Take Up To 3 YEARS!!! |
|
|
Posted by 3-9 on Fri Feb 1 15:02:49 2013, in response to Re: South Ferry (1) Train Station Fix Could Take Up To 3 YEARS!!!, posted by randyo on Fri Feb 1 13:59:34 2013. I'm sure they've would have been at least as beloved as the R-32's (especially if they were as successful) or the Almond Joys of SEPTA, but it wouldn't have been as colorful, I think. There would've been much less incentive to do full body paint designs like the '64 World's Fair or redbirds. Also, I think the evolution of the window designs would have been quite different too, since Budd cars seem to tend toward rounded windows (an engineering decision? I recall that rounded corners don't create stress points in the body, which is why passenger windows in aircraft are rounded.). Drop sash windows might've ended with the R-10's or R-12's. |
|
|
| (1201754) | |
Re: South Ferry-MTA urged to consider re-opening 'old' South Ferry subway station |
|
|
Posted by 3-9 on Fri Feb 1 15:06:37 2013, in response to Re: South Ferry-MTA urged to consider re-opening 'old' South Ferry subway station, posted by Grand concourse on Fri Feb 1 14:42:52 2013. +1. Really, how dangerous was the old station if was used that long for that often? The biggest problem was that it was too short. |
|
|
| (1201757) | |
Re: South Ferry-MTA urged to consider re-opening 'old' South Ferry subway station |
|
|
Posted by Grand concourse on Fri Feb 1 15:23:50 2013, in response to Re: South Ferry-MTA urged to consider re-opening 'old' South Ferry subway station, posted by 3-9 on Fri Feb 1 15:06:37 2013. Yeah and even the new station, the last five cars requires a long walk towards the front anyway. So other than eliminating the need to move to the first 5 cars in the old days, you aren't really gaining anything much other than the elevators for Ada access. |
|
|
| (1201766) | |
Re: South Ferry (1) Train Station Fix Could Take Up To 3 YEARS!!! |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Fri Feb 1 16:42:33 2013, in response to Re: South Ferry (1) Train Station Fix Could Take Up To 3 YEARS!!!, posted by randyo on Fri Feb 1 02:45:35 2013. The "B" Divsion car that followed the R-11 was the R-16. So had all went to plan, and they constructed the SAS in the 1950's, there might have been hundreds more R16's (God help us). |
|
|
| (1201771) | |
Re: South Ferry (1) Train Station Fix Could Take Up To 3 YEARS!!! |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Fri Feb 1 17:33:08 2013, in response to Re: South Ferry (1) Train Station Fix Could Take Up To 3 YEARS!!!, posted by Joe V on Fri Feb 1 16:42:33 2013. geez..can you imagine?hundreds of R16 types running around? bad enough we had to deal with em for years in the east. |
|
|
| (1201773) | |
Re: South Ferry (1) Train Station Fix Could Take Up To 3 YEARS!!! |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Fri Feb 1 17:35:20 2013, in response to Re: South Ferry (1) Train Station Fix Could Take Up To 3 YEARS!!!, posted by randyo on Fri Feb 1 13:59:34 2013. they should have still made the purchase.. |
|
|
| (1201774) | |
Re: South Ferry (1) Train Station Fix Could Take Up To 3 YEARS!!! |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Fri Feb 1 17:37:41 2013, in response to Re: South Ferry (1) Train Station Fix Could Take Up To 3 YEARS!!!, posted by SelkirkTMO on Mon Jan 21 18:04:32 2013. im for it...since thats were the SAS as suppose to go in the first place. |
|
|
| (1201784) | |
Re: South Ferry (1) Train Station Fix Could Take Up To 3 YEARS!!! |
|
|
Posted by J Trainloco on Fri Feb 1 18:39:56 2013, in response to Re: South Ferry (1) Train Station Fix Could Take Up To 3 YEARS!!!, posted by Elkeeper on Tue Jan 22 19:33:35 2013. I don't blindly defend the MTA, I experience the ineptitude that plagues much of the agency firsthand. But I know what's actually going on in many instances, now that I work there. When it comes to south ferry, I didn't do any work on the structural box contact, but I did review some as-built drawings for the systems contact, I worked for the people who actually did administer the contract, and I worked with a man who was a union carpenter on Schiavone's contract. I have a good understanding of what happened at SF, and I've posted about it multiple times, but people who never worked in design or construction, much less on a transit project, or one for MTA, swear that they know what happened.BTW, EED would not review waterproofing design. That's not what they do. Typically, they work on asbestos and lead abatement jobs. No new waterproofing installations include this type of material. |
|
|
| (1201788) | |
Re: South Ferry-MTA urged to consider re-opening 'old' South Ferry subway station |
|
|
Posted by michael549 on Fri Feb 1 18:59:20 2013, in response to Re: South Ferry-MTA urged to consider re-opening 'old' South Ferry subway station, posted by 3-9 on Fri Feb 1 15:06:37 2013. Please note that it was the MTA in planning documents and proposals that said among other things said that the old South Ferry loop station was dangerous, maybe as one justification for spending the money.My basic point is that the MTA is very much unlikely to reopen a station it closed and replaced. Even from just a public relations point of view the MTA is not gonna in any sense admit that they were wrong, and re-open the older station. Plus there is the issue of "standing" to sue, can any of the riders say that the MTA is at "fault", that the riders are being denied something that was "theirs". The MTA is currently providing 2 open usable stations, and the use of another station a few minutes walk away from South Ferry. I am wondering about the concept of restitution, and I am not sure it really applies here. Years ago in the Bronx, the Intervale Avenue station suffered a fire, and the MTA wanted to close and remove the station from service, saying that the stationwas too costly to repair. However the estimates the MTA used were faulty, and the local community and politicians rallied to have the station repaired well under the costs of the estimates. Here the MTA is saying that it WANTS to repair the station, but that it simply waiting for the federal money to do so. Reasonable answers have been given, so what is there for a court to act on, and just who can bring that action to a court? Mike |
|
|
| (1201791) | |
Re: South Ferry (1) Train Station Fix Could Take Up To 3 YEARS!!! |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Fri Feb 1 19:09:40 2013, in response to Re: South Ferry (1) Train Station Fix Could Take Up To 3 YEARS!!!, posted by Edwards! on Fri Feb 1 17:35:20 2013. The problem is that the media at the time went apesheet over the "million dollar train" at a time when a million dollars really was something. |
|
|
| (1201798) | |
Re: South Ferry (1) Train Station Fix Could Take Up To 3 YEARS!!! |
|
|
Posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Fri Feb 1 20:30:07 2013, in response to Re: South Ferry (1) Train Station Fix Could Take Up To 3 YEARS!!!, posted by randyo on Fri Feb 1 13:59:34 2013. It sure would have been nice to have an IRT-sized version of the stainless steel R32s running on the elevated tracks in the Bronx and Corona/Jackson Heights/Woodside. |
|
|
| (1201812) | |
Re: South Ferry (1) Train Station Fix Could Take Up To 3 YEARS!!! |
|
|
Posted by Larry,RedbirdR33 on Fri Feb 1 21:47:57 2013, in response to Re: South Ferry (1) Train Station Fix Could Take Up To 3 YEARS!!!, posted by Joe V on Fri Feb 1 16:42:33 2013. One is left to wonder what the problem was with the R-16's. They were built by an old established car builder, American Car and Foundry which has always built good cars and their last product before the R-16's were the R-10's which gave reliable service for many years. The follow on orders to the R-16's namely the R-26 and R-28's also were very dependable.Larry, RedbirdR33 |
|
|
| (1201813) | |
Re: South Ferry (1) Train Station Fix Could Take Up To 3 YEARS!!! |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Fri Feb 1 22:00:21 2013, in response to Re: South Ferry (1) Train Station Fix Could Take Up To 3 YEARS!!!, posted by Larry,RedbirdR33 on Fri Feb 1 21:47:57 2013. Version 1.0 of pretty much everything is a crap shoot. Lessons learned, 2.0's followed. |
|
|
| (1201818) | |
Re: South Ferry (1) Train Station Fix Could Take Up To 3 YEARS!!! |
|
|
Posted by murray1575 on Fri Feb 1 23:12:00 2013, in response to Re: South Ferry (1) Train Station Fix Could Take Up To 3 YEARS!!!, posted by Larry,RedbirdR33 on Fri Feb 1 21:47:57 2013. From what I have read on this board the electrical equipment gave a lot of problems (specifically the controllers) on the R-16's. In addition there were problems with the door engines which was solved with those hideous housings which were installed some time in the 1960's. However they were the last 60 foot cars to have a cross seating arrangement somewhat like the earlier cars such as the R-10's. All the 60 footers after it had IRT-style seating which supposedly made it easier to load and unload passengers and also made it easier to clean the cars (which didn't get done very often anyway in the 1960's and 1970's). The R-26/28 were a reliable group of cars and they did last a long time. Not one ever got destroyed due to a wreck; they all lasted through GOH until they eventually got reefed although 1 pair is still in existence at the Illinois Railway Museum. |
|
|
| (1201831) | |
Re: South Ferry (1) Train Station Fix Could Take Up To 3 YEARS!!! |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sat Feb 2 07:12:52 2013, in response to Re: South Ferry (1) Train Station Fix Could Take Up To 3 YEARS!!!, posted by SelkirkTMO on Fri Feb 1 22:00:21 2013. The exact reverse of that happened with the R10 & R16 |
|
|
| (1201855) | |
Re: South Ferry (1) Train Station Fix Could Take Up To 3 YEARS!!! |
|
|
Posted by Elkeeper on Sat Feb 2 15:47:30 2013, in response to Re: South Ferry (1) Train Station Fix Could Take Up To 3 YEARS!!!, posted by J Trainloco on Fri Feb 1 18:39:56 2013. This all boils down to the fact that the new South Ferry station was not waterproofed, as it should have been. The MTA decided to go the cheap route and, as they say, here we are! And, it sounds like the people, "Who never worked in design or construction", as you said, actually built this mess! If you are such an MTA insider, tell us who, exactly, was responsible for not waterproofing the station? Can you at least do that??? |
|
|
| (1201865) | |
Re: South Ferry (1) Train Station Fix Could Take Up To 3 YEARS!!! |
|
|
Posted by J Trainloco on Sat Feb 2 17:13:27 2013, in response to Re: South Ferry (1) Train Station Fix Could Take Up To 3 YEARS!!!, posted by Elkeeper on Sat Feb 2 15:47:30 2013. The station was waterproofed. decisions were made during construction that negatively impacted the integrity of the waterproofing that was installed. Now you can debate who was responsible for those decisions, but everyone bears some culpability. There's no way Schiavone would've paid $3 million if the station had not been designed with any waterproofing, as people on this board have suggested. |
|
|
| (1201866) | |
Re: South Ferry (1) Train Station Fix Could Take Up To 3 YEARS!!! |
|
|
Posted by merrick1 on Sat Feb 2 17:25:11 2013, in response to Re: South Ferry (1) Train Station Fix Could Take Up To 3 YEARS!!!, posted by Elkeeper on Sat Feb 2 15:47:30 2013. How would it have helped if it was waterproofed? The seawater from the tidal surge ran in through the stairways and vent grates. |
|
|
| (1201876) | |
Re: South Ferry (1) Train Station Fix Could Take Up To 3 YEARS!!! |
|
|
Posted by jasonnyc on Sat Feb 2 19:22:32 2013, in response to Re: South Ferry (1) Train Station Fix Could Take Up To 3 YEARS!!!, posted by merrick1 on Sat Feb 2 17:25:11 2013. +1 |
|
|
| (1201889) | |
Re: South Ferry (1) Train Station Fix Could Take Up To 3 YEARS!!! |
|
|
Posted by Elkeeper on Sat Feb 2 22:03:13 2013, in response to Re: South Ferry (1) Train Station Fix Could Take Up To 3 YEARS!!!, posted by merrick1 on Sat Feb 2 17:25:11 2013. Okay, point taken. But, what about all of the water damage prior to the storm? All of us saw those photos of water/sewage leaking into a brand new station a few weeks after it opened. Yet, the old SF station remains mostly undamaged. I find that ironic. |
|
|
| (1201907) | |
Re: South Ferry-MTA urged to consider re-opening 'old' South Ferry subway station |
|
|
Posted by 3-9 on Sun Feb 3 02:13:02 2013, in response to Re: South Ferry-MTA urged to consider re-opening 'old' South Ferry subway station, posted by michael549 on Fri Feb 1 18:59:20 2013. It's not a matter of "right" or "wrong", it's a matter that their shiny new station has been wrecked by an act of God and will be out of action for up to 3 years. OTH, their old station is still somewhat serviceable and can and should be used in a pinch. On top of that, it's only been a few years since people used it, so it's not like most commuters have forgotten how to deal with it. I understand that there are 2 other stations nearby, but chances are they are already being heavily used, otherwise we wouldn't have needed a new South Ferry station in the first place. |
|
|
| (1201908) | |
Re: South Ferry-MTA urged to consider re-opening 'old' South Ferry subway station |
|
|
Posted by Grand concourse on Sun Feb 3 02:15:58 2013, in response to Re: South Ferry-MTA urged to consider re-opening 'old' South Ferry subway station, posted by 3-9 on Sun Feb 3 02:13:02 2013. +1 |
|
|
| (1201927) | |
Re: South Ferry-MTA urged to consider re-opening 'old' South Ferry subway station |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sun Feb 3 07:50:52 2013, in response to Re: South Ferry-MTA urged to consider re-opening 'old' South Ferry subway station, posted by 3-9 on Sun Feb 3 02:13:02 2013. Because its throwing good money after bad. Rebuilding the new station will cost more than building it. Where do you think all this money will come from ? Do you really think the $50B from the Feds will make everything whole ?Run the W train rush hours, and run a free shuttle bus between Rector or Bowling Green and the Ferry for those who cannot make the walk. |
|
|
| (1201928) | |
Re: South Ferry-MTA urged to consider re-opening 'old' South Ferry subway station |
|
|
Posted by Bill from Maspeth on Sun Feb 3 08:04:54 2013, in response to Re: South Ferry-MTA urged to consider re-opening 'old' South Ferry subway station, posted by Joe V on Sun Feb 3 07:50:52 2013. Where do the "W" cars come from?Isn't the Astoria line at capacity? 3 services on 2 tracks at Ditmars Blvd. terminal? 4 services sharing one track in each direction between 11th St. cut and 42nd St.? Can it work? |
|
|
| (1201931) | |
Re: South Ferry-MTA urged to consider re-opening 'old' South Ferry subway station |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sun Feb 3 08:35:59 2013, in response to Re: South Ferry-MTA urged to consider re-opening 'old' South Ferry subway station, posted by Bill from Maspeth on Sun Feb 3 08:04:54 2013. I left out saying cut the Q back to 57th (saves 5 train sets), run the old W (10 train sets), or some less frequent version of it.Yes, I know there are equipment issues. There are 16 R42's laying around at 207th (yes or no ?), overhauled R32's should cut their 36% shop margin, a few CI F's can be turned by at 18th Avenue, whhen there is a will, there is a way. This is just as, if not more,worth looking at than restoring stairs, platforms, and re-opening old SF. |
|
|
| (1201940) | |
Re: South Ferry-MTA urged to consider re-opening 'old' South Ferry subway station |
|
|
Posted by Bill from Maspeth on Sun Feb 3 10:32:07 2013, in response to Re: South Ferry-MTA urged to consider re-opening 'old' South Ferry subway station, posted by Joe V on Sun Feb 3 08:35:59 2013. You would need crew and dispatcher facilities at 18th Ave. |
|
|
| (1201943) | |
Re: South Ferry-MTA urged to consider re-opening 'old' South Ferry subway station |
|
|
Posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Sun Feb 3 11:05:47 2013, in response to Re: South Ferry-MTA urged to consider re-opening 'old' South Ferry subway station, posted by michael549 on Fri Feb 1 18:59:20 2013. See, that's the thing. Unlike Intervale Ave, the MTA does want to rebuild South Ferry. But it will cost a lot of money to do so (much more than Intervale did, even when adjusted for inflation). And unlike Intervale, South Ferry is used primarily as a transfer station (people transferring to/from the SI Ferry to/from subways and buses) and there are two other stations nearby that can pick up the slack with the absence of South Ferry 1 line station. Is it really critical to get South Ferry back? Are Bowling Green and Whitehall stations really unable to handle the crowds of people transferring to the subway from the SI Ferry on their own? |
|
|
| (1201945) | |
Re: South Ferry-MTA urged to consider re-opening 'old' South Ferry subway station |
|
|
Posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Sun Feb 3 11:06:59 2013, in response to Re: South Ferry-MTA urged to consider re-opening 'old' South Ferry subway station, posted by 3-9 on Sun Feb 3 02:13:02 2013. They sure are now, but how heavily used were Bowling Green and Whitehall when South Ferry was open? |
|
|
| (1202021) | |
Re: South Ferry-MTA urged to consider re-opening 'old' South Ferry subway station |
|
|
Posted by Dj Hammers on Sun Feb 3 16:53:47 2013, in response to Re: South Ferry-MTA urged to consider re-opening 'old' South Ferry subway station, posted by Joe V on Sun Feb 3 08:35:59 2013. "a few CI F's can be turned by at 18th Avenue"South Culver riders are already being screwed over, no need to make it worse |
|
|
|
Page 5 of 7 |
||
