|
|
| Re: Retired R46's (1633836) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 3 of 4 |
||
|
| (1634389) | |
Re: Retired R46's |
|
|
Posted by 3-9 on Fri Jul 26 18:35:03 2024, in response to Re: Retired R46's, posted by Edwards! on Tue Jul 23 04:41:10 2024. I heard that the connection between DeKalb Ave and the Rutgers St tunnel was dismissed because of a difference in depth. The tunnels from DeKalb are going up at that point, while the Rutgers tunnels are going down. |
|
|
| (1634390) | |
Re: Retired R46's |
|
|
Posted by 3-9 on Fri Jul 26 18:53:42 2024, in response to Re: Retired R46's, posted by randyo on Fri Jul 26 02:00:24 2024. It should be possible to move the B's merge point with the express a little further down the local, or just keep the B on the local. I think the Brighton riders may not like that much, though, since the F to Manhattan would still be slower than the B, IMHO. |
|
|
| (1634391) | |
Re: Retired R46's |
|
|
Posted by 3-9 on Fri Jul 26 18:55:48 2024, in response to Re: Retired R46's, posted by Edwards! on Wed Jul 24 14:39:09 2024. In any case, the connection to Rutgers would give an alternate route around the Manhattan Bridge. |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (1634397) | |
Re: Retired R46's |
|
|
Posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Fri Jul 26 20:18:16 2024, in response to Re: Retired R46's, posted by 3-9 on Fri Jul 26 18:35:03 2024. You can plainly see the bridge tracks ramping up at the north end of the station. I always try to envision where the switches used to be before the platforms were moved. |
|
|
| (1634401) | |
Re: Retired R46's |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Sat Jul 27 01:24:18 2024, in response to Re: Retired R46's, posted by 3-9 on Fri Jul 26 18:53:42 2024. The B’s merge points with all the other lines with which it intersects are just perfect for the lines it merges with there are no other merge points that wouldn’t involve using switches which would cause disruption to other lines. The only merge points in Bkln between the B and other line are Prosp Pk and Gold St (N/O DeKalb). Once merged with the D, the next merge point is 59th St with the C and again at 135th St with the D (in the AM rush only) so what else would you do with the B other than what is being done now? |
|
|
| (1634459) | |
Re: Retired R46's |
|
|
Posted by gbs on Sun Jul 28 20:46:12 2024, in response to Re: Retired R46's, posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Fri Jul 26 20:18:16 2024. Before the station was renovated and retiled a few years ago, you could see the gaps in the interior walls between the super-express tracks and the tunnel tracks, which is where the switches used to be. Notice the gap in the wall to the right of the train on the tunnel track:  When the station was originally extended north in the '50s, the tile was the bland '50s design:  These are the original compound pillars at the original section of the station:  Note the massive one-piece pillars at the new north end:  Looking north, note how the original pillars taper to a point at the original platform end, where a switch would have been.  When you're on the platform towards the north end, note the pattern of the pillars. The gaps in the walls have been completely tiled over, as have the '50s tiles. |
|
|
| (1634462) | |
Re: Retired R46's |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Sun Jul 28 22:58:47 2024, in response to Re: Retired R46's, posted by gbs on Sun Jul 28 20:46:12 2024. Wonderful photo essay.Thank you. |
|
|
| (1634469) | |
Re: Retired R46's |
|
|
Posted by Catfish 44 on Mon Jul 29 01:11:59 2024, in response to Re: Retired R46's, posted by gbs on Sun Jul 28 20:46:12 2024. 👍🏽 |
|
|
| (1634472) | |
Re: Retired R46's |
|
|
Posted by W.B. on Mon Jul 29 03:31:09 2024, in response to Re: Retired R46's, posted by Edwards! on Sun Jul 28 22:58:47 2024. The extended sections used wide-flange steel columns on the platforms, as opposed to four uneven 'L's' being riveted to a web plate (rolled by either Pencoyd Iron Works or Carnegie Steel - both U.S. Steel subsidiaries). |
|
|
| (1634491) | |
Culver Line |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Mon Jul 29 18:44:30 2024, in response to Re: Retired R46's, posted by randyo on Fri Jul 26 02:00:24 2024. And maybe you can in that case re-build the former Culver shuttle line as I previously noted (mostly single tracks on two levels, to Manhattan on the upper level and from Manhattan on the lower level) using at Ditmas what had been the shuttle terminal through 1975 and heading south from there to Coney Island while northbound, a new upper level is built at Ditmas (likely offset south of the current northbound platform) with a new rail bridge above the existing Culver tracks to allow northbound trains to cross and run on the upper level of such a rebuilt Culver Line that would like the old line use the lower level of 9th Avenue before heading to Manhattan, most likely as an extended (W) train that would become at least 24/7 to Whitehall and 19/7 to Astoria. Such a line would more easily allow the (F) to be moved off Culver and so forth. |
|
|
| (1634493) | |
Re: Retired R46's |
|
|
Posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Mon Jul 29 19:40:08 2024, in response to Re: Retired R46's, posted by gbs on Sun Jul 28 20:46:12 2024. I remember the gaps between the tunnel tracks and bypass tracks, but never paid attention to the pillar layout. So the Manhattan-bound platform originally narrowed at the north end? |
|
|
| (1634494) | |
Re: Retired R46's |
|
|
Posted by gbs on Mon Jul 29 20:32:48 2024, in response to Re: Retired R46's, posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Mon Jul 29 19:40:08 2024. Since the switch layout north of the station was symmetrical, most probably both platforms narrowed at the north end. Check out the pillars next time you're there. |
|
|
| (1634495) | |
Re: Retired R46's |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Tue Jul 30 04:07:37 2024, in response to Re: Retired R46's, posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Mon Jul 29 19:40:08 2024. Actually, as originally built, neither platform narrowed at the north end at all. The N/E of the platform looked about the same as the N/E of Pacific St since that is where the tower was. The switch arrangement was unique in that trains using the bypass could access the tunnel. The way the switches were aligned allowed trains to go from the bypass to the tunnel at the same time as a train off the inside (Brighton) track crossed over to the outside and the bridge. The governing home signal coming from the tunnel had an unusual display for trains going to the bypass. Botton green was for the inside (Brighton) tk bottom yellow was for the outside (4th Ave Lcl) and for the bypass bottom BLUE. the only such signal on the NYCTS. Prior to the reconstruction, all Brighton trains used the inside tracks in the station and all thr 4th Ave lcl trains used the outside tks and the routing of trains for bridge or tunnel was none NORTH of the station. Also there were ramps, S/O the station that allowed Brighton trains to access the bypass but over the years, they fell into disuse so that when the interlocking was realigned, they were removed requiring all Brighton trains to stop at Dekalb. In various stages, the additional tracks and new switches S/O the station were placed in service allowing the old tower to be removed and the platforms to be temporarily extended a bit farther north. during all this, the station at Gold St (Myrtle Ave) was closed and the S/B platform removed to allow the installation of a new track smoothing out the S/B operation between both sides of the bridge. With the closing of Gold St, the N/B platform was further extended so that a new entrance/exit could be built sort of replacing the Gold St station. For many years, you could actually see the marks in the concrete on the N/B platform. where the steps and the wall of the original tower and the temporary platform extensions were. |
|
|
| (1634496) | |
Re: Retired R46's |
|
|
Posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Tue Jul 30 07:47:42 2024, in response to Re: Retired R46's, posted by randyo on Tue Jul 30 04:07:37 2024. Someone once posted back in the Subtalk days where each train on each track went after leaving DeKalb - which trains crossed over, which trains went straight ahead, that sort of thing. IINM Sea Beach expresses skipped DeKalb and Myrtle Aves. in both directions 24/7 while West End expresses did so only during rush hours. |
|
|
| (1634497) | |
Re: Retired R46's |
|
|
Posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Tue Jul 30 07:49:04 2024, in response to Re: Retired R46's, posted by gbs on Mon Jul 29 20:32:48 2024. Don't know when I'll be in New York again, but it's on my things-to-do list.:) |
|
|
| (1634510) | |
Re: Retired R46's |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Tue Jul 30 18:46:57 2024, in response to Re: Retired R46's, posted by W.B. on Mon Jul 29 03:31:09 2024. Yes.The extension is pretty clear to see. I used to love watching the B or N pass by on the bypass tracks, before they walked the space up. The old platform is still there, hidden. Did that section have extended plats/moving platforms like 14rh st? |
|
|
| (1634511) | |
Re: Retired R46's |
|
|
Posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Tue Jul 30 18:49:57 2024, in response to Re: Retired R46's, posted by Edwards! on Tue Jul 30 18:46:57 2024. I remember those spaces. I also remember when it was walled off and tiled. This was around 2002-ish, IINM. |
|
|
| (1634512) | |
Re: Retired R46's |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Tue Jul 30 18:54:27 2024, in response to Re: Retired R46's, posted by randyo on Tue Jul 30 04:07:37 2024. Cool.Appreciate you. |
|
|
| (1634513) | |
Re: Retired R46's |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Tue Jul 30 19:05:16 2024, in response to Re: Retired R46's, posted by randyo on Tue Jul 30 04:07:37 2024. Cool.Appreciate you. However, DeKalb remains the problem station of the entire southern division until this very day. Pulling Culver from the mix wasn't enough. Even with half the service running through,that Use to operate(litterly half of the service through DeKalb was either moved,or no longer operating)..there are always delays. This is why I suggested removing either Brighton Express, or the local from the DeKalb exchange, moving them to Smith st line near Prospect Park. |
|
|
| (1634517) | |
Re: Retired R46's |
|
|
Posted by BILLBKLYN on Tue Jul 30 22:46:43 2024, in response to Re: Retired R46's, posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Tue Jul 30 18:49:57 2024. Unfortunately. I used to watch the trains there as well, going to college. |
|
|
| (1634519) | |
Everything but Retired R46's |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Wed Jul 31 08:40:43 2024, in response to Re: Retired R46's, posted by BILLBKLYN on Tue Jul 30 22:46:43 2024. So, I guess we are no longer discussing retired R-46s? Just asking for a friend |
|
|
| (1634525) | |
Re: Culver Line |
|
|
Posted by Elkeeper on Wed Jul 31 13:12:30 2024, in response to Culver Line, posted by Wallyhorse on Mon Jul 29 18:44:30 2024. Wally, you forgot to take your meds- again!!! |
|
|
| (1634529) | |
Re: Culver Line |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Wed Jul 31 14:21:16 2024, in response to Re: Culver Line, posted by Elkeeper on Wed Jul 31 13:12:30 2024. He means well.Too bad not much of any proposal can go anywhere as long as the MTA is running the show. They threw billions of dollars down a deep hole that nobody wanted. For the same money,they could have built the proposed loop system...by making the Grand Central station smaller,a through station, with a few stations in lower Manhattan and a river tunnel back to Atlantic Terminal. Im also looking at the IBX. They are nitpicking over small details (SAS, ANYONE?).. Details that are easy to overcome with the placement of concrete box truss structures, like the JFK Air train,Over some situations, like Crossing Metropolitan Ave, dealing with the cemetery. The ENY tunnels can be bored out, and reinforced, the same way NJ Transit did the Tunnels they are currently using. Something has to be done.. |
|
|
| (1634536) | |
Re: Culver Line |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Wed Jul 31 18:55:35 2024, in response to Re: Culver Line, posted by Edwards! on Wed Jul 31 14:21:16 2024. Do you think IBX would work? I have my doubts.I question ridership levels justifying the cost. |
|
|
| (1634537) | |
Re: Culver Line |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Wed Jul 31 19:08:20 2024, in response to Re: Culver Line, posted by LuchAAA on Wed Jul 31 18:55:35 2024. Well.. the Current plan has the line traversing tail barren areas in both Brooklyn and Queens.Given the opportunity to avoid the trek into Manhattan, if available. While the numbers may have been off some,* I suggest you take a look for your self. I say, build the line,as a MOS NOW, and continue later with the expansion system. The Riders are there. They need something other than a feeder bus. |
|
|
| (1634538) | |
Re: Culver Line |
|
|
Posted by Fisk Ave Jim on Wed Jul 31 19:14:28 2024, in response to Re: Culver Line, posted by LuchAAA on Wed Jul 31 18:55:35 2024. Well when they built the GG Brooklyn Queens crosstown line, some thought the same thing since the line didn't go to Manhattan. In the long run, the line's ridership well justified its building |
|
|
| (1634539) | |
Re: Culver Line |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Wed Jul 31 19:24:54 2024, in response to Re: Culver Line, posted by Fisk Ave Jim on Wed Jul 31 19:14:28 2024. Truth be told, the GG/G was considered a high priority line. Back in the bad old days in the 80s, we could be down several trains on the E & F but no matter what, the G had to be full service. |
|
|
| (1634540) | |
Re: Culver Line |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Wed Jul 31 19:45:21 2024, in response to Re: Culver Line, posted by Edwards! on Wed Jul 31 19:08:20 2024. I just don't see the ridership.Seriously, if it was active today I bet it would run a 5 car train and never have heavy ridership. |
|
|
| (1634541) | |
Re: Culver Line |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Wed Jul 31 19:59:49 2024, in response to Re: Culver Line, posted by Fisk Ave Jim on Wed Jul 31 19:14:28 2024. True.And in recent years the LIC and Greenpoint skylines block the view of NYC. The neighborhoods along the GG line, in Queens and Brooklyn have gone through significant real estate and demographic changes. Condos in Red Hook and Greenpoint are sold as waterfront property if you have a view of The Gowanus Canal or The Newtown Creek. Even before the hipsterfication of many neighborhoods, you could see the need for the GG. I wonder how ridership levels compare decde to decade on the GG? I'm guessing it peaked in 2010 and was on the rise before covid. |
|
|
| (1634542) | |
Re: Culver Line |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Wed Jul 31 20:11:14 2024, in response to Re: Culver Line, posted by LuchAAA on Wed Jul 31 19:59:49 2024. I should add, my grandmother worked at Sunshine Biscuit and lived in "Lower Ridgewood" and took the LL and GG daily between Halsey St and LIC.In later years between DeKalb and LIC so the Crosstown benefited us for years. |
|
|
| (1634543) | |
Re: Everything but Retired R46's |
|
|
Posted by Catfish 44 on Wed Jul 31 22:31:23 2024, in response to Everything but Retired R46's, posted by Train Dude on Wed Jul 31 08:40:43 2024. I’ll talk about them |
|
|
| (1634544) | |
Re: Culver Line |
|
|
Posted by Jackson Park B Train on Wed Jul 31 23:24:35 2024, in response to Re: Culver Line, posted by LuchAAA on Wed Jul 31 19:45:21 2024. For perspective, the Altamont Corridor Express was pooh-poohed by some within the regional Transpo Commision, but it has attracted a loyal ridership. It is currently working to expand service.I have said for a long time that IBX will prove its usefulness when it facilitates Bronx/New Rochelle to Penn connection to both the JFK AirTrain, and LIRR to Garden City et al for suburb to suburb job access. I also believe the cross Brooklyn connections will open new options for convenient trips. |
|
|
| (1634545) | |
Re: Culver Line |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Thu Aug 1 04:31:21 2024, in response to Re: Culver Line, posted by Elkeeper on Wed Jul 31 13:12:30 2024. I was simply pointing out if you did do the kind of rebuild of the former Culver Shuttle line I noted, you can move the (F) as suggested and have the (W) replace it along Culver from Manhattan to Coney Island while the (G) would keep the direct connection between Park Slope and Coney Island via Culver. |
|
|
| (1634546) | |
Re: Culver Line |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Thu Aug 1 04:59:16 2024, in response to Re: Culver Line, posted by Train Dude on Wed Jul 31 19:24:54 2024. The GG wasn't quite ”full” service in the early 80s. As a trainmaster, I was often sent from my regular Bkln zone to cover Queens since it was more important for Jamaica Yd to have full service than Pitkin. At the time the GG was 100% R-10s and in order to get “full” service at least on paper, 7 car trains instead of 8s were assembled and it was OK for that to be considered full service. |
|
|
| (1634560) | |
Re: Culver Line |
|
|
Posted by Mark S. Feinman on Thu Aug 1 14:15:25 2024, in response to Re: Culver Line, posted by Train Dude on Wed Jul 31 19:24:54 2024. Do you have any insight regarding why the GG was considered a high priority line? Was it political?--Mark |
|
|
| (1634561) | |
Re: Culver Line |
|
|
Posted by Elkeeper on Thu Aug 1 14:18:46 2024, in response to Re: Culver Line, posted by Wallyhorse on Thu Aug 1 04:31:21 2024. Why rebuild something that was taken down, decades ago? Nobody protested when the Culver shuttle ended service. Also, are you forgetting the IND/BMT transfers at Jay Metro and 4th Ave? |
|
|
| (1634574) | |
Re: Culver Line |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Thu Aug 1 17:31:38 2024, in response to Re: Culver Line, posted by LuchAAA on Wed Jul 31 19:45:21 2024. Understandable.However, the needs of the Many, outweigh the needs of the few. The IBX will serve passengers, from the Upper New York Bay Sunset Park/Bay Ridge area, across town heading east. The line will cross several subway routes, several neighborhoods underserved by both subway and buses. It will pass through neighborhoods that lack any rail service at all.. and according to the demographics.. the link will benefit thousands. Also,it will redirect some traffic, usually east to westbound riders during the morning, to east to north west. This will draw some riders from the usual travel patterns,to another way to reach their destination. There are areas within Queens that this line will pass through, that hasn't seen any passenger rail service since the LIRR discontinued service on the Montauk line. Also,there are areas that never had rail service like south east Brooklyn. I am 100 percent behind the line. It won't inconvenience anyone,increases the rail coverage in two boroughs, and adds to the service provided today by the Brooklyn Queens Crosstown subway. Also, the route will add another station on Myrtle Ave in Ridgewood,saving time and trouble.. removing dependency on solo bus service. The route will HAVE THIS EXACT SAME EFFECT at several key areas that it passes through. As a matter of fact,ENY station complex is being prepared for the new route, with new passenger entryways,new ADA upgrades, and a new separate entry for J/Z and L lines. The Only thing I have reservations about, is the use of LRTs, instead of "regular" subway cars. However, the use of LRT railcars presents a unique opportunity for expansion of said services Capable of Street running, the line could combine bus and subway type service into one. Utica Ave wouldn't have to be a "subway line". It Could be an extension of the IBX,both East and west North and South. |
|
|
| (1634575) | |
Re: Culver Line |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Thu Aug 1 17:40:30 2024, in response to Re: Culver Line, posted by Jackson Park B Train on Wed Jul 31 23:24:35 2024. Yup. |
|
|
| (1634579) | |
Re: Culver Line |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Thu Aug 1 19:17:18 2024, in response to Re: Culver Line, posted by Elkeeper on Thu Aug 1 14:18:46 2024. There was no point then. The MTA didn't have the money then and in fact, it was not until 1983 parts of it were actually torn down (they used to in fact have a transfer on the B35 bus for years between 9th Street on what then was the (B) and the (F) Church Avenue Station). It would have had to have been completely rebuilt for it to continue as I would do it now. |
|
|
| (1634582) | |
Re: Culver Line |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Fri Aug 2 01:48:22 2024, in response to Re: Culver Line, posted by Edwards! on Thu Aug 1 17:31:38 2024. I'm for it too.Like sports fans have fantasy leagues, railfans fantasize about new routes. I always imagined the possibilities because I grew up in Ridgewood. I wouldn't be surprised to see the Lower Montauk discussed between Fresh Pond and LIC with the project. |
|
|
| (1634583) | |
Re: Culver Line |
|
|
Posted by Jackson Park B Train on Fri Aug 2 03:21:56 2024, in response to Re: Culver Line, posted by LuchAAA on Fri Aug 2 01:48:22 2024. I have always favored FRA compliant cars so that the route can extend across Hell Gate, and if not thar, then at least commonTA cars because playing LR introduces another pile of spare parts, a new shop facility, etc. |
|
|
| (1634592) | |
Re: Culver Line |
|
|
Posted by Elkeeper on Fri Aug 2 11:53:20 2024, in response to Re: Culver Line, posted by Wallyhorse on Thu Aug 1 19:17:18 2024. The Culver line route to 9th Ave will never be rebuilt. Dream on! |
|
|
| (1634600) | |
Re: Culver Line |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Fri Aug 2 17:09:07 2024, in response to Re: Culver Line, posted by LuchAAA on Fri Aug 2 01:48:22 2024. Point taken.However, this isn't "fantasy,or railfan wet dreams". This proposal has been around longer than either of us have been alive,in one fashion or another. The first serious recommendation was was when the line still carried passengers..was actually used in part by Sea Beach trains in Western Brooklyn. The BRT wanted to use the line as an extension of the Canarsie line, across southern Brooklyn to the New York Bay.. The IND wanted to use the line.. All of those proposals were either not taken seriously, money wasn't available,or Robert Moses blocked the development. The first proposal that was seriously considered, and actually engineered,was the Cross Brooklyn Expressway, with Rapid Transit facilities. The 14th st Canarsie line would have been relocated to the right of way, to Southern Bklyn, And East to City Line via the new expressway median. Atlantic Ave would have served as the host between ENY and Conduit Blvd, where the line would run side by side with the road to just over the Queens boarder. The protest against the road by Nimbys and others forced the city to reconsider, even though modifications were made to how much property was needed. Since the rail line was tied to the project, and the city Really didn't want to build it anyway, the subway line was deferred. The link was again presented to the public as part of a system of new routes, using hybrid railcars capable of transversing LIRR trackage. The new system would incorporate various LIRR City Zone routes, including the Far Rockaway Branch, reopen various long disused rail facilities.. and build new sections and connections to the subway system via the SAS , Southeast Queens subway extension,Port Washington and others. The line would have included the planned SAS route that would have been located alongside the Amtrak right of way in the Bronx, to a facility in Co Op City. The scope of the new system was vast, but the value of said system was astronomical. The new "Metro" would have worked wonders for the City, Nassau County, and even Westchester by acting as a feeder extension between railroad and subway systems,an "overlay" connecting both. How ever, even though this was masterful stroke of genius for the transport network, the powers that be saw it as a threat to the system they built. The sticking point being fare structure and other things that pointed out an underlying social "problem". What killed the proposal was the same excuse used by people opposed, Money and funding. This is the Real reason why SAS is being dragged out,so expensive, and why the Bronx, Brooklyn and Queens links has been practically cancelled. Even the smaller proposal, the Triboro link,was fought by government officials, including Amtrak. The fix has been in for a Very long time. The MTA decided that Metro North needed the ROW "more than the subway system", and came up with the Penn Access" plan, using the New Haven and Hudson lines. Let's be honest here.. We All know Why Metro North was chosen. Higher fares, different demographics, professional atmosphere. To the " big wigs", this was a better investment for the CBD.. and would cost less than the Hybrid System to build. Still, the plan for the Bay Ridge route didn't die, because the powers that be understood something. Taxation without representation. They HAD to offer New York City Something, especially the districts where services were offen promised, but never materialized. Property assessment, time after time, for proposed new routes that were never built. MTA tried to compensate by creating the SBS "bus System",in various areas to improve travel, but this has proven to be a bandaid on a festering wound. It took the current governor to see the writing on the wall, one that the MTA was doing it's best to ignore. She told them directly, that if they didn't do Something other than the bare minimum, they would loose even more riders. They would see a "revolution" take place,where riders would reject the MTA. She also said that the political machine that was squarely in the "Democrat corner", would evaporate. Losing voters would push them out of their jobs(this is why she postponed Congestion Pricing). So she looked over some "plans" that The MTA has lingering in limbo, and picked the one serving the largest demographic, and serviced areas that were in need. The sentiment hinged on the fact that it Didn't have to be just Dems, but winning over Republicans was included. The Bay Ridge route was shown to be THE NEW ROUTE THAT COULD SERVE A LARGE GROUP OF PEOPLE. The ideal gravitas was the line ROW already existed, requiring Some reconstruction, but fully intact. It passed through All the desired areas that she knew would need "shoring up".. and created a two boro connecting route as a MOS.. with potential for Airport service. She knew.. So, she Told the MTA to do the "scoping work" for the project (mind you,old plans were dusted off, and analyzed). Low and behold... the ridership projections justified the use.. but Not "subway cars". BRT or Light rail was the optimal option. Light rail Was ALWAYS the plan, but it had to go through the motions as far as presentation. The Bay Ridge line will be the largest piece of expansion effort made in NYC since 1932, when the city opens the first of its Independent subway system. By far, the largest piece of rail expansion in years, the new 14 miles of rail line will weave a connection to 17 different lines including the LIRR, and potentially a new Montauk route, and LGA line. The link to the Bronx has been placed on hold as of this moment. So, This is the furthest away from "fantasy railfan" optics... This is a core example of politics and political wranglings meeting social interactions. This was a message,heard loud and clear by a shady politician who is fighting for her political career. You loose the NYC vote, Especially Democrats,then it's all over for you. She's doing what Cuomo wouldn't do.. and that cost him. Brooklyn And Queens needs this.. It's about time someone listened. |
|
|
| (1634643) | |
Re: Culver Line |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Mon Aug 5 19:15:45 2024, in response to Re: Culver Line, posted by Elkeeper on Fri Aug 2 11:53:20 2024. Oh, it likely never will, but my point was, rebuild that and you can move the (F) off Culver as was suggested. |
|
|
| (1634651) | |
Re: Culver Line |
|
|
Posted by Q65A on Tue Aug 6 10:34:49 2024, in response to Re: Culver Line, posted by Edwards! on Thu Aug 1 17:31:38 2024. Agree with you 100%, sir.No transit line is 100% perfect, but progress is preferable to bureaucratic inaction. |
|
|
| (1634655) | |
Re: Culver Line |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Tue Aug 6 15:21:17 2024, in response to Re: Culver Line, posted by Q65A on Tue Aug 6 10:34:49 2024. Yes.And this goes for Anywhere and anyone. We need rapid transit. We need connectivity. We need different modes Of transportation for long and short trips.. like LRT street running connecting boros.. using private ROW and mainline. The use of some river tunnels for LRT routes, and bridges. Or brand new structures could be built for rapid transit, LRT or bus. Bottom line,new routes can be built if the muscle is behind it. |
|
|
| (1634667) | |
Re: Culver Line |
|
|
Posted by Jackson Park B Train on Wed Aug 7 01:14:04 2024, in response to Re: Culver Line, posted by Edwards! on Tue Aug 6 15:21:17 2024. Correct! |
|
|
| (1634669) | |
Re: Culver Line |
|
|
Posted by Handbrake on Wed Aug 7 08:51:24 2024, in response to Re: Culver Line, posted by Train Dude on Wed Jul 31 19:24:54 2024. Interesting note. The G Crosstown Line has a planned connection north of Bedford-Nostrand Avenue Station, Tracks E3/E4, that would have tied into proposed IND transit lines destined for Manhattan via routes that would have routed through South 4th Street.Tracks E3/E4 descend down below the existing Crosstown line, ending at present in bumper blocks below the existing grade. As is common knowledge, the Bedford-Nostrand is the only three track, two island planform station on the Cross-town Line that function as an intermediate terminal during GO's. Two diamond cross-over originally switches installed north of the station would facilitate train movements between Queens bound, and Manhattan bound trains. Both diamond cross-overs have/will be removed and replace by turn out switches. I recall that Tracks E3/E4 can provide a lay up capacity of one eight car train each, consisting of 60 foot (R1) rail cars. I find the empty middle trackway at Classon Avenue, one stop south of Bedford-Nostrand, interesting, since civil construction of the middle trackway does not provide a physical through path from the middle E3/E4 track at Bedford-Nostrand, and south to the Classon Avenue middle trackway. Based on a walk through observation, it's a guess at what the original plan was for Classon Avenue middle, other than to turn trains south of Bedford-Nostrand and lay up mid-day trains. Most of the big mysteries of the present IND have died with the original planners. |
|
|
| (1634670) | |
Re: Culver Line |
|
|
Posted by Handbrake on Wed Aug 7 09:12:26 2024, in response to Re: Culver Line, posted by Wallyhorse on Mon Aug 5 19:15:45 2024. The Culver/SBKRR RoW has been sold off and redeveloped. There's no going back. |
|
|
| (1634672) | |
Re: Culver Line |
|
|
Posted by Q65A on Wed Aug 7 09:22:01 2024, in response to Re: Culver Line, posted by Edwards! on Tue Aug 6 15:21:17 2024. "Bottom line, new routes can be built if the muscle is behind it."Absolutely true: if there is a strong enough will (civic, political, financial or otherwise) then new transit infrastructure will get built. |
|
|
|
Page 3 of 4 |
||
