|
|
| Re: Extending E may not work well (325542) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 4 of 12 |
||
|
| (326475) | |
Re: Extending E may not work well |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Fri Oct 20 00:36:00 2006, in response to Re: Extending E may not work well, posted by J trainloco on Fri Oct 20 00:26:18 2006. "extending the E would have the principle advantage of reducing the amount of bus operations. It would result in people who had to ride the bus to Jamaica riding to Springfield,"True. But the E would attract new riders on top of that. " with fewer people getting on at Jamaica." Not really. Buses come to Jamaica from lots of places and those patrons would see a half-filled train. Jamaica Center is still a zoo, and now there's less room on the train. Well, actually, I take it back partly. If Springfield Blvd is designed with, say three tracks and has gpood tail tracks, it could handle many more trains than Jamaica Center can now. So you could run more E trains than you do now (say, 16 tph instead of 12 - but then you have to fit in the F trains at the merge). OK, so you could be right... |
|
|
| (326476) | |
Re: Extending E may not work well |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Fri Oct 20 00:39:17 2006, in response to Re: Extending E may not work well, posted by RonInBayside on Fri Oct 20 00:36:00 2006. And, you could make Springfield the new destination for buses coming from the east. |
|
|
| (326477) | |
Re: Extending E may not work well |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Fri Oct 20 00:41:34 2006, in response to Re: Extending E may not work well, posted by The Port of Authority on Fri Oct 20 00:20:07 2006. Wrong again...Moving the terminal would thereby move the riders..such as those alighting at J.C...ORIGINATING at J.C by it BEING a TERMINAL STATION. Case in point...riders along an extended E would be able alight their train along the Atlantic branch and its new stations..and at its NEW terminal In the SOUTH JAMAICA NEIGHBORHOOD..rather than hitch a bus Van cab to J.C..thereby SPEADING the riders out more evenly..among FOUR stations than ONE. |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (326479) | |
Re: Extending E may not work well |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Fri Oct 20 00:46:18 2006, in response to Re: Extending E may not work well, posted by J trainloco on Fri Oct 20 00:39:17 2006. East of Springfield, yes. |
|
|
| (326480) | |
Re: Flatbush Avenue Brooklyn College extention |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Fri Oct 20 00:47:12 2006, in response to Re: Flatbush Avenue Brooklyn College extention, posted by J trainloco on Fri Oct 20 00:32:52 2006. Sure it is...Its part of the support system holding up the station..over the Bay Ridge rail line. |
|
|
| (326482) | |
Re: Brooklyn subway needs |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Fri Oct 20 00:51:39 2006, in response to Re: Brooklyn subway needs, posted by R4 Bryn Mawr LCL/R5 Paoli EXP on Thu Oct 19 20:18:50 2006. Yup...Went from Staten Island to Ozone Park/Rockaway Blvd near the Airport... $4.00 ONE WAY. |
|
|
| (326484) | |
Re: Brooklyn subway needs |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Fri Oct 20 00:54:01 2006, in response to Re: Brooklyn subway needs, posted by R4 Bryn Mawr LCL/R5 Paoli EXP on Thu Oct 19 20:18:50 2006. Yup...Went from Staten Island to Ozone Park/Rockaway Blvd near the Airport... $4.00 ONE WAY. Bus from Pt Richmond to ferry..$2.00... Transfer to subway..Free. Transfer to bus at Rockaway Blvd...$2.00. |
|
|
| (326485) | |
Re: Bay Ridge NYCT Line Diagram (Was: Re: Flatbush Avenue Brooklyn College extension) |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Fri Oct 20 00:56:11 2006, in response to Re: Bay Ridge NYCT Line Diagram (Was: Re: Flatbush Avenue Brooklyn College extension), posted by BMT Guy on Thu Oct 19 23:19:17 2006. Not only that,but it was dependent upon a proposed new expressway along the LIRR ROW.After the highway folded..the subway extention folded too. |
|
|
| (326486) | |
Re: Bay Ridge NYCT Line Diagram (Was: Re: Flatbush Avenue Brooklyn College extension) |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Fri Oct 20 00:58:20 2006, in response to Re: Bay Ridge NYCT Line Diagram (Was: Re: Flatbush Avenue Brooklyn College extension), posted by BMT Guy on Thu Oct 19 23:19:17 2006. Not only that,but it was dependent upon a proposed new expressway along the LIRR ROW.After the highway folded..the subway extention folded too. The plan was ammended later to extened the NEW LOTS LINE south instead of the Canarsie line. |
|
|
| (326487) | |
Re: Flatbush Avenue Brooklyn College extention |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Fri Oct 20 00:58:57 2006, in response to Re: Flatbush Avenue Brooklyn College extention, posted by J trainloco on Thu Oct 19 23:18:05 2006. But it needs refurbishing. |
|
|
| (326490) | |
Re: Flatbush Avenue Brooklyn College extention |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Fri Oct 20 01:06:16 2006, in response to Re: Flatbush Avenue Brooklyn College extention, posted by MATHA531 on Thu Oct 19 22:30:45 2006. Becides the little work done to the DeKalb avenue station area and tunnels in the late 50's.. |
|
|
| (326493) | |
Re: Brooklyn subway needs |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Fri Oct 20 01:21:22 2006, in response to Re: Brooklyn subway needs, posted by J trainloco on Thu Oct 19 22:38:19 2006. Yup..cause I use to do it all the time[bus..train ..bus..] |
|
|
| (326494) | |
Re: Flatbush Avenue Brooklyn College extention |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Fri Oct 20 01:31:22 2006, in response to Re: Flatbush Avenue Brooklyn College extention, posted by Edwards! on Fri Oct 20 00:58:57 2006. Badly. And it needs ADA upgrades to at least some stations. |
|
|
| (326505) | |
Re: Brooklyn subway needs |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Fri Oct 20 03:13:44 2006, in response to Re: Brooklyn subway needs, posted by J trainloco on Thu Oct 19 23:10:28 2006. I doubt anyone does. But it serves a full cross brooklyn service and connects major routes. Also, the extension to New Rochelle is for anyone wanting to transfer to MN to get to Stamford. |
|
|
| (326507) | |
Re: Extending E may not work well |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Fri Oct 20 03:26:49 2006, in response to Re: Extending E may not work well, posted by J trainloco on Fri Oct 20 00:39:17 2006. There's really not much east of Springfield Blvd in the way of NYC territory, especially since the Springfield Blvd that map is talking about is the one down by Laurelton |
|
|
| (326514) | |
Re: Brooklyn subway needs |
|
|
Posted by D to E to Jamaica on Fri Oct 20 06:07:13 2006, in response to Re: Brooklyn subway needs, posted by NIMBYkiller on Fri Oct 20 03:13:44 2006. Where do you think those crowds at Parsons/Archer are coming from? About 40% of them come from the Merrick Blvd Corridor which means P/A would be that less crowded. As far as UT, Maybe there could be some rush hour put-ins directly from the yard. |
|
|
| (326515) | |
Re: Flatbush Avenue Brooklyn College extention |
|
|
Posted by Fytton on Fri Oct 20 06:07:21 2006, in response to Re: Flatbush Avenue Brooklyn College extention, posted by J trainloco on Thu Oct 19 19:35:11 2006. "You do realize that a LOT of riders believe the current system is inept and poorly managed, right?"They are right. It is poorly managed. But that doesn't really have anything to do with the building or non-building of extensions to the system. |
|
|
| (326519) | |
Re: Flatbush Avenue Brooklyn College extention |
|
|
Posted by MATHA531 on Fri Oct 20 06:36:07 2006, in response to Re: Flatbush Avenue Brooklyn College extention, posted by Edwards! on Fri Oct 20 01:06:16 2006. But that wasn't really new trackage for Brooklyn...it was, though expensive, to rehabilitate a bottleneck in the system. One could also argue that it reduced mass transit in Brooklyn as it took away a station (not arguing there was anything wrong in closing the Myrtle Avenue station).... |
|
|
| (326521) | |
Re: Brooklyn subway needs |
|
|
Posted by Fytton on Fri Oct 20 06:45:32 2006, in response to Re: Brooklyn subway needs, posted by #1 Brighton Exp Bob on Thu Oct 19 22:38:16 2006. "what if you use a unlimited Metro Pass, is it still 2 fares?"No. Unlimited is just what it says. For whatever number of days you have bought (one day, one week, four weeks), you can ride transit as much as you like for the one price. |
|
|
| (326525) | |
Re: Brooklyn subway needs |
|
|
Posted by Osmosis Jones on Fri Oct 20 07:44:55 2006, in response to Re: Brooklyn subway needs, posted by J trainloco on Thu Oct 19 20:15:32 2006. You were the one that responded to my post (Which I think had a different meaning in it than your assumption) with a post that did not make sense to me, so then I asked about it, and you just asked me the question again even though I have already proven I can't answer it. |
|
|
| (326527) | |
Re: Extending E may not work well |
|
|
Posted by Osmosis Jones on Fri Oct 20 07:48:39 2006, in response to Re: Extending E may not work well, posted by RonInBayside on Fri Oct 20 00:36:00 2006. You're forgetting about the capacity at World Trade Center, it makes sense to either exapnd the situation there (which is not easy) or just simply make it like Flushing in which the train crew just heads straight back to Springfield. |
|
|
| (326528) | |
Re: Extending E may not work well |
|
|
Posted by Osmosis Jones on Fri Oct 20 07:50:15 2006, in response to Re: Extending E may not work well, posted by RonInBayside on Thu Oct 19 23:59:41 2006. If the F still ran down 53rd Street, Union Turnpike, Forest Hills, and Roosevelt Avenue wouldn't be a problem. |
|
|
| (326538) | |
Re: Flatbush Avenue Brooklyn College extention |
|
|
Posted by MATHA531 on Fri Oct 20 09:09:59 2006, in response to Flatbush Avenue Brooklyn College extention, posted by NEPONSIT2006 on Wed Oct 18 16:18:32 2006. Boy...can't believe what my reply probably started...But the bottom line is that obviously there will be no further construction of subway lines in the outer boroughs for whatever the reason. My whole point is that so much that goes on in New York revolves around Manhattan but it really is sad that for a city that prided itself on its subway system and claimed the subway system is the greatest in the world, there has really been no new lines opened since the IND was completed in 1940 and nobody can deny that large portions of Brooklyn and Queens have been treated like 2nd class citizens for all these many years. And yes, to their credit, the MTA did for the most part allow transfers from bus to subway (which is hardly novel in the world BTW) but it still means that if you're unfortunate to live in these large areas, you still have a wait for a bus, perhaps a 20 or 25 minute ride to the nearest subway station and then a further wait for a train. And even a place like London in the much more recent past, added the Jubilee line...and Paris added I think it was Metro Line 14...in NY perhaps we'll have the SAS not even extending into the Bronx or Brooklyn and that's it. As I said, if the power outrage that hit Queens had hit midtown Manhattan, do you think it would have taken a week to restore power? I assure you the power would have been back within 24 hours and if full power restoration would have been impossible, then enough emergency generators would have been brought in to see the lights quickly came back on. Unfortunatel, all the bitching in the world is not going to change this...because as I said, Marie Antoinette indeed did say, "Let them take a bus to the train." |
|
|
| (326541) | |
Re: Extending E may not work well |
|
|
Posted by #1 Brighton Exp Bob on Fri Oct 20 09:29:11 2006, in response to Re: Extending E may not work well, posted by Osmosis Jones on Fri Oct 20 07:50:15 2006. How about extending the Q out to either 179th or Jamaica Center |
|
|
| (326542) | |
Re: Brooklyn subway needs |
|
|
Posted by #1 Brighton Exp Bob on Fri Oct 20 09:30:18 2006, in response to Re: Brooklyn subway needs, posted by italianstallion on Thu Oct 19 23:55:04 2006. Don t most people have unlimited ride passes, so why double fares? |
|
|
| (326543) | |
Re: Flatbush Avenue Brooklyn College extention |
|
|
Posted by #1 Brighton Exp Bob on Fri Oct 20 09:33:36 2006, in response to Re: Flatbush Avenue Brooklyn College extention, posted by MATHA531 on Fri Oct 20 06:36:07 2006. Myrtle was cl,osed way before the work at DeKalb was started |
|
|
| (326547) | |
Re: Flatbush Avenue Brooklyn College extention |
|
|
Posted by MATHA531 on Fri Oct 20 09:40:47 2006, in response to Re: Flatbush Avenue Brooklyn College extention, posted by #1 Brighton Exp Bob on Fri Oct 20 09:33:36 2006. Are you sure about that? From what I read, because of the extension of the platforms at DeKalb because of the work, the Myrtle Avenue station was too close to the re-constructed DeKalb Avenue station but no matter they do tie in together I think. |
|
|
| (326548) | |
Re: Brooklyn subway needs |
|
|
Posted by #1 Brighton Exp Bob on Fri Oct 20 09:41:44 2006, in response to Re: Brooklyn subway needs, posted by Fytton on Fri Oct 20 06:45:32 2006. Just what I thought, so what pct of the people riding do not buy unlimited passes. If a person was only using transit for a day, and had to pay a double fare, it would be cheaper to buy a day pass then a double fare round trip. If they start on the bus, I am sure that Merchents who sell Metro Cards, could sell a day pass if they don t already |
|
|
| (326549) | |
Re: Flatbush Avenue Brooklyn College extention |
|
|
Posted by #1 Brighton Exp Bob on Fri Oct 20 09:45:11 2006, in response to Re: Flatbush Avenue Brooklyn College extention, posted by MATHA531 on Fri Oct 20 09:40:47 2006. Yes It closed before 1958 when I moved out of Brooklyn. |
|
|
| (326551) | |
Re: Flatbush Avenue Brooklyn College extention |
|
|
Posted by R4 Bryn Mawr LCL/R5 Paoli EXP on Fri Oct 20 09:47:55 2006, in response to Re: Flatbush Avenue Brooklyn College extention, posted by J trainloco on Thu Oct 19 22:39:11 2006. It's also MUCH cheaper than trying to build a junction with the F. |
|
|
| (326552) | |
Re: Brooklyn subway needs |
|
|
Posted by R4 Bryn Mawr LCL/R5 Paoli EXP on Fri Oct 20 09:55:01 2006, in response to Re: Brooklyn subway needs, posted by David of Broadway on Thu Oct 19 21:32:14 2006. The only line I know of that allows a second transfer is the Q79, and SI buses to Manhattan via the SIR. |
|
|
| (326555) | |
Re: Extending E may not work well |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Fri Oct 20 09:56:55 2006, in response to Re: Extending E may not work well, posted by NIMBYkiller on Fri Oct 20 03:26:49 2006. True, but MTA could beef up LI Bus service and route one or more LI bus lines to serve the Springfield terminal. |
|
|
| (326559) | |
Re: Extending E may not work well |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Fri Oct 20 10:00:05 2006, in response to Re: Extending E may not work well, posted by Osmosis Jones on Fri Oct 20 07:48:39 2006. You're suggesting that we should beef up capacity of WTC terminal. Agreed that the TA would need to look at that. Good point on your part. |
|
|
| (326563) | |
Re: Flatbush Avenue Brooklyn College extention |
|
|
Posted by Fytton on Fri Oct 20 10:25:31 2006, in response to Re: Flatbush Avenue Brooklyn College extention, posted by MATHA531 on Fri Oct 20 09:09:59 2006. "And even a place like London in the much more recent past, added the Jubilee line...and Paris added I think it was Metro Line 14...in NY perhaps we'll have the SAS not even extending into the Bronx or Brooklyn"To fill out this picture: both the Victoria Line (circa 1968) and the Jubilee Line (circa 1979) were new lines across Central London, the London equivalent of Manhattan. Northeast of Kings Cross and south of Vauxhall, you could say the Victoria Line penetrates the eqiuivalent of the outer boroughs. The Jubilee Line didn't provide any new tube extension beyond the central area until 1999, when the Jubilee Line Extension to Stratford opened. Aside from those, the only genuinely new tube construction in the outer boroughs since WW2 were the Heathrow Airport extension of the Piccadilly Line, and Leytonstone-Newbury Park on the Central Line - and even that last one actually started being built before WW2. London's real success story of the last twenty years is the DLR, which is mostly outside the central area. However, the rejuvenation of the former docklands has been a major government priority. The rest of outer London has done much less well, and some districts remain entirely railless. Paris, on the other hand, has a good record of extending the ends of most of the old Metro lines beyond the city limits of Paris proper (again, the Manhattan equivalent) into their 'outer boroughs' - in some cases by just two or three stops, but further in other cases. Add in line 14 (which is in the central area) and the entire development of the RER to serve outer areas, and Paris has overall a very good post-WW2 extension record, most of it outside the central core. |
|
|
| (326565) | |
Re: Extending E may not work well |
|
|
Posted by #1 Brighton Exp Bob on Fri Oct 20 10:45:22 2006, in response to Re: Extending E may not work well, posted by RonInBayside on Fri Oct 20 10:00:05 2006. I remember when two lines terminated at WTC E and AA/CC |
|
|
| (326566) | |
Re: Extending E may not work well |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Fri Oct 20 10:45:42 2006, in response to Re: Extending E may not work well, posted by RonInBayside on Fri Oct 20 10:00:05 2006. Thur routing at the WTC would help solve that problem...While such an extention would be short..a connection to the Broadway line at Courtlandt st would be complexed to say the least...if the Broadway connection was retained. One way to get around this is to remove it..divert it or go around it by building a juction. 1]removing it would require the elinination of Broadway service completly from lower Manhattan thur this section..with trains terminating at City Hall. 2]Diverting it would require building a line connecting tunnel to the NASSAU st line between Fulton and Broad st... 3] Going around it would require building a complicated juction under Church st.. The Cheapest option would be he first,of course. |
|
|
| (326573) | |
Re: Flatbush Avenue Brooklyn College extention |
|
|
Posted by Wado MP73 on Fri Oct 20 11:00:51 2006, in response to Re: Flatbush Avenue Brooklyn College extention, posted by David of Broadway on Thu Oct 19 16:07:14 2006. A new footbridge would probably be cheaper. Just make it high enough for the boats. |
|
|
| (326577) | |
Re: Flatbush Avenue Brooklyn College extention |
|
|
Posted by Tunnel Rat on Fri Oct 20 11:04:24 2006, in response to Re: Flatbush Avenue Brooklyn College extention, posted by Edwards! on Fri Oct 20 00:05:25 2006. No,the hyland plan called for it to be a subway,under the jamaica el.This was to give the BMT competion.A later plan called for it to be connected at cypress hills. |
|
|
| (326579) | |
Re: Flatbush Avenue Brooklyn College extention |
|
|
Posted by Tunnel Rat on Fri Oct 20 11:10:45 2006, in response to Re: Flatbush Avenue Brooklyn College extention, posted by #1 Brighton Exp Bob on Fri Oct 20 09:45:11 2006. WOW,they closed a station `cause you moved,I,m impressed! |
|
|
| (326581) | |
Re: Extending E may not work well |
|
|
Posted by Wado MP73 on Fri Oct 20 11:17:47 2006, in response to Re: Extending E may not work well, posted by #1 Brighton Exp Bob on Fri Oct 20 10:45:22 2006. But that was outside of rush hours. |
|
|
| (326582) | |
Re: Extending E may not work well |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Fri Oct 20 11:34:13 2006, in response to Re: Extending E may not work well, posted by NIMBYkiller on Fri Oct 20 03:26:49 2006. That's true. However, north buses could reach the E at various points, as opposed to one point. |
|
|
| (326586) | |
Re: Brooklyn subway needs |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Fri Oct 20 11:41:53 2006, in response to Re: Brooklyn subway needs, posted by Osmosis Jones on Fri Oct 20 07:44:55 2006. No, You assmued that my post had a different meaning than yours. I was asking about the same issue you were suggesting. |
|
|
| (326587) | |
Re: Extending E may not work well |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Fri Oct 20 11:43:41 2006, in response to Re: Extending E may not work well, posted by Osmosis Jones on Fri Oct 20 07:48:39 2006. WTC already handles more trains than Jamaica. If WTC can't handle 16 trains, send the 1 extra train to brooklyn. |
|
|
| (326588) | |
Re: Extending E may not work well |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Fri Oct 20 11:44:23 2006, in response to Re: Extending E may not work well, posted by #1 Brighton Exp Bob on Fri Oct 20 09:29:11 2006. What does that do? |
|
|
| (326590) | |
Re: Extending E may not work well |
|
|
Posted by Fytton on Fri Oct 20 11:47:34 2006, in response to Re: Extending E may not work well, posted by #1 Brighton Exp Bob on Fri Oct 20 09:29:11 2006. 'How about extending the Q out to either 179th or Jamaica Center?'The Q is shceduled to be extended north up the SAS to the hopefully temporary terminus of the stubway. |
|
|
| (326592) | |
Re: Flatbush Avenue Brooklyn College extention |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Fri Oct 20 11:52:12 2006, in response to Re: Flatbush Avenue Brooklyn College extention, posted by MATHA531 on Fri Oct 20 09:09:59 2006. You know, I was agreeing with you, but now I think I don't.The main transit project on the table for NYC subways is SAS. I think it goes without saying why this project benefits everybody. Before that project: 63rd street connector completed to allow more service in Queens. Also, the planned N train to LGA, which would have added some service to areas of Queens that presently do not have it. Before that: 63rd River tunnel and Archer ave help queens. Even going back to the last major re-alignments I can think of before thay: 6th avenue connected to the manhattan bridge and 60th st tube connected to Queens Blvd: both these projects largely benefitted those living outside of manhattan. I really think that the issue is that very little expansion is occurring at all, not that manhattan is getting all of it. |
|
|
| (326594) | |
Re: Flatbush Avenue Brooklyn College extention |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Fri Oct 20 11:53:27 2006, in response to Re: Flatbush Avenue Brooklyn College extention, posted by R4 Bryn Mawr LCL/R5 Paoli EXP on Fri Oct 20 09:47:55 2006. Yeah. My idea for building a junction with the F would require a pretty good bit of subway tunnelling underneath the existing el. |
|
|
| (326596) | |
Re: Brooklyn subway needs |
|
|
Posted by Wado MP73 on Fri Oct 20 12:05:43 2006, in response to Re: Brooklyn subway needs, posted by #1 Brighton Exp Bob on Fri Oct 20 09:41:44 2006. A double fare round trip is cheaper with a $10+ multi-ride card. |
|
|
| (326603) | |
Re: Extending E may not work well |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Fri Oct 20 12:12:53 2006, in response to Re: Extending E may not work well, posted by Osmosis Jones on Fri Oct 20 07:50:15 2006. "If the F still ran down 53rd Street, Union Turnpike, Forest Hills, and Roosevelt Avenue wouldn't be a problem."False. Yes they would, because the F would become more crowded, the E would be just as crowded and instead of the V carrying enough passengers to fill two thirds of its seats (and I've seen the V with a standing load at rush hour) it would be nearly empty. |
|
|
| (326606) | |
Re: Extending E may not work well |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Fri Oct 20 12:14:11 2006, in response to Re: Extending E may not work well, posted by Fytton on Fri Oct 20 11:47:34 2006. Perhaps the R could be extended again.... |
|
|
|
Page 4 of 12 |
||
