|
|
| Re: Extending E may not work well (325542) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 7 of 12 |
||
|
| (326969) | |
Re: Extending E may not work well |
|
|
Posted by Osmosis Jones on Sat Oct 21 13:39:19 2006, in response to Re: Extending E may not work well, posted by #1 Brighton Exp Bob on Sat Oct 21 12:55:27 2006. 3 tracks (or more) for the E to increase service without extensive delays, and 2 tracks for the J. |
|
|
| (327005) | |
Re: Brooklyn subway needs |
|
|
Posted by TheGreatOne2k6 on Sat Oct 21 15:12:06 2006, in response to Re: Brooklyn subway needs, posted by R4 Bryn Mawr LCL/R5 Paoli EXP on Fri Oct 20 09:55:01 2006. Bx29 to Bx12, to other bus or subway |
|
|
| (327070) | |
Re: Extending E may not work well |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Sat Oct 21 19:32:18 2006, in response to Re: Extending E may not work well, posted by RonInBayside on Fri Oct 20 19:38:08 2006. My ranking comes from the MTA. |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (327073) | |
Re: Extending E may not work well |
|
|
Posted by #1 Brighton Exp Bob on Sat Oct 21 19:50:12 2006, in response to Re: Extending E may not work well, posted by Osmosis Jones on Sat Oct 21 13:39:19 2006. why 3 tracks for E, why not 2 tracks each. There is no place on the system where there are 5 tracks being used at the same time together. I would do it the way they run trains in Australia, 4 tracks 1 track in each direction next to each other like this 1 East, 1 West(J)1 East 1 West (E) so no switching is needed except at terminals. Both lines will run parallel with each other |
|
|
| (327083) | |
Re: Extending E may not work well |
|
|
Posted by Osmosis Jones on Sat Oct 21 20:05:50 2006, in response to Re: Extending E may not work well, posted by #1 Brighton Exp Bob on Sat Oct 21 19:50:12 2006. Like I said, 3 tracks for service increases, Jamaica Center cannot currently handle the needs for the E with its two tracks. That would be more beneficial, especially since it wouldn't delay trains because of a switching train ahead. |
|
|
| (327088) | |
Re: Extending E may not work well |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Sat Oct 21 20:18:22 2006, in response to Re: Extending E may not work well, posted by Edwards! on Fri Oct 20 22:22:37 2006. When it was local during middays, the B ran to 57/6 not Wash Hts. The problem with the IND is that even though it was built to relatively modern standards as compared to the privates, it still lacks a certain amount of flexibility in certain places. At Qns Plz, 50/6, Jay St and Canal St, it would have been better to construct the junctions with a set of wyes instead of diamond crossovers as was done at 42/8 and 59 St so that both the locals and expresses could alternate routes without interfering with each other as is the present case. As for W4 St, there is no reason why the express tracks couldn't have been constructed with track connections between the upper and lower levels like those on the local tracks. |
|
|
| (327115) | |
Re: Flatbush Avenue Brooklyn College extention |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Sat Oct 21 21:09:19 2006, in response to Re: Flatbush Avenue Brooklyn College extention, posted by MATHA531 on Fri Oct 20 09:40:47 2006. They needed to close Myrtle Av (or Gold St as we refer to it on the road) in order to allow for the realignment of the S/B tracks coming off the Manny B. This requires the realigning of A3 tk to the space occupied by the S/B platform, and the digging out of the roadbed under the former S/B local track in order to depress it and allow for the crossover from the north side of the Manny B tks to the relocated and renumbered S/B A-3 tk. I don't have the old tk map in front of me right now, but in addition to significant realigning of the tracks in the Dekalb/Gold St area, there were also a number of track renumberings to reflect the removal of the switches at the N/E of the station and their replacement with an entirely new interlocking and track configuration at the S/E. Under the old configuration, It was originally possible for Brighton trains to bypaas Dekalb which they can no longer do, although the S/B bypass tk was removed many years before reconstruction actually took place. Having worked in and around the Dekalb area in all my operating TA titles, I fail to see why the bypass tracks were removed, since they could have been kept under the new configuration and allowed for greater flexibility in the event of a service disruption. |
|
|
| (327117) | |
Re: Bay Ridge NYCT Line Diagram (Was: Re: Flatbush Avenue Brooklyn College extension) |
|
|
Posted by American Pig on Sat Oct 21 21:12:01 2006, in response to Re: Bay Ridge NYCT Line Diagram (Was: Re: Flatbush Avenue Brooklyn College extension), posted by RonInBayside on Thu Oct 19 23:35:03 2006. However you're ignoring that this plan would also have called for a "Queens Blvd" bypass which would provide additional capacity. Also, E capacity is limited by the capacity of Jamaica Center, which would no longer be a terminal for the E if the line were extended. |
|
|
| (327119) | |
Re: Extending E may not work well |
|
|
Posted by American Pig on Sat Oct 21 21:14:48 2006, in response to Re: Extending E may not work well, posted by Osmosis Jones on Sat Oct 21 20:05:50 2006. JC is limited not because of how many tracks it has, but because of how far the crossover is from the station. If the two tracks weren't enough, then why are 2 tracks at World Trade Center enough, when WTC sees more trains (some E trains run to/from 179th). |
|
|
| (327124) | |
Re: Extending E may not work well |
|
|
Posted by American Pig on Sat Oct 21 21:26:26 2006, in response to Re: Extending E may not work well, posted by RonInBayside on Fri Oct 20 12:14:11 2006. No, because the 63rd Street connection to Broadway connects to the express tracks. |
|
|
| (327151) | |
Re: Brooklyn subway needs |
|
|
Posted by Wado MP73 on Sat Oct 21 22:46:15 2006, in response to Re: Brooklyn subway needs, posted by Rail Blue on Sat Oct 21 06:14:28 2006. There are other buses in SI that don't go to the ferry and most of them do not touch the SIR in the useful direction.I haven't ridden the S60 since the days when it was the S6S but this route may also be a special case. Its main purpose is to serve the two colleges above the hill. Although the route itself existed before buses became accessible, the route probably remains in service because the road there is too steep for wheelchairs. (Just a guess) |
|
|
| (327157) | |
Re: Extending E may not work well |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Sun Oct 22 00:03:56 2006, in response to Re: Extending E may not work well, posted by American Pig on Sat Oct 21 21:26:26 2006. I meant that the R could be extended from its current terminus to provide additional coverage to 179 St. I meant it as a joke...it's been tried and rejected. |
|
|
| (327184) | |
Re: Edwards declares the truth! |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Sun Oct 22 04:35:39 2006, in response to Re: Edwards declares the truth!, posted by RonInBayside on Sat Oct 21 10:38:34 2006. yes,I KNEW you would..plainly concidering it was a shot at how YOU behave.The sarcasum leapped over you..but that okay..because you are welcomed here...and I LOOK forward to hearing your opinions..haggling and what ever it is that we do. So even though you get on my nerves sometimes...[who doesn't?]..its good to wrestle with you from time to time. |
|
|
| (327189) | |
Re: Brooklyn subway needs |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Sun Oct 22 07:07:57 2006, in response to Re: Brooklyn subway needs, posted by Wado MP73 on Sat Oct 21 22:46:15 2006. There are other buses in SI that don't go to the ferry and most of them do not touch the SIR in the useful direction.But they all touch the SIR (or the R train!) in the useless direction. If you were being a cheapskate, you *could* get to Manhattan on one fare. I haven't ridden the S60 since the days when it was the S6S but this route may also be a special case. Its main purpose is to serve the two colleges above the hill. Although the route itself existed before buses became accessible, the route probably remains in service because the road there is too steep for wheelchairs. (Just a guess) I suppose it could be combined with the S42 and the two-fare zone totally eliminated. Otherwise, the S60 and the Q79 should get an extra free transfer. |
|
|
| (327190) | |
Re: Brooklyn subway needs |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Sun Oct 22 07:09:29 2006, in response to Re: Brooklyn subway needs, posted by R4 Bryn Mawr LCL/R5 Paoli EXP on Fri Oct 20 18:57:22 2006. Can be rebuilt. |
|
|
| (327204) | |
Re: Brooklyn subway needs |
|
|
Posted by Wado MP73 on Sun Oct 22 09:50:11 2006, in response to Re: Brooklyn subway needs, posted by Rail Blue on Sun Oct 22 07:07:57 2006. But they all touch the SIR (or the R train!) in the useless direction. If you were being a cheapskate, you *could* get to Manhattan on one fare.I think there is a good chance that you won't reach South Ferry within two hours, losing the last free transfer, especially on weekends. 20-30 minutes on the bus, 30-40 minutes on the SIR, 25 minutes on the ferry plus waiting time at each transfer. |
|
|
| (327238) | |
Re: Edwards declares the truth! |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Sun Oct 22 13:46:39 2006, in response to Re: Edwards declares the truth!, posted by Edwards! on Sun Oct 22 04:35:39 2006. Amen to that! |
|
|
| (327242) | |
Re: Flatbush Avenue Brooklyn College extention |
|
|
Posted by Tom on Sun Oct 22 13:55:53 2006, in response to Flatbush Avenue Brooklyn College extention, posted by NEPONSIT2006 on Wed Oct 18 16:18:32 2006. This is my proposal for a Crosstown Express Line to start at the Narrows portion of New York Harbor near Bay Ridge, then to loop east and north through Brooklyn, then north through Queens, then to reach the southern most part of The Bronx and finally to cross Manhattan to end near the Hudson River. The line would use the Bay Ridge Branch of the Long Island Railroad, the New York Connecting Railroad, across the Hell’s Gate Bridge and a new tunnel beneath the Harlem River and 125th Street. All stations, except for the one located at the southern tip of The Bronx, will be at points that connect with existing subway lines, allowing the Express Line to connect with all of the current subway routes, except for the shuttles, at least one and in some cases more than once. Further this line would connect with both Metro North and the Long Island Railroad. Thus, the purpose of the route will be to facilitate travel between the outer and mid portions of the subway system, while allowing passengers to bypass Manhattan below 125th Street.While the number of riders using the line may be very high, operating cost can be kept low as compared to other routes. As most of the stations will be served by other routes, the Express Line could be closed at night, except for a short shuttle between The Bronx and Lexington Avenue at 125th Street. Further, at all but the busiest times, at the busiest stations the Express Line could utilize the already existing entrances and token booths of the connecting stations. The Bronx station would need a token booth. To reduce operating costs even more, the line could be completely automated as is the case with the JFK Airtrain. Automated operation would also allow for frequent service and the limited number of stops would allow for fast travel times. Construction costs would also be low as most of the right of way already exists, except for the Harlem River and Manhattan tunnel. Some construction may be needed at certain over and under passes to provide for a third track to accommodate freight trains. The following is a list of the proposed stations with the existing services connecting services. 1. 59th Street at Fourth Avenue, Brooklyn (N and R) 2. New Utrecht Avenue at Sea Beach Line (D, M and N) 3. Avenue I at Culver Line (F) 4. Avenue H at Brighton Line (B and Q) 5. Flatbush Avenue at Nostrand Avenue, Brooklyn College (2 and 5) 6. Livonia Avenue at Van Sinderen Avenue (3 and L) 7. Atlantic Avenue at Van Sinderen Avenue (L and LIRR) 8. Broadway Junction at East New York, Brooklyn (A, C, J, L and Z) 9. Metropolitan Avenue at Middle Village, Queens (M) 10. Roosevelt Avenue at Jackson Heights, (7, E, F, G, R and V) 11. 31st Street at Astoria, Queens, (N and W) 12. Port Morris, Bronx, (Park and Ride) 13. Lexington Avenue at 125th Street, Manhattan (4, 5, 6, Q, T and MNRR) 14. Malcolm X Blvd. (Lenox Avenue) at 125th Street (2 and 3) 15. St. Nicholas Avenue at 125th Street (A, B, C and D) 16. Broadway at 125th Street, Manhattan (1) Brooklyn would get eight stations, Queens three, The Bronx one and Manhattan would have four for a total of 16 stations. A large park and ride facility located at the Port Morris, Bronx station could directly connect with both the Major Deegan and Bruchner Expressways and a short tunnel could bring the proposed Express Line closer to Roosevelt Avenue, Jackson Heights station. This route could also be covered over much of the depressed right of way in Brooklyn and Queens, forming linear parks and thus improving the local environment. Also, the possible encouraging of high density residential and business communities near some of the stations of the Express Line, particularly at East New York and Port Morris could enhance the benefits of the route. In regard to local stations the portion of the right of way between Brooklyn College and New Lots Avenue in Brooklyn appears to have been built for four tracks so an extension of the Canarsie Line along this section could still be possible. A possible 17th Station, could be located near Riverside Drive at 125th Street, Manhattan to connect with a possible station on the Amtrak Hudson Line. Tom, |
|
|
| (327284) | |
Re: Flatbush Avenue Brooklyn College extention |
|
|
Posted by Tom on Sun Oct 22 16:10:12 2006, in response to Re: Flatbush Avenue Brooklyn College extention, posted by Tom on Sun Oct 22 13:55:53 2006. In my earlier posting I meant to say "While the number of riders using the line may **not** be very high . . . " at the beginning of the second paragraph instead of saying that I thought it would be high.Tom |
|
|
| (343114) | |
Re: Extending E |
|
|
Posted by Russ on Sat Nov 25 14:39:32 2006, in response to Re: Extending E may not work well, posted by RonInBayside on Fri Oct 20 16:09:00 2006. So here's my idea for extending the E train without problems, and it won't cost a dime more than $40 billion. Guaranteed.Build a new line that would start in Manhattan near Chelsea Piers. This would be a 23rd St. crosstown with stations at 10th, between 8th and 7th, between 6th and 5th, and at 2nd. It would cross under the East River to, or near Freeman St. It would then merge with the G line for 2 stops, and then run under the L line. It continues along Metropolitan Avenue until it merges with the E train. This accomplishes a few things. * Many midtown bound passengers in Queens now have an alternative to the E train, hopefully making the E train less crowded. * A large area of Brooklyn and Queens, that is not served by subways, will now have service. * Many passengers who now commute to the Queens Boulevard line, will instead use this line. * More capacity in Manhattan. Ideally these two lines would diverge so that they won't have to share a terminus, as well as to reach more of SE Queens. I can see the E heading down Merrick, and this 23rd St train heading down Sutphin after it stops at Sutphin and Archer with the E. This would be a circuitous transition to Sutphin, but I think that it would probide the most sensible service. Russ... Now I look under my coach cushions for the change to pay for this. |
|
|
| (417278) | |
Re: Flatbush Avenue Brooklyn College extention |
|
|
Posted by Taksim on Wed Apr 18 17:13:10 2007, in response to Re: Flatbush Avenue Brooklyn College extention, posted by Tom on Sun Oct 22 13:55:53 2006. I think just extending the M to Jackson Heights is all that traffic would merit.Also, the NYCRR doesn't pass the N/W at Astoria Blvd, but rather closer to Ditmars. |
|
|
| (417326) | |
Re: Flatbush Avenue Brooklyn College extention |
|
|
Posted by Wayne-MrSlantR40 on Wed Apr 18 19:37:06 2007, in response to Re: Flatbush Avenue Brooklyn College extention, posted by Edwards! on Wed Oct 18 23:00:46 2006. No doubt service would be much better now. I like the Winfield Spur - such a serpentine route - but I would have built it as a subway rather than an elevated line.With regard to extensions into southern Brooklyn - isn't there a problem with the water table that would preclude the southernmost ends of these proposed routes from being underground? I just LOVE boxgirder elevated structures - it's about time we built a whole new one (rather than just pieces of an existing one as was one on the Canarsie line between Atlantic and Sutter). wayne |
|
|
| (417344) | |
Re: Flatbush Avenue Brooklyn College extention |
|
|
Posted by jabrams on Wed Apr 18 20:07:40 2007, in response to Re: Flatbush Avenue Brooklyn College extention, posted by randyo on Wed Oct 18 18:39:46 2006. Not if one is the "A" division (Nostrand/Flatbush extension), and the other is the "B" divsion (IND Fulton St. line). |
|
|
| (417516) | |
Re: Flatbush Avenue Brooklyn College extention |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Thu Apr 19 02:36:05 2007, in response to Re: Flatbush Avenue Brooklyn College extention, posted by Taksim on Wed Apr 18 17:13:10 2007. right on the top of the Ditmars station. |
|
|
| (417519) | |
Re: Flatbush Avenue Brooklyn College extention |
|
|
Posted by Q35 Limited on Thu Apr 19 03:01:10 2007, in response to Re: Flatbush Avenue Brooklyn College extention, posted by SMAZ on Thu Apr 19 02:36:05 2007. Talk about necroposting. Interesting thread though. |
|
|
| (417550) | |
Re: Flatbush Avenue Brooklyn College extention |
|
|
Posted by MATHA531 on Thu Apr 19 07:02:00 2007, in response to Flatbush Avenue Brooklyn College extention, posted by NEPONSIT2006 on Wed Oct 18 16:18:32 2006. Yeah it all sounds good and logical but you know and I know and we all know it's never going to happen....large areas of Brooklyn and Queens (and Staten Island too of course) have no subway service and the attitude today is let the masses ride buses to the subway lines that exist. At least they have eliminated the double fare but as somebody said, why tunnel the Nostrand line east...there's the B6 bus (which was never my favorite as a kid because it seemed it had asininely long intervals even during the day)...south on Utica...who needs it there's the B46 bus...so what if the people coming home at night have a long wait for a train and then even a longer wait for a bus...ah but we need the 2nd Avenue subway in Manhattan (despite the fact the Lexington is only a couple of blocks away although I understand it's more of a capacity issue and then of course we have to extend the #7 in Manhattao or perhaps the L to serve Javits Center...what do these extensions have n common...why they're in Manhattan.But it's always been that way in a very Manhattan comes first city. |
|
|
| (417561) | |
Re: Whining...... |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Thu Apr 19 09:03:54 2007, in response to Re: Flatbush Avenue Brooklyn College extention, posted by MATHA531 on Thu Apr 19 07:02:00 2007. Whining again about Brooklyn? You just got a mega-renovaed subway station built and opened yesterday.If you want to whine, whine about Queens, whose population has boomed over the last 40 years, far outstripping Brooklyn's population growth, and yet has had the least subway investment of any borough except Staten Island. Most of Brooklyn, by contrast, is served by subway lines and there are many areas of Brooklyn with as much subway service as Manhattan does. Brooklyn has renovated centers like a new terminal at Stillwell, a new LIRR station at Atlantic Avenue, and first crack at the R143 subway cars. Manhattan is getting new subway extensions because that's where most commuters, including Brooklyn commuters, are going. The SAS will ultimately reduce crowding on the Lex for everybody, including Brooklyn commuters and the 7 extension will offer access to Javits, including for commuters coming from Brooklyn who transfer at Grand Central or Times Square. Actually the Q train's extension, which will be ready in 2013, offers Q train riders (Brooklyn riders) a one stop ride to the East Side 60s and ultimately to Harlem-125 St. I think extending subways in Brooklyn is a great idea, but it's laughable to whine about Brooklyn when you look at just how much territory in Queens has zero subway service. Stop bawling. You wanna tissue? |
|
|
| (417573) | |
Re: Whining...... |
|
|
Posted by MATHA531 on Thu Apr 19 09:44:41 2007, in response to Re: Whining......, posted by RonInBayside on Thu Apr 19 09:03:54 2007. I was "whining" about Brooklyn, Queens and Staten Island if you read the post but I wasn't really whining...I was stating a fact in what I thought was a non perjorative manner. It is a fact that subway construction in the outer boroughs effectively ended when the IND South Brooklyn line opened in about 1940..since then there have been a few cosmetic things done such as extending the South Brooklyn IND down the Culver line, the opening of the Rockaway branch but there are still vast areas of Brooklyn and Queens which have no subway service and the point I was trying to make, and do remember the thread started about extending the Nostrand Avenue line, is that it ain't going to happen. We know city government is very Manhattan centric, whether it is justified or not is a matter of opinion..I dounderstand the idea of the CBD where most of the jobs are.This is the 21st century and the only places they are interested in building subways is in Manhattan...that is a point of fact. Whether it's because of NIMBY or whether it is simply a feeling that bus to the train service is adequate I don't know. But I still think the outer boroughs on most matters, including subway service, always seem to get the short end of the stick. |
|
|
| (417575) | |
Re: Flatbush Avenue Brooklyn College extention |
|
|
Posted by MATHA531 on Thu Apr 19 09:47:45 2007, in response to Re: Flatbush Avenue Brooklyn College extention, posted by MATHA531 on Thu Apr 19 07:02:00 2007. Oh yes...there were the extensions in Queens connecting the BMT with Queens Blvd and other small matters.But Ron, let me ask you a question, do you forsee a great deal of subway construction in the near future in Queens? |
|
|
| (417578) | |
Re: Whining...... |
|
|
Posted by MATHA531 on Thu Apr 19 10:03:54 2007, in response to Re: Whining......, posted by MATHA531 on Thu Apr 19 09:44:41 2007. ...and one other point...we believe the New York City subway system is the greatest most extensive subway system in the world yet there hasn't been a single new line opened since 1940 whereas in London in the last quarter of a century,they opened the Jubilee line, extended it very recently, extended the subway system to Heathrow Airport..Paris in the last couple of years opened a new line and I think I made the point once that no address in Paris is more than 150 yards from a metro station...somebody did point out in fairness that it was unfair to compare Paris to the City of New York as a whole but the entire Paris metro encompasses an area far larger than the central business district of Manhattan...it actually goes in many cases to where people actually live....I remember my parents telling me of a bond issue that was floated in the early 1950's to build the Utica Avenue and Nostrand Avenue extensions...I'm still waiting for the first shovel to be put into the ground.Now again let me say that all of this might be justified for a plethora of reasons but I choose to believe that part of the problem is the Manhattan centric outlook the city government has always maintained. What a mistake it was in 1898 to allow Manhattan to annex Brooklyn, Queens and Staten Island....if that had not happened, the Dodgers might still be playing in Brooklyn! |
|
|
| (417580) | |
Re: Whining...... |
|
|
Posted by SLRT on Thu Apr 19 10:24:30 2007, in response to Re: Whining......, posted by RonInBayside on Thu Apr 19 09:03:54 2007. Ron, your adult is on vacation again. Hope he's enjoying wherever he is. :D |
|
|
| (417586) | |
Re: Whining...... |
|
|
Posted by Newkirk Plaza David on Thu Apr 19 10:30:27 2007, in response to Re: Whining......, posted by RonInBayside on Thu Apr 19 09:03:54 2007. Obviously Matha531 is correct on every aspect regarding the lack of subway service in the southeastern section of Brooklyn and anything east of Parsons Blvd in Queens (save for a small section on Hillside Ave). He was not talking about capital programs, he was talking about subway expansion. Try finding a subway at Kings Plaza, Spring Creek Towers, Gateway Mall at Erskine Place and Seaview Ave, the neighborhoods of Flatlands, Mill Basin, the southern section of East New York, Spring Creek, East Flatbush, Gerritsen Beach, Remsen Village, Brookdale Hospital, anything on Linden Blvd east of Nostrand Ave, or even anything on Utica Ave south of Empire Blvd. If you even get your head out of the sand and notice something else; Brooklyn has the largest 24/7 overnight bus service in the 5 boroughs, with nearly 75 percent of all bus routes operating at all times, and nearly all routes that were formerly 2-fare zones (with the exception of the B2/13/20/83) operate overnight service.I was born, raised, and lived in Brooklyn all 37 years, 5 months and 19 days of my life (give or take a few days), and I have learned the entire Brooklyn bus network. Given the fact that the current B82 and B47 bus routes now offer 24/7 service, something that was not offered in the predecessors (B5/50 and B78 respectively), and the expansion of bus service in Eastern Brooklyn, there is a valid reason why Brooklyn and Queens are shut out on the subway expansion plans. Look at the routes that travel in areas where there is no nearby subway service: B2/3/4/6/7/8/9/13/15/17/20/35/36/41/44/46/57/60/61/74/77/82/83. Some like the B61/77 in Red Hook or the B36/74 in Coney Island serve a small section that does not justify subway expansion. But routes like the 6/7/8/17/35/41/44/46/82/83 serve out-of-your way areas that are deficient in any nearby subway station. Please read the posts correctly and you won't respond with wrong information. Thank you. |
|
|
| (417590) | |
Re: Whining...... |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Thu Apr 19 10:41:03 2007, in response to Re: Whining......, posted by MATHA531 on Thu Apr 19 09:44:41 2007. "It is a fact that subway construction in the outer boroughs effectively ended when the IND South Brooklyn line opened in about 1940.."Nonsense. "since then there have been a few cosmetic things done such as extending the South Brooklyn IND down the Culver line, the opening of the Rockaway branch " Well, in that case, the Second Avenue Subway is just cosmetic too. How long was the Rockaway extension? Let's see, adding at least 8 miles of track and stations that are now available for payment of one fare as opposed to an expensive LIRR ticket...hmmm....better give you the whole box of tissue, not just one. Of course we forgot to mention that the Chrystie St project of 1967 added core capacity to the 6th Av line. Without that core capacity you could not have the level of service you have now on the B, D and F lines going to Brooklyn. But that's just cosmetic.:0) |
|
|
| (417591) | |
Re: Whining...... |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Thu Apr 19 10:41:55 2007, in response to Re: Whining......, posted by MATHA531 on Thu Apr 19 10:03:54 2007. OK, now there you have a point. But the future is brighter these days... |
|
|
| (417593) | |
Re: Whining...... |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Thu Apr 19 10:44:47 2007, in response to Re: Whining......, posted by Newkirk Plaza David on Thu Apr 19 10:30:27 2007. "Brooklyn has the largest 24/7 overnight bus service in the 5 boroughs, with nearly 75 percent of all bus routes operating at all times, and nearly all routes that were formerly 2-fare zones (with the exception of the B2/13/20/83) operate overnight service. "That's true. If anything, it means things have gotten better. Not "subway better" which we all prefer, but better. "Please read the posts correctly and you won't respond with wrong information. Thank you." You should take your own advice. Your post missed the point completely. Ask MATHIA for a tissue out of his box. You can bawl together...:0) |
|
|
| (417594) | |
Re: Whining...... |
|
|
Posted by Newkirk Plaza David on Thu Apr 19 10:46:10 2007, in response to Re: Whining......, posted by RonInBayside on Thu Apr 19 10:41:03 2007. Let's see, adding at least 8 miles of track and stations that are now available for payment of one fare as opposed to an expensive LIRR ticket...hmmm....better give you the whole box of tissue, not just one.Do some reasearch, jerk. Anything south of Howard Beach required a double fare from 1956 until the mid-1970's (IIRC). |
|
|
| (417596) | |
Re: Whining...... |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Thu Apr 19 10:47:08 2007, in response to Re: Whining......, posted by Newkirk Plaza David on Thu Apr 19 10:46:10 2007. And even at double-fare it was still cheaper than the LIRR.Do you need help getting your foot out of your mouth? |
|
|
| (417601) | |
Re: Whining...... |
|
|
Posted by JohnL on Thu Apr 19 11:04:49 2007, in response to Re: Whining......, posted by Newkirk Plaza David on Thu Apr 19 10:30:27 2007. Given the large number of bus routes, but not knowing where they go prompts me to ask a couple of questions:Are the bus routes effectively subway feeders? This implies that there is definite scope for extra subways in Brooklyn feeding Manhattan. If the routes are networked, would light rail in Brooklyn be a better solution? |
|
|
| (417620) | |
Re: Whining...... |
|
|
Posted by AEM-7AC #901 on Thu Apr 19 12:04:19 2007, in response to Re: Whining......, posted by RonInBayside on Thu Apr 19 10:41:03 2007. Let's see, adding at least 8 miles of track and stations that are now available for payment of one fare as opposed to an expensive LIRR ticket...hmmm....better give you the whole box of tissue, not just one.IMHO, the conversion of the Rockaway Line to the IND was probably just about the second worst policy decision done to the Rockaways. The only other that was worse was the demolition of summer bungalows and cottages and the construction of large scale housing projects. IMHO, it probably would have been best for the city to subsidize the LIRR's operations in Queens and Brooklyn to avoid the painfully slow ride on the IND Mainline to Midtown. IIRC, around the same time, the City of Philadelphia kicked in money for the commuter operations around Philadelphia and helped to pay for some of the first generation of Silverliners. |
|
|
| (417622) | |
Re: Flatbush Avenue Brooklyn College extention |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Thu Apr 19 12:06:42 2007, in response to Re: Flatbush Avenue Brooklyn College extention, posted by Edwards! on Wed Oct 18 17:18:35 2006. If only for one stop, so as to provide a proper terminal configuration. Flatbush Ave. is the worst terminal in the system. |
|
|
| (417624) | |
Re: Flatbush Avenue Brooklyn College extention |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Thu Apr 19 12:09:41 2007, in response to Re: Flatbush Avenue Brooklyn College extention, posted by randyo on Wed Oct 18 18:39:46 2006. All good ideas. On some of my fantasy maps, I have the #4 extended all the way down to Floyd Bennet Field and the #3 extended into southeastern Queens via Conduit Blvd. |
|
|
| (417625) | |
Re: Flatbush Avenue Brooklyn College extention |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Thu Apr 19 12:11:05 2007, in response to Re: Flatbush Avenue Brooklyn College extention, posted by American Pig on Fri Oct 20 20:20:33 2006. Think of the savings from not even discussing it! |
|
|
| (417626) | |
Re: Flatbush Avenue Brooklyn College extention |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Thu Apr 19 12:12:58 2007, in response to Re: Flatbush Avenue Brooklyn College extention, posted by J trainloco on Thu Oct 19 20:41:30 2006. A round-about route is better than none at all. |
|
|
| (417627) | |
Re: Flatbush Avenue Brooklyn College extention |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Thu Apr 19 12:13:57 2007, in response to Re: Flatbush Avenue Brooklyn College extention, posted by J trainloco on Thu Oct 19 20:51:03 2006. It also explains why there's no southern exit on the IND level. |
|
|
| (417628) | |
Re: Flatbush Avenue Brooklyn College extention |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Thu Apr 19 12:15:08 2007, in response to Re: Flatbush Avenue Brooklyn College extention, posted by Tunnel Rat on Thu Oct 19 21:03:39 2006. There was never any serious proposal for a Jamaica Ave. subway. |
|
|
| (417629) | |
Re: Whining...... |
|
|
Posted by AEM-7AC #901 on Thu Apr 19 12:18:02 2007, in response to Re: Whining......, posted by MATHA531 on Thu Apr 19 10:03:54 2007. Paris in the last couple of years opened a new line and I think I made the point once that no address in Paris is more than 150 yards from a metro stationThe bulk of Paris's Network was built before the war with the exceptions being Ligne 14 which is newest line in the system having opened in the early 1990s. Most of the developments in the network have been in extending the network into the "suburbs"* and in the development of the RER, Réseau Express Regional**. *In France, Brooklyn and Bronx would be considered a suburb, so take the term loosely. **The closest equivalent to the RER in the US would be SEPTA's Regional Rail with more service. |
|
|
| (417630) | |
Re: Extending E may not work well |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Thu Apr 19 12:19:31 2007, in response to Re: Extending E may not work well, posted by The Port of Authority on Fri Oct 20 00:20:07 2006. Not true, since most of the ridership would simply be those who get on today at Jamaica Center from buses. Another advantage would be to allow for a proper terminal at the end of the line (Laurelton?) so that 15 TPH can run via Archer Ave and the LIRR, over the current 12. |
|
|
| (417632) | |
Re: Extending E may not work well |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Thu Apr 19 12:21:13 2007, in response to Re: Extending E may not work well, posted by Grand Concourse on Fri Oct 20 22:53:03 2006. That would only shuttle the masses to JC and make them transfer here. |
|
|
| (417633) | |
Re: Extending E may not work well |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Thu Apr 19 12:24:26 2007, in response to Re: Extending E may not work well, posted by The Port of Authority on Fri Oct 20 17:48:01 2006. If the new E extension had a proper terminal configuration, the whole line could operate 15 TPH, instead of the 12 now forced by limits of how many trains Jamaica Center could turn. This would absorb any new ridership. All E trains would then run via this line, instead of the 12/3 split we see now, with the 3 coming from 179th. It would also discourage reverse commuting on the J, since those E's will arrive at JC well packed with riders. |
|
|
| (417634) | |
Re: Extending E may not work well |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Thu Apr 19 12:27:30 2007, in response to Re: Extending E may not work well, posted by RonInBayside on Fri Oct 20 10:00:05 2006. No need. That terminal can already turn 15 TPH, 3 more than Jamaica Center. |
|
|
|
Page 7 of 12 |
||
