|
|
| Re: Extending E may not work well (325542) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 8 of 12 |
||
|
| (417635) | |
Re: Extending E may not work well |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Thu Apr 19 12:30:06 2007, in response to Re: Extending E may not work well, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Fri Oct 20 18:07:54 2006. From Brooklyn, yes. From Queens, no. The Broadway BMT does offer a significant advantage in the numbers of transfers to other lines, especially the IRT. |
|
|
| (417637) | |
Re: Extending E may not work well |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Thu Apr 19 12:32:40 2007, in response to Re: Extending E may not work well, posted by AlM on Fri Oct 20 21:21:59 2006. 57th/6th is hardly dead. Comparing to 57th/7th is unfair because the larger BMT station has more lines serving it. Purely on location of each line, the 6th and Broadway lines are of equal value. |
|
|
| (417641) | |
Re: Whining...... |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Thu Apr 19 12:49:52 2007, in response to Re: Whining......, posted by AEM-7AC #901 on Thu Apr 19 12:18:02 2007. Agreed with your description. Yes, SEPTA is the closest. Every other system resembles NYC's terminal model. |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (417642) | |
Re: Flatbush Avenue Brooklyn College extention |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Thu Apr 19 12:50:59 2007, in response to Re: Flatbush Avenue Brooklyn College extention, posted by MATHA531 on Thu Oct 19 07:28:16 2006. Compared to Queens, Brooklyn is subway nirvana. Only areas like the Flatlands or Manhattan Beach lack any real subway service. |
|
|
| (417643) | |
Re: Flatbush Avenue Brooklyn College extention |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Thu Apr 19 12:53:20 2007, in response to Re: Flatbush Avenue Brooklyn College extention, posted by Edwards! on Thu Oct 19 15:47:37 2006. Most of what was built in the 70's (and opened in the 1980's) was for Queens, still the one boro not named Staten Island with the poorest subway services. |
|
|
| (417645) | |
Re: Flatbush Avenue Brooklyn College extention |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Thu Apr 19 12:58:36 2007, in response to Re: Flatbush Avenue Brooklyn College extention, posted by J trainloco on Fri Oct 20 11:52:12 2006. And the biggest opponents to new subways in the outer boros is....wait for it.....the very people who live in these areas. How often did Glendale and Maspeth residents shoot down a proposed conversion of the Montauk LIRR to subway? The only people in Queens who really want subways and currently don't have any are those in the southeasten portions, like Laurelton, Rosedale and Springfield Gardens. |
|
|
| (417654) | |
Re: Flatbush Avenue Brooklyn College extention |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Thu Apr 19 13:36:39 2007, in response to Re: Flatbush Avenue Brooklyn College extention, posted by MATHA531 on Fri Oct 20 09:09:59 2006. "Marie Antoinette indeed did say, 'Let them take a bus to the train.' "She got busted by the transit police for letting her cake crumbles spill all over the floor of the bus. Then she lost her head. :0) |
|
|
| (417655) | |
Re: Extending E may not work well |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Thu Apr 19 13:40:28 2007, in response to Re: Extending E may not work well, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Thu Apr 19 12:24:26 2007. I'd still consider run a few rush hour E's to 179 IF there is demand for service to 8th Av from the Hillside Corridor. |
|
|
| (417656) | |
Re: Extending E may not work well |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Thu Apr 19 13:40:48 2007, in response to Re: Extending E may not work well, posted by RonInBayside on Thu Apr 19 13:40:28 2007. I meant running, not run. |
|
|
| (417659) | |
Re: Extending E may not work well |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Thu Apr 19 13:48:44 2007, in response to Re: Extending E may not work well, posted by RonInBayside on Thu Apr 19 13:40:28 2007. The only reason the E runs from 179th is that Jamaica Center can't handle 15 TPH. If it could, those trains would run from Jamaica Center. It has nothing to do with demand on Hillside Ave. |
|
|
| (417665) | |
Re: Whining...... |
|
|
Posted by Mark S. Feinman on Thu Apr 19 13:59:52 2007, in response to Re: Whining......, posted by JohnL on Thu Apr 19 11:04:49 2007. Most bus routes follow what used to be trolley lines. Evantually most feed some subway line, but I don't think they were designed at the outset to be subway feeders.--Mark |
|
|
| (417673) | |
Re: Extending E may not work well |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Thu Apr 19 15:04:21 2007, in response to Re: Extending E may not work well, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Thu Apr 19 13:48:44 2007. True, but you missed my point. The point is that now, with those trains running, the TA can gauge (through counters and rider surveys) what kind of demand has been generated since those trasins started running. If commute patterns at rush hour have taken advantage of this service, the trains should keep running.You're stuck thinking trains. Switch off railbuff mode. Think people instead. |
|
|
| (417678) | |
Re: Extending E may not work well |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Thu Apr 19 15:55:31 2007, in response to Re: Extending E may not work well, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Thu Apr 19 13:48:44 2007. Yes, you are correct. If Jamaica Center was upgraded to handle 15 TPH, all (E) trains would be sent there, because that's why Jamaica Center would be upgraded.The current (E) trains sent to 179 are not in the timetable and are not shown on The Map and are not advertised in any way. There is no attempt to educate the public about this service plan, and as such, there are likely too few people who make it their business to ride these trains daily to make a survey of them meaningful. Only if this service was advertised and signed and people given enough time to learn to use and start using it would a survey be appropriate and meaningful. |
|
|
| (417682) | |
Re: Extending E may not work well |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Thu Apr 19 16:01:47 2007, in response to Re: Extending E may not work well, posted by RonInBayside on Thu Apr 19 15:04:21 2007. There you go again, Ron. Whether Hillside Ave. needs extra E service is irrelevant when the infrastructure would prevent it should the eastern terminal on the E become capable of handling 15 TPH. Besides, those extra E's from 179th are needed on Archer Ave. right now. |
|
|
| (417698) | |
Re: Whining...... |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Thu Apr 19 17:04:45 2007, in response to Re: Whining......, posted by RonInBayside on Thu Apr 19 12:49:52 2007. I would hardly call it NYC's model... |
|
|
| (417717) | |
Re: Extending E may not work well |
|
|
Posted by AMoreira81 on Thu Apr 19 17:37:35 2007, in response to Re: Extending E may not work well, posted by L Train on Fri Oct 20 15:58:49 2006. I would tend to think that you are misreading the situation. A sizeable amount of people would probably also come from Rosedale, and be brand-new regular users of the line, since it cheapens their commutes and shortens it.The question though is, can the E line handle the extra crowds---considering the Queens Blvd. trunk already has a difficult time as it is? |
|
|
| (417718) | |
Re: Flatbush Avenue Brooklyn College extention |
|
|
Posted by AMoreira81 on Thu Apr 19 17:41:20 2007, in response to Re: Flatbush Avenue Brooklyn College extention, posted by David of Broadway on Thu Oct 19 16:10:31 2006. Well, MORE people would benefit if subway expansions were done in the outer boros than those done ONLY in Manhattan, but the powers that be just don't get it...and you don't either.Manhattan is overserved. The outer boroughs are UNDERSERVED. |
|
|
| (417739) | |
Re: Flatbush Avenue Brooklyn College extention |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Thu Apr 19 18:35:15 2007, in response to Re: Flatbush Avenue Brooklyn College extention, posted by Q35 Limited on Thu Apr 19 03:01:10 2007. Yup...The plan has been shelved for the moment. |
|
|
| (417741) | |
Re: Flatbush Avenue Brooklyn College extention |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Thu Apr 19 18:38:05 2007, in response to Re: Flatbush Avenue Brooklyn College extention, posted by Edwards! on Thu Apr 19 18:35:15 2007. The plan in this sub-thread is pure fantasy. It has not been shelved since it was never a plan. |
|
|
| (417759) | |
Re: Whining...... |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Thu Apr 19 19:16:58 2007, in response to Re: Whining......, posted by MATHA531 on Thu Apr 19 09:44:41 2007. Well..Brooklyn has the BEST COVERAGE in the entire city..if you really want to know the truth. It has the most mileage in subway elevated lines...but it also has the most outdated. Queens has the most need for new routes..as the most non covered areas involved.. Most of the "growth" has happen NEAR RAIL LINES...such as Flushing..Jamaica..and others..while outlaying areas line Springfield Gardens..Rochdale..St Albans and other are laging behind. The is an ABSOLUTE NEED for a rail line in Northeast AND Southeast Queens..along with a new trunk line across Central Queens to compliment the Queens Blvd subway. A line is also needed for cross queens riders[Flushing Whitestone and others..to Jamaica and other areas] The Van Wyck could be used as a model for this..taking a que from the AIRTRAIN T BENT line. Brooklyn DOES need additional connections...ESPECIALLY the UTICA avenue corridor..but as long as the MTA places MANHATTAN AS IT'S PRIORITY..we in the "outter boro's" will continue to get the short end of the stick. Also..to answer Ron's "whining" comment... The little projects that the MTA is carrying out were something that the MTA "had to do" in order the keep the structures from collapsing into the streets.. The NEW CONEY ISLAND STATION? HAD TO REBUILD IT..as it was rotting away for YEARS. ATLANTIC TERMINAL? Was rebuilt in concert with the new malls AND New LIRR TERMINAL...ANd NEW DEVELOPMENTS like the ATLANTIC YARDS PROJECT. Also..the IRT SUBWAY'S ATLANTIC AVENUE STATION AREA needed to be reconstructed[just like NEVINS] DUE TO ITS AGE and threat of a CAVE IN... The R143 cars are NOT a GIFT to Brooklynites..they were NEEDED..just like the 160 are. We didn't NEED CBTC on the CANARSIE LINE..it was CHOOSEN by the MTA as a guina PIG to TEST OUT THE NEW FEATURE..to see IF IT COULD WORK.. So..we should be happy with the transit authority for rebuilding structures that they KNEW they should have fixed YEARS ago? Come on,man...give me a break. They "REPAIR" stuctures because they have to.PERIOD. Now..lets see them move on the LOWER MANHATTAN ACCESS PROJECT through Downtown and Central Brooklyn... Lets see them do something about the Jamaica Elevated over Fulton st NOT falling into the street due to its age.. Lets see them give use a new double deck tunnel under the east river to replace the BOTTLE NECK on the 8th avenue subway to Brooklyn and Manhattan Bridge.. Lets see them fix the South Brooklyn IND to speed up the long trip to Manhattan.. Lets see them give North Brooklyn riders BETTER SERVICE to Midtown..by getting them OFF the already packed F train at DELANCEY ST.. Lets see them give us a DOWNTOWN BROOKLYN to DOWNTOWN MANHATTAN connection to the SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY.... That what they can do for me.. |
|
|
| (417762) | |
Re: Whining...... |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Thu Apr 19 19:20:42 2007, in response to Re: Whining......, posted by R30A on Thu Apr 19 17:04:45 2007. You are right..NYCTA has a muchy wider coverage than Philly or Paris..as a PURE SUBWAY SYSTEM.Here..the LIRR DOESN'T service the outer boro's like outer cities[Philly Paris London..and others.] In PHILLY..Regional rail IS the ONLY way to get around in some areas.. Just like LONDON and Paris.. |
|
|
| (417766) | |
Re: Whining...... |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Thu Apr 19 19:27:12 2007, in response to Re: Whining......, posted by RonInBayside on Thu Apr 19 10:41:03 2007. The South Brooklyn line was completed in 1933[as completed as far as the money was availible would allow]..The 6th avenue line was always connected directly to the south brooklyn subway via Houston st..whereas the Concourse line tracks terminated at 34th st in 1940.. Also..the Chrystie street line was built to overcome short comings built by BOTH the IND AND BMT PLANNERS.. Nothing to do with the riders..EVERYTHING to do with the PLANNING developers. If the lines were built AS PLANNED..then the bottlenecks would not have become an issue later on... |
|
|
| (417768) | |
Re: Whining...... |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Thu Apr 19 19:32:06 2007, in response to Re: Whining......, posted by AEM-7AC #901 on Thu Apr 19 12:04:19 2007. No..they had the right idea...But they didn't do several things.. First they DIDN'T connect the Rockaway line with the east west Queens Blvd routes..making access to Midtown EASIER. Second the LIRR and the City's rapid transit system should have been intergrated sometime during the 30's..with intralining service. This way the subway system AND the LIRR trains would have been ONE SYSTEM now,with thur routing between the city and point east. |
|
|
| (417769) | |
Re: Flatbush Avenue Brooklyn College extention |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Thu Apr 19 19:35:54 2007, in response to Re: Flatbush Avenue Brooklyn College extention, posted by Terrapin Station on Thu Apr 19 18:38:05 2007. The MTA planned to extend the Nostrand avenue line to the Bay Ridge ROW for lay ups.The PLAN has been scrapped for the moment,due to OTHER priority projects,such as the planned JAY ST TRANSFER stations project. |
|
|
| (417787) | |
Re: Flatbush Avenue Brooklyn College extention |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Thu Apr 19 20:21:20 2007, in response to Re: Flatbush Avenue Brooklyn College extention, posted by AMoreira81 on Thu Apr 19 17:41:20 2007. Everywhere is underserved.Ideally one would build enough subway milage citywide to solve the capacity issues we have, and allow for development in lesser developed areas. If we do not have as much money to spend-- Manhattan is by far the wisest place to spend the money as it has by far the greatest density, and nobody is going to use a line that doesnt connect to anything. |
|
|
| (417789) | |
Re: Flatbush Avenue Brooklyn College extention |
|
|
Posted by AMoreira81 on Thu Apr 19 20:23:21 2007, in response to Re: Flatbush Avenue Brooklyn College extention, posted by R30A on Thu Apr 19 20:21:20 2007. Or one could extend the outer borough lines beyond their current terminuses, especially the 2/5. |
|
|
| (417793) | |
Re: Flatbush Avenue Brooklyn College extention |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Thu Apr 19 20:25:10 2007, in response to Re: Flatbush Avenue Brooklyn College extention, posted by AMoreira81 on Thu Apr 19 20:23:21 2007. Extending the 2/5 would probably be the most useful extension possible in brooklyn. That said, it pales in comparison to the needs of the SAS. |
|
|
| (417794) | |
Re: Flatbush Avenue Brooklyn College extention |
|
|
Posted by AMoreira81 on Thu Apr 19 20:26:32 2007, in response to Re: Flatbush Avenue Brooklyn College extention, posted by R30A on Thu Apr 19 20:25:10 2007. The MTA has the power to issue debt, right? (I am assuming that the state's bond rating isn't in the junk category.) |
|
|
| (417801) | |
Re: Flatbush Avenue Brooklyn College extention |
|
|
Posted by AMoreira81 on Thu Apr 19 20:31:25 2007, in response to Re: Flatbush Avenue Brooklyn College extention, posted by AMoreira81 on Thu Apr 19 20:26:32 2007. Another way to save money to fund it is to force the current fleet to last a few more years longer (subway cars to 50 years, and buses to 25 years, once the current option of buses is exercised, stop buying new buses for a while). Stop scrapping buses (now that the entire fleet is ADA compliant).The money saved by not buying new buses could pay for a DEIS and part of an FEIS for 2/5 expansion, or extending a subway line down Merrick (if the E gets extended down Merrick, I would want the R to end at Jamaica Center, with a pocket track used as a terminus. |
|
|
| (417831) | |
Re: Extending E may not work well |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Thu Apr 19 21:30:35 2007, in response to Re: Extending E may not work well, posted by Edwards! on Fri Oct 20 00:41:34 2006. Right. |
|
|
| (417832) | |
No, The outer boros do NOT get shafted (was: Re: Whining......) |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Thu Apr 19 21:38:33 2007, in response to Re: Whining......, posted by Edwards! on Thu Apr 19 19:16:58 2007. I'm tired of the complaining that the MTA is only Manhattan centric, and they don't care about the outer boroughs, because it's just wrong.Before the latest round of propsed expansions, what expansion did NYC get, and who did it benefit? Archer Ave (Queens), 63rd st (Queens), Chrystie St (Brooklyn). Of the projects on the table, one benefits Long Islanders (ESA), while the other two will benefit Manhattanites, among others (Flushing line extension and SAS). SAS has been needed for decades. And, it will benefit everybody, Manhattanites and people from the outer boroughs alike. When expansion happens in the CBD, it benefits EVERYBODY. Can people please stop crying? Particularly now that manhattan is FINALLY getting the subway to replace what was an additional 4 tracks of capacity. |
|
|
| (417837) | |
Re: Flatbush Avenue Brooklyn College extention |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Thu Apr 19 21:54:48 2007, in response to Re: Flatbush Avenue Brooklyn College extention, posted by RonInBayside on Thu Oct 19 23:13:26 2006. The ONLY reason for this is all except a few of the subway lines travel though Manhattan..No one is questioning that fact.. But the one glaring problem here is the outer boro's lack of connectivity while Manhattan has it in abundance. Case in point...Downtown Brooklyn has EVERY subway line[minus a few] from Manhattan crossing each other at one point..yet to this very day you CAN'T tranfer between the BMT/IRT to the IND..without leaving the system,without a Unlimited Metrocard. Also...what about issue in the outer Boro's that NEED extending like Utica Avenue...Nostrand..Jamaica Center..Flushing..? What about areas that need more service like Northeren Brooklyn..? What about better connections..line a South Brooklyn IND connection to the Brighton line..or a connection to the West End line? These little additions will reduce service over the Manhattan Bridge..make the Rutgers st tunnel MORE usefull.. How about a cross queens trunk line? How about a Cross Bronx subway? All these thing take PRESIDENCE over ANY subway in Manhattan since they will do EXACTLY What a SAS would do..but do it BETTER. The LEXINGTON is crowded? We know this...but so is the QUEENS BLVD LINE... No subways over on the WEST SIDE...? So what...we need one on Styvasant avenue..Utica avenue...Nostrand avenue..Jamaica avenue..and MANY OTHER PLACES in NYC. So to all of you preferred Manhattanites..think first about who needs what..then comment. |
|
|
| (417839) | |
Re: Extending E may not work well |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Thu Apr 19 21:55:27 2007, in response to Re: Extending E may not work well, posted by Terrapin Station on Thu Apr 19 15:55:31 2007. I thought the service guide mentions them. |
|
|
| (417842) | |
Re: Extending E may not work well |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Thu Apr 19 21:59:55 2007, in response to Re: Extending E may not work well, posted by J trainloco on Thu Apr 19 21:55:27 2007. Ah, you are correct. I did not know that. Still, I don't think anyone is going to wait around for one to come after just reading it on there. |
|
|
| (417850) | |
Re: No, The outer boros do NOT get shafted (was: Re: Whining......) |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Thu Apr 19 22:12:35 2007, in response to No, The outer boros do NOT get shafted (was: Re: Whining......), posted by J trainloco on Thu Apr 19 21:38:33 2007. What the heck are you taking about?The REASON why Manhattan didn't get a SAS in the 70's wasn't OUR FAULT. It was the MTA's and the STATES fault. It was the crooked ass politicans fault... They tried to HOOKWINK the FEDS..and got BUSTED..and if it wasn't for the FEDS..the 63rd st AND ARCHER routes would have BIT THE DUST TOO! What did the MTA do for the city for YEARS AFTER IT WAS FORMED? ROB us ..STEAL from us...raise the fare though the roof time after time..and give us CRAP for service..all the while saying they were doing the best they could. Also tell me..if the MTA was a NYS company..why would it need to repair "stuff" in NEW JERSEY?..Or AT a AIRPORT it doesn't even run to? Also..Why would you build a subway section in THREE DIFFERENT PLACES..knowing that you might not have the means to complete the job? Why didnt they build the route IN ONE PLACE only..like upper Manhattan..then continue after that section was completed? Also..out of that 2.5 billion dollars the FEDS gave the MTA..why did the TA only get 600 million..? Knowing DAMN WELL that that WAS nowhere enough to complete a 3rd of the routes they planned? Heck..the 63rd st line ALONE WAS A BILLION PLUS when it was finally[if you can call it that] finished! its not about who's getting shortchanged here... ITs about BALANCED TRANSIT... The LIRR has been sticking it to us for years...over 70 percent of our rider is paid out of pocket while they pay less than 30.. The same goes for MNR.. So Ill complain all I want..untill I see some changes HERE. |
|
|
| (417856) | |
Re: No, The outer boros do NOT get shafted (was: Re: Whining......) |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Thu Apr 19 22:18:20 2007, in response to Re: No, The outer boros do NOT get shafted (was: Re: Whining......), posted by Edwards! on Thu Apr 19 22:12:35 2007. You won't see any changes here. |
|
|
| (417857) | |
Re: No, The outer boros do NOT get shafted (was: Re: Whining......) |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Thu Apr 19 22:18:49 2007, in response to Re: No, The outer boros do NOT get shafted (was: Re: Whining......), posted by Edwards! on Thu Apr 19 22:12:35 2007. ....You didn't address my point. |
|
|
| (417858) | |
Re: No, The outer boros get shafted (was: Re: Whining......) |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Thu Apr 19 22:19:30 2007, in response to Re: No, The outer boros do NOT get shafted (was: Re: Whining......), posted by Terrapin Station on Thu Apr 19 22:18:20 2007. I imagine not..but one can hope. |
|
|
| (417864) | |
Re: No, The outer boros get shafted (was: Re: Whining......) |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Thu Apr 19 22:21:29 2007, in response to Re: No, The outer boros do NOT get shafted (was: Re: Whining......), posted by J trainloco on Thu Apr 19 22:18:49 2007. I did cover it...you just didn't 'get it'...I also posted in other threads bout the subject.. take a look around,brah.. lol.. |
|
|
| (417867) | |
Re: No, The outer boros get shafted (was: Re: Whining......) |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Thu Apr 19 22:22:14 2007, in response to Re: No, The outer boros get shafted (was: Re: Whining......), posted by Edwards! on Thu Apr 19 22:19:30 2007. Yes, one can, but admitting to it opens one up to ridicule. |
|
|
| (417873) | |
Re: No, The outer boros get shafted (was: Re: Whining......) |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Thu Apr 19 22:23:59 2007, in response to Re: No, The outer boros get shafted (was: Re: Whining......), posted by Edwards! on Thu Apr 19 22:21:29 2007. I've seen some of your other rants. I'm not impressed. None of them address the fact that all major construction projects since the 50s, until this time have benefitted the outer boroughs. Yet, all you guys want to do is complain that the MTA is shafting you. |
|
|
| (417882) | |
Re: No, The outer boros get shafted (was: Re: Whining......) |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Thu Apr 19 22:27:31 2007, in response to Re: No, The outer boros get shafted (was: Re: Whining......), posted by Terrapin Station on Thu Apr 19 22:22:14 2007. Well sometimes..it's BETTER to look beyond what others think or say.to go with popular opinion just 'because',is a sign of weakness..and being a follower. |
|
|
| (417893) | |
Re: Whining...... |
|
|
Posted by (X) 2nd Avenue Local on Thu Apr 19 22:44:54 2007, in response to Re: Whining......, posted by MATHA531 on Thu Apr 19 09:44:41 2007. You make good points. Out of all the other outer boroughs, Queens has the most need for more subway lines, and only the southern and eastern portions of Brooklyn could use subway coverage.However due to the pressing need for building the 2nd Avenue Subway, yes, city transit needs are more Manhattan-centric, but hopefully once construction of that line gains momentum (and hopefully it won't be halted in mid-construction like it was during the 70's), maybe attention can turn to doing something about constructing more lines in the outer boroughs. |
|
|
| (417897) | |
Re: No, The outer boros get shafted (was: Re: Whining......) |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Thu Apr 19 22:49:10 2007, in response to Re: No, The outer boros get shafted (was: Re: Whining......), posted by Edwards! on Thu Apr 19 22:27:31 2007. You don't have to go with the popular opinion. You can just say nothing. |
|
|
| (417901) | |
Re: Whining...... |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Thu Apr 19 22:56:17 2007, in response to Re: Whining......, posted by (X) 2nd Avenue Local on Thu Apr 19 22:44:54 2007. However due to the pressing need for building the 2nd Avenue Subway, yes, city transit needs are more Manhattan-centric,That's because everyone wants to go to the CBD. Expanding service to the place where the majority of riders want to go benefits the most people. |
|
|
| (417915) | |
Re: No, The outer boros get shafted (was: Re: Whining......) |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Thu Apr 19 23:38:52 2007, in response to Re: No, The outer boros get shafted (was: Re: Whining......), posted by J trainloco on Thu Apr 19 22:23:59 2007. None of my posts were meant to "Impress You", nor did I ever imply such.Lets start going thur some of the details... You DID say the 50's..right? Let me fill you in on something. Every single route that was built since the 50's was a completion of the Board of Transportation system or route planning. Even the PRESENT DYRE AVENUE LINE was a part of that plan.. It was part of the Second system plan that after closer inspection and actually ASKING the Bronx riders What they wanted..connected the line to the West Farms line. The De Kalb Avenue rebuild? A BOT plan refecting the SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY. Chrystie St..?The EXTREMELY curtailed version of the SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY.. 6th Avenue Bypass tunnels? Part of the SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY project. Rockaway Line..? An BOT IND SECOND SYSTEM ROUTE that was actually USED. 57th st/6th Avenue..?Part of the IND SECOND AVENUE PROJECT. South Brooklyn IND takeover of the Cluver line..?Planned by the BOT as part of the IND's original route,as well as part of a new route to Fort Hamilton Pky...and the West End Elevated. 11th st Cut..?A BOT answer to the lack of Manhattan bound local service on the Queens Blvd local[BKLYN QNS CROSSTOWN].. 148th st Lenox Terminal..?Hey..it provided a new station for Harlem and a FULL terminal for 3 trains..replacing one of the original shops of the IRT subway from 1904. 63RD st..?Also part of a BOT plan thought the location of the tunnel changed from 76THstreet to where the present tunnel is located.Even the Super Express was part of it..just like Archer Avenue was. The point is.. All of the routes ABOVE were products of the 30's..envisioned by the BOT..most directly spawned from the planned SECOND avenue subway. Sure everybody benefited from them..but the CORE of them was to benefit Manhattan. |
|
|
| (417916) | |
Re: No, The outer boros get shafted (was: Re: Whining......) |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Thu Apr 19 23:53:43 2007, in response to Re: No, The outer boros get shafted (was: Re: Whining......), posted by Edwards! on Thu Apr 19 22:27:31 2007. More often then being a sign of weakness, it is a sign of correctness. |
|
|
| (417918) | |
Re: No, The outer boros get shafted (was: Re: Whining......) |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Thu Apr 19 23:59:18 2007, in response to Re: No, The outer boros get shafted (was: Re: Whining......), posted by R30A on Thu Apr 19 23:53:43 2007. Whatever make you guys go..Me..? I'll stick with what I do. |
|
|
| (417926) | |
Re: No, The outer boros get shafted (was: Re: Whining......) |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Fri Apr 20 00:23:17 2007, in response to Re: No, The outer boros get shafted (was: Re: Whining......), posted by Edwards! on Thu Apr 19 23:38:52 2007. Every single route that was built since the 50's was a completion of the Board of Transportation system or route planning.Relevance? The De Kalb Avenue rebuild? A BOT plan refecting the SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY. Your point? It was constructed without the existence of a SAS. Even IF the SAS was constructed at that time, the DeKalb rebuild would not have benefitted Manhattan riders. Chrystie St..?The EXTREMELY curtailed version of the SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY.. Your Point? What was built in the end was built solely to benefit brooklyn riders. 6th Avenue Bypass tunnels? Part of the SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY project. I don't understand what you're getting at there. 6th avenue was always supposed to get express tracks, just that it was supposed to be PATH's tracks. Rockaway Line..? An BOT IND SECOND SYSTEM ROUTE that was actually USED. Now this is where you loose all coherence. My issue is that the MTA has made most upgrades in the outer boroughs. Who cares where the original plan came from? How is that relevant? 57th st/6th Avenue..?Part of the IND SECOND AVENUE PROJECT. No. See below. South Brooklyn IND takeover of the Cluver line..?Planned by the BOT as part of the IND's original route,as well as part of a new route to Fort Hamilton Pky...and the West End Elevated. Again, you're only proving my point. 11th st Cut..?A BOT answer to the lack of Manhattan bound local service on the Queens Blvd local[BKLYN QNS CROSSTOWN].. Again, you're only proving my point. 63RD st..?Also part of a BOT plan thought the location of the tunnel changed from 76THstreet to where the present tunnel is located.Even the Super Express was part of it..just like Archer Avenue was. IIRC, the original plan had ZIPPO connections to Queens. Later on, in the late 30s, the plan you mention was proposed, along with many other changes. They eventually changed the plan to 61st street. Then 62nd. Then 63rd. In the final plan, a new tunnel was built to Queens, for very little benefit to Manhattanites. Thus: Again, you're only proving my point. All of the routes ABOVE were products of the 30's..envisioned by the BOT..most directly spawned from the planned SECOND avenue subway. So, your point is that the MTA took BOT plans, and only built the portions that benefitted people in the outer boroughs. Sure everybody benefited from them..but the CORE of them was to benefit Manhattan. Did you even read what you wrote? Let's recap: DeKalb rebuild: benefitted Brooklyn. Chrystie St, AS BUILT: Benefitted Brooklyn. 6th avenue Bypass tunnels: Mainly benefitted Brooklyn, as they allowed Brooklyn riders to have extra trains to access to midtown. Rockaway Line: Benefitted Queens Riders 57/6th: Benefitted Manhattanites, but mainly riders of B'way Bklyn (the terminal was served by their train!) Culver Hooked to Crosstown: Benefitted Brooklyn. 11 St Cut: Benefitted Queens. 148th: Benefitted Manhattan 63rd: Benefitted Queens. I don't have to debate with you. You've just argued against yourself. |
|
|
| (417934) | |
Re: No, The outer boros do NOT get shafted (was: Re: Whining......) |
|
|
Posted by #4 Sea Beach Fred on Fri Apr 20 00:44:42 2007, in response to No, The outer boros do NOT get shafted (was: Re: Whining......), posted by J trainloco on Thu Apr 19 21:38:33 2007. J, you might have mentioned the deplorable condition of the stations and all the garbage on the tracks of my Sea Beach on the open cut region of that line. Unless something has happened in the last two months I haven't heard a thing about anything being done at all on that line. I think the TA might finally get off the dime and include that in their list of remodeling, if that be the proper word. |
|
|
|
Page 8 of 12 |
||
