|
|
| Re: No, The outer boros do NOT get shafted (was: Re: Whining......) (325542) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 9 of 12 |
||
|
| (417935) | |
Re: No, The outer boros do NOT get shafted (was: Re: Whining......) |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Fri Apr 20 00:50:36 2007, in response to 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. have you seen the sea beach as of late?It still looks like shit but they have fixed up a lot of problems. Sure, its patchwork, but they have been finally fixing all that needs fixing. Big improvements. |
|
|
| (417937) | |
Re: No, The outer boros do NOT get shafted (was: Re: Whining......) |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Fri Apr 20 00:56:46 2007, in response to 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. Have you seen the terminal since it was upgraded? |
|
|
| (417964) | |
Re: Flatbush Avenue Brooklyn College extention |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Fri Apr 20 04:20:02 2007, in response to Re: Flatbush Avenue Brooklyn College extention, posted by AMoreira81 on Thu Apr 19 20:31:25 2007. People at JC would still board a packed (E) rather than an empty (R). |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (417965) | |
Re: No, The outer boros get shafted (was: Re: Whining......) |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Fri Apr 20 04:32:58 2007, in response to Re: No, The outer boros get shafted (was: Re: Whining......), posted by J trainloco on Fri Apr 20 00:23:17 2007. Your not debating with me..as You fail to see where Im driving at.All these projects were carried out by the TA years after they were planned..and ALL were to built to and For travel to Manhattan from the outer Boro's. Also..the ORIGINAL PLAN for 61st STREET had NOTHING to do with Queens... WE are NOT talking about 61st...We are talking about the 76TH ST tunnel to Steinway/Broadway[where there is a shell of the tunnel there this very day under Broadway]..which was placed in the plans as a way to counter the Queens Boro Presidents plan to with hold ANY AND EVERY bit of support to the City's BOND ISSUE for money to build the routes. Also..63rd st was to be built to support a new cross Queens route TO THE CBD of MANHATTAN..not QUEENS. I've PROVED my point over and beyond..but since you DON'T understand..I'll try to make it so you DO understand. All of these routes proposals that were built either was a direct connection or a branch of the UNBUILT SECOND AVENUE LINE.. Even IF the line ITSELF wasn't constructed due to whatever means the TA did..it STILL was for MANHATTAN SERVICE. Nothing was built to support outer boro transportation except the Brooklyn Queens Crosstown line...and even that was never finished. Also..the 6TH AVENUE subway could NOT have used PATH 's tunnels at ANY time due to the BOT STATING that the cost of refurbishing the HUDSON TUBE tunnels would have been TOO GREAT..and decided to shift the "express" tracks cost to the SECOND AVENUE PROJECT as a tie in. So I'm Not impressed by YOU. You can come better than that..give it a try by drawing up your OWN listing. |
|
|
| (418049) | |
Re: Extending E may not work well |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri Apr 20 11:54:20 2007, in response to Re: Extending E may not work well, posted by J trainloco on Thu Apr 19 21:55:27 2007. There's also signage for them on the express tracks at 179th and Parsons/Hillside (noting that it's only "limited" service). |
|
|
| (418112) | |
Re: No, The outer boros get service to the CBD (was: Re: Whining......) |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Fri Apr 20 15:42:23 2007, in response to Re: No, The outer boros get shafted (was: Re: Whining......), posted by Edwards! on Fri Apr 20 04:32:58 2007. Also..the ORIGINAL PLAN for 61st STREET had NOTHING to do with Queens...WE are NOT talking about 61st...We are talking about the 76TH ST tunnel to Steinway/Broadway Except that these 2 tunnels are both, for all practical purposes, the same project. There was NEVER a plan to build a 76th st tunnel AND a 61st street tunnel, IINM. Also..63rd st was to be built to support a new cross Queens route TO THE CBD of MANHATTAN..not QUEENS. Ah, Now you're point becomes clear. All of these projects improved service to Manhattan. Unfortunately, your point is pretty silly, IMO. By far, the most popular DESTINATION is the Borough of Manhattan, below 60th street. ALL of the projects you mentioned were to help people from the outer boroughs have better service to the location where everybody wants to go. Additionally, these projects, save for a few, did not benefit people who were already within the area of the CBD. So, who was this money spent on, truthfully? Who uses Chrystie, the 11th street cut and 63rd? PEOPLE FROM THE OUTER BOROUGHS! Now, if you want to complain that no money has been spent to extend service to areas that don't have it, then by all means, complain! You are correct! But, then again, Manhattan has not seen such an expansion for just as long a period of time. Now, we get to the issue of current spending. I am all for expansion in Queens and Brooklyn (Particularly Queens, which I have stated numerous times). But, Is a Second Avenue subway more important? Absolutely. Not only to reduce crowding on Lex, but also to reduce street level crowding. Traffic on the East Side is a big contributor to pollution. I also like to think of 'cost/benefit'. The SAS has been projected to serve 400,000 riders daily. What new line in the outer boroughs would do that? All this complaining about the outer boroughs not getting the bucks is baffling to me. Yes, expansions were made to expand service to the CBD, but THIS IS WHERE PEOPLE WANT TO GO! By your estimation, the outer boroughs would have benefitted more from another crosstown line, which I'm hard pressed to believe. All of these routes proposals that were built either was a direct connection or a branch of the UNBUILT SECOND AVENUE LINE.. Even IF the line ITSELF wasn't constructed due to whatever means the TA did..it STILL was for MANHATTAN SERVICE. Because that's where people want to go! You don't see the LIRR building a cross-Island route. You can come better than that..give it a try by drawing up your OWN listing. Why? Every project you listed benefitted people from the outer boroughs. |
|
|
| (418128) | |
Re: Flatbush Avenue Brooklyn College extention |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Fri Apr 20 16:10:50 2007, in response to Re: Flatbush Avenue Brooklyn College extention, posted by jabrams on Wed Apr 18 20:07:40 2007. Yes, but the Utica Av bellmouths to which I am referring are on the IRT E/Pky Line. Both lines would be IRT (A) Division. |
|
|
| (418141) | |
Re: Flatbush Avenue Brooklyn College extention |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Fri Apr 20 16:23:59 2007, in response to Re: Flatbush Avenue Brooklyn College extention, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Thu Apr 19 12:12:58 2007. If you think about it, had the 63 Dr connection (Whitepot jct) to the LIRR ROW been built from the IND Q/Blvd Line, the route to the Rockaways from Manhattan would certainly have been more round about than the present configuration. Imagine traveling from downtown or midtown Manhattan through Jackson Hts and Woodhaven and then almost doubling back S/B through Richmond Hill to get to Rockaway, yet if the orignal IND plans had come to fruition, that is exactly what would have happened. The present line configuration is more direct since although Rockaway is legally in Queens, it is physically south of the borough of Brooklyn. |
|
|
| (418153) | |
Re: No, The outer boros get service to the CBD (was: Re: Whining......) |
|
|
Posted by MATHA531 on Fri Apr 20 16:28:39 2007, in response to Re: No, The outer boros get service to the CBD (was: Re: Whining......), posted by J trainloco on Fri Apr 20 15:42:23 2007. ...but even accepting the argument how important it is to better service people coming from the outer boroughs in the CBD, what about the people in the many areas of Queens (and I will list Queens first) and in Brooklyn (which I happen to know better; not that I think Brooklyn deserves priority over Queens although there are large areas of Brooklyn without any subway service)....aren't these people entitled to the same opportunity to enter the CBD as everybody else (not to leave out Staten Island which has no access)..The point remains...yes some improvements were made since the last subway was built and completed in 1940 (what is that 67 years ago)...1940 indeed was the last time a major line was built....a connection from Eurlid to the existing Fulton Street el to Lefferts and the Rockaways...nice job but not really a new line (although one can agree that Rockaway people are better off with the subway and its much lower fares than the LIRR)....again my example remains the Nostrand Avenue and Utica Avenue subways...long promised and bonds floated for but never built. I really do believe that the attitude today is that bus to the subway is sufficient, cheaper and now that double fares have been somewhat eliminated, what's the big deal. And since I no longer live in Brooklyn, quite frankly it's no skin off my teeth one way or another...I'm just stating it from a historic viewpoint and also as a kid having to pay a double fare everytime I ventured into Manhattan to go to a Knick or Ranger game and coming home at night and having to rely on the B6 bus to get from the Brighton station at Avenue J to my parent's house in Canarsie and how many night then I had to wait 20 minutes for a bus as there was absolutely no attempt made to coordinate the bus and the subway...how often did I see the train coming into the Avenue J station just as the bus took off..it bugged me then and I felt it was unfair..and my point was nobody cared then and quite frankly, nobody cares now because after all it's Queens and Brooklyn. Somewhere in this thread which started in October, I made the point but you can answer this for me. Do you for one second think that if an electrical blackout which hit Queens and deprived people of electricity for a week ever happened in the CBD, it would have taken a week to fix???? The only point being made and being stated as a subject for discussion, not as a subject to put anybody else down or be put down myself, is city govenment is and has always been Manhattancentric...big money talks I suppose and the transportation system indeed is one example of it. That's the point being made and I welcome the opportunity to engage in a meaningful discussion, not be put down for "whining". |
|
|
| (418158) | |
Re: Brooklyn subway needs |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Fri Apr 20 16:32:02 2007, in response to Re: Brooklyn subway needs, posted by RonInBayside on Thu Oct 19 16:00:12 2006. Try telling that to the people in Mill Basin and Marine Park. |
|
|
| (418160) | |
Re: Brooklyn subway needs |
|
|
Posted by Newkirk Plaza David on Fri Apr 20 16:35:59 2007, in response to Re: Brooklyn subway needs, posted by randyo on Fri Apr 20 16:32:02 2007. Ron never has a clue how Brooklyn is spread out, area-wise!Try taking the subway to Kings Plaza, NOT!!!! |
|
|
| (418164) | |
Re: Whining...... |
|
|
Posted by MATHA531 on Fri Apr 20 16:40:51 2007, in response to Re: Whining......, posted by J trainloco on Thu Apr 19 22:56:17 2007. ...but again what benefit is it to the people in the outer boroughs who have no subway access to get to the CBD? That is the point. |
|
|
| (418165) | |
Re: No, The outer boros get service to the CBD (was: Re: Whining......) |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Fri Apr 20 16:43:05 2007, in response to Re: No, The outer boros get service to the CBD (was: Re: Whining......), posted by MATHA531 on Fri Apr 20 16:28:39 2007. ...but even accepting the argument how important it is to better service people coming from the outer boroughs in the CBD, what about the people in the many areas of Queens (and I will list Queens first) and in Brooklyn (which I happen to know better; not that I think Brooklyn deserves priority over Queens although there are large areas of Brooklyn without any subway service)....aren't these people entitled to the same opportunity to enter the CBD as everybody else (not to leave out Staten Island which has no access)..What about them? Again: COST/BENEFIT. I'm all for subway extensions to in the outer boroughs, but not before a SAS is built. I really do believe that the attitude today is that bus to the subway is sufficient, cheaper and now that double fares have been somewhat eliminated, what's the big deal. No, the attitude is: We don't have the money to provide everyone with rail service, and we never will. I'm just stating it from a historic viewpoint and also as a kid having to pay a double fare everytime I ventured into Manhattan to go to a Knick or Ranger game and coming home at night and having to rely on the B6 bus to get from the Brighton station at Avenue J to my parent's house in Canarsie and how many night then I had to wait 20 minutes for a bus as there was absolutely no attempt made to coordinate the bus and the subway...how often did I see the train coming into the Avenue J station just as the bus took off..it bugged me then and I felt it was unfair..and my point was nobody cared then and quite frankly, nobody cares now because after all it's Queens and Brooklyn. What is your point? Buses are not coordinated in manhattan either. The big difference is that Manhattan has a lot more subway service, most likely because it: 1. Is a lot denser than Brooklyn or Queens. 2. Is the location of more destinations. Your own example is a case in point. Likely where your parents lived is an area of far lower density than manhattan. What would a cost/benefit analysis say about building rail to that area? Remember, the MTA has limited resources, and they have to spend them where they will benefit the most amount of people. Do you for one second think that if an electrical blackout which hit Queens and deprived people of electricity for a week ever happened in the CBD, it would have taken a week to fix???? If you understood the engineering elements behind said blackout, you would realize that the issue was not the repair work, but what lead to the blackout. If the same blackout occurred in the CBD, it would have taken quite some time to fix. Of course, a couple of things to remember about the CBD: 1. They get better maintenance. They use a lot more power. 2. Many buildings can generate their own power. So, there never would have been a blackout in the CBD. Of course, I want you to answer this question: would a blackout in the CBD be more detrimental than the one in Queens? For the Record, I did not "put you down for whining". |
|
|
| (418166) | |
Re: Whining...... |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Fri Apr 20 16:45:10 2007, in response to Re: Whining......, posted by MATHA531 on Fri Apr 20 16:40:51 2007. What do you not understand? There are limited resources. These resources are spent in a way to benefit the largest number of people. Building a subway out to southeast Brooklyn, something I am FOR, would benefit far fewer people than SAS. |
|
|
| (418167) | |
Re: No, The outer boros get service to the CBD (was: Re: Whining......) |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Fri Apr 20 16:46:30 2007, in response to Re: No, The outer boros get service to the CBD (was: Re: Whining......), posted by MATHA531 on Fri Apr 20 16:28:39 2007. Actually, 1940 was not the last time a major line was built and the line to which you are referring was not completed in its entirety until 1956. The line to Euclid did not open until 1947 and the connection to the Fulton st El and the Rockaways opened in 1956. And what exactly do yo call the 63 St connector and the Van wyck connection to the Archer Av subway. These were actually more significant than the Fulton St connections in many ways since, until the IND connectios were built, the BMT had service along Pitkin and Liberty Aves and the Rockaways were served by the LIRR. |
|
|
| (418177) | |
Re: Extending E may not work well |
|
|
Posted by Red Line to Glenmont on Fri Apr 20 16:56:58 2007, in response to Re: Extending E may not work well, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Thu Apr 19 16:01:47 2007. True. Besides, even if no E trains ran to 179/Hillside, it's not that hard to get off at any express station up to Roosevelt Avenue during rush hour and wait for the E, maybe a 2 minute wait. So there is no actual need for E trains to leave or go to 179 St. except -- as someone else wrote -- to relieve pressure on the Archer Avenue terminal. |
|
|
| (418193) | |
Re: No, The outer boros get service to the CBD (was: Re: Whining......) |
|
|
Posted by MATHA531 on Fri Apr 20 17:09:46 2007, in response to Re: No, The outer boros get service to the CBD (was: Re: Whining......), posted by J trainloco on Fri Apr 20 16:43:05 2007. "So, there never would have been a blackout in the CBD. Of course, I want you to answer this question: would a blackout in the CBD be more detrimental than the one in Queens?"Well the people living in the areas affected by the blackout might have a different answer than the one you expect! But thanks for a civil discourse...there is not enough of that here sometimes. |
|
|
| (418195) | |
Re: Brooklyn subway needs |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri Apr 20 17:10:35 2007, in response to Re: Brooklyn subway needs, posted by RonInBayside on Thu Oct 19 16:00:12 2006. To be fair, Brooklyn hasn't had a new station built for it since 1956. Since then Manhattan has received 4 and Queens 5 (if you count Roosevelt Island as part of Queens). I agree Queens is horribly underserved. After the east side of Manhattan, every other major transit need is within this boro. |
|
|
| (418201) | |
Re: No, The outer boros get service to the CBD (was: Re: Whining......) |
|
|
Posted by David of Broadway on Fri Apr 20 17:18:37 2007, in response to Re: No, The outer boros get service to the CBD (was: Re: Whining......), posted by J trainloco on Fri Apr 20 15:42:23 2007. Excellent post (as are your others in this thread). |
|
|
| (418212) | |
Re: Brooklyn subway needs |
|
|
Posted by SUBWAYSURF on Fri Apr 20 17:27:27 2007, in response to Re: Brooklyn subway needs, posted by randyo on Fri Apr 20 16:32:02 2007. It there really a need to drag up a 6 month old thread? |
|
|
| (418214) | |
Re: Brooklyn subway needs |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Fri Apr 20 17:28:14 2007, in response to Re: Brooklyn subway needs, posted by SUBWAYSURF on Fri Apr 20 17:27:27 2007. He wasn't the first. |
|
|
| (418228) | |
Re: Possibilities for Brooklyn expansion |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Fri Apr 20 17:41:40 2007, in response to Re: No, The outer boros get service to the CBD (was: Re: Whining......), posted by MATHA531 on Fri Apr 20 16:28:39 2007. Hey, I like to call whining, whining, when it's whining, and it was whining, and would have been whining in any case, even if whining wasn't intended. But enough whining. 8-)The Capital Planning process has made funding more ratiuonal and ties projects closely to identified funding. This means that projects are far less likely to run out of money midway through. That means that, if you can get a Brooklyn or Queens subway project into the Capital Plan, the mechanism for securing funding is underway. So a project, once committed to, is likely to succeed. The key is getting a political consensus on what the next project will be. The Atlantic Yards project will result in further improvements to the nearby existing subway facilities. The resulting increase in population may spur demands for Brooklyn subway expansion. In other words, you may get your wish - more Brooklyn subways. |
|
|
| (418231) | |
Re: Extending E may not work well |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Fri Apr 20 17:46:49 2007, in response to Re: Extending E may not work well, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Thu Apr 19 16:01:47 2007. "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."The infrastructure would not prevent it. |
|
|
| (418233) | |
Re: Extending E may not work well |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Fri Apr 20 17:48:30 2007, in response to Re: Extending E may not work well, posted by Red Line to Glenmont on Fri Apr 20 16:56:58 2007. False. While it's easy to wait for the E, the people taking it want a seat. That's why the F runs local east of Forest Hills.That'sALSO why the TA doesn't hire railbuffs to plan its routes. |
|
|
| (418234) | |
Re: No, The outer boros get service to the CBD (was: Re: Whining......) |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Fri Apr 20 17:50:53 2007, in response to Re: No, The outer boros get service to the CBD (was: Re: Whining......), posted by J trainloco on Fri Apr 20 15:42:23 2007. Agreed.The Chrystie Street project (including the critical 6th Av express tracks) did more to help outer borough riders than any expansion project in the outer boroughs would have. |
|
|
| (418246) | |
Re: Extending E may not work well |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Fri Apr 20 18:48:05 2007, in response to Re: Extending E may not work well, posted by RonInBayside on Thu Apr 19 15:04:21 2007. F on hillside is roughly adequate. E on Parsons is severely underserved. Of course, if hillside were underserved to a greater degree then archer, it may make sense to run some E trains to 179, but when the only reason why parsons archer doesnt have the full E service it requires is a lack of ability to physically run it, then ideally, the MTA would run more service to archer, diverting the hillside E trains to archer |
|
|
| (418265) | |
Re: Extending E may not work well |
|
|
Posted by Q35 Limited on Fri Apr 20 19:52:39 2007, in response to Re: Extending E may not work well, posted by Red Line to Glenmont on Fri Apr 20 16:56:58 2007. Yes and also was it so that people that takes the F has at least 3 one seat rides to the 53rd Street tunnel? |
|
|
| (418267) | |
Re: Extending E may not work well |
|
|
Posted by Q35 Limited on Fri Apr 20 19:54:54 2007, in response to Re: Extending E may not work well, posted by RonInBayside on Fri Apr 20 17:48:30 2007. Why do you keep making such assumptions when you don't even ride the E often? Then again you make a good bureaucrat. Follow the company line rather than follow logical reasoning. |
|
|
| (418279) | |
New line that starts at 23rd street |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Fri Apr 20 20:32:41 2007, in response to Re: Extending E, posted by Russ on Sat Nov 25 14:39:32 2006. Russ:This sounds like an excellent idea, as long as you can figure out how to build it under the main tunnels already at sixth avenue and 23rd street (where it would have to be AT LEAST three levels down if not four or five), as you're looking at possibly having to do a super deep tunnel there. If it somehow can be built, this could be done as a split with two different terminals that would serve areas with no subway at the moment: 14th street and 10th/11th avenues, perhaps even continuing downtown past there and merging with the E on the south end and/or the A/CC after Canal Street-6th avenue (including perhaps a new lower level station at Canal) and the Javits Center, possibly with a transfer there to the new 7 terminal when that gets built and/or continuing north via 10th or 11th avenue to 57th street before perhaps terminating at Columbus Circle and the Time Warner Center with transfers to the 8th avenue line and the 1 train (with stops at 23rd and 10th/11th avenue, 34th street and 42nd street with exits from 42nd-46th streets before 57th). An excellent thought Russ. |
|
|
| (418281) | |
Extending the J/Z Train |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Fri Apr 20 20:37:56 2007, in response to Re: Extending E may not work well, posted by RonInBayside on Fri Oct 20 22:57:00 2006. Ron:As I've said before, I would have the J/Z (and possibly the E as well) continue on Jamaica Avenue to where it would eventually terminate at Belmont Park, which can then serve (except on Belmont Stakes Day) as a MAJOR park-and-ride facility for those coming from Long Island. That to me would work. |
|
|
| (418283) | |
E/J/Z Extensions |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Fri Apr 20 20:47:48 2007, in response to Re: Extending E may not work well, posted by RonInBayside on Fri Oct 20 00:36:00 2006. Again:You bring up Springfield, but if you're going to go there, why not make it Belmont Park? I don't think many realize how underutilized that facility is (even when there is racing) other than on Belmont Stakes day, and by having trains start there, you could have people from Long Island use Belmont as a park-and-ride facility that also on Belmont Stakes (and other major race) day(s) be a much more efficient way of getting people to-and-from Belmont Park (and again, with Belmont likely to become a "racino" in a few years that also makes the argument to put the terminal there as well). |
|
|
| (418300) | |
Fares in Philadelphia |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Fri Apr 20 21:39:43 2007, in response to Re: Brooklyn subway needs, posted by R4 Bryn Mawr LCL/R5 Paoli EXP on Thu Oct 19 20:54:44 2006. >>Philly has zone fares. The C is about as long if not longer than the BSS and it's one zone, why should the BSS be two? The 15 is almost as long as the MFL and it's one zone so why should the MFL be two? It's bad enough transfers aren't free. >>I believe for a long time a transfer to the C bus was extra, mainly to encourage people to use the BSS which basically runs the entire route of the C with some minor exceptions. That ended several years ago as far as I remember. |
|
|
| (418319) | |
Re: New line that starts at 23rd street |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Fri Apr 20 22:19:53 2007, in response to New line that starts at 23rd street, posted by Wallyhorse on Fri Apr 20 20:32:41 2007. Humph |
|
|
| (418320) | |
Re: Possibilities for Brooklyn expansion |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Fri Apr 20 22:20:03 2007, in response to Re: Possibilities for Brooklyn expansion, posted by RonInBayside on Fri Apr 20 17:41:40 2007. The Atlantic Yards project will result in further improvements to the nearby existing subway facilities. The resulting increase in population may spur demands for Brooklyn subway expansion.I can't see how. Tunnels from Brooklyn to Manhattan are not stressed to the maximum. Montague, Rutgers and the Manhattan Bridge A/B and H tracks have room for a combined 45tph to be added. There's no need to add capacity to Brooklyn crossings at this time. And if the Lower Manhattan Rail link is built, there will be even less need. Brooklyn needs expansion into its southeastern quadrant. I've stated numerous times that in my opinion, the cheapest way to do this is to use the Bay Ridge ROW to Utica, and then run some type of el to Kings Plaza (down Utica, to Flatbush). |
|
|
| (418321) | |
Re: Extending E may not work well |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Fri Apr 20 22:21:07 2007, in response to Re: Extending E may not work well, posted by RonInBayside on Fri Apr 20 17:48:30 2007. While it's easy to wait for the E, the people taking it want a seat. That's why the F runs local east of Forest Hills.Incidentally, that has nothing to do with why the F runs local east of Forest Hills. |
|
|
| (418371) | |
Re: Brooklyn subway needs |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Sat Apr 21 01:39:47 2007, in response to Re: Brooklyn subway needs, posted by Edwards! on Fri Oct 20 17:34:22 2006. http://www.subchat.com/read.asp?Id=326733 |
|
|
| (418375) | |
Re: Brooklyn subway needs |
|
|
Posted by JerzDevl2000 on Sat Apr 21 03:16:15 2007, in response to Re: Brooklyn subway needs, posted by RonInBayside on Thu Oct 19 16:00:12 2006. Great post - even though I can't believe how long this thread is and how OT some of the posts got. If it was up to me, I'd improve Brooklyn's subway lines by adding the needed transfers between Junius and Livonia, Jay and Lawrence, get the F/G/V mess/Bergen Interlocking rebuild worked out, and would rebuild the Rogers Ave. junction. I looked through as many posts as I could on here, and I'm suprised that no one mentioned that. Think the MTA would ever do that, to make it a flying junction? |
|
|
| (418423) | |
Re: Extending E may not work well |
|
|
Posted by mambomta on Sat Apr 21 10:33:42 2007, in response to Re: Extending E may not work well, posted by American Pig on Sat Oct 21 21:14:48 2006. 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).Don't forget Times Square on the 7. IIRC, it can handle more trains than Main Street. |
|
|
| (418425) | |
Re: Extending E may not work well |
|
|
Posted by mambomta on Sat Apr 21 10:38:05 2007, in response to Re: Extending E may not work well, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Thu Apr 19 12:27:30 2007. No need. That terminal can already turn 15 TPH, 3 more than Jamaica Center.It's amazing what the proper positioning of switches can do. |
|
|
| (418465) | |
Re: Flatbush Avenue Brooklyn College extention |
|
|
Posted by SubBus aka ENY Local on Sat Apr 21 12:38:30 2007, in response to Re: Flatbush Avenue Brooklyn College extention, posted by Grand Concourse on Fri Oct 20 22:45:15 2006. Bring back the B9 and B46 summer beach service to Riis Beach/Park!!!;) |
|
|
| (418469) | |
Re: Brooklyn subway needs |
|
|
Posted by SubBus aka ENY Local on Sat Apr 21 12:43:33 2007, in response to Re: Brooklyn subway needs, posted by J trainloco on Thu Oct 19 19:25:38 2006. Why stop at Gelnwood and Utica? Extend it to the Junction, at least...... |
|
|
| (418471) | |
Re: E/J/Z Extensions |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sat Apr 21 12:44:50 2007, in response to E/J/Z Extensions, posted by Wallyhorse on Fri Apr 20 20:47:48 2007. It's a waste of money to build an urban transit line out to what is essentially a seasonal recreational location. Now, if the Mets built their new stadium there, it's a different story. |
|
|
| (418473) | |
Re: Brooklyn subway needs |
|
|
Posted by SubBus aka ENY Local on Sat Apr 21 12:50:28 2007, in response to Re: Brooklyn subway needs, posted by TheGreatOne2k6 on Sat Oct 21 15:12:06 2006. Dont the Bx29 connect with the 6 train at PBP? |
|
|
| (418476) | |
Re: Brooklyn subway needs |
|
|
Posted by SubBus aka ENY Local on Sat Apr 21 12:57:05 2007, in response to Re: Brooklyn subway needs, posted by JerzDevl2000 on Sat Apr 21 03:16:15 2007. Well the Junius/Livonia transfer would come in handy with the current A/C weekend GO. The locals were pushing for it a couple of years ago.I think Jay/Lawrence would be useful as well.......... |
|
|
| (418478) | |
Re: Brooklyn subway needs |
|
|
Posted by SubBus aka ENY Local on Sat Apr 21 12:59:27 2007, in response to Re: Brooklyn subway needs, posted by SubBus aka ENY Local on Sat Apr 21 12:50:28 2007. Dont the Bx29 connect with the 6 train at PBP?I thought that there was a connection between the Bx29 and the 6 train at PBP? Thats sounds better.......... |
|
|
| (418495) | |
Re: E/J/Z Extensions to Belmont Park |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Sat Apr 21 13:29:10 2007, in response to Re: E/J/Z Extensions, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sat Apr 21 12:44:50 2007. Chris:Belmont is probably going to become much more of a year-round facility by the time such an extension would be built, as Belmont will likely become a "racino" like Yonkers Raceway currently is in a few years and also, there is tons of unusued parking space that with a subway stop at Belmont itself would make that space actually useful, especially for commuters from Long Island who might prefer to take the subway all the way instead of having to transfer from the LIRR (actually it would be two stations at Belmont Park, one in the main parking area and another that can be used as a terminal when Belmont Park is actually open and as a lay-up station at other times). That's why I think Belmont Park would make more sense. |
|
|
| (418509) | |
Restoting the Culver Shuttle |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Sat Apr 21 14:16:44 2007, in response to Re: Brooklyn subway needs, posted by Osmosis Jones on Thu Oct 19 19:26:41 2006. Actually:Given the growth in Brooklyn, I would look at re-building the Culver Shuttle line as a single-track line (or perhaps double-track to the first stop and single-track it the rest of the way) as it was prior to 1975. That to me would probably be worth doing now. |
|
|
| (418510) | |
Re: Restoting the Culver Shuttle |
|
|
Posted by daDouce Man on Sat Apr 21 14:27:33 2007, in response to Restoting the Culver Shuttle, posted by Wallyhorse on Sat Apr 21 14:16:44 2007. In order to restore the Culver Shuttle, You'd have to remove all the building-up along the former ROW in the last 30 years. |
|
|
| (418516) | |
Re: Restoting the Culver Shuttle |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sat Apr 21 14:44:55 2007, in response to Restoting the Culver Shuttle, posted by Wallyhorse on Sat Apr 21 14:16:44 2007. Impossible, since housing now exists on the former ROW. |
|
|
| (418529) | |
Re: Brooklyn subway needs |
|
|
Posted by Dan Lawrence on Sat Apr 21 16:02:29 2007, in response to Re: Brooklyn subway needs, posted by SubBus aka ENY Local on Sat Apr 21 12:43:33 2007. What's with all the necroposting? |
|
|
|
Page 9 of 12 |
||
