|
|
| Re: Restoring the Culver Shuttle (325542) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 11 of 12 |
||
|
| (419321) | |
Re: Restoring the Culver Shuttle |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Mon Apr 23 09:35:14 2007, in response to Re: Restoting the Culver Shuttle, posted by daDouce Man on Sat Apr 21 14:27:33 2007. It's a shame it was ever torn down. Would have been useful today under certain conditions. A very shortsighted action by the TA... |
|
|
| (419346) | |
Re: Restoting the Culver Shuttle |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Mon Apr 23 11:07:48 2007, in response to Re: Restoting the Culver Shuttle, posted by RonInBayside on Mon Apr 23 09:32:48 2007. The culver shuttle wasnt really redundant- It provided a connection which would have been valuable when the manhattan bridge was closed. |
|
|
| (419350) | |
Re: Restoting the Culver Shuttle |
|
|
Posted by Newkirk Plaza David on Mon Apr 23 11:15:34 2007, in response to Re: Restoting the Culver Shuttle, posted by daDouce Man on Sat Apr 21 14:27:33 2007. One of the biggest mistakes of NYCT to this day. Even if Fort Hamilton Pkwy and 13th Ave stations were closed, the Culver Line would be very useful as a single track, non-stop shuttle between Ditmas and 9th Ave. |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (419351) | |
Re: Restoting the Culver Shuttle |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Mon Apr 23 11:18:17 2007, in response to Re: Restoting the Culver Shuttle, posted by R30A on Mon Apr 23 11:07:48 2007. Not as configured. Making it useful in such a scenario would have required expensive modification. |
|
|
| (419353) | |
Re: Restoting the Culver Shuttle |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Mon Apr 23 11:22:16 2007, in response to Re: Restoting the Culver Shuttle, posted by Newkirk Plaza David on Mon Apr 23 11:15:34 2007. No it wouldn't be. There's a reason the service was discontinued. |
|
|
| (419356) | |
Re: Restoting the Culver Shuttle |
|
|
Posted by Newkirk Plaza David on Mon Apr 23 11:27:18 2007, in response to Re: Restoting the Culver Shuttle, posted by J trainloco on Mon Apr 23 11:22:16 2007. The reason was 21 years in the making: After the 1954 Culver connection, NYCTA wanted the Culver shuttle to die a slow, painful death. |
|
|
| (419357) | |
Re: Restoting the Culver Shuttle |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Mon Apr 23 11:31:08 2007, in response to Re: Restoting the Culver Shuttle, posted by Newkirk Plaza David on Mon Apr 23 11:27:18 2007. You're right. It had nothing to do with the fact that the service was poorly used. My mistake. |
|
|
| (419372) | |
Re: Utica Avenue Subway |
|
|
Posted by Russ on Mon Apr 23 12:27:15 2007, in response to Re: Flatbush Avenue Brooklyn College extention, posted by #1 Brighton Exp Bob on Wed Oct 18 21:17:43 2006. I'd like to see a Utica Avenue subway built that starts at Kings Plaza, runs up Utica, west on Lexington, along the G line from Myrtle-Willoughby to Greenpoint, and then into Manhattan as a 23rd St crosstown that runs to Chelsea Piers, and then terminates at Javits. |
|
|
| (419477) | |
Re: Flatbush Avenue Brooklyn College extention |
|
|
Posted by Wado MP73 on Mon Apr 23 17:14:41 2007, in response to Re: Flatbush Avenue Brooklyn College extention, posted by randyo on Fri Apr 20 16:23:59 2007. 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 RockawayLooking at how it's faster to get to JFK via the E from anywhere above Canal St. and that the trackage would have been a former railroad line, I think that route would have been faster than the current A to the Rockaways, at least from Midtown. Besides, it's not that round about when you compare the two. |
|
|
| (419485) | |
Re: S. 4th St Station as a Transit Museum |
|
|
Posted by Russ on Mon Apr 23 17:42:19 2007, in response to Re: Flatbush Avenue Brooklyn College extention, posted by Edwards! on Wed Oct 18 21:45:01 2006. Also..if your in the last car of the southbound G line at Broadway station..you can "see" the darkened transfer tunnel that would have taken you to the upper levels where the 6 track South 4th st station is located..there is also a closed off door located in the station where the walkway is.If the Transit Museum ever had to move, how feasible would it be to turn this shell into a museum with at least one live track feeding into it? |
|
|
| (419518) | |
Re: Utica Avenue Subway |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Mon Apr 23 18:22:28 2007, in response to Re: Utica Avenue Subway, posted by Russ on Mon Apr 23 12:27:15 2007. I'd be happy with a simple stubway from the IRT line at Eastern Parkway, like the one under Nostrand Ave. |
|
|
| (419534) | |
Re: S. 4th St Station as a Transit Museum |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Mon Apr 23 18:35:25 2007, in response to Re: S. 4th St Station as a Transit Museum, posted by Russ on Mon Apr 23 17:42:19 2007. Due to its physiacl location, not feasible at all. It would require a complicated tunnel similar to that at 149 St/Gr Conc to access it from the G line. 76 st/Pitkin Av, if it is ever proven to exist, would be better. |
|
|
| (419543) | |
Re: Flatbush Avenue Brooklyn College extention |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Mon Apr 23 18:40:35 2007, in response to Re: Flatbush Avenue Brooklyn College extention, posted by Wado MP73 on Mon Apr 23 17:14:41 2007. The problem with the Whitepot Jct connection is that it was accessible only from the local tracks of the Qns Blvd Line whereas the present Rockaway Line has express service along most of its route for most of the day including weekends. That alone would seem to indicate that the route through cental Queens would have been longer at best. |
|
|
| (419544) | |
Re: S. 4th St Station as a Transit Museum |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Mon Apr 23 18:40:40 2007, in response to Re: S. 4th St Station as a Transit Museum, posted by Russ on Mon Apr 23 17:42:19 2007. It's only a couple of car lengths wide and has no track. The last thing the MTA wants is people in Williamsburg asking questions about a phantom station and phantom lines. |
|
|
| (419571) | |
Re: Utica Avenue Subway |
|
|
Posted by Russ on Mon Apr 23 19:04:54 2007, in response to Re: Utica Avenue Subway, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Mon Apr 23 18:22:28 2007. That's probably the easiest way to get it done. I'd just rather not feed the A division lines with even more passengers as long as they are as crowded as they are. |
|
|
| (419683) | |
Re: Utica Avenue Subway |
|
|
Posted by shadyelstation on Mon Apr 23 20:07:33 2007, in response to Re: Utica Avenue Subway, posted by Russ on Mon Apr 23 12:27:15 2007. I'd rather see the Utica Ave line as a branch of the SAS. Here is how I envision this line:South of 14 St/2 Ave, line branches out running under Houston St (or under 1st or 2nd St, then eastward to Houston if existing IND is blocking the way). Then, under South 4 and Meserole Sts in Brooklyn, curving eastward below the (L) line via Bushwick Ave. Next, line runs under Stuyvesant Ave utilizing existing shell at Fulton/Utica, then under Utica and Flatbush to Avenue U/Kings Plaza. (Some locations, such as line from Bushwick Ave to Stuyvesant Ave may require running under private property; I know this is a problem) Stations would exist at the following locations: 1 Avenue (connection to F/V/SAS) Avenue C Bedford Ave South 4 St (connection to G) Johnson Ave (connection to (L) at Montrose) Flushing Ave Myrtle - Willoughby Avs (connection to J/M/Z) Gates Ave Fulton St/Utica Ave (connection to A/C) Bergen St Eastern Pkwy (connection to 3/4) Winthrop St Church Ave Avenue D Kings Hwy Flatlands Ave Avenue N Avenue U/Kings Plaza Diverge from 2 Ave line is 2 tracks, expanding to 4 at Avenue C, where they meet extended 6 Ave "express" tracks. Then 4 tracks to Kings Hwy and 2 or 3 tracks to Kings Plaza (pure fantasy I know. I suppose you could get by w/2 tracks but that would be shortsighted, unless provisions for further expansion were built in). |
|
|
| (419790) | |
Re: Utica Avenue Subway |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Mon Apr 23 21:19:53 2007, in response to Re: Utica Avenue Subway, posted by Russ on Mon Apr 23 19:04:54 2007. These people most likely use buses to get to existing IRT stations anyway. Reworking the Rogers St. junction could allow more trains to run along the IRT trunk. |
|
|
| (419872) | |
Re: S. 4th St Station as a Transit Museum |
|
|
Posted by Clayton on Mon Apr 23 22:15:12 2007, in response to Re: S. 4th St Station as a Transit Museum, posted by randyo on Mon Apr 23 18:35:25 2007. It will be proven! |
|
|
| (419873) | |
Re: S. 4th St Station as a Transit Museum |
|
|
Posted by TunnelRat on Mon Apr 23 22:17:52 2007, in response to Re: S. 4th St Station as a Transit Museum, posted by Clayton on Mon Apr 23 22:15:12 2007. Clayton,my son,my son.you tell `em. |
|
|
| (419898) | |
Re: Extending E may not work well |
|
|
Posted by W Broadway Local on Mon Apr 23 23:53:51 2007, in response to Re: Extending E may not work well, posted by RonInBayside on Thu Oct 19 23:59:41 2006. Some of those tranfers are coming from the "J". A "Jamaica Avenue Express" will great reduce the passenger's over reliance on the "E". And I agree that having the "J" extended out to Eastern Queens (with the combination of having Jamaica Avenue Express service), will greatly reduce the crowding on the "E" line. |
|
|
| (419900) | |
Re: Extending E may not work well |
|
|
Posted by W Broadway Local on Mon Apr 23 23:58:26 2007, in response to Re: Extending E may not work well, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Thu Apr 19 12:24:26 2007. "J" riders will continue to flood the "E" as long as it is providing express service. What needs to happen is the "J" should offer express service at least during the peak direction. |
|
|
| (419902) | |
Re: Extending E may not work well |
|
|
Posted by W Broadway Local on Tue Apr 24 00:04:16 2007, in response to Re: Extending E may not work well, posted by J trainloco on Fri Apr 20 22:21:07 2007. They run the "F" local because it is much cheaper than running both the "R" and "V" to 179th Street. |
|
|
| (419903) | |
Re: Extending E may not work well |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Tue Apr 24 00:06:04 2007, in response to Re: Extending E may not work well, posted by J trainloco on Fri Apr 20 22:21:07 2007. False statement. It is exactly why the F runs local. |
|
|
| (419904) | |
Re: Extending E may not work well |
|
|
Posted by W Broadway Local on Tue Apr 24 00:12:35 2007, in response to Re: Extending E may not work well, posted by mambomta on Sat Apr 21 10:33:42 2007. main street is a three track terminal > how's is that? |
|
|
| (419906) | |
Re: Extending E may not work well |
|
|
Posted by W Broadway Local on Tue Apr 24 00:15:39 2007, in response to Re: Extending E may not work well, posted by AMoreira81 on Thu Apr 19 17:37:35 2007. Yes. If they can keep many of these passengers on the Jamaica Line. The only way that will happen is if the MTA was to spend money to introduce a Jamaica Avenue express. It might even encourage some passengers as close as 14 Street to use it. |
|
|
| (419907) | |
Re: Extending E may not work well |
|
|
Posted by W Broadway Local on Tue Apr 24 00:21:24 2007, in response to Re: Extending E may not work well, posted by J trainloco on Fri Oct 20 11:43:41 2006. and cause more confusion? |
|
|
| (419911) | |
Re: S. 4th St Station as a Transit Museum |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Tue Apr 24 00:36:09 2007, in response to Re: S. 4th St Station as a Transit Museum, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Mon Apr 23 18:40:40 2007. Heck..it's not even a "station",really.A shell of a station..as long as "BROADWAY" is wide. |
|
|
| (419912) | |
Re: Extending E may not work well |
|
|
Posted by W Broadway Local on Tue Apr 24 00:40:26 2007, in response to Re: Extending E may not work well, posted by AlM on Fri Oct 20 21:21:59 2006. 57th 6th Avenue is a lot busier than before, because this is now a thorough station. So I wouldn't call this station empty. But compare to the 7th Avenue station, it has less passengers, because it provides one option compare to the many options that are available at 7th Avenue (N,Q,R,W). It has a downtown destination, Sixth Avenue doesn't.Anyway, when I think of the 6th Avenue, I think of the 7th Avenue IRT. Both of these lines don't have great connections. But 7th Avenue does come out ahead, because at least it has a downtown destination with minor good connections. |
|
|
| (419913) | |
Re: Extending E may not work well |
|
|
Posted by W Broadway Local on Tue Apr 24 00:43:35 2007, in response to Re: Extending E may not work well, posted by RonInBayside on Sun Oct 22 00:03:56 2006. What about having the "V" extended to 179th Street? |
|
|
| (419914) | |
Re: Extending E may not work well |
|
|
Posted by W Broadway Local on Tue Apr 24 00:46:05 2007, in response to Re: Extending E may not work well, posted by R4 Bryn Mawr LCL/R5 Paoli EXP on Fri Oct 20 22:13:28 2006. The "G" is just horrible. PRACTICALLY EMPTY on Queens Blvd! |
|
|
| (419917) | |
Re: Extending E may not work well |
|
|
Posted by W Broadway Local on Tue Apr 24 00:48:36 2007, in response to Re: Extending E may not work well, posted by Edwards! on Sat Oct 21 00:23:30 2006. Answer? Because NO ONE! was riding the "G" train!!! |
|
|
| (419919) | |
Re: Extending E may not work well |
|
|
Posted by W Broadway Local on Tue Apr 24 00:50:11 2007, in response to Re: Extending E may not work well, posted by RonInBayside on Sat Oct 21 01:23:06 2006. Because riding the "G" was like being on my living room floor. hehehe |
|
|
| (419920) | |
Re: Flatbush Avenue Brooklyn College extention |
|
|
Posted by W Broadway Local on Tue Apr 24 00:59:15 2007, in response to Re: Flatbush Avenue Brooklyn College extention, posted by Grand Concourse on Fri Oct 20 22:45:15 2006. It's too bad they can't have some kind of express service if they do decide to extend it. |
|
|
| (419921) | |
Re: Extending E may not work well |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Tue Apr 24 00:59:18 2007, in response to Re: Extending E may not work well, posted by Edwards! on Sat Oct 21 00:23:30 2006. Facts pointed out by whom?You call the fantasies spun here "facts?" Get a grip, dude. This is a great place to play armchair TA director (beer and preztels at the ready) but don't lose your sense of reality... |
|
|
| (419922) | |
Re: Flatbush Avenue Brooklyn College extention |
|
|
Posted by W Broadway Local on Tue Apr 24 01:01:34 2007, in response to Re: Flatbush Avenue Brooklyn College extention, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Thu Apr 19 12:06:42 2007. I thought 205th Street on the "D" line was the worse.If you ever use this station, you will see why. |
|
|
| (419923) | |
Re: Flatbush Avenue Brooklyn College extention |
|
|
Posted by W Broadway Local on Tue Apr 24 01:04:51 2007, in response to Re: Flatbush Avenue Brooklyn College extention, posted by MATHA531 on Thu Oct 19 07:28:16 2006. Paris is about the size of the Bronx.And Manhattan is smaller than the Bronx. Because of this, Building subways fairly close to each other is simple. |
|
|
| (419924) | |
Re: Extending E may not work well |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Tue Apr 24 01:21:18 2007, in response to Re: Extending E may not work well, posted by W Broadway Local on Tue Apr 24 00:43:35 2007. I like the idea, but the "one seat" crowd will want to transfer to the express later and then bitch and moan about not getting a seat. |
|
|
| (419925) | |
Re: Flatbush Avenue Brooklyn College extention |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Tue Apr 24 01:22:01 2007, in response to Re: Flatbush Avenue Brooklyn College extention, posted by W Broadway Local on Tue Apr 24 01:04:51 2007. Paris is that small? |
|
|
| (419926) | |
Re: Extending E may not work well |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Tue Apr 24 01:25:34 2007, in response to Re: Extending E may not work well, posted by W Broadway Local on Tue Apr 24 00:12:35 2007. Main St is a stub terminal. No tail tracks. Slower approach into the station. |
|
|
| (419928) | |
Re: Restoting the Culver Shuttle |
|
|
Posted by W Broadway Local on Tue Apr 24 01:33:08 2007, in response to Re: Restoting the Culver Shuttle, posted by Newkirk Plaza David on Mon Apr 23 11:15:34 2007. removing the 3rd avenue "L" was the worse mistake that I think the TA made. |
|
|
| (419929) | |
Re: Extending E may not work well |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Tue Apr 24 01:34:32 2007, in response to Re: Extending E may not work well, posted by W Broadway Local on Tue Apr 24 00:50:11 2007. 8-) |
|
|
| (419931) | |
Re: Brooklyn subway needs |
|
|
Posted by W Broadway Local on Tue Apr 24 01:48:55 2007, in response to Re: Brooklyn subway needs, posted by JerzDevl2000 on Sat Apr 21 03:16:15 2007. I would pay off the nimby on Jamaica Avenue so I can build a single track for a Jamaica Avenue Express. |
|
|
| (419934) | |
Re: Extending E may not work well |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Tue Apr 24 02:03:41 2007, in response to Re: Extending E may not work well, posted by RonInBayside on Tue Apr 24 00:59:18 2007. One cannot loose what one has never had. |
|
|
| (419935) | |
Re: Flatbush Avenue Brooklyn College extention |
|
|
Posted by W Broadway Local on Tue Apr 24 02:10:30 2007, in response to Re: Flatbush Avenue Brooklyn College extention, posted by RonInBayside on Tue Apr 24 01:22:01 2007. Land areaš 86.9[1] km˛ >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ParisArea: 148.7 km˛ (57.4 mi˛) >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bronx |
|
|
| (419936) | |
Re: Restoting the Culver Shuttle |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Tue Apr 24 02:28:25 2007, in response to Re: Restoting the Culver Shuttle, posted by Edwards! on Sun Apr 22 17:08:49 2007. I absolutely agree with you and any Brighton to Crosstown link via Franklin would be in addition to the (Q) and (B) now on that line. I would run it express on the Brighton segment. |
|
|
| (419937) | |
Re: Restoting the Culver Shuttle |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Tue Apr 24 03:01:22 2007, in response to Re: Restoting the Culver Shuttle, posted by J trainloco on Mon Apr 23 11:18:17 2007. not really- a west end-culver connection would have been valuble when both sides of the bridge were closed, whether or not there were thru trains. Such connections would also be useful in the current F Euclid G Coney GOs, as manhattan service would be more valuable then the current G. |
|
|
| (419938) | |
Re: Restoring the Culver Shuttle |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Tue Apr 24 03:22:23 2007, in response to Re: Restoring the Culver Shuttle, posted by Terrapin Station on Mon Apr 23 09:35:14 2007. Indeed. How much did they even save by discontinuing it? While its loss doesn't compare with that of the Bronx 3rd Av El or the Myrtle Line, it still doesn't make sense. |
|
|
| (419939) | |
Re: Restoting the Culver Shuttle |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Tue Apr 24 03:25:50 2007, in response to Re: Restoting the Culver Shuttle, posted by W Broadway Local on Tue Apr 24 01:33:08 2007. It ranks high but at least it can come back as a subway to the SAS. Other missed chances were not capturing the LIRR Whitestone Branch for a (7) extension or the Polo Grounds Shuttle for a (3) extension just to name a few. |
|
|
| (419949) | |
Re: Extending E may not work well |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Tue Apr 24 03:55:21 2007, in response to Re: Extending E may not work well, posted by RonInBayside on Tue Apr 24 01:21:18 2007. can you blame them? |
|
|
| (419951) | |
Re: Extending E may not work well |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Tue Apr 24 04:00:47 2007, in response to Re: Extending E may not work well, posted by Stephen Bauman on Sat Oct 21 06:39:51 2006. That was before the 11th St cut and the Connector. |
|
|
|
Page 11 of 12 |
||
