|
|
| Re: Myrtle Avenue El (907650) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 9 of 9 |
||
|
| (1128465) | |
Re: Myrtle Avenue El |
|
|
Posted by Dan Lawrence on Sat Dec 31 16:38:01 2011, in response to Re: Myrtle Avenue El, posted by Elkeeper on Sat Dec 31 16:15:05 2011. The body, yes, the personality (whatever you call it) goes on |
|
|
| (1128749) | |
Re: Myrtle Avenue El |
|
|
Posted by Elkeeper on Sun Jan 1 11:25:17 2012, in response to Re: Myrtle Avenue El, posted by Dan Lawrence on Sat Dec 31 16:38:01 2011. Okay, it's New Years Day, so I'll be an optimist. The Myrtle Ave line, subway or elevated, will be built right after the 2nd Ave subway is completely finished! There. okay? |
|
|
| (1128807) | |
Re: Myrtle Avenue El |
|
|
Posted by MELLOW ONE on Sun Jan 1 16:20:35 2012, in response to Re: Myrtle Avenue El, posted by Elkeeper on Sun Jan 1 11:25:17 2012. That puts it in perspective.So, now for my New Years' mirth. I wonder, that when the Manhattan Bridge was (to be) built, if there was any consideration to link the 3rd ave El with the Myrtle Ave El. Both lines were at the respective ends of the Bridge and easily accessible. I was looking at the Manhattan Bridge Trolley loop on the Manhattan side of the bridge, which was only a few feet from the 3rd Ave El on the Bowery. The Myrtle Ave El was not as close. However, it was right inline with the bridge approach. |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (1129001) | |
Re: Myrtle Avenue El |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Jan 2 12:34:25 2012, in response to Re: Myrtle Avenue El, posted by MELLOW ONE on Sun Jan 1 16:20:35 2012. If I am not mistaken, the Myrtle Ave el used to go over the Brooklyn Bridge, the next stop after Jay Street was Adams St, and then I think Sands St after that. |
|
|
| (1129004) | |
Re: Myrtle Avenue El |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Mon Jan 2 12:41:46 2012, in response to Re: Myrtle Avenue El, posted by Dan Lawrence on Sat Dec 31 16:38:01 2011. No, it doesn't. Except in the memories of people you knew who are still alive. Or any sort of recording or filming of you. |
|
|
| (1129005) | |
Re: Myrtle Avenue El |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Mon Jan 2 12:42:47 2012, in response to Re: Myrtle Avenue El, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Jan 2 12:34:25 2012. Right. Then after Sands Street, Park Row. |
|
|
| (1129006) | |
Re: Myrtle Avenue El |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Mon Jan 2 12:44:24 2012, in response to Re: Myrtle Avenue El, posted by Spider-Pig on Mon Jan 2 12:42:47 2012. Also, "Jay Street" was called Bridge Street before 1944. It was only renamed Bridge-Jay Streets to emphasize the transfer to the IND. IINM, the transfer to the IND was only established in 1950 or so after the end of Brooklyn Bridge trolley service, prior to that time there was a trolley transfer. |
|
|
| (1129104) | |
Re: Myrtle Avenue El |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Mon Jan 2 17:42:57 2012, in response to Re: Myrtle Avenue El, posted by andre on Mon Dec 26 17:04:37 2011. The Myrtle El crossed with the G at Marcy? Then definitely I would do that!And yes, after Navy Street it would go underground and join the Montauge line as a new W train to Astoria (Weekdays and evenings) or Whitehall Street (overnights and weekends). |
|
|
| (1129128) | |
Re: Myrtle Avenue El |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Jan 2 19:39:10 2012, in response to Re: Myrtle Avenue El, posted by Wallyhorse on Mon Jan 2 17:42:57 2012. The Montague tunnel is a very under utilized tunnel, the least used of all the East River crossings. And now even more so, especially with the M train on it's new route. Interestingly, I think the Myrtle El via the old Myrtle el would have been of much better use than the M ever was through the Montague tunnel. The line would wind up as a Broadway Manhattan line, and there is enough capacity on the line, as the W used to run there with no problem. So if the el had survived, it would have been a wonderful thing to do with the old el.This said, they will NEVER build a new el in the city again, as no community will never allow a 19th century technology of elevated trains to be built. Myrtle Ave is no different today than any street that never had an el on it. And even if they did, where would the money come from for such a project? |
|
|
| (1129138) | |
Re: Myrtle Avenue El |
|
|
Posted by Elkeeper on Mon Jan 2 20:29:42 2012, in response to Re: Myrtle Avenue El, posted by MELLOW ONE on Sun Jan 1 16:20:35 2012. Now, this one I can help you with! Prior to the Dual Contracts of 1913, both the BRT and the IRT put forth many proposed routes for the Manhattan Bridge. In May of 1908, I forget the exact day, the IRT proposed a plan that would connect its Nevins Street station (an occasional thread here!) to the north side tracks of the Manhattan Bridge. (NY Times-5/26/08) In return, the IRT promised to rebuild the 3rd Ave el for steel cars and run the 'new" el to the Bronx. It was discussed, shelved, and looked at again. In 1911, the City decided against it, so both sets of MB tracks went to the BRT. And that is why the Nevins street station was built with the lower level eastbound track on the lower level, with the remains of a turnout for westbound (Manhattan) trains, just west of the NB local platform! |
|
|
| (1129166) | |
Re: Myrtle Avenue El |
|
|
Posted by MELLOW ONE on Mon Jan 2 23:24:53 2012, in response to Re: Myrtle Avenue El, posted by Elkeeper on Mon Jan 2 20:29:42 2012. Thanks, It was strange that the BRT/BMT had all the East River Bridge crossings except for the Queensboro, which only lasted about 25 years from 1917 until the IRT 2nd Ave El ended operations in 1942 and the El trackways sat unused for 10 years after the bridge was completed.It was also strange that the Manhattan Bridge trolley line was built (seemingly) as a failure. It seemed to me that the 3rd Ave El could have provided an El Shuttle (from Canal St) over the bridge instead of the trolley, which may have made a possible worthwhile venture. |
|
|
| (1129223) | |
Re: Myrtle Avenue El |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Tue Jan 3 09:16:25 2012, in response to Re: Myrtle Avenue El, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Jan 2 19:39:10 2012. It would depend on a lot of factors, but if you educate people and show them that an el can actually bring in new businesses and other things that help, then you might have a chance to get it built if the funding can be found.Obviously, this incarnation of the Myrtle El would use R160s and later equipment of 60-foot cars. All stations would also be 600' to allow for 10-car trains (hence fewer stations overall) with Navy Street the last of those before going underground via Montauge as a new W train. |
|
|
| (1129265) | |
Re: Myrtle Avenue El |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Tue Jan 3 14:19:57 2012, in response to Re: Myrtle Avenue El, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Jan 2 19:39:10 2012. There is a valid point about a traditional style of el structure being built but if new techniques such as those used on WMATA, BART and the Kennedy Airtrain were used, an aesthetically pleasing structure that blends in with modern architecture might be able to pass muster even with the NIMBYs. |
|
|
| (1129294) | |
Re: Myrtle Avenue El |
|
|
Posted by Elkeeper on Tue Jan 3 16:21:35 2012, in response to Re: Myrtle Avenue El, posted by MELLOW ONE on Mon Jan 2 23:24:53 2012. My best guess is that the City was pissed off at the IRT for, among other things, failing to rebuild its leased Manhatan els to accomodate 8 car trains. I have read several articles about this, circa 1907, thus predating the IRT's request for MB service. Finally, the Dual contracts made the IRT extend the el platforms for 6 car MUDC's or 7 car gates, but not for the originally requested 8 car lengths. Compromise, maybe? And remember, people still hated the Manhattan els (Jay Gould & Co!) from the time they were not leased. |
|
|
| (1129296) | |
Re: Myrtle Avenue El |
|
|
Posted by Elkeeper on Tue Jan 3 16:32:06 2012, in response to Re: Myrtle Avenue El, posted by Wallyhorse on Tue Jan 3 09:16:25 2012. Can you imagine Skip and Muffy letting this proposal go through, so they can have an el rumbling past their renovated brownstone every 10 minutes, or so? Little Bradley can wave to the passengers from his second floor bedroom! |
|
|
| (1129297) | |
Re: Myrtle Avenue El |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Tue Jan 3 16:32:45 2012, in response to Re: Myrtle Avenue El, posted by randyo on Tue Jan 3 14:19:57 2012. Which is what I would be looking at for both the Myrtle Avenue El and also a rebuild of the 3rd Avenue El. |
|
|
| (1129300) | |
Re: Myrtle Avenue El |
|
|
Posted by Elkeeper on Tue Jan 3 16:43:15 2012, in response to Re: Myrtle Avenue El, posted by randyo on Tue Jan 3 14:19:57 2012. One thing I could never understand is why didn't the put the el pillars along the curblines, instead of in the street. That was a big factor in eliminating the South Ferry spur of the 3rd Ave el! the main complaints came from the B of T's bus drivers. |
|
|
| (1129306) | |
Re: Myrtle Avenue El |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Tue Jan 3 17:39:21 2012, in response to Re: Myrtle Avenue El, posted by Wallyhorse on Tue Jan 3 16:32:45 2012. If something like that could pass muster it would make construction of a 2 Av rapid transit line in Manhattan a lot cheaper and easier to construct than the SAS. A 2 track aesthetically pleasing concrete structure on single T shaped support columns on a small median in the middle of 2 Av with a rubber cushioned roadbed would probably not ruffle the feathers of any but the most stubborn and cantankerous NIMBYs. |
|
|
| (1129307) | |
Re: Myrtle Avenue El |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Tue Jan 3 17:42:22 2012, in response to Re: Myrtle Avenue El, posted by Elkeeper on Tue Jan 3 16:43:15 2012. I think that the main factor in determining placement of the pillars is the width of the actual street that the structure runs over. The West End El structure over New Utrecht Av has its pillars on the sidewalk but the portion of the structure over the wider 86 St has its pillars in the street. |
|
|
| (1129323) | |
Re: Myrtle Avenue El |
|
|
Posted by Joe Saitta on Tue Jan 3 18:53:14 2012, in response to Re: Myrtle Avenue El, posted by randyo on Tue Jan 3 17:39:21 2012. I suggested exactly this, and it was recorded at a public suggestion MTA meeting on DVD, quite a number of years ago. Still have the DVD. Of course, since it would have been a lot less expensive, the consultants, normally paid by percentages of a job's cost, probably struck it down. Can you imagine what a great tourist attraction that it would have been had it been constructed, and routed past the World Trade Center to South Ferry? It would have also eliminated the hordes of buses going to the WTC looking for places to discharge their passengers and then park. But the idea was too simple, too effective, and not expensive enough. But now, with all of the MTA's financial problems, perhaps consideration should be given to this idea again. Leave the portion of the 2nd Avenue Subway as is and construct an elevated line to downtown, using modern aesthetic (but with historice-type structures if possible) and soundproofing methods, of course. The ultimate would be to have the IRT 7 Line extended from Queens Plaza to South Ferry via the Queensboro Bridge, replicating exactly what once existed. Not only would this provide an alternative route into Manhattan, in the event the Steinway Tubes had to be closed for repair (they are over 100 years old), the 7 Line would have an alternative routing. Think about it..... |
|
|
| (1129333) | |
Re: Myrtle Avenue El |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Tue Jan 3 19:37:42 2012, in response to Re: Myrtle Avenue El, posted by Joe Saitta on Tue Jan 3 18:53:14 2012. Not a bad idea, but since is is expected that any new lines, where possible, be constructed to BMT/IND dimensions, connecting such a line the the Flushing line which used IRT size cars would only resurrect the problem that the Flushing and Astoria lines had prior to 1949. |
|
|
| (1129334) | |
Re: Myrtle Avenue El |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Tue Jan 3 19:42:29 2012, in response to Re: Myrtle Avenue El, posted by Joe Saitta on Tue Jan 3 18:53:14 2012. Where would you put the columns for this thing? In the non-existent median of a one way street? Or in the sidewalks in order to darken the street? |
|
|
| (1129340) | |
Re: Myrtle Avenue El |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Tue Jan 3 19:54:49 2012, in response to Re: Myrtle Avenue El, posted by Spider-Pig on Tue Jan 3 19:42:29 2012. A small median similar to one on 1 Av in the upper 70s could be constructed to allow for a single column. With the rapid transit facility carrying the bulk of mass transit passengers, the bus service could either be significantly cut down or possible eliminated entirely thus mitigating the effect of the loss of one lane of traffic. By the way 2 Av is not your typical "one way street" since it, like 3 Av was widened after the demolition of the el. |
|
|
| (1129342) | |
Re: Myrtle Avenue El |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Tue Jan 3 20:05:08 2012, in response to Re: Myrtle Avenue El, posted by randyo on Tue Jan 3 19:54:49 2012. A small median similar to one on 1 Av in the upper 70sWhat median? The division of traffic into two roadways would only be a nuisance. |
|
|
| (1129347) | |
Re: Myrtle Avenue El |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Tue Jan 3 20:13:38 2012, in response to Re: Myrtle Avenue El, posted by Spider-Pig on Tue Jan 3 20:05:08 2012. The last time I was in the vicinity of 86 St and 1 Av in Manhattan there was a small median in the middle of the roadway. |
|
|
| (1129348) | |
Re: Myrtle Avenue El |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Tue Jan 3 20:13:49 2012, in response to Re: Myrtle Avenue El, posted by Spider-Pig on Tue Jan 3 20:05:08 2012. The last time I was in the vicinity of 86 St and 1 Av in Manhattan there was a small median in the middle of the roadway. |
|
|
| (1129360) | |
Re: Myrtle Avenue El |
|
|
Posted by Joe Saitta on Tue Jan 3 21:30:12 2012, in response to Re: Myrtle Avenue El, posted by randyo on Tue Jan 3 19:37:42 2012. Yes, I realize that, but you said the correct words, i.e., "where possible." I'm not a structural engineer (or any engineer for that matter), but I believe the weight of the subway cars would come into play here.According to the Annual Report of the Department of Bridges of the City of New York for 1913, of which I have an original copy in mint condition, the following information on each East River bridge in operation at that time is presented on page 17: Fixed Load Per Lineal Foot: Brooklyn - 8,000 lbs. Manhattan - 23,600 lbs. Williamsburg - 16,620 lbs. Queensboro - 32,200 lbs. Moving Load Per Lineal Foot: Brooklyn - 3,400 lbs., Manhattan - 16,000 lbs. Williamsburg - main 7,500 lbs., side 16,000 lbs. Queensboro - 16,000 lbs., Fixed Load for Entire Structure: Brooklyn - 13,820 tons Manhattan - 34,460 tons Williamsburg - 23,210 tons Queensboro - 60,000 tons Moving Load for Entire Structure: Brooklyn - 5,880 tons Manhattan - 23,360 tons Williamsburg - 15,560 tons Queensboro - 29,800 tons Total Load for Entire Structure: Brooklyn - 19,700 tons Manhattan - 57,820 tons Williamsburg - 38,700 tons Queensboro - 89,800 tons. It appears from these published facts that the Queensboro Bridge has the greatest load carrying capacity. At one time, it had four streetcar tracks serving nine lines on headways whose frequency could be measured in seconds, and two rapid transit tracks. So it would have to be first determined, if this plan were to be considered, would the route be a BMT or IRT route? Remember the BMT already has its 60th Street Tunnel which is also connected to the BMT/IND route from Queens Plaza. But if the Steinway Tubes were to be closed, even temporarily, the best that could be done would be to terminate the 7 Line, as it stands now, at either Queens Plaza or Hunterspoint Avenue, with perhaps a massive bus shuttle from that location to Manhattan. This isn't an easily workable solution, in my opinion. Another alternative for the 7 Line if it were necessary to close the Steinway Tubes would be to reconstruct the IRT Line at least over the Queensboro Bridge to a temporary (or perhaps permanent) terminal at 59th Street and Second Avenue. There is plenty of room to do this and I'd say that at least 75% of the original IRT infrastructure is still there, making such a possibility most likely feasible. Of course, this would mean sacrificing two auto lanes on the upper deck of the Queensboro Bridge, but mass transit must come first. As time goes on, and as the Steinway Tubes are continually aging, I'd be reasonably certain that in the future major a rehab of these tunnels will have to take place, most likely requiring at least some shutting down of those tubes. |
|
|
| (1129361) | |
Re: Myrtle Avenue El |
|
|
Posted by Joe Saitta on Tue Jan 3 21:33:30 2012, in response to Re: Myrtle Avenue El, posted by randyo on Tue Jan 3 20:13:49 2012. If a median were required, it would also be possible to return Second Avenue to 2-way vehicular operation, just as Park Avenue, Central Park West or a few other major Manhattan Streets still are. It is certainly wide enough for that. |
|
|
| (1129365) | |
Re: Myrtle Avenue El |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Tue Jan 3 21:45:22 2012, in response to Re: Myrtle Avenue El, posted by Joe Saitta on Tue Jan 3 21:30:12 2012. As time goes on,and as the Steinway Tubes are continually aging,I'd be reasonably certain that in the future major a rehab of these tunnels will have to take place,most likely requiring at least some shutting down of those tubes.What deterioriation in the tunnels would require this? |
|
|
| (1129367) | |
Re: Myrtle Avenue El |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Tue Jan 3 21:46:49 2012, in response to Re: Myrtle Avenue El, posted by Spider-Pig on Tue Jan 3 20:05:08 2012. How would it be a nuisance? |
|
|
| (1129372) | |
Re: Myrtle Avenue El |
|
|
Posted by Joe Saitta on Tue Jan 3 22:03:06 2012, in response to Re: Myrtle Avenue El, posted by J trainloco on Tue Jan 3 21:45:22 2012. As mentioned previously, I'm not an engineer, and cannot give you a definitive answer (I'm reasonably sure a qualified engineer could help with this question), but remember that nothing lasts forever and structures of this type must be maintained. It is, however, probably reasonable to assume that a tunnel but in the late 1800's, as this one was, might require closing and extensive rehabilitation at some point. |
|
|
| (1129373) | |
Re: Myrtle Avenue El |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Tue Jan 3 22:14:04 2012, in response to Re: Myrtle Avenue El, posted by Joe Saitta on Tue Jan 3 21:33:30 2012. certainly is... |
|
|
| (1129374) | |
Re: Myrtle Avenue El |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Tue Jan 3 22:20:25 2012, in response to Re: Myrtle Avenue El, posted by Joe Saitta on Tue Jan 3 22:03:06 2012. There could be any number of reasons why (without knowing the construction type, I couldn't say for sure), but NYCT has rehabilitated numerous tunnel structures without full shutdowns, and any work that might need to be done on Steinway (likely some sort of steel repair) could likely be accomplished in the same fashion. |
|
|
| (1129375) | |
Re: Myrtle Avenue El |
|
|
Posted by Joe Saitta on Tue Jan 3 22:43:32 2012, in response to Re: Myrtle Avenue El, posted by J trainloco on Tue Jan 3 22:20:25 2012. Possibly, but remember, no one knows tomorrow..... |
|
|
| (1129380) | |
Re: Myrtle Avenue El |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Tue Jan 3 22:50:02 2012, in response to Re: Myrtle Avenue El, posted by randyo on Tue Jan 3 20:13:38 2012. When was this? |
|
|
| (1129381) | |
Re: Myrtle Avenue El |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Tue Jan 3 22:50:42 2012, in response to Re: Myrtle Avenue El, posted by J trainloco on Tue Jan 3 21:46:49 2012. What happens if you originate from somewhere on the right side of the road, and then have to turn left? Or vice-versa. |
|
|
| (1129382) | |
Re: Myrtle Avenue El |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Tue Jan 3 22:51:27 2012, in response to Re: Myrtle Avenue El, posted by J trainloco on Tue Jan 3 22:20:25 2012. Great post. |
|
|
| (1129384) | |
Re: Myrtle Avenue El |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Tue Jan 3 22:53:37 2012, in response to Re: Myrtle Avenue El, posted by Joe Saitta on Tue Jan 3 21:33:30 2012. The major reason for the elimination of two way traffic on the avenues is that eliminates the bottleneck from traffic waiting to turn left. On Park Avenue this is mitigated by the presence of a median, and the street is wider than the others anyway. CPW only has left turns in one direction except at a few intersections. |
|
|
| (1129432) | |
Re: Myrtle Avenue El |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Wed Jan 4 07:52:56 2012, in response to Re: Myrtle Avenue El, posted by Spider-Pig on Tue Jan 3 22:50:02 2012. This was back in the '70s and '80s. I grew up in that part of Manhattan, and for many years, there was a small median splitting up first avenue for a good number of years. |
|
|
| (1129433) | |
Re: Myrtle Avenue El |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Wed Jan 4 07:59:04 2012, in response to Re: Myrtle Avenue El, posted by Elkeeper on Tue Jan 3 16:32:06 2012. If it meant a new line and an easier way to Manhattan (as again, my version would continue to Manhattan via the Montauge Street and Broadway lines and then to Astoria), I think if people are educated and it were built in a way to minimize noise, it can be done, especially since the new elevated part (including a rebuilt upper level of Myrtle Avenue to accommodate 10-car trains) would be a total of six new stations before connecting to the Montauge/Broadway line and transfers in Brooklyn to the A/C/F/R at Metrotech and 2/3/4/5 at Court Street. |
|
|
| (1129434) | |
Re: Myrtle Avenue El |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Wed Jan 4 08:04:54 2012, in response to Re: Myrtle Avenue El, posted by Wallyhorse on Wed Jan 4 07:52:56 2012. Fascinating. If it was a relic from when it was two way, they really took their merry time getting rid of it. |
|
|
| (1129474) | |
Re: Myrtle Avenue El |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Wed Jan 4 12:09:14 2012, in response to Re: Myrtle Avenue El, posted by Spider-Pig on Tue Jan 3 22:50:42 2012. Make the road two way! |
|
|
| (1129478) | |
Re: Myrtle Avenue El |
|
|
Posted by Avid Reader on Wed Jan 4 12:29:04 2012, in response to Re: Myrtle Avenue El, posted by Spider-Pig on Tue Jan 3 22:50:42 2012. Proceed one block, make right turn, proceed one block, make right turn, proceed one block, make right turn, no go straight.Vice-versa, use mirror. (_!_) avid |
|
|
| (1129525) | |
Re: Myrtle Avenue El |
|
|
Posted by RIPTA42HopeTunnel on Wed Jan 4 14:49:30 2012, in response to Re: Myrtle Avenue El, posted by Spider-Pig on Wed Jan 4 08:04:54 2012. Fascinating. If it was a relic from when it was two way, they really took their merry time getting rid of it.Looking at historicaerials.com, it appears it ran from 80th Street all the way to 125th Street and was removed between 1980 and 1987. |
|
|
| (1129547) | |
Re: Myrtle Avenue El |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Wed Jan 4 16:22:40 2012, in response to Re: Myrtle Avenue El, posted by Spider-Pig on Tue Jan 3 22:50:42 2012. Traffic signals at those intersections could be programmed accordingly. |
|
|
| (1129615) | |
Re: Myrtle Avenue El |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Wed Jan 4 22:58:02 2012, in response to Re: Myrtle Avenue El, posted by RIPTA42HopeTunnel on Wed Jan 4 14:49:30 2012. That's about right:I remember that median being there when I was a kid, and it was gone by the time I moved out of New York in 1986. |
|
|
| (1129951) | |
Re: Myrtle Avenue El |
|
|
Posted by SLRT on Fri Jan 6 14:24:23 2012, in response to Re: Myrtle Avenue El, posted by Elkeeper on Tue Jan 3 16:21:35 2012. The IRT probably pissed off the City a bit by its openly monopolistic practices and by game-playing in quitting the Dual Contracts negotiations and then coming back in. |
|
|
|
Page 9 of 9 |
||
