|
|
| Re: M to West 4th on Weekends/Late Nights (1357479) | |||
 |
|||
| Home > SubChat | |||
|
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ] |
|
||
|
Re: M to West 4th on Weekends/Late Nights |
|
|
Posted by Michael549 on Fri Jun 26 13:46:53 2015, in response to Re: M to West 4th on Weekends/Late Nights, posted by Joe V on Fri Jun 26 12:51:24 2015. It is a two-edged sword - the building of track/switch/platforms facilities that may or may not be used, but that could be useful for "something" someday when ever that might come along. Transit building is expensive and extensive - even from the earliest days.The IND subway as built/extended has been noted as over-engineered, sometimes wasteful, and at times short-changed. All three descriptions easily apply not only to the IND system as built/extended, but even to the other BMT or IRT systems. Some things like the City Hall lower level came about because of a change in the plans. One big example is the J/Z Chambers Street station - the ideas and plans for that changed radically several times. The purpose of the "5th-track/middle track" sections along the A and C Fulton Street subway remains a good mystery. As well as the layup tracks north of 125th Street-St. Nicholas Avenue. I'm sure that there a few other examples. Or that all of the lower Manhattan East River tunnels are bi-directional between Brooklyn and Manhattan - the switches that allow either tube to be used when necessary for both directions EXCEPT the #2 and #3 tunnel! Lots of confusing round-about crazy G.O.'s would never have had to be created! Yes, plans and ideas change, and sometimes the changing money situation requires requires other changes or responses. As much as folks may WANT to complain about the 63rd Street Tunnel the early plans and goals are very different from what is being considered today. There were several plans for Second Avenue service. Stuff happens. The idea of a Whitehall Street-like station at the 72nd Street-Second Avenue to me was an intriguing idea. However finances and other issues came into play - a familar story when it comes to transit. The problem with "what-if" scenarios is that reality intrudes. There have been plenty of "fantasy transit maps" presented on the forums. Some or many have ideal or hoped for features, and maybe even some negatives. The trick is figuring out - "what we need to do", what we want to do, "what would be nice or ideal to do", "what we can not do at this time", "Is what is being proposed or built actually useful", "can we pay for it", and "whose ox gets gored when the crap hits the fan". Then there's the almighty truth - "our funds are limited - so how to get the most bang per buck!". I want a direct subway tunnel between Manhattan and Staten Island where the crossing takes 10-minutes tops, and the trains run frequently every 5 minutes. In addition the surface bus routes have clear pathways at all times, and wait times are no longer than 8 minutes between buses at any time of day/night/weekend. None of this is clearly not likely to happen! "You can't always get what you want, but sometimes you just might find you get what you need." Mike |
|
(There are no responses to this message.)
|
|