|
|
| Re: Underbuilt IND? (1139594) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 3 of 3 |
||
|
| (1140842) | |
Re: Underbuilt IND? |
|
|
Posted by Mr RT on Mon Feb 20 13:55:38 2012, in response to Re: Underbuilt IND?, posted by Broadway Lion on Wed Feb 15 10:35:03 2012. Early photos of the Flushing line show the same absence of building next to line. |
|
| (1140851) | |
Re: Underbuilt IND? |
|
|
Posted by Gene B. on Mon Feb 20 15:07:09 2012, in response to Re: Underbuilt IND?, posted by Broadway Lion on Wed Feb 15 10:35:03 2012. The Queens line was the only example of the IND going into new territory. As I stated in a previous post, Mayor Hylan had no real interest in developing new neighborhoods. They would have taken a long time to become profitable. He had to have an immediate return on investment in order to preserve the five cent fare, which was one of his two objectives. The other one, of course, was to hurt the IRT and BMT big time, and that is why most of the IND generally parallels those lines. |
|
| (1140855) | |
Re: Underbuilt IND? |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Mon Feb 20 15:16:47 2012, in response to Re: Underbuilt IND?, posted by Gene B. on Mon Feb 20 15:07:09 2012. The Smith St line by itself doesn't really parallel any competing private subway lines although it was intended to eventually recapture the Culver Line which it did so it sort of went into "new" territory. The Smith St Line did parallel the Smith St trolley line although I don't think that's exactly what Hylan had in mind as far as competing with the privates. Also, keep in mind that by the time the IND was extended into the outer boroughs, Hylan was out of office and the BMT was offered the opportunity to operate the new subway. Many of the IND lines were intended to have been connected to the BMT anyhow if Hylan hadn't interfered. |
|
| (1140866) | |
Re: Underbuilt IND? |
|
|
Posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Mon Feb 20 16:17:54 2012, in response to Re: Underbuilt IND?, posted by Elkeeper on Fri Feb 17 17:21:11 2012. Can't run extra F trains without cutting service on the E. Both E and F run 15 tph. |
|
| (1140883) | |
Re: Underbuilt IND? |
|
|
Posted by Avid Reader on Mon Feb 20 20:32:01 2012, in response to Re: Underbuilt IND?, posted by randyo on Mon Feb 20 15:16:47 2012. The Queens Blvd. line paralleled the LIRR all the way to 179Th Street, and had bell mouths were other branches crossed or diverged. |
|
| (1140885) | |
Re: Underbuilt IND? |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Mon Feb 20 21:05:50 2012, in response to Re: Underbuilt IND?, posted by Avid Reader on Mon Feb 20 20:32:01 2012. True. However the LIRR was more of a suburban operation designed to carry commuters to Nassau and Suffolk counties rather than an intra city urban rapid transit line so it wasn't the type of line that Hylan was looking to compete with.. |
|
| (1140927) | |
Re: Underbuilt IND? |
|
|
Posted by Elkeeper on Tue Feb 21 10:05:08 2012, in response to Re: Underbuilt IND?, posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Mon Feb 20 16:17:54 2012. I didn't say anything about extra trains. Just start some at Church Ave in the AM rush hours. The ridership on McDonald is less than the West End or Sea Beach. A few trains, eight minutes apart, won't jam the trains from CI. |
|
|
Page 3 of 3 |
||