|
|
| IND Second System full sized maps (124546) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
[1 2] |
||
|
|
Page 1 of 2 |
|
|
| (124546) | |
IND Second System full sized maps |
|
|
Posted by xandervaliya on Mon Aug 8 14:57:25 2005 This was probably mentioned before, but anyway, check out Wikipedia's article on the IND Second System to see full sized maps from 1929 and 1939.An enormous thank you to SPUI for his generous contributions to this article among many others on NYC's transit history. |
|
|
| (124555) | |
Re: IND Second System full sized maps |
|
|
Posted by Alargule on Mon Aug 8 16:01:15 2005, in response to IND Second System full sized maps, posted by xandervaliya on Mon Aug 8 14:57:25 2005. COOOOLL!!!! Thanks! |
|
|
| (124558) | |
Re: IND Second System full sized maps |
|
|
Posted by Alargule on Mon Aug 8 16:06:05 2005, in response to IND Second System full sized maps, posted by xandervaliya on Mon Aug 8 14:57:25 2005. The system would have been amazingly large, if all those lines really would have been built. But hey, what are the chances - they can't even build a two-track Manhattan-only Second Avenue Subway...:(( |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (124559) | |
Re: IND Second System full sized maps |
|
|
Posted by AFC on Mon Aug 8 16:10:57 2005, in response to Re: IND Second System full sized maps, posted by Alargule on Mon Aug 8 16:06:05 2005. The SAS is too intertwined with politics at the moment for anything to actually happen.A lot the planned lines in the outer boroughs can still become a reality in the form of light rail. |
|
|
| (124570) | |
Re: IND Second System full sized maps |
|
|
Posted by Alargule on Mon Aug 8 17:18:09 2005, in response to Re: IND Second System full sized maps, posted by Alargule on Mon Aug 8 16:01:15 2005. Just an idea what service might have looked like, had the 1939 plan continued: ;-) |
|
|
| (124573) | |
Re: IND Second System full sized maps |
|
|
Posted by Alargule on Mon Aug 8 17:22:22 2005, in response to Re: IND Second System full sized maps, posted by Alargule on Mon Aug 8 17:18:09 2005. xs.to, what a crap...Hopefully this will work:
|
|
|
| (124576) | |
Re: IND Second System full sized maps |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Mon Aug 8 17:38:23 2005, in response to Re: IND Second System full sized maps, posted by Alargule on Mon Aug 8 16:06:05 2005. I've always said that the system would have become too costly to run had it all been built. If you thought the 1980's were bad, imagine having to run a system much larger with the same amount of money. More els would have been abandoned. It would have taken many more years to recover. I think it's actually a good thing that parts of the 5 boros aren't accesable by subway. |
|
|
| (124580) | |
Re: IND Second System full sized maps |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Mon Aug 8 17:48:25 2005, in response to Re: IND Second System full sized maps, posted by Alargule on Mon Aug 8 17:18:09 2005. The Broadway Brooklyn el would have been torn down. Where did the Winfield spur go? Why does Rockaway need service from both Queens Blvd AND Fulton St? We could now say with some seriousness "Tear down the Astoria el!". You spend billions to tunnel to SI, yet you serve it with the G line!? The BMT expansion up the West Side is unecessary. Run the V to SI, ditch the UWS Broadway extension, the connection from Rockaway to Fulton St, the spur to Fort Hamilton and the redundant line running parallel to the Astoria el. Run the A to Springfield Gardens, the C to Lefferts, connect the J to the 14th St. line thru Highland Park and bring back the Winfield Spur. |
|
|
| (124581) | |
Re: IND Second System full sized maps |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Mon Aug 8 17:48:46 2005, in response to IND Second System full sized maps, posted by xandervaliya on Mon Aug 8 14:57:25 2005. Awesome. Thanks. |
|
|
| (124588) | |
Re: IND Second System full sized maps |
|
|
Posted by Alargule on Mon Aug 8 18:04:32 2005, in response to Re: IND Second System full sized maps, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Mon Aug 8 17:48:25 2005. I just filled in the lines as they were drawn on the plan. With my limited knowledge of the NYC-subway system (I don't live there), that's the best I could do. If you got any better ideas, feel free to fill in the map - and make us curious! |
|
|
| (124589) | |
Re: IND Second System full sized maps |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Mon Aug 8 18:05:11 2005, in response to Re: IND Second System full sized maps, posted by Alargule on Mon Aug 8 18:04:32 2005. OK, I see. Not bad then. |
|
|
| (124593) | |
Re: IND Second System full sized maps |
|
|
Posted by Alargule on Mon Aug 8 18:13:50 2005, in response to Re: IND Second System full sized maps, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Mon Aug 8 18:05:11 2005. ;-) |
|
|
| (124650) | |
Re: IND Second System full sized maps |
|
|
Posted by Koi-PublicTransitIsMyLifeline on Mon Aug 8 19:59:07 2005, in response to IND Second System full sized maps, posted by xandervaliya on Mon Aug 8 14:57:25 2005. Great info! Thanks for posting that link.Koi |
|
|
| (124707) | |
Re: IND Second System full sized maps |
|
|
Posted by Richard Rabinowitz on Mon Aug 8 23:43:34 2005, in response to Re: IND Second System full sized maps, posted by Alargule on Mon Aug 8 18:13:50 2005. cool.... any good suggestions? |
|
|
| (124723) | |
Re: IND Second System full sized maps |
|
|
Posted by UWS Greg on Tue Aug 9 01:28:30 2005, in response to Re: IND Second System full sized maps, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Mon Aug 8 17:38:23 2005. You could be right. Train lines encourage high-density housing with the concommitant strain on utilities, water, sewer, etc. as well as schools.The down-side of train-free zones is that a car becomes almost indispensible and once a car becomes the knee-jerk, primary mode of transit, then the same people start to do dumb things, like drive into Manhattan. Tolls on ALL East River bridges!! |
|
|
| (124726) | |
Re: IND Second System full sized maps |
|
|
Posted by 7 to Main St on Tue Aug 9 02:00:32 2005, in response to Re: IND Second System full sized maps, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Mon Aug 8 17:38:23 2005. How would it have been the same amount of money? More lines = more revenue... Am I missing something? |
|
|
| (124757) | |
Re: IND Second System full sized maps |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Junction on Tue Aug 9 07:23:56 2005, in response to Re: IND Second System full sized maps, posted by 7 to Main St on Tue Aug 9 02:00:32 2005. Subway lines are not profitable. Therefore more lines = more cost. |
|
|
| (124786) | |
Re: IND Second System full sized maps |
|
|
Posted by Sand Box John on Tue Aug 9 09:33:35 2005, in response to IND Second System full sized maps, posted by xandervaliya on Mon Aug 8 14:57:25 2005. Most of you transit and rail fans will not be happy when you find what the meaning of the net handle SPUI is.John in the sand box of Marylands eastern shore. |
|
|
| (124795) | |
Re: IND Second System full sized maps |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Aug 9 10:10:11 2005, in response to Re: IND Second System full sized maps, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Mon Aug 8 17:48:25 2005. I know the Broadway El would have been torn down, and replaced with the SOuth 4th St subway, but what would have served the Jamaica el? |
|
|
| (124797) | |
Re: IND Second System full sized maps |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Aug 9 10:12:22 2005, in response to Re: IND Second System full sized maps, posted by 7 to Main St on Tue Aug 9 02:00:32 2005. More lines = more revenue... Am I missing something?You are missing something. Your fare doesn't come close to covering operating costs. The city didn't even have enough money to handle the operating costs of the existing system back then, forget about a system double or triple the size! |
|
|
| (124800) | |
Re: IND Second System full sized maps |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Tue Aug 9 10:19:00 2005, in response to Re: IND Second System full sized maps, posted by Sand Box John on Tue Aug 9 09:33:35 2005. Most of you transit and rail fans will not be happy when you find what the meaning of the net handle SPUI is.This doesn't help me. So could you please just tell us? |
|
|
| (124801) | |
Re: IND Second System full sized maps |
|
|
Posted by R33 9139 on Tue Aug 9 10:20:33 2005, in response to Re: IND Second System full sized maps, posted by Terrapin Station on Tue Aug 9 10:19:00 2005. This? -SPUI |
|
|
| (124809) | |
Re: IND Second System full sized maps |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Aug 9 10:58:07 2005, in response to IND Second System full sized maps, posted by xandervaliya on Mon Aug 8 14:57:25 2005. Thanks for posting this!Some comments: 1. Under the 1929 plan, the Rockaway extention was not supposed to use the LIRR line. It was to run parallel to the Rockaway ROW at points, but not actually use it. In fact, the provision at 63rd Drive station was probably not made until they decided on the 1939 plan (the Queens Blvd line was being built when the 1929 map came out, so the built the extra Roosevelt station that was supposed to be the beginning of the Fresh Pond Rd line, which would connect to the 1929 version of the Rockaway line. During construction of the Queens Blvd line, they must have decided on the 63rd St connection for the LIRR Rocakway line that is shown in the 1939 map, because they made the provision in the construction also. 2. Under the 1929 plan, the Fulton Subway was supposed to connect to the Loberty el just like it does now, and continue east from Lefferts. (NO 76th St station!!!!). The Jamaica El was to be extended, and The Fulton line and the Jamaica Els would have connected to eachother via the Brinkernoff connection to Hollis. Interestingly, the Hillside line was not expected to be extended at that time. Under the 1939 plan, the Jamaica El was to stay where it was, and the Hillside line was the one to be extended. 3. Under the 1929 plan, the Fulton-Liberty line wasn't to connect to the Rockaway line at all. Under the 1939 plan, the Fulton El was not to connect to the Rockaway line, however, the extention beyond Euclid (GO 76th STREET!!!) was supposed to connect to the Rockaway line. 4. Both plans have the same exact Van Wyck line to Rockaway Blvd. That provsision became the Archer extention. I guess in theory, that line was somewhat buillt.....through AirTrain. 5. I don't understand how that was to work, but under the 1929 plan, the IRT Nostrand line was to be extended and connected to the IND Utica Ave line. (ANyone know how? FOur seperated tracks perhaps?). I don't think there was any plan for the IND to take over the dual contracts portion of the IRT Brooklyn line east of Atlantic AVe. 6. Under the 1929 plan, there were grand plans for the South 4th St station, and replacement of the Broadway El, and for the neighborhoods the Eastern Division serves. Under the 1939 plan, much of the areas the Eastern Division serves were cut out, and the South 4th Street line appeared to be just for the Utica subway (Which no longer was supposed to connect to the IRT Nostrand extention). 7. Under the 1939 plan, they were still planning to use the entire ROW of the Westchester and Boston line, even south of East 180th. The Pelham line was to connect to that line. A change from the 1929 plan is the connection from the Concourse line was abolished. 8. The Astoria El was to be extended under the 1929 plan to the Horace Harding line....under the 1939 plan, the Astoria line was to be replaced with a subway to the west of the el. 9. Was the "College Point Line" the old LIRR WHitestone branch? That's a real shame that that wasn't annexed to the subway system. |
|
|
| (124812) | |
Re: IND Second System full sized maps |
|
|
Posted by Richard Rabinowitz on Tue Aug 9 11:02:18 2005, in response to Re: IND Second System full sized maps, posted by R33 9139 on Tue Aug 9 10:20:33 2005. So? SPUIs can probably be designed for railways as well as roadways. |
|
|
| (124818) | |
Re: IND Second System full sized maps |
|
|
Posted by Alargule on Tue Aug 9 11:24:09 2005, in response to Re: IND Second System full sized maps, posted by Richard Rabinowitz on Tue Aug 9 11:02:18 2005. Yep, sure. One train missing a red signal and you've got a major crash (oh, that's likely to happen anyway? ;-) ). BTW: why would you want such complicated railway junctions while you could just as well build a transfer station where the railway lines cross each other? |
|
|
| (124823) | |
Re: IND Second System full sized maps |
|
|
Posted by Richard Rabinowitz on Tue Aug 9 11:37:37 2005, in response to Re: IND Second System full sized maps, posted by Alargule on Tue Aug 9 11:24:09 2005. But might SPUIs not lead to crashes with autos too? Yet the fools went ahead and built them anyway. |
|
|
| (124825) | |
Re: IND Second System full sized maps |
|
|
Posted by Alargule on Tue Aug 9 11:40:20 2005, in response to Re: IND Second System full sized maps, posted by Richard Rabinowitz on Tue Aug 9 11:37:37 2005. Yes, and driving on the highway might lead to accidents as well. Yet the fools etc etc. You see, the point is that when a car misses a traffic light and crashes into another, the death toll doesn't necessarily have to be that high (if any casualties occur at all). But when two trains collide...go figure. |
|
|
| (124826) | |
Re: IND Second System full sized maps |
|
|
Posted by Richard Rabinowitz on Tue Aug 9 11:41:30 2005, in response to Re: IND Second System full sized maps, posted by Alargule on Tue Aug 9 11:40:20 2005. Depends on how the collision occurs, and at what speed. Some collisions kill hardly anyone, while others can be major disasters. |
|
|
| (124827) | |
Re: IND Second System full sized maps |
|
|
Posted by Alargule on Tue Aug 9 11:47:56 2005, in response to Re: IND Second System full sized maps, posted by Richard Rabinowitz on Tue Aug 9 11:41:30 2005. Yup. But when trains collide at high speed, it's way more likely to turn into a disaster with tens, maybe hundreds of casualties, than when two cars collide with the same speed.And still: why would you need a train-SPUI (or SPTI, if you will)? |
|
|
| (124829) | |
Re: IND Second System full sized maps |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Tue Aug 9 11:50:42 2005, in response to Re: IND Second System full sized maps, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Aug 9 10:10:11 2005. Neither map adresses this. No map adresses what serves the Nassau St. line with none of the else serving it from Brooklyn gone. I don't see them abandoning an actual subway route and it's clear the Jamaica portion of the J line was to be kept due to the plans to extend it to 180th St and connect it to an extended Liberty Ave line. I came up with the idea to connect it to the 14th St line, right around Wilson Ave, under the cemetary, emerging to the north of the ENY yard. I'd extend the tracks past the bumper at 8th Ave so 20-24 TPH could be turned here. |
|
|
| (124831) | |
Re: IND Second System full sized maps |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Tue Aug 9 11:57:26 2005, in response to Re: IND Second System full sized maps, posted by UWS Greg on Tue Aug 9 01:28:30 2005. Some neighborhoods could use subway service (Queens Village, Hollis, Rosedale, Laurelton, Flatlands. Soundview). Others (Glendale, Bayside, Whitestone, Breezy Point, Gerritson Beach) have created identities for themselves which easy subway access would have destroyed. Projects in Douglaston? Had the Flushing line been extended, that would have been a distinct possibility. |
|
|
| (124832) | |
Re: IND Second System full sized maps |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Tue Aug 9 12:03:21 2005, in response to Re: IND Second System full sized maps, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Aug 9 10:12:22 2005. Had the whole 2nd system been built, the system would have probably needed 2000 more cars in the fleet, thousands of additional station agents, a substantially larger police force and god knows how much more $$$ to bring it back from the deferred maintenance era. The 1975 fiscal crisis would have demanded even more service cuts than the existing system endured. I'd guess some of the more drastic proposed cuts would have been unavoidable, like bustituting some of the elevated lines, closing the system down overnights and even fewer trains serving the lines still kept. |
|
|
| (124842) | |
Re: IND Second System full sized maps |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Tue Aug 9 12:24:18 2005, in response to Re: IND Second System full sized maps, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Aug 9 10:58:07 2005. 1. Under the 1929 plan, the Rockaway extention was not supposed to use the LIRR line. It was to run parallel to the Rockaway ROW at points, but not actually use it. In fact, the provision at 63rd Drive station was probably not made until they decided on the 1939 plan (the Queens Blvd line was being built when the 1929 map came out, so the built the extra Roosevelt station that was supposed to be the beginning of the Fresh Pond Rd line, which would connect to the 1929 version of the Rockaway line. During construction of the Queens Blvd line, they must have decided on the 63rd St connection for the LIRR Rocakway line that is shown in the 1939 map, because they made the provision in the construction also. Correct. I believe the Rockaway Beach LIRR wasn't yet available in 1929, as the NYW&B wasn't. Acquiring these lines meant changes could be made. 2. Under the 1929 plan, the Fulton Subway was supposed to connect to the Loberty el just like it does now, and continue east from Lefferts. (NO 76th St station!!!!). The Jamaica El was to be extended, and The Fulton line and the Jamaica Els would have connected to eachother via the Brinkernoff connection to Hollis. Interestingly, the Hillside line was not expected to be extended at that time. Under the 1939 plan, the Jamaica El was to stay where it was, and the Hillside line was the one to be extended. This is odd, seeing how the Fulton St. line was always expected to run all the way to Springfield Blvd. As for the later plan to extend Hillside Ave and not Jamaica, you can see the seeds of the eventual demolition of the el here already planted. 3. Under the 1929 plan, the Fulton-Liberty line wasn't to connect to the Rockaway line at all. Under the 1939 plan, the Fulton El was not to connect to the Rockaway line, however, the extention beyond Euclid (GO 76th STREET!!!) was supposed to connect to the Rockaway line. No, it was meant to connect to the Myrtle/Central line via Montauk in 1929. In 1939 there were to be 2 connections, including the current one. Totally unecessary, IMHO. Growth in the Rockaways was probably expected to be higher. 4. Both plans have the same exact Van Wyck line to Rockaway Blvd. That provsision became the Archer extention. I guess in theory, that line was somewhat buillt.....through AirTrain. This line is perhaps the one which should have been built immediatley, because it would have been an ideal direct rail connection to JFK. 5. I don't understand how that was to work, but under the 1929 plan, the IRT Nostrand line was to be extended and connected to the IND Utica Ave line. (ANyone know how? FOur seperated tracks perhaps?). I don't think there was any plan for the IND to take over the dual contracts portion of the IRT Brooklyn line east of Atlantic AVe. Think Archer Ave. 2 levels. This line would have really relieved the pressure on the Brooklyn IRT. 6. Under the 1929 plan, there were grand plans for the South 4th St station, and replacement of the Broadway El, and for the neighborhoods the Eastern Division serves. Under the 1939 plan, much of the areas the Eastern Division serves were cut out, and the South 4th Street line appeared to be just for the Utica subway (Which no longer was supposed to connect to the IRT Nostrand extention). Reality set in. I still believe the Myrtle/Central/Rockaway connection in the 1929 plan made the most sense, since the Utica Ave line left large portions of the Broadway Brooklyn el unreplaced. They'd have to have been kept. 7. Under the 1939 plan, they were still planning to use the entire ROW of the Westchester and Boston line, even south of East 180th. The Pelham line was to connect to that line. A change from the 1929 plan is the connection from the Concourse line was abolished. The NYW&B was kaput in 1939, so plans changed. 8. The Astoria El was to be extended under the 1929 plan to the Horace Harding line....under the 1939 plan, the Astoria line was to be replaced with a subway to the west of the el. Tear down the Astoria el! 9. Was the "College Point Line" the old LIRR WHitestone branch? That's a real shame that that wasn't annexed to the subway system. I believe so, although I can't see it going that far. Much of the Whitestone branch of the LIRR was a one track ROW which winded it's way thru private property. |
|
|
| (124845) | |
Re: IND Second System full sized maps |
|
|
Posted by xandervaliya on Tue Aug 9 12:33:27 2005, in response to Re: IND Second System full sized maps, posted by Alargule on Mon Aug 8 17:18:09 2005. Very nice! Thank you Alargule. |
|
|
| (124848) | |
Re: IND Second System full sized maps |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Junction on Tue Aug 9 12:37:56 2005, in response to Re: IND Second System full sized maps, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Aug 9 10:10:11 2005. Fulton St Local, IINM. There are bellmouths just west of the Liberty Avenue curve, east of Broadway Junction's switches. |
|
|
| (124851) | |
Re: IND Second System full sized maps |
|
|
Posted by xandervaliya on Tue Aug 9 12:58:09 2005, in response to Re: IND Second System full sized maps, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Tue Aug 9 11:57:26 2005. I wonder how they'd feel nowadays to a light rail system according to the all-four principle. (I guess today the trolley-bus mode would replaced by bus rapid transit.) |
|
|
| (124862) | |
Streets still zoned for future subways? (was Re: IND Second System full sized maps) |
|
|
Posted by xandervaliya on Tue Aug 9 13:44:41 2005, in response to Re: IND Second System full sized maps, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Aug 9 10:58:07 2005. Your observations made me wonder how many of these streets does the city, DOT, MTA still cite for potential subway construction?I've heard that Water Street in Lower Manhattan was zoned for the SAS and that even 9th Street in the Village is still zoned for a possible H&M/PATH extension to Astor Place. |
|
|
| (124863) | |
Re: IND Second System full sized maps |
|
|
Posted by R36 #9346 on Tue Aug 9 13:48:36 2005, in response to Re: IND Second System full sized maps, posted by Alargule on Tue Aug 9 11:24:09 2005. I remember making a BAHN layout using something similar to a Volleyball interchange, but had a circle of track connecting the ramps. |
|
|
| (124864) | |
Re: Streets still zoned for future subways? (was Re: IND Second System full sized maps) |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Tue Aug 9 13:53:01 2005, in response to Streets still zoned for future subways? (was Re: IND Second System full sized maps), posted by xandervaliya on Tue Aug 9 13:44:41 2005. Water is quite wide and there are setbacks where stations would be (Fulton, Hanover Sq, etc). |
|
|
| (124866) | |
Winfield Spur (Re: IND Second System full sized maps) |
|
|
Posted by xandervaliya on Tue Aug 9 13:58:52 2005, in response to Re: IND Second System full sized maps, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Tue Aug 9 12:24:18 2005. The Winfield spur could probably be replicated with the Lower Montauk Branch and New York Connecting Railroad ROWs. In the latter, I'd extend the Myrtle Avenue Line from Metropolitan Avenue or a branch of the Canarsie Line from Wilson Avenue to the Roosevelt Avenue terminal. |
|
|
| (124873) | |
Re: IND Second System full sized maps |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Aug 9 14:18:56 2005, in response to Re: IND Second System full sized maps, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Tue Aug 9 12:24:18 2005. 3. Under the 1929 plan, the Fulton-Liberty line wasn't to connect to the Rockaway line at all. Under the 1939 plan, the Fulton El was not to connect to the Rockaway line, however, the extention beyond Euclid (GO 76th STREET!!!) was supposed to connect to the Rockaway line.No, it was meant to connect to the Myrtle/Central line via Montauk in 1929. In 1939 there were to be 2 connections, including the current one. Totally unecessary, IMHO. Growth in the Rockaways was probably expected to be higher. No, look closely at the 1939 map. The Rockway line connection is only to the extention of the Fulton Subway, not the Liberty El. |
|
|
| (124876) | |
Re: IND Second System full sized maps |
|
|
Posted by American Pig on Tue Aug 9 14:26:22 2005, in response to Re: IND Second System full sized maps, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Tue Aug 9 11:50:42 2005. Nassau Street would almost certainly have been connected to the SAS. |
|
|
| (124878) | |
Re: IND Second System full sized maps |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Aug 9 14:31:48 2005, in response to Re: IND Second System full sized maps, posted by American Pig on Tue Aug 9 14:26:22 2005. It would have been a very logical connection. Unfortunately, the Nassau line has such good connections. Connections to just about every line in fact. However, the fact that it doesn't go uptown, or at least to midtown, banishes it to a the lowest used Manhattan trunk line today. |
|
|
| (124884) | |
Re: IND Second System full sized maps |
|
|
Posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Tue Aug 9 15:26:24 2005, in response to Re: IND Second System full sized maps, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Aug 9 14:31:48 2005. They should have pointed that Chrystie St. connection that's not used today in the other direction. |
|
|
| (124889) | |
Re: IND Second System full sized maps |
|
|
Posted by AFC on Tue Aug 9 15:48:40 2005, in response to Re: IND Second System full sized maps, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Aug 9 10:58:07 2005. Looking at that map, Queens would've benefited dramatically from all that new construction. As many of you probably know, "Horace Harding Blvd." is the eternally congested LIE. A 4-track subway would've easily been cool.The lines into College Point and Bayside would've been interesting. As it stands, both neighborhoods (as with the rest of northern Queens) is very suburban. I'm sure subways into those areas would've made them look a lot different than what they are now. Will ever of it be built today? Aside from the SAS, no. Of course, there's always light rail. |
|
|
| (124891) | |
Re: IND Second System full sized maps |
|
|
Posted by AFC on Tue Aug 9 15:50:41 2005, in response to Re: IND Second System full sized maps, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Tue Aug 9 12:24:18 2005. But back then, most of the area was relatively unoccupied. It would've been easy to double-track, or do whatever was necessary. Of course today, it's a different story. |
|
|
| (124892) | |
Re: IND Second System full sized maps |
|
|
Posted by AFC on Tue Aug 9 15:52:25 2005, in response to Re: IND Second System full sized maps, posted by xandervaliya on Tue Aug 9 12:58:09 2005. Light rail certainly has its appeal in many cities here in the US and abroad. Much more so than buses, anyway/ |
|
|
| (124895) | |
Re: Winfield Spur (Re: IND Second System full sized maps) |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Tue Aug 9 15:56:50 2005, in response to Winfield Spur (Re: IND Second System full sized maps), posted by xandervaliya on Tue Aug 9 13:58:52 2005. Extending those lines would just feed even more humanity into the Queens Blvd IND. With the Flushing line connection, it'd be too much. It already is too much. The 1929 Winfield spur was fed by trains coming from the Houston/Worth St. tunnels and may have drawn a few people OFF the Queens Blvd IND. |
|
|
| (124898) | |
Re: IND Second System full sized maps |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Tue Aug 9 16:01:48 2005, in response to Re: IND Second System full sized maps, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Aug 9 14:18:56 2005. My mistake. But the line has 2 connections, one to Fulton St (probably near where Pitkin crosses under the existing ROW) and all the way up at 63rd Drive. That's excessive. |
|
|
| (124899) | |
Re: IND Second System full sized maps |
|
|
Posted by American Pig on Tue Aug 9 16:02:47 2005, in response to Re: IND Second System full sized maps, posted by UWS Greg on Tue Aug 9 01:28:30 2005. I'd agree with you re tolling only if the toll on the Verrazano, Whitestone and Throgs Neck Bridges was eliminated or if all highways and bridges in the US were tolled as well. The latter has a snowballs chance in hell of happening. The former is the only reasonable compromise in creating East River tolls. |
|
|
[1 2] |
||
|
|
Page 1 of 2 |
|
