|
|
| Re: 3rd Avenue El being torn down (428152) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 16 of 16 |
||
|
| (432255) | |
Re: 3rd Avenue El being torn down |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri May 18 14:11:20 2007, in response to Re: 3rd Avenue El being torn down, posted by E Line Fan on Thu May 17 23:13:48 2007. The section in Manhattan dates to 1878, though it was rebuilt in the 1910's. |
|
|
| (432261) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Fri May 18 14:21:38 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by J trainloco on Wed May 16 20:41:39 2007. LeCorbusier was, (and still is) one of the most important architects of all time, but it turns out his 'tower in the park' residential plan was terrible, taking life off the street and fostering a haven for crime. You can't blame people for spending money on what they thought was the best idea at the time.Well, I suppose it was a great idea for upper class Swiss men. |
|
|
| (432262) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Fri May 18 14:23:18 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by Rail Blue on Fri May 18 14:21:38 2007. The idea was a noble one: light, air and green space for everybody! Unfortunately, it destroyed, rather than fostered, the dynamic of urban space. |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (432265) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Fri May 18 14:29:36 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by J trainloco on Fri May 18 14:23:18 2007. Compared to elsewhere, New York City's attempts at public housing were fairly successful.Hell, in some places, such as Stuytown, they arent even lower income! |
|
|
| (432269) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Fri May 18 14:34:53 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by R30A on Fri May 18 14:29:36 2007. I would say that current public housing attempts are successful.St. Louis and Chicago weren't the only cities to abandon housing projects. Some in the Bronx suffered the same fate. |
|
|
| (432279) | |
Re: 3rd Avenue El being torn down |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Fri May 18 14:43:34 2007, in response to Re: 3rd Avenue El being torn down, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Thu May 17 22:52:45 2007. 2nd isnt really commercial until the lower 40s-- and it only stays commercial until the upper 30s. |
|
|
| (432554) | |
Re: 3rd Avenue El being torn down |
|
|
Posted by TheGreatOne2k7 on Fri May 18 23:02:00 2007, in response to Re: 3rd Avenue El being torn down, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Thu May 17 22:52:45 2007. In 1942 the 3rd Avenue Elevated was the only line that went to the Bronx, the 2nd Avenue Elevated was already demolished north of 59th Street and was only going to Queens at that point. |
|
|
| (434084) | |
Stuyvessantown (was Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle) |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Tue May 22 04:16:33 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by R30A on Fri May 18 14:29:36 2007. Exactly on Stuyvessantown:That is probably by far the most successful of such projects, and has withstood the test of time. It's amazing how much that went for not too long ago. |
|
|
| (434086) | |
Extending J Service to Bay Ridge/how it affects the WTC-Church Street line |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Tue May 22 04:28:28 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by TheGreatOne2k7 on Sun May 13 00:35:32 2007. Another question:If you extend the J to Bay Ridge, do you have the N, Q or W run via the tunnel in Manhattan if the R only goes to 9th Avenue on weekdays and Whitehall Street on weekends? If not, do you have a shuttle that runs from Canal Street (tunnel level) to Whitehall Street or Prospect Park? This is very important because you have stations at Rector Street and City Hall (and Cortlandt Street when it reopens) that are very important to lower Manhattan. |
|
|
| (434129) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by The Port of Authority on Tue May 22 08:01:15 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by R30A on Fri May 18 14:29:36 2007. But Stuyvesant Town/Peter Cooper Village is a private development, not a public one. |
|
|
| (434133) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Tue May 22 08:17:27 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by The Port of Authority on Tue May 22 08:01:15 2007. Nope.Moses built them with NYC WPA grants..for war vets...then in turn sold them. |
|
|
| (434194) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by AEM-7AC #901 on Tue May 22 11:35:38 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by R30A on Fri May 18 14:29:36 2007. Hell, in some places, such as Stuytown, they arent even lower income!Primarily because they were designed for the working classes and these apartments screened out the undesirables. While the government owned housing projects ended up becoming warehouses for the poor, the privately owned developments kept them out and ensured their success. |
|
|
| (434584) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Wed May 23 02:24:23 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by AEM-7AC #901 on Tue May 22 11:35:38 2007. Stuyvesant and Peter Cooper were originally built with public funds. It was Moses' racism that kept out the "undeseribles". |
|
|
| (1399945) | |
Re: Shutdown of the Jamaica El (yes, I know this thread is from 2007) |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Sat Jun 25 06:37:12 2016, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .Try a new a new theory, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Tue May 15 11:13:45 2007. More likely if so, Macy's fearful they would lose a large chunk of that customer base (especially those who wanted things certain ways that were much more rigid in those days) unless they did that.(Yes, I know this is a nine-year old thread, it came up because of discussions outside this forum). |
|
|
| (1399955) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by Renee gil on Sat Jun 25 11:51:59 2016, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by Dan on Fri May 11 16:52:28 2007. cannot be the fall of 1969, since the bmt standards made its last passenger service run on 8/4/1969. |
|
|
| (1399956) | |
Re: Increasing QB capacity |
|
|
Posted by Renee gil on Sat Jun 25 11:56:30 2016, in response to Re: Increasing QB capacity, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sat May 12 12:06:46 2007. The G & N to Jamaica Center signage were also at 71st/Continental and 67th Ave stations. |
|
|
| (1399957) | |
Re: Increasing QB capacity |
|
|
Posted by Bill from Maspeth on Sat Jun 25 12:18:09 2016, in response to Re: Increasing QB capacity, posted by Renee gil on Sat Jun 25 11:56:30 2016. Let it die please. |
|
|
| (1399958) | |
Re: Weekend additions of B service |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Sat Jun 25 12:21:53 2016, in response to Re: Weekend additions of CPW service, posted by Grand concourse on Thu May 17 19:57:28 2007. Actually, during the summer it might not be a bad idea to have the B also run to Coney Island. I would think beachgoers would use that. |
|
|
| (1399959) | |
Re: Increasing QB capacity |
|
|
Posted by renee gil on Sat Jun 25 12:25:11 2016, in response to Re: Increasing QB capacity, posted by Bill from Maspeth on Sat Jun 25 12:18:09 2016. ??? I wasn't the one who brought this thread back up from the past. Even if I did, what's the problem? It's not the end of the world.... |
|
|
| (1399964) | |
Re: Weekend additions of B service |
|
|
Posted by New Flyer #857 on Sat Jun 25 14:40:51 2016, in response to Re: Weekend additions of B service, posted by Wallyhorse on Sat Jun 25 12:21:53 2016. A weekend B is definitely something realistic and possible next time a big pile of money falls down, though Brighton and CPW would probably still both need to show a couple of ounces more of need for the service. You can justify more weekend service on those ROWs, but not necessarily double the service, and if you run the B you know it would have to be 6 tph to be a respectable service and integrate operationally with the Q, D, and C. |
|
|
| (1399966) | |
Re: Weekend additions of B service |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynTrain on Sat Jun 25 15:10:30 2016, in response to Re: Weekend additions of B service, posted by New Flyer #857 on Sat Jun 25 14:40:51 2016. There is often work on CPW, 6th Ave and/or 4th Ave Bklyn, so the vast majority of weekends the B would not be able to run. |
|
|
| (1399967) | |
Re: Weekend additions of CPW service |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynTrain on Sat Jun 25 15:13:07 2016, in response to Re: Weekend additions of CPW service, posted by AMoreira81 on Thu May 17 10:40:54 2007. The way to fix this is to run more frequent weekend R service in Brooklyn & Manhattan (95th to 57th/7th). R service runs LESS frequently than corresponding Q, N and D service on weekends due to Queens Blvd work. |
|
|
| (1399968) | |
Re: Weekend additions of B service |
|
|
Posted by Allan on Sat Jun 25 15:20:43 2016, in response to Re: Weekend additions of B service, posted by Wallyhorse on Sat Jun 25 12:21:53 2016. I guess someone had time on his hands to dig up a 9 year old thread (instead of starting a new one). |
|
|
| (1399974) | |
Re: Weekend additions of B service |
|
|
Posted by renee gil on Sat Jun 25 16:04:59 2016, in response to Re: Weekend additions of B service, posted by Allan on Sat Jun 25 15:20:43 2016. better than starting a new pointless thread of the same topic.... |
|
|
| (1399977) | |
Re: Increasing QB capacity |
|
|
Posted by Bill from Maspeth on Sat Jun 25 18:48:36 2016, in response to Re: Increasing QB capacity, posted by renee gil on Sat Jun 25 12:25:11 2016. You responded to a post from May 12,2007.I did not say it was the end of the world. It was just my opinion that the thread should die based on the length of the thread and changed subject title. You can do what you want but the fact is up to now you did not get a response to your query. |
|
|
| (1399978) | |
Re: Increasing QB capacity |
|
|
Posted by renee gil on Sat Jun 25 18:57:07 2016, in response to Re: Increasing QB capacity, posted by Bill from Maspeth on Sat Jun 25 18:48:36 2016. Yes, you're right. But my point is that it's better than starting a new thread of the same subject.Oh, BTW, I didn't brought back up this thread. Go to the "view flat" format of this thread, and you'll see who brought back this thread from the past. |
|
|
| (1399980) | |
Re: Weekend additions of B service |
|
|
Posted by New Flyer #857 on Sat Jun 25 19:23:03 2016, in response to Re: Weekend additions of B service, posted by BrooklynTrain on Sat Jun 25 15:10:30 2016. I think you mean Brighton instead of 4th, but point taken. |
|
|
| (1399983) | |
Re: Weekend additions of CPW service |
|
|
Posted by New Flyer #857 on Sat Jun 25 19:47:10 2016, in response to Re: Weekend additions of CPW service, posted by BrooklynTrain on Sat Jun 25 15:13:07 2016. But there are logistics to take into account. You can't run service on one segment slightly more often than the other. Like you can't do every 10 minutes on one segment and 15 on another. You have to double it by instituting short-turns. It's "double or nothing." So it will be 8 and 16, or 10 and 20, etc. It's either that, or split up into two segments, and make everyone transfer at the short-turn point, and relay both lines there. But that means that the entire Broadway Line has to change its routine. |
|
|
| (1399984) | |
Re: Weekend additions of B service |
|
|
Posted by New Flyer #857 on Sat Jun 25 19:53:45 2016, in response to Re: Weekend additions of B service, posted by renee gil on Sat Jun 25 16:04:59 2016. Thing is I have to check every post now to see if it is current or not, like I almost corrected someone for saying that the M was helping the R on 4th Ave before seeing that was 9 years ago. If everything was the same now as it was then, then maybe we can just continue the discussion, but things have changed, and it's like worlds colliding.My preference would be a new thread(s) with an optional link to the old thread for reference. |
|
|
| (1399987) | |
Re: Weekend additions of B service |
|
|
Posted by renee gil on Sat Jun 25 20:10:25 2016, in response to Re: Weekend additions of B service, posted by New Flyer #857 on Sat Jun 25 19:53:45 2016. To be honest, bringing up an old thread doesn't really bother me at all, as long as it's relevant to the thread.But I definitely agree with you -- especially your last sentence. |
|
|
| (1399989) | |
Re: Weekend additions of B service |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Sat Jun 25 21:58:23 2016, in response to Re: Weekend additions of B service, posted by Allan on Sat Jun 25 15:20:43 2016. This thread had already been dug up (by me because of another discussion in it that became a discussion somewhere else, and I noted there I knew this was from 2007). |
|
|
| (1400005) | |
Re: Weekend additions of B service |
|
|
Posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Sat Jun 25 23:15:17 2016, in response to Re: Weekend additions of B service, posted by New Flyer #857 on Sat Jun 25 14:40:51 2016. It doesn't need to be 6TPH though. 4 or even 3 TPH would be good enough, just put on the signs "weekends every 20 minutes". Maybe a shorter span of service, like 9AM-9PM Saturday and 10 AM-6PM Sunday. Minimal impact on construction at that point. Weekend Qs are jammed, especially in the summer, they need the help.I would say the same for the full length M and (when it returns) the W (while letting the N stay express). This simple change would allow the subway map to stay consistent between weekdays and weekends. |
|
|
| (1400012) | |
Re: Weekend additions of B service |
|
|
Posted by New Flyer #857 on Sun Jun 26 07:27:35 2016, in response to Re: Weekend additions of B service, posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Sat Jun 25 23:15:17 2016. Just the 5 would still end at Bowling Green, and the E would be local east of Forest Hills. And of course no special services like the Z or peak-direction expresses.I think a shorter duration of service at 6 tph is better than 3 or 4 tph at any time. Besides that NYers aren't used to subways running at bus frequencies, the B becomes like a "virus" in the system, having to work around the more frequent C, D, and Q, meaning it will probably be held at merges when it arrives at the "wrong" time as it is just as likely to come when it is not needed (i.e. the C, D, or Q just went by and everyone got on) as when it is needed (before the C, D, or Q). But if it runs at normal frequencies, it can be properly integrated like on the weekdays. So to minimize costs, just find the hours of the day when it is most needed. |
|
|
| (1400023) | |
Re: Weekend additions of B service |
|
|
Posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Sun Jun 26 11:13:29 2016, in response to Re: Weekend additions of B service, posted by New Flyer #857 on Sun Jun 26 07:27:35 2016. With 3 TPH it would come when needed exactly half the time. The other times it wouldn't be there at all :). The weekend 5 does it a lot of the time anyway.It would be there to help the C and Q out if there was a delay. It would also be there to sweep up tourists. The E express east of Forest Hills was supposed to be on weekends too, but the NIMBYs preventing Jamaica Yard expansion stopped that. If they didn't need the tracks for train storage the E would only have two patterns, full express for 19 hours and full local 5 hours. |
|
|
| (1400042) | |
Re: Increasing QB capacity |
|
|
Posted by Dupont Circle Station on Sun Jun 26 13:59:29 2016, in response to Re: Increasing QB capacity, posted by Renee gil on Sat Jun 25 11:56:30 2016. I think signs for G/N to JC was up from at least Roosevelt. It was covered over, but you could clearly make out the raised lettering. Several had been partially uncovered as well. I know I saw them at Grand, Woodhaven and 63rd; also at 75th (my home station for a while). I never used the local stops between QP and Roosevelt so I have no idea if those had been re-signed as well. |
|
|
| (1400043) | |
Re: Increasing QB capacity |
|
|
Posted by renee gil on Sun Jun 26 14:44:52 2016, in response to Re: Increasing QB capacity, posted by Dupont Circle Station on Sun Jun 26 13:59:29 2016. Interesting. I think there was a (E) (F) (G) (N) sign at the Interborough Parkway entrance to the Union Turnpike station as well. |
|
|
| (1400050) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Sun Jun 26 16:47:02 2016, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri May 11 13:46:29 2007. During the time the the modified Lo-Vs were on the Culver shuttle, the line was single track using the former NORtHBOUND track between Ditmas and 9 Av. I would imagine that was to allow the complete upgrading of the southbound track which eventually became the in service track. During the summer of 1969, I worked a week on the Culver shuttle with a train of R-16s one of which was one of the few R-16s which had Southern Div route signs in the sign box. That week The train ran with 5/Culver on the north end. |
|
|
| (1400051) | |
Re: Weekend additions of CPW service |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Sun Jun 26 16:53:46 2016, in response to Re: Weekend additions of CPW service, posted by BrooklynTrain on Sat Jun 25 15:13:07 2016. After the SAS opens, you won’t be able to turn at 57/7 thanks to the incompetence of MTA planners. |
|
|
| (1400081) | |
Re: Weekend additions of CPW service |
|
|
Posted by N6 Limited on Sun Jun 26 21:22:08 2016, in response to Re: Weekend additions of CPW service, posted by New Flyer #857 on Sat Jun 25 19:47:10 2016. It's either that, or split up into two segments, and make everyone transfer at the short-turn point, and relay both lines there.Sounds like the N20G/N20H situation. |
|
|
| (1400083) | |
Re: Increasing QB capacity |
|
|
Posted by Fisk Ave Jim on Sun Jun 26 21:49:04 2016, in response to Re: Increasing QB capacity, posted by renee gil on Sat Jun 25 12:25:11 2016. It was interesting to see this "ressurected" thread. To see some of the posts, some of the folks who posted here & don't anymore. To see some of the wisdom, "gifted" insight, venom & arrogance shown here in abundance. I wonder how many have died or just said later for this place a/c some "know-it- all" couldn't be reasonable or proved wrong and admit it. This thread was years before I started posting here. Nice history lesson. |
|
|
| (1400088) | |
Re: Weekend additions of CPW service |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Sun Jun 26 22:35:06 2016, in response to Re: Weekend additions of CPW service, posted by randyo on Sun Jun 26 16:53:46 2016. After SAS opens, you won't need to turn at 57/7! You'll have 96/2 instead! |
|
|
| (1400089) | |
Re: Weekend additions of CPW service |
|
|
Posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Sun Jun 26 22:58:35 2016, in response to Re: Weekend additions of CPW service, posted by randyo on Sun Jun 26 16:53:46 2016. Can still turn at 42/TS on the express tracks... 57/7 only gets you one extra stop.I think the more stupid limitation is, if there is a situation where trains from Queens are to be short turned at Times Square, say for example when they were running N shuttles due to a planned 7 train outage (more likely to occur once the Q cannot be diverted to help). The Q and these shuttles will have fully conflicting movements in both directions, whereas if the connection to the local tracks at 57st were completed they would never even have to meet. |
|
|
| (1400092) | |
Re: Weekend additions of CPW service |
|
|
Posted by New Flyer #857 on Mon Jun 27 00:15:17 2016, in response to Re: Weekend additions of CPW service, posted by N6 Limited on Sun Jun 26 21:22:08 2016. Yes, but unlike Great Neck, where you can just park the two buses nearby each other, relaying two lines from opposite ends at the same station on the Broadway Line doesn't just happen. You basically have to knock out any/all express service and use both Herald Square and Times Square for relays. So the N, Q, and R all have to get GO schedules because of construction on Queens Blvd. |
|
|
| (1400153) | |
Re: Increasing QB capacity |
|
|
Posted by renee gil on Mon Jun 27 13:13:41 2016, in response to Re: Increasing QB capacity, posted by Fisk Ave Jim on Sun Jun 26 21:49:04 2016. Yeah, I wasn't feeling like myself lately. |
|
|
| (1400154) | |
Re: Increasing QB capacity |
|
|
Posted by renee gil on Mon Jun 27 13:14:47 2016, in response to Re: Increasing QB capacity, posted by renee gil on Mon Jun 27 13:13:41 2016. I meant "I'm not" not "I wasn't". My bad. |
|
|
| (1400176) | |
Re: Weekend additions of CPW service |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Mon Jun 27 15:27:10 2016, in response to Re: Weekend additions of CPW service, posted by New Flyer #857 on Mon Jun 27 00:15:17 2016. And as I mentioned in another post, once the SAS opens 57 St won’t be able to be used and trying to use T/Sq and/or 34 St would not be possible either since you would have conflicting relay moves in opposite directions. |
|
|
|
Page 16 of 16 |
||
