|
|
| Re: Developer Has Chance To Link Two Key Long Island City Subway Stations (1412983) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 2 of 4 |
||
|
| (1413686) | |
Re: Developer Has Chance To Link Two Key Long Island City Subway Stations |
|
|
Posted by Michael549 on Mon Oct 24 12:35:39 2016, in response to Re: Developer Has Chance To Link Two Key Long Island City Subway Stations, posted by Dyre Dan on Mon Oct 24 10:41:08 2016. From a previous message:"So both sides of the F line (Brooklyn and Queens) have stations that could be bypassed by express service, but at which people in the area would prefer all service to remain local." In both cases an argument could be made that the substituted local service would not be as frequent as the current local/express hybird service provides, and the local/express hybrid service has often existed for decades. In Brooklyn, the usual calls for the F-train to run express often means that the G-train would have to handle the by-passed heavily used local stations. The currently configured G-train simply does not run as much service as the F-train. Some plans involve a combination of SOME F-trains and G-trains which would still represent a reduction in the frequency of trains that service those by-passed heavily used local stations. On this forum and others - we have had this discussion before plenty of times. In any case, the riders seem to prefer F-trains arriving at 4 minutes apart with 15 trains per hour - over a reduction in service. See the riders are crazy for wanting quicker direct trips to Manhattan! In Queens - the proposed call is for both E and F trains to run as much as a full express as possible while M and R trains handle the by-passed local stations. Combined the M and R trains may or may not indeed provide the 15 trains per hour that the F-train does at those proposed to be by-passed local trains - but few riders would WANT to stay on-board such trains for the complete ride to/from Manhattan daily. Prior to the F-train regularly stopping at these local stations, the E-train did in the decades before the Archer Avenue segment opened. Meaning the residents were used to a direct to Manhattan express route. The experiment where R-trains were extended to 179th Street rush hours did not seem to go well. I suppose one of the complaints was that those R-trains were not as frequent as the F-train service. In any case, I'm told that riders would if possible abandon the local service as soon as possible to transfer to the express trains for the ride to Manhattan. See the riders are crazy for wanting quicker direct trips to Manhattan! Man!! Subway riders are CRAZY!!! (Smile) Mike |
|
|
| (1413694) | |
Re: Developer Has Chance To Link Two Key Long Island City Subway Stations |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Mon Oct 24 13:29:28 2016, in response to Re: Developer Has Chance To Link Two Key Long Island City Subway Stations, posted by Elkeeper on Sat Oct 22 20:37:10 2016. Moving the M and R to 179 and Jamaica Center would be the way to go.Reconfigure the E train to split service where half of each go to either terminal. Send All M Train service to 179,send R train to Archer,with drop outs at the present terminal. |
|
|
| (1413702) | |
Re: Developer Has Chance To Link Two Key Long Island City Subway Stations |
|
|
Posted by New Flyer #857 on Mon Oct 24 14:46:38 2016, in response to Re: Developer Has Chance To Link Two Key Long Island City Subway Stations, posted by Michael549 on Mon Oct 24 12:35:39 2016. Yes, people often aren't aware of or don't look at all sides of what they are getting. Let's take 75th Ave, Briarwood, Sutphin, and 169th.Suppose the planets align and they find a way someday to extend both the M and R to 179th, and make the F Hillside Express all the way. The four stations in question would go from getting 63rd St - ONLY direct service to getting BOTH 53rd and 60th St direct services. For 53rd, it means you can get there now without having to get on the E, and for 60th it means Lexington Express access without an advance change of trains or walking. The price is 6 extra minutes spent on Queens Blvd, but practically nobody realizes it's only 6 minutes. While for some, it may be a bad deal, there are many positives if people had the ability to look at the big picture, which I acknowledge they don't. Mitigating this somewhat, however, is the fact that the Q will be available as a cross-platform connection at 63rd, making the F much more desirable in the days to come than it is now. |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (1413724) | |
Re: Developer Has Chance To Link Two Key Long Island City Subway Stations |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Mon Oct 24 18:58:49 2016, in response to Re: Developer Has Chance To Link Two Key Long Island City Subway Stations, posted by Edwards! on Mon Oct 24 13:29:28 2016. Sounds complicated.Archer can only handle 12 TPH. |
|
|
| (1413744) | |
Re: Developer Has Chance To Link Two Key Long Island City Subway Stations |
|
|
Posted by Andrew Saucci on Mon Oct 24 21:09:11 2016, in response to Re: Developer Has Chance To Link Two Key Long Island City Subway Stations, posted by New Flyer #857 on Mon Oct 24 14:46:38 2016. In rush hours, the locals can be quite competitive with the expresses. A pin on the tracks or someone coughing will cause the expresses to slow to a crawl anyway. Direct service to 53 or 60 St might not be all that bad, even on a local. |
|
|
| (1413756) | |
Re: Developer Has Chance To Link Two Key Long Island City Subway Stations |
|
|
Posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Mon Oct 24 22:20:46 2016, in response to Re: Developer Has Chance To Link Two Key Long Island City Subway Stations, posted by Andrew Saucci on Sat Oct 22 21:30:11 2016. Tell them to transfer at the nearest express station?Really they've walked more to get from the station to the platform than they would to transfer for the express. The 169st-ers would probably pass the local they had gotten on before 71st anyway, providing a visible time savings over the current pattern. Briarwood is mostly in the middle of nowhere, there's a few apartment towers but if anything, the biggest traffic generator (the High School) would benefits more from through local service than having the express! 75th only gets express service due to track configuration. So that would leave Sutphin customers as the only ones with a leg to stand on w/r/t the loss express service. |
|
|
| (1413759) | |
Re: Developer Has Chance To Link Two Key Long Island City Subway Stations |
|
|
Posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Tue Oct 25 03:34:52 2016, in response to Re: Developer Has Chance To Link Two Key Long Island City Subway Stations, posted by New Flyer #857 on Mon Oct 24 14:46:38 2016. The only group that would have a legitimate gripe about it would be the current M/R passengers - now they won't be getting a fresh train which started at 71st (there's usually seats until Grand Av, and some open up again at Roosevelt). |
|
|
| (1413826) | |
Queens Boulevard during L shutdown |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Tue Oct 25 20:21:27 2016, in response to Re: Developer Has Chance To Link Two Key Long Island City Subway Stations, posted by Joe V on Mon Oct 24 18:58:49 2016. Which is exactly why I would during the (L) shutdown:Leave the (E) as it is (excepf the (E) would be express at all times) Have the (F) run express all the way to 179 (including late nights) Have the (G) (M) and (R) all run local to 179 at all times, with as needed locals going to 179 being sent to the express track after Parsons Boulevard if there is a logjam since anyone looking for 169 in that scenario can simply take the next local. As said, Court Square looks like a recipe for disaster and why I would be sending all three of the other routes to 179 just to avoid a potential disaster there. |
|
|
| (1413827) | |
Queens Boulevard during (L) shutdown |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Tue Oct 25 20:23:16 2016, in response to Re: Developer Has Chance To Link Two Key Long Island City Subway Stations, posted by Andrew Saucci on Sat Oct 22 21:26:59 2016. You can turn three locals during rush hours by when needed having locals once at Parsons Boulevard switch to the express track there (since it would be AFTER the (E) turns off to go to Parsons-Archer), as anyone looking for 169 can simply take the next local that would in that scenario be right behind the one in the station. |
|
|
| (1413828) | |
Queens Boulevard during (L) shutdown |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Tue Oct 25 20:26:06 2016, in response to Re: Developer Has Chance To Link Two Key Long Island City Subway Stations, posted by Andrew Saucci on Sat Oct 22 21:30:11 2016. The (M) would replace the (F) on that part of the route, and with THREE locals (G & R being the other two) running along QB for the full route, anyone wanting the (F) can switch at the first express station and not lose much time if any at all.Plus, those looking for Broadway at that point won't have to switch to the (R) since the (R) would also be running that segment. |
|
|
| (1413830) | |
Queens Boulevard during (L) shutdown |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Tue Oct 25 20:34:09 2016, in response to Re: Developer Has Chance To Link Two Key Long Island City Subway Stations, posted by Michael549 on Mon Oct 24 12:35:39 2016. My plan calls for the (G) (M) and (R) to ALL run to 179, so you would have THREE lines, not two running local. The (F) can then run express on its full route while those who would complain would point out there would be three different local lines. Plus, anyone looking for Broadway would not have to switch to the (R) at 71-Continental and anyone looking for the (G) would not have to deal with possibly two transfers from the (F) to the (M) to the (G) where the (E) does not stop.This is all to avoid to me is a potential disaster looming if the MTA insists on using Court Square. |
|
|
| (1413833) | |
Re: Queens Boulevard during (L) shutdown |
|
|
Posted by N6 Limited on Tue Oct 25 21:08:34 2016, in response to Queens Boulevard during (L) shutdown, posted by Wallyhorse on Tue Oct 25 20:34:09 2016. That would be Great |
|
|
| (1413835) | |
Re: Developer Has Chance To Link Two Key Long Island City Subway Stations |
|
|
Posted by N6 Limited on Tue Oct 25 22:21:29 2016, in response to Re: Developer Has Chance To Link Two Key Long Island City Subway Stations, posted by Michael549 on Mon Oct 24 12:35:39 2016. "In Queens - the proposed call is for both E and F trains to run as much as a full express as possible while M and R trains handle the by-passed local stations. Combined the M and R trains may or may not indeed provide the 15 trains per hour that the F-train does at those proposed to be by-passed local trains - but few riders would WANT to stay on-board such trains for the complete ride to/from Manhattan daily. Prior to the F-train regularly stopping at these local stations, the E-train did in the decades before the Archer Avenue segment opened. Meaning the residents were used to a direct to Manhattan express route. The experiment where R-trains were extended to 179th Street rush hours did not seem to go well. I suppose one of the complaints was that those R-trains were not as frequent as the F-train service. In any case, I'm told that riders would if possible abandon the local service as soon as possible to transfer to the express trains for the ride to Manhattan. See the riders are crazy for wanting quicker direct trips to Manhattan!" It depends. Sometimes the E and F trains are so congested that the Locals would be preferred if they didn't terminate at 71st Ave combined with a Conga Line. Also I think the M would get usage to from Manhattan, but the R train's slow crawl between Queens Plaza and the 60th Street tunnel is horrible. |
|
|
| (1413837) | |
Re: Queens Boulevard during L shutdown |
|
|
Posted by New Flyer #857 on Tue Oct 25 22:39:29 2016, in response to Queens Boulevard during L shutdown, posted by Wallyhorse on Tue Oct 25 20:21:27 2016. Court Square is 9 miles west of 179th Street! Nobody's going to stay on the G past Court Square except possibly for those desperate for the Broadway line (wanting the R at Queens Plaza), but even they wouldn't lose much time just taking a Flushing-bound 7 one stop to Queensboro Plaza for the N/W.Between the E/M and 7, crowds off the G trains (even if full-length) should disperse. And even if they don't, an extended G wouldn't help. People want Manhattan, not 179th. |
|
|
| (1413839) | |
Re: Developer Has Chance To Link Two Key Long Island City Subway Stations |
|
|
Posted by New Flyer #857 on Tue Oct 25 22:56:59 2016, in response to Re: Developer Has Chance To Link Two Key Long Island City Subway Stations, posted by N6 Limited on Tue Oct 25 22:21:29 2016. I agree.Having lived for a few months in Forest Hills, equidistant from 71 Av and 75 Av stations, I can attest that even right now people close to 71 Av will walk back to 75 Av for the sake of getting first look at a seat before getting to 71 Av, even with only F trains at 75 Av. So an M at 75 Av would get used. There are enough people who would figure out that a relatively spacious car from 75 Av/Queens Blvd to Lex/53rd without transferring is a good deal, even if local. Again though, with the Q becoming a transfer option at Lex/63rd, the F will likely rise in popularity. As a cross-platform connection, it's practically like introducing a new Broadway - Queens Blvd Express service. |
|
|
| (1413862) | |
Re: Queens Boulevard during (L) shutdown |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Wed Oct 26 08:17:05 2016, in response to Queens Boulevard during (L) shutdown, posted by Wallyhorse on Tue Oct 25 20:34:09 2016. Your plan would get the MTA into legal trouble.That is why the R was cut back from 179th in the late 1980's after Archer opened, and the F made a Hillside local. Hillside local stations were relegated to a Queens Blvd local service, which was not the case before Archer. Apartment building owners threatened to sue since they thought their values would drop. All along the Queens Blvd line, property values are higher near express stations than near local stations. Running 3 locals won't make up for that, one of which does not even go to Manhattan. Even if they rode the G, dwell times would increase due to running 500' long trains and people running toward it to board. That would back up the R and M. |
|
|
| (1413863) | |
Re: Queens Boulevard during (L) shutdown |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Wed Oct 26 08:18:21 2016, in response to Re: Queens Boulevard during (L) shutdown, posted by Joe V on Wed Oct 26 08:17:05 2016. Make that 300' footlong G trains. |
|
|
| (1413870) | |
Re: Queens Boulevard during (L) shutdown |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Wed Oct 26 09:06:14 2016, in response to Re: Queens Boulevard during (L) shutdown, posted by Joe V on Wed Oct 26 08:18:21 2016. While the L is closed they will run longer G trains. |
|
|
| (1413871) | |
Re: Queens Boulevard during (L) shutdown |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Wed Oct 26 09:09:01 2016, in response to Queens Boulevard during (L) shutdown, posted by Wallyhorse on Tue Oct 25 20:34:09 2016. This is all to avoid to me is a potential disaster looming if the MTA insists on using Court Square. LOL. How do they NOT use Court Square while the L is closed? Force everyone off the train at 21st Van Alst? |
|
|
| (1413872) | |
Re: Queens Boulevard during (L) shutdown |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Wed Oct 26 09:09:46 2016, in response to Re: Queens Boulevard during (L) shutdown, posted by AlM on Wed Oct 26 09:06:14 2016. True, but then ? |
|
|
| (1413873) | |
Re: Queens Boulevard during (L) shutdown |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Wed Oct 26 09:32:39 2016, in response to Re: Queens Boulevard during (L) shutdown, posted by Joe V on Wed Oct 26 08:17:05 2016. Really?Where did you get that from, dude? You know...i believe truth should be a matter of FACT here...I understand that stretching or bending the truth is somewhat of a rule mastered by his Turtleship...but come on. |
|
|
| (1413875) | |
Re: Queens Boulevard during (L) shutdown |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Wed Oct 26 09:38:25 2016, in response to Re: Queens Boulevard during (L) shutdown, posted by Edwards! on Wed Oct 26 09:32:39 2016. I have a good institutional memory. |
|
|
| (1413886) | |
Re: Queens Boulevard during (L) shutdown |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Wed Oct 26 11:40:00 2016, in response to Re: Queens Boulevard during (L) shutdown, posted by Joe V on Wed Oct 26 08:17:05 2016. LOL! |
|
|
| (1413888) | |
Re: Queens Boulevard during (L) shutdown |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Wed Oct 26 12:10:54 2016, in response to Re: Queens Boulevard during (L) shutdown, posted by Spider-Pig on Wed Oct 26 11:40:00 2016. I was thinking it was a farfetched concept. Is there any particular law that protects the state from economic damages claimed to result from policy decisions it makes? |
|
|
| (1413890) | |
Re: Queens Boulevard during (L) shutdown |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Wed Oct 26 12:46:33 2016, in response to Re: Queens Boulevard during (L) shutdown, posted by AlM on Wed Oct 26 12:10:54 2016. You guys can laugh now, but that is what happened, and why we have the anomaly of Hillside E's rather than the more numerous R's. The TA hates service oddities. |
|
|
| (1413898) | |
Re: Queens Boulevard during (L) shutdown |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Wed Oct 26 13:35:10 2016, in response to Re: Queens Boulevard during (L) shutdown, posted by Joe V on Wed Oct 26 09:38:25 2016. Alrighty then...😎 |
|
|
| (1413900) | |
Re: Queens Boulevard during (L) shutdown |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Wed Oct 26 13:56:45 2016, in response to Re: Queens Boulevard during (L) shutdown, posted by Edwards! on Wed Oct 26 13:35:10 2016. Be hard to find URL's of newspapers articles on the topic from 27 years ago on this.Someone in my office had a co-op apartment east of 71st Av on a local stop and spoke of a class-action suit they were planning. |
|
|
| (1413901) | |
Re: Queens Boulevard during (L) shutdown |
|
|
Posted by terRAPIN station on Wed Oct 26 14:02:19 2016, in response to Re: Queens Boulevard during (L) shutdown, posted by Spider-Pig on Wed Oct 26 11:40:00 2016. :) |
|
|
| (1413905) | |
Re: Queens Boulevard during (L) shutdown |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Wed Oct 26 14:44:40 2016, in response to Re: Queens Boulevard during (L) shutdown, posted by Joe V on Wed Oct 26 12:46:33 2016. Some people may have thought they could sue for that kind of relief, but you have no evidence whatsoever that the MTA would have reacted to such a frivolous suit. |
|
|
| (1413906) | |
Re: Queens Boulevard during (L) shutdown |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Wed Oct 26 14:49:05 2016, in response to Re: Queens Boulevard during (L) shutdown, posted by Spider-Pig on Wed Oct 26 14:44:40 2016. True, but the R is gone. We can speculate forever on would have/could have. |
|
|
| (1413909) | |
Re: Queens Boulevard during (L) shutdown |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Wed Oct 26 15:45:17 2016, in response to Re: Queens Boulevard during (L) shutdown, posted by Joe V on Wed Oct 26 14:49:05 2016. That's not the point. You claimed that the MTA bowed to threat of a lawsuit as the reason that the R was cut back. |
|
|
| (1413910) | |
Re: Queens Boulevard during (L) shutdown |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Wed Oct 26 15:57:14 2016, in response to Re: Queens Boulevard during (L) shutdown, posted by Spider-Pig on Wed Oct 26 15:45:17 2016. Yes I did. |
|
|
| (1413911) | |
Re: Queens Boulevard during (L) shutdown |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Wed Oct 26 16:22:04 2016, in response to Re: Queens Boulevard during (L) shutdown, posted by Joe V on Wed Oct 26 15:57:14 2016. And I told you that was not true. |
|
|
| (1413912) | |
Re: Queens Boulevard during (L) shutdown |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Wed Oct 26 16:29:12 2016, in response to Re: Queens Boulevard during (L) shutdown, posted by Spider-Pig on Wed Oct 26 16:22:04 2016. How do you know ?If not, what was the reason ? |
|
|
| (1413914) | |
Re: Queens Boulevard during (L) shutdown |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Wed Oct 26 16:54:30 2016, in response to Re: Queens Boulevard during (L) shutdown, posted by Spider-Pig on Wed Oct 26 15:45:17 2016. The real reason the R was cut back was that the longer line had an even worse on time performance than the present one terminating at Ctl. |
|
|
| (1413915) | |
Re: Queens Boulevard during (L) shutdown |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Wed Oct 26 16:55:09 2016, in response to Re: Queens Boulevard during (L) shutdown, posted by Joe V on Wed Oct 26 16:29:12 2016. Politicians squawking?Save money by shortening the route of the R? |
|
|
| (1413916) | |
Re: Queens Boulevard during (L) shutdown |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Wed Oct 26 17:29:39 2016, in response to Re: Queens Boulevard during (L) shutdown, posted by Joe V on Wed Oct 26 16:29:12 2016. Because such a lawsuit would be so frivolous that I doubt the MTA would be swayed by a threat of it.As for what the reason would be, I don't need to give an alternate reason. |
|
|
| (1413917) | |
Re: Queens Boulevard during (L) shutdown |
|
|
Posted by Michael549 on Wed Oct 26 17:34:54 2016, in response to Re: Queens Boulevard during (L) shutdown, posted by AlM on Wed Oct 26 09:09:01 2016. You should KNOW BY NOW that Wallyhorse simply can not attempt to fix a local transit problem without involving folks from distant locations in his transit schemes.He claims (but few others do) that having plenty of folks - including an influx of L-train riders would be a "potential disaster" if riders transferred among trains at the Court Square complex of stations and passageways. So instead of proposing to FIX THAT PROBLEM Wallyhorse goes off and re-configures transit lines all over Queens impacting millions of other riders. Then the discussion becomes one of reviewing what he has proposed, rather than looking closely at what was supposed to be a "potential disaster". When a light bulb has burnt out - Wallyhorse would rather re-wire his entire apartment building, change the plumbing and re-pave the sidewalks again. The idea of simply changing the light bulb, and getting a fresh bulb would never ever occur to him. Mike |
|
|
| (1413918) | |
Re: Queens Boulevard during (L) shutdown |
|
|
Posted by alm on Wed Oct 26 17:51:32 2016, in response to Re: Queens Boulevard during (L) shutdown, posted by Michael549 on Wed Oct 26 17:34:54 2016. Yes, but even in Wally's world, the statement is pretty extreme. |
|
|
| (1413919) | |
Re: Queens Boulevard during (L) shutdown |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Wed Oct 26 18:01:11 2016, in response to Re: Queens Boulevard during (L) shutdown, posted by AlM on Wed Oct 26 12:10:54 2016. Court of Claims ... can be quite messy. Then there's article 78 proceedings which can correct policy decisions, but don't do much for financial recovery. Don't like what they did? Vote them out. Rotsa ruck. |
|
|
| (1413924) | |
Re: Queens Boulevard during (L) shutdown |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Wed Oct 26 18:21:44 2016, in response to Re: Queens Boulevard during (L) shutdown, posted by Spider-Pig on Wed Oct 26 17:29:39 2016. Well, you can believe it was frivolous. I'll believe my version. |
|
|
| (1413925) | |
Re: Queens Boulevard during (L) shutdown |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Wed Oct 26 18:23:21 2016, in response to Re: Queens Boulevard during (L) shutdown, posted by AlM on Wed Oct 26 16:55:09 2016. Maybe, but I don't remember that as an issue. Their main problem was Manhattan Bridge service flipping. |
|
|
| (1413926) | |
Re: Queens Boulevard during (L) shutdown |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Wed Oct 26 18:24:37 2016, in response to Re: Queens Boulevard during (L) shutdown, posted by randyo on Wed Oct 26 16:54:30 2016. But then they had fumigation issues approaching FH, and backing up G trains. |
|
|
| (1413929) | |
Re: Queens Boulevard during (L) shutdown |
|
|
Posted by Michael549 on Wed Oct 26 19:03:57 2016, in response to Re: Queens Boulevard during (L) shutdown, posted by alm on Wed Oct 26 17:51:32 2016. "Yes, but even in Wally's world, the statement is pretty extreme."Should a list be made of Wally's "golden oldies" of proposals? Mike |
|
|
| (1413930) | |
Re: Queens Boulevard during (L) shutdown |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Wed Oct 26 19:09:58 2016, in response to Re: Queens Boulevard during (L) shutdown, posted by Joe V on Wed Oct 26 18:21:44 2016. I don't believe that it was frivolous, I know that it was frivolous. I am qualified to decide. |
|
|
| (1413933) | |
Re: Queens Boulevard during (L) shutdown |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Wed Oct 26 19:10:55 2016, in response to Re: Queens Boulevard during (L) shutdown, posted by SelkirkTMO on Wed Oct 26 18:01:11 2016. The MTA is sued in Supreme Court, not the Court of Claims. |
|
|
| (1413938) | |
Re: Queens Boulevard during (L) shutdown |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Wed Oct 26 19:25:15 2016, in response to Re: Queens Boulevard during (L) shutdown, posted by Spider-Pig on Wed Oct 26 19:09:58 2016. Since it never came to trial, it is still your personal opinion, however sure you are of yourself. |
|
|
| (1413939) | |
Re: Queens Boulevard during (L) shutdown |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Wed Oct 26 19:26:26 2016, in response to Re: Queens Boulevard during (L) shutdown, posted by Michael549 on Wed Oct 26 19:03:57 2016. Now let's not be cruel. Everybody is entitled to their proposal without retribution. |
|
|
| (1413940) | |
Re: Queens Boulevard during (L) shutdown |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Wed Oct 26 19:31:06 2016, in response to Re: Queens Boulevard during (L) shutdown, posted by Spider-Pig on Wed Oct 26 19:10:55 2016. The QUESTION was "Is there any particular law that protects the state from economic damages claimed to result from policy decisions it makes?"MTA was not specifically called out there. |
|
|
| (1413943) | |
Re: Queens Boulevard during (L) shutdown |
|
|
Posted by Andrew Saucci on Wed Oct 26 20:34:58 2016, in response to Re: Queens Boulevard during (L) shutdown, posted by Joe V on Wed Oct 26 08:17:05 2016. These days, almost anything that government does or doesn't do is opposed by someone with legal threats. In any case, no law specifically requires the MTA to run one or another service pattern, and the MTA is big enough to take care of itself. I'm sure they have plenty of staff lawyers to handle such litigation, and if they run out of staff lawyers, there are always plenty of politically-connected contract lawyers more than happy to take up the slack. |
|
|
|
Page 2 of 4 |
||
