|
|
| Re: Restoting the Culver Shuttle (325542) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 10 of 12 |
||
|
| (418531) | |
Re: Restoting the Culver Shuttle |
|
|
Posted by Andrew Saucci on Sat Apr 21 16:14:08 2007, in response to Re: Restoting the Culver Shuttle, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sat Apr 21 14:44:55 2007. "Impossible, since housing now exists on the former ROW."While I understand the point, the original suggestion isn't exactly "impossible." A bit of cash and a few good bulldozers would take care of that housing. "Impractical" and "unlikely," but not "impossible." Houses didn't stop Robert Moses. |
|
|
| (418537) | |
Re: Restoring the Culver Shuttle |
|
|
Posted by Dan on Sat Apr 21 16:48:20 2007, in response to Re: Restoting the Culver Shuttle, posted by Andrew Saucci on Sat Apr 21 16:14:08 2007. In theory it could be rebuilt as a subway starting at the outer tracks of the Church Avenue yard, then turning east to 39th Street, then north under 10th Avenue where it would rejoining the BMT at 38th Street to 9th Avenue. The G could then terminate at 9th Avenue. In reality it will never happen. |
|
|
| (418568) | |
Re: Restoting the Culver Shuttle |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sat Apr 21 18:39:11 2007, in response to Re: Restoting the Culver Shuttle, posted by Andrew Saucci on Sat Apr 21 16:14:08 2007. Robert Moses is dead. |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (418576) | |
Re: Restoting the Culver Shuttle |
|
|
Posted by South Brooklyn Railway on Sat Apr 21 18:57:29 2007, in response to Restoting the Culver Shuttle, posted by Wallyhorse on Sat Apr 21 14:16:44 2007. That would be nice, but that means you have to knock down the row of houses that are directly in it's path. |
|
|
| (418578) | |
Re: Restoting the Culver Shuttle |
|
|
Posted by BIE on Sat Apr 21 19:07:35 2007, in response to Re: Restoting the Culver Shuttle, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sat Apr 21 14:44:55 2007. Single family or productive? |
|
|
| (418586) | |
Re: Restoting the Culver Shuttle |
|
|
Posted by Jeff Rosen on Sat Apr 21 19:41:24 2007, in response to Restoting the Culver Shuttle, posted by Wallyhorse on Sat Apr 21 14:16:44 2007. I don't know if it could be done or not as I don't know what Restoting means. |
|
|
| (418590) | |
Re: Restoting the Culver Shuttle |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sat Apr 21 19:55:15 2007, in response to Re: Restoting the Culver Shuttle, posted by BIE on Sat Apr 21 19:07:35 2007. Nobody builds single family homes in the city anymore. Gotta pack 'em in. |
|
|
| (418592) | |
Re: Restoting the Culver Shuttle |
|
|
Posted by BIE on Sat Apr 21 19:59:23 2007, in response to Re: Restoting the Culver Shuttle, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sat Apr 21 19:55:15 2007. What about wealthy folks? |
|
|
| (418594) | |
Re: Restoting the Culver Shuttle |
|
|
Posted by monorail on Sat Apr 21 20:01:58 2007, in response to Re: Restoting the Culver Shuttle, posted by BIE on Sat Apr 21 19:59:23 2007. they are born, not built.... |
|
|
| (418595) | |
Re: Restoting the Culver Shuttle |
|
|
Posted by monorail on Sat Apr 21 20:02:40 2007, in response to Re: Restoting the Culver Shuttle, posted by South Brooklyn Railway on Sat Apr 21 18:57:29 2007. since when are there PATH tunnels in Brooklyn? |
|
|
| (418601) | |
Re: Restoting the Culver Shuttle |
|
|
Posted by South Brooklyn Railway on Sat Apr 21 20:18:23 2007, in response to Re: Restoting the Culver Shuttle, posted by monorail on Sat Apr 21 20:02:40 2007. What are you talking about? |
|
|
| (418616) | |
Re: Possibilities for Brooklyn expansion |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Sat Apr 21 20:41:01 2007, in response to Re: Possibilities for Brooklyn expansion, posted by J trainloco on Fri Apr 20 22:20:03 2007. I agree. |
|
|
| (418644) | |
Re: Extending E may not work well |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Sat Apr 21 21:14:18 2007, in response to Re: Extending E may not work well, posted by Q35 Limited on Fri Apr 20 19:54:54 2007. And the MTA actually does hire railbuffs. Ron doesn't have a clue. |
|
|
| (418645) | |
Re: Extending E may not work well |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Sat Apr 21 21:14:33 2007, in response to Re: Extending E may not work well, posted by J trainloco on Fri Apr 20 22:21:07 2007. Obviously. |
|
|
| (418657) | |
Re: Flatbush Avenue Brooklyn College extention |
|
|
Posted by American Pig on Sat Apr 21 21:27:40 2007, in response to Re: Flatbush Avenue Brooklyn College extention, posted by AMoreira81 on Thu Apr 19 20:31:25 2007. You do realize that it costs money to maintain old equipment in a state of good repair? |
|
|
| (418666) | |
Re: Restoting the Culver Shuttle |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Sat Apr 21 21:49:13 2007, in response to Re: Restoting the Culver Shuttle, posted by BIE on Sat Apr 21 19:59:23 2007. Wealthy Folks live in exclusive high-rise buildings with door persons and valet parking during the week, and on weekends the live in the Hamptons.ROARING |
|
|
| (418668) | |
Re: Brooklyn subway needs |
|
|
Posted by American Pig on Sat Apr 21 21:52:25 2007, in response to Re: Brooklyn subway needs, posted by SubBus aka ENY Local on Sat Apr 21 12:50:28 2007. Because the Bx12 used to go to City Island. |
|
|
| (418673) | |
Re: Restoting the Culver Shuttle |
|
|
Posted by American Pig on Sat Apr 21 22:01:09 2007, in response to Re: Restoting the Culver Shuttle, posted by South Brooklyn Railway on Sat Apr 21 20:18:23 2007. You said it is path. |
|
|
| (418794) | |
Re: Restoting the Culver Shuttle |
|
|
Posted by South Brooklyn Railway on Sun Apr 22 08:11:16 2007, in response to Re: Restoting the Culver Shuttle, posted by American Pig on Sat Apr 21 22:01:09 2007. Oh, I thought he was talking about the Port Authority PATH, since he capitalized PATH. |
|
|
| (418809) | |
Re: Restoting the Culver Shuttle |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Sun Apr 22 09:54:44 2007, in response to Re: Restoting the Culver Shuttle, posted by South Brooklyn Railway on Sun Apr 22 08:11:16 2007. He was... |
|
|
| (418816) | |
Re: Restoting the Culver Shuttle |
|
|
Posted by South Brooklyn Railway on Sun Apr 22 10:23:49 2007, in response to Re: Restoting the Culver Shuttle, posted by Terrapin Station on Sun Apr 22 09:54:44 2007. Damn it then stop confusing me then! |
|
|
| (418820) | |
Re: Restoting the Culver Shuttle |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Sun Apr 22 10:30:44 2007, in response to Re: Restoting the Culver Shuttle, posted by South Brooklyn Railway on Sun Apr 22 10:23:49 2007. There's nothing confusing about it. Monorail was being his typical self and tried to extract a different meaning from your words. |
|
|
| (418834) | |
Re: Restoting the Culver Shuttle |
|
|
Posted by monorail on Sun Apr 22 11:30:27 2007, in response to Re: Restoting the Culver Shuttle, posted by Terrapin Station on Sun Apr 22 10:30:44 2007. you mean he WASN'T talking about PATH? |
|
|
| (418835) | |
Re: Restoting the Culver Shuttle |
|
|
Posted by Zman179 on Sun Apr 22 11:36:46 2007, in response to Re: Restoting the Culver Shuttle, posted by monorail on Sun Apr 22 11:30:27 2007. No, he was talking about the PATH of least resistance. |
|
|
| (418844) | |
Re: Restoting the Culver Shuttle |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Sun Apr 22 11:47:32 2007, in response to Re: Restoting the Culver Shuttle, posted by Zman179 on Sun Apr 22 11:36:46 2007. Between his ears ???Erie! |
|
|
| (418895) | |
Re: Restoting the Culver Shuttle |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Sun Apr 22 14:42:05 2007, in response to Restoting the Culver Shuttle, posted by Wallyhorse on Sat Apr 21 14:16:44 2007. There are other more important lines that should be restores. A Bronx 3rd Av subway as part of SAS is one. Another would be to reintregrate the Franklin Shuttle to the Brighton Line and extend it to the G. The Culver Shuttle is dead for good and would hardly add any real value to the system. Long live the Culver Shuttle! |
|
|
| (418905) | |
Re: Restoting the Culver Shuttle |
|
|
Posted by Q35 Limited on Sun Apr 22 15:22:13 2007, in response to Re: Restoting the Culver Shuttle, posted by SMAZ on Sun Apr 22 14:42:05 2007. Interesting about the Franklin S to the G, but then you take away Brighton riders an option of Manhattan bound service for Queenbound only service. If not replacing then you are cutting down service for people wanting go to Manhattan rather than Queens. If you want the S to G connection, leave it at that, but don't connect it to the Brighton local. |
|
|
| (418924) | |
Re: Restoting the Culver Shuttle |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Sun Apr 22 17:08:49 2007, in response to Re: Restoting the Culver Shuttle, posted by Q35 Limited on Sun Apr 22 15:22:13 2007. Hold on a minute.The Franklin is has natural track connections to the Brighton line..as it WAS THE BRIGHTON LINE's original trackage. The Franklin-Brighton connection was proposed years ago by the BOT[1949],even designed..but was deferred in the 50's like most of the new routes were[South 4th st was one of the dropped plans also.] Not a bad idea considering the potential. But at this time..there are more important things to consider..like completing the SAS in Manhattan,Brooklyn,Bronx and Queens. The Culver Shuttle should best be left to the history books. |
|
|
| (418931) | |
Re: Restoting the Culver Shuttle |
|
|
Posted by Zman179 on Sun Apr 22 17:20:36 2007, in response to Re: Restoting the Culver Shuttle, posted by Broadway Lion on Sun Apr 22 11:47:32 2007. What does Pennsylvania have to do with it? |
|
|
| (418968) | |
Re: Restoting the Culver Shuttle |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Sun Apr 22 18:26:13 2007, in response to Re: Restoting the Culver Shuttle, posted by Edwards! on Sun Apr 22 17:08:49 2007. The Culver shuttle had natural connections to the Culver line... as it was the CULVER LINE's original route.So ROAR |
|
|
| (418969) | |
Re: Restoting the Culver Shuttle |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Sun Apr 22 18:26:56 2007, in response to Re: Restoting the Culver Shuttle, posted by Zman179 on Sun Apr 22 17:20:36 2007. Maybe he has a Lackawanna.ROAR |
|
|
| (418987) | |
Re: Restoting the Culver Shuttle |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Sun Apr 22 18:51:50 2007, in response to Re: Restoting the Culver Shuttle, posted by Broadway Lion on Sun Apr 22 18:26:13 2007. YEAH...As in WAS. It's the IND now.. |
|
|
| (418988) | |
Re: Restoting the Culver Shuttle |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Sun Apr 22 18:56:28 2007, in response to Re: Restoting the Culver Shuttle, posted by Edwards! on Sun Apr 22 18:51:50 2007. But do you get his point? |
|
|
| (418989) | |
Re: Restoting the Culver Shuttle |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Sun Apr 22 18:57:53 2007, in response to Re: Restoting the Culver Shuttle, posted by J trainloco on Sun Apr 22 18:56:28 2007. Do YOU? |
|
|
| (418998) | |
Re: Restoting the Culver Shuttle |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Sun Apr 22 19:18:06 2007, in response to Re: Restoting the Culver Shuttle, posted by J trainloco on Sun Apr 22 18:56:28 2007. I don't think he does. He's too busy misreading my response to Scrabble's totally inappropriate post. |
|
|
| (419049) | |
Re: Restoting the Culver Shuttle |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Sun Apr 22 20:40:13 2007, in response to Re: Restoting the Culver Shuttle, posted by Edwards! on Sun Apr 22 18:57:53 2007. ...Answering a question with a question is not generally acceptable as a form of adult conversation. But, Yes, I do. |
|
|
| (419050) | |
Re: Restoring the Culver Shuttle |
|
|
Posted by (X) 2nd Avenue Local on Sun Apr 22 20:40:25 2007, in response to Restoting the Culver Shuttle, posted by Wallyhorse on Sat Apr 21 14:16:44 2007. Why rebuild a single track shuttle that doesn't go anywhere? That was one of the reasons the ridership on the original shuttle was so low, it lost dircect connection to Manhattan. If the Culver shuttle ROW were rebuilt, it should be made a through-route so service could go into Manhattan. |
|
|
| (419055) | |
Re: Restoting the Culver Shuttle |
|
|
Posted by Zman179 on Sun Apr 22 20:46:48 2007, in response to Restoting the Culver Shuttle, posted by Wallyhorse on Sat Apr 21 14:16:44 2007. Listen, lets get the 2nd Av line built before we even begin to entertain the Culver Shuttle.As far as lines waiting to be rebuilt, the 3rd Av el has more seniority. |
|
|
| (419087) | |
Re: Restoting the Culver Shuttle |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Sun Apr 22 21:23:58 2007, in response to Re: Restoting the Culver Shuttle, posted by J trainloco on Sun Apr 22 20:40:13 2007. Very good.But it's best "served up" with someone who actually gives a damn and not for brownie points..or who has the best "sound bite".. Also..witty banter isn't you're strong point,so I'd lay off. |
|
|
| (419089) | |
Re: "Restoting" the Culver Shuttle=retard. |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Sun Apr 22 21:26:01 2007, in response to Re: Restoting the Culver Shuttle, posted by Terrapin Station on Sun Apr 22 19:18:06 2007. nuff said. |
|
|
| (419092) | |
Re: Restoting the Culver Shuttle |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Sun Apr 22 21:33:46 2007, in response to Re: Restoting the Culver Shuttle, posted by Edwards! on Sun Apr 22 21:23:58 2007. Also..witty banter isn't you're strong point,so I'd lay off.I wasn't trying to be witty. I was pointing out that you either: A. Did not know what he meant --or-- B. Chose not to acknowledge what he meant I'm not sure where you get the idea that I want brownie points (I'm a bit curious as to who you think I'm getting these points from). Frankly, I think It's been made clear that, unlike some of the people here, I'm not here as part of a popularity contest. I don't hang out with people from here, and, in fact, I have met a grand total of ONE person from this board. I'm here because I find discussing transit issues to be somewhat interesting. I also like to see some of the pictures that the photographers go through the trouble of taking, especially of places I don't get to see often. As far as YOU being a judge of wit: You're idea of wit seems to be responding to people with lines like: "Your mother what?" So, When it comes to you judging MY wit, I think I'll pass on your opinion. (And, no I'm not providing a link. You know when you said it, and who you sad it to). |
|
|
| (419095) | |
Re: Restoting the Culver Shuttle |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Sun Apr 22 21:37:31 2007, in response to Re: Restoting the Culver Shuttle, posted by J trainloco on Sun Apr 22 21:33:46 2007. Excellent post. |
|
|
| (419097) | |
Re: ''Restoting'' the Culver Shuttle=retard. |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Sun Apr 22 21:38:02 2007, in response to Re: "Restoting" the Culver Shuttle=retard., posted by Edwards! on Sun Apr 22 21:26:01 2007. I didn't write that. And you still don't have clue, apparently. |
|
|
| (419106) | |
Re: Restoring the Culver Shuttle[Ft Hamiltion Pky Route/10 Avenue Subway] |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Sun Apr 22 21:45:38 2007, in response to Re: Restoring the Culver Shuttle, posted by Dan on Sat Apr 21 16:48:20 2007. Hey..Thats EXACTLY what the IND wanted to do with the Ft Hamilton route. The line would have left the lower level before Church avenue..travel under Ft.Hamilton Pkwy..10th avenue..with a branch to the West End line. Actually..it was a pretty good idea that Should have been built..and Would have if WW2 didn't happen or the TA using the funding for other purposes. We can forget about it Now as all of their attention is focused on Manhattan now as far as NEW lines are concerned. |
|
|
| (419116) | |
Re: Restoring the Culver Shuttle[Ft Hamiltion Pky Route/10 Avenue Subway] |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Sun Apr 22 22:00:09 2007, in response to Re: Restoring the Culver Shuttle[Ft Hamiltion Pky Route/10 Avenue Subway], posted by Edwards! on Sun Apr 22 21:45:38 2007. The line would have left the lower level before Church avenue..travel under Ft.Hamilton Pkwy..10th avenue..with a branch to the West End line.When Did this happen? Every plan I've seen was for a subway with 2 branches: one straight down Ft. Hamilton, and one to Staten. Actually..it was a pretty good idea that Should have been built No, that would have been a waste of money. I don't see any south brooklyn line bursting at the seams. We can forget about it Now as all of their attention is focused on Manhattan now as far as NEW lines are concerned. They're only building one new line, and it's the one that's most needed anywhere. |
|
|
| (419121) | |
Re: Flatbush Avenue Brooklyn College extention |
|
|
Posted by Q35 Limited on Sun Apr 22 22:07:34 2007, in response to Re: Flatbush Avenue Brooklyn College extention, posted by SubBus aka ENY Local on Sat Apr 21 12:38:30 2007. But wouldn't the be a problem with a CNG bus going over the Bridge? If anything the useless B2 would be a better choice. B46 going down that far would be too long. |
|
|
| (419224) | |
Re: Flatbush Avenue Brooklyn College extention |
|
|
Posted by SubBus aka ENY Local on Mon Apr 23 00:56:07 2007, in response to Re: Flatbush Avenue Brooklyn College extention, posted by Q35 Limited on Sun Apr 22 22:07:34 2007. The B46 was and is the better choice......... |
|
|
| (419228) | |
Re: Flatbush Avenue Brooklyn College extention |
|
|
Posted by Q35 Limited on Mon Apr 23 01:05:10 2007, in response to Re: Flatbush Avenue Brooklyn College extention, posted by SubBus aka ENY Local on Mon Apr 23 00:56:07 2007. Yeah, but ... I dunno, B46 is long as it is and if anything people would have to transfer again for the Q35 anyway. So may as well make the B2 go to Beach 116th and the B2 also could then connect Kings Highway to Beach 116th. |
|
|
| (419281) | |
Re: Restoting the Culver Shuttle |
|
|
Posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Mon Apr 23 08:29:36 2007, in response to Re: Restoting the Culver Shuttle, posted by Broadway Lion on Sun Apr 22 18:26:56 2007. Bad. Very bad. |
|
|
| (419319) | |
Re: Restoting the Culver Shuttle |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Mon Apr 23 09:32:48 2007, in response to Re: Restoting the Culver Shuttle, posted by daDouce Man on Sat Apr 21 14:27:33 2007. The Culver Shuttle was redundant anyway. Taking it down appropriately conserved TA resources by reducing day to day maintenance demands and future capital demands.Not every "El" loss was a big deal. The Ninth Av El and the Culver Shuttle were expendable. The full-length Third Av El was a loss because the Second Av Subway, including service into the Bronx, was not built. We're starting to make amends for that now (baby steps). The Myrtle Av Elevated in Brooklyn was a loss. |
|
|
|
Page 10 of 12 |
||
