|
|
| Re: Extending E may not work well (325542) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 6 of 12 |
||
|
| (326778) | |
Re: Extending E may not work well |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Fri Oct 20 20:03:52 2006, in response to Re: Extending E may not work well, posted by RonInBayside on Fri Oct 20 19:38:08 2006. Yes, there are other reasons1. all 6th ave local service must go to queens 2. the 63rd street line has always been a 6th avenue line, and when it is intended to use the other branch of it for SAS service, it makes no sense to have a temporary service pattern which would result in the closure of a station. |
|
|
| (326780) | |
Re: Flatbush Avenue Brooklyn College extention |
|
|
Posted by American Pig on Fri Oct 20 20:20:33 2006, in response to Re: Flatbush Avenue Brooklyn College extention, posted by Wado MP73 on Fri Oct 20 11:00:51 2006. And nothing would be cheaper than building no subway at all. |
|
|
| (326782) | |
Re: Bay Ridge NYCT Line Diagram (Was: Re: Flatbush Avenue Brooklyn College extension) |
|
|
Posted by BMT Guy on Fri Oct 20 20:41:02 2006, in response to Re: Bay Ridge NYCT Line Diagram (Was: Re: Flatbush Avenue Brooklyn College extension), posted by Alex L. on Fri Oct 20 17:52:32 2006. Ahhh! The revised map (circa, 1971) that omits the Bay Ridge/Canarsie setup, and shows the much more reasonable New Lots Avenue extension which would have the line continue south (through the yard) for another 1/2 mile down Linwood Street to Flatlands Avenue. It would have been one of the cheaper, yet more useful extensions. |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (326783) | |
Re: Extending E may not work well |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Fri Oct 20 20:44:24 2006, in response to Re: Extending E may not work well, posted by Terrapin Station on Fri Oct 20 18:05:24 2006. As a destination,perhaps... |
|
|
| (326784) | |
Re: Bay Ridge NYCT Line Diagram (Was: Re: Flatbush Avenue Brooklyn College extension) |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Fri Oct 20 20:47:50 2006, in response to Re: Bay Ridge NYCT Line Diagram (Was: Re: Flatbush Avenue Brooklyn College extension), posted by BMT Guy on Fri Oct 20 20:41:02 2006. Don't forget the UTICA EXTENTION..from Kings Hwy to Avenue U[Kings Plaza]...The Phase 2 extentions.. |
|
|
| (326785) | |
Re: Extending E may not work well |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Fri Oct 20 21:21:59 2006, in response to Re: Extending E may not work well, posted by RonInBayside on Fri Oct 20 17:46:54 2006. Because Sixth Av ranks higher than Broadway as a destination.Comparing usage of the two lines, not considering other lines: At 57th, 6th is dead and Broadway (actually 7th) is very busy. At 50th, yes, 6th is busier. At 42nd, they are even on weekdays but on weekends Broadway wins by a mile. At 34th they're the same place. The Broadway line definitely has more traffic. At 23rd, Broadway always beats out 6th in terms of traffic. The 6th Ave station is dead by Manhattan standards. At 14th, Broadway beats 6th by 10 miles in terms of traffic. The biggest usage of the 6th Ave station is to switch to the L. So I'd say Broadway wins. |
|
|
| (326789) | |
Re: Bay Ridge NYCT Line Diagram (Was: Re: Flatbush Avenue Brooklyn College extension) |
|
|
Posted by BMT Guy on Fri Oct 20 21:41:32 2006, in response to Re: Bay Ridge NYCT Line Diagram (Was: Re: Flatbush Avenue Brooklyn College extension), posted by Edwards! on Fri Oct 20 20:47:50 2006. Right, notice how the Utica extension to Kings Plaza was deleted and instead it is the Nostrand Ave (2/5) line that was planned to be turned at Flatbush and ocntinued down to Kings Plaza at Aveune U. |
|
|
| (326791) | |
Re: Extending E may not work well |
|
|
Posted by R4 Bryn Mawr LCL/R5 Paoli EXP on Fri Oct 20 21:41:36 2006, in response to Re: Extending E may not work well, posted by R30A on Fri Oct 20 15:42:06 2006. In Queens? |
|
|
| (326794) | |
Re: Bay Ridge NYCT Line Diagram (Was: Re: Flatbush Avenue Brooklyn College extension) |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Fri Oct 20 21:48:10 2006, in response to Re: Bay Ridge NYCT Line Diagram (Was: Re: Flatbush Avenue Brooklyn College extension), posted by BMT Guy on Fri Oct 20 21:41:32 2006. Wait a minute...You might have that confused.. Utica Avenue was planned..even DESIGNED..up untill the bottom dropped out of the PLAN FOR ACTION. The only thing that didn't happen was the contracts being let..as it was ready to go by the early 70's. The Flatbush avenue plan was BEFORE the full Nostrand plan.. The L line extention was dropped due to the neighborhood fight with MOSES over his Cross Brooklyn Expressway plan..part of which the subway would have used. The FULL PLAN for the L line turned into a simple relocation as far as Rockaway Pkway on the Bay Ridge line. |
|
|
| (326796) | |
Re: Extending E may not work well |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Fri Oct 20 22:01:36 2006, in response to Re: Extending E may not work well, posted by R30A on Fri Oct 20 20:03:52 2006. Your stated reasons, which I mostly agree with, and 6th Av ranking are not mutually exclusive.By the way, all 6th Av local service does not have to go to Queens. The B is a local, and it goes to the Bronx. Track map http://www.nycsubway.org/maps/track/smuptown.png |
|
|
| (326797) | |
Re: Extending E may not work well |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Fri Oct 20 22:03:30 2006, in response to Re: Extending E may not work well, posted by AlM on Fri Oct 20 21:21:59 2006. OK. |
|
|
| (326798) | |
Re: Extending E may not work well |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Fri Oct 20 22:04:48 2006, in response to Re: Extending E may not work well, posted by R4 Bryn Mawr LCL/R5 Paoli EXP on Fri Oct 20 21:41:36 2006. Where else does the V go? Yes you can use it for intra-Manhattan trips but most riders are Queens bound or transfer bound at 53rd. |
|
|
| (326804) | |
Re: Extending E may not work well |
|
|
Posted by R4 Bryn Mawr LCL/R5 Paoli EXP on Fri Oct 20 22:13:28 2006, in response to Re: Extending E may not work well, posted by RonInBayside on Fri Oct 20 22:04:48 2006. Are you kidding me? If anything 6th Avenue is where the service is really needed. The problem is once it gets to 53rd/Lex there isn't really anyplace else for it to go, and the TA is to inept to fit it on QB with the G, so we have the current service pattern. |
|
|
| (326805) | |
Re: Extending E may not work well |
|
|
Posted by The Port of Authority on Fri Oct 20 22:14:59 2006, in response to Re: Extending E may not work well, posted by RonInBayside on Fri Oct 20 22:04:48 2006. Most people use it solely for intra-Manhattan trips (duplicating the F.) |
|
|
| (326807) | |
Re: Extending E may not work well |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Fri Oct 20 22:17:02 2006, in response to Re: Extending E may not work well, posted by RonInBayside on Fri Oct 20 16:09:00 2006. IAWTP. Also, some express bus riders may switch over to the subway |
|
|
| (326809) | |
Re: Extending E may not work well |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Fri Oct 20 22:22:37 2006, in response to Re: Extending E may not work well, posted by RonInBayside on Fri Oct 20 22:01:36 2006. But..it's NOT local on 6th avenue.It was local during middays before the 1985 Manhattan Bridge work.. |
|
|
| (326811) | |
Re: Extending E may not work well |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Fri Oct 20 22:35:55 2006, in response to Re: Extending E may not work well, posted by R4 Bryn Mawr LCL/R5 Paoli EXP on Fri Oct 20 22:13:28 2006. The TA isn't too inept to put it in with the G. You, however, may be too presumptious in assuming it can. How much experience do you have running trains(besides the ones on your living room floor)? |
|
|
| (326812) | |
Re: Extending E may not work well |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Fri Oct 20 22:36:27 2006, in response to Re: Extending E may not work well, posted by The Port of Authority on Fri Oct 20 22:14:59 2006. Source of your data? |
|
|
| (326813) | |
Re: Extending E may not work well |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Fri Oct 20 22:42:15 2006, in response to Re: Extending E may not work well, posted by Edwards! on Fri Oct 20 22:22:37 2006. Starting at 50th St and southbound, there's not much difference between an express and a local on 6th Av. It matters mostly east of 6th Av (F train) and on Central Park West, where the B is a local. |
|
|
| (326814) | |
Re: Extending E may not work well |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Fri Oct 20 22:43:25 2006, in response to Re: Extending E may not work well, posted by NIMBYkiller on Fri Oct 20 22:17:02 2006. Good point! I've taken the QM1a couple of times. It's a nice bus, and it makes decent time, but it sometimes get stuck in traffic. |
|
|
| (326815) | |
Re: Flatbush Avenue Brooklyn College extention |
|
|
Posted by Grand Concourse on Fri Oct 20 22:45:15 2006, in response to Re: Flatbush Avenue Brooklyn College extention, posted by Newkirk Plaza David on Wed Oct 18 17:37:03 2006. Well I certainly would like that either the 2 or 5 extended via Flatbush Av and that would probably eliminate the need for the Q35 to run that far into Brooklyn as well as allowing subway riders far more choices of buses. The main problem is when the 5 is not running the 2 is horrible especially near the end of rush hours.As far as the B9 who knows maybe it would stay the same or it could replace the B41 via Av N to Bergen Beach so the B41 can all run to Kings Plaza only. *Not like I would force it, but if the 2/5 ran down Flatbush Av there's no need for that many buses running down it. |
|
|
| (326817) | |
Re: Extending E may not work well |
|
|
Posted by Grand Concourse on Fri Oct 20 22:53:03 2006, in response to Re: Extending E may not work well, posted by L Train on Fri Oct 20 15:58:49 2006. Maybe they should concider extending the J instead as it too goes to LM and under used compared to the E. |
|
|
| (326819) | |
Re: Extending E may not work well |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Fri Oct 20 22:57:00 2006, in response to Re: Extending E may not work well, posted by Grand Concourse on Fri Oct 20 22:53:03 2006. The J should definitely be extended beyond Jamaica Center. Put a station at Merrick Blvd to beef up the subwa presence in the business district and another station in an appropriate location 1/3 to 1/2 mile east of Merrick. After that I don't know where I'd extend it. |
|
|
| (326821) | |
Re: Extending E may not work well |
|
|
Posted by Osmosis Jones on Fri Oct 20 23:01:41 2006, in response to Re: Extending E may not work well, posted by Grand Concourse on Fri Oct 20 22:53:03 2006. I stand with the E being extended as it serves Midtown and is more flexible to commuters. |
|
|
| (326826) | |
Re: Extending E may not work well |
|
|
Posted by The Port of Authority on Fri Oct 20 23:04:51 2006, in response to Re: Extending E may not work well, posted by RonInBayside on Fri Oct 20 22:36:27 2006. I have actually ridden the V during rush hours and observed its service patterns. |
|
|
| (326844) | |
Re: Extending E may not work well |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Fri Oct 20 23:33:26 2006, in response to Re: Extending E may not work well, posted by RonInBayside on Fri Oct 20 22:35:55 2006. Stop it Ron. The TA proved it was too inept to run the V with the G. |
|
|
| (326845) | |
Re: Extending E may not work well |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Fri Oct 20 23:34:34 2006, in response to Re: Extending E may not work well, posted by R30A on Fri Oct 20 15:42:06 2006. Yeah? I've been on many A trains with crowds just as bad as any Lex train (and it's 100' longer). |
|
|
| (326846) | |
Re: Extending E may not work well |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Fri Oct 20 23:36:16 2006, in response to Re: Extending E may not work well, posted by #1 Brighton Exp Bob on Fri Oct 20 16:42:18 2006. And then what train serves 57/6th? |
|
|
| (326855) | |
Re: Extending E may not work well |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Fri Oct 20 23:42:38 2006, in response to Re: Extending E may not work well, posted by RonInBayside on Fri Oct 20 22:01:36 2006. The B is not a local on 6th avenue. ALL 6th avenue local service MUST go to Queens. OR, 2nd avenue. |
|
|
| (326865) | |
Re: Extending E may not work well |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Fri Oct 20 23:59:35 2006, in response to Re: Extending E may not work well, posted by J trainloco on Fri Oct 20 23:33:26 2006. No, what the TA proved is that a bunch of railbuffs and railroad operator wannabes who think running three services on the express track is trivial really are idiots. Fortunately they can play safely with their HO sets at home and post here without royally fucking up 900,000 riders' commutes. |
|
|
| (326867) | |
Re: Extending E may not work well |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Sat Oct 21 00:02:17 2006, in response to Re: Extending E may not work well, posted by J trainloco on Fri Oct 20 23:42:38 2006. You are correct in that it operates on the express track at that point. |
|
|
| (326868) | |
Re: Extending E may not work well |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Sat Oct 21 00:02:57 2006, in response to Re: Extending E may not work well, posted by J trainloco on Fri Oct 20 23:36:16 2006. Hand-pumped cars. |
|
|
| (326871) | |
Re: Bay Ridge NYCT Line Diagram (Was: Re: Flatbush Avenue Brooklyn College extension) |
|
|
Posted by italianstallion on Sat Oct 21 00:13:27 2006, in response to Re: Bay Ridge NYCT Line Diagram (Was: Re: Flatbush Avenue Brooklyn College extension), posted by BMT Guy on Fri Oct 20 20:41:02 2006. They can still do that today, relatively cheaply, as an el, extending it further to serve Starrett City and Spring Creek. |
|
|
| (326872) | |
Re: Extending E may not work well |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Sat Oct 21 00:14:10 2006, in response to Re: Extending E may not work well, posted by J trainloco on Fri Oct 20 23:42:38 2006. Well..the B didn't do that untill 1989,when the 63rd st line opened..Further more..the B was local on 6TH avenue during the middays and evenings when it ran to 57th street/6th. When the KK/K ran..it was express on 6th avenue. It ran over the Manhattan Bridge to Bway Laffayette..then switched to the local tracks..north bound untill 50th st..where it switched to the "center tracks" to the stubend terminal. Southbound..it operated local to 14th st..switched to the express tracks outside W4TH ST..then over the Manhattan Bridge. THE IND was built with that kind of flexing.... |
|
|
| (326876) | |
Re: Extending E may not work well |
|
|
Posted by Grand Concourse on Sat Oct 21 00:23:08 2006, in response to Re: Extending E may not work well, posted by RonInBayside on Fri Oct 20 22:01:36 2006. A local on 8th Av [CPW] and Concourse only. |
|
|
| (326877) | |
Re: Extending E may not work well |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Sat Oct 21 00:23:30 2006, in response to Re: Extending E may not work well, posted by RonInBayside on Fri Oct 20 23:59:35 2006. How so..?Again..you are an idiot... You fly in the face of those that POINT OUT TO YOU FACTS why somethings that they do do not make sense..and are trul;y unworkable..and YET they continue to carry on like there is nothing wrong. You know..being a mouthpiece can work in your favor SOMETIMES..but in this case..by falling back on your usual...you QUICKLY LOSE FACE. Ok..first off..the MTA REDUCED CAPICITY on the QB.. The local tracks could and use to be able to handle 30 train per hour...just like the express.. Yet still..the only operate 10 V's and 10 R trains during the rush hour! The G runs 9 trains per hour during the rush..and fewer during the midday.... So WHY couldn't they run the G to 71 AVENUE? They seem to be able to do so during the tailend of the evening rush hour for some reason.. Now..71 Avenue turn around is JACKED UP.I beared witness to their foolishness many days.. You should do the same. |
|
|
| (326887) | |
Re: Extending E may not work well |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Sat Oct 21 01:10:02 2006, in response to Re: Extending E may not work well, posted by Edwards! on Sat Oct 21 00:14:10 2006. Indeed. It was very flexible. The 63rd St project increased this flexibility. |
|
|
| (326890) | |
Re: Extending E may not work well |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Sat Oct 21 01:23:06 2006, in response to Re: Extending E may not work well, posted by Edwards! on Sat Oct 21 00:23:30 2006. "You fly in the face of those that POINT OUT TO YOU FACTS "That exist on the Lionel sets in the living room...hey, you're right. I should have never doubted you. "Ok..first off..the MTA REDUCED CAPICITY on the QB.." MTA capacity has been affected in the last 20 years all over the system, not just Queens Blvd, by operating rules that are aimed at reducing accidents. "So WHY couldn't they run the G to 71 AVENUE? They seem to be able to do so during the tailend of the evening rush hour for some reason.." Do you know what traffic in the tunnels elsewhere looks like at that point? The G and V are affected not only by what is going on at Queens Blvd, but what's happening in Manhattan and in the under-river tunnels. This is why, rather than obsessing over F and V schedules and the MTA's supposed incompetence, you would be far better off coming to a compromise: MTA agrees not to fuck with your Lionels, and you agree not to try to run an MTA control tower. Fair enough? |
|
|
| (326897) | |
Re: Extending E may not work well |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Sat Oct 21 02:26:44 2006, in response to Re: Extending E may not work well, posted by RonInBayside on Sat Oct 21 01:23:06 2006. You still don't get it..and knowing you..you never will.Hopeless is your cause. An your banter will only male your "case" worse. I never own a train set..unlike some of you..and I will act like I know everything there is to know about the system,unlike you. You are ripe for flaming.. |
|
|
| (326901) | |
Re: Extending E may not work well |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Sat Oct 21 06:00:46 2006, in response to Re: Extending E may not work well, posted by Edwards! on Sat Oct 21 00:23:30 2006. The local tracks could and use to be able to handle 30 train per hour...just like the express..When did NYCT ever run 30 tph on the Queens Blvd local tracks? There was the EE plus the GG. There was the N plus the G. There was the R plus the G. None of these ever added up to more than 20, if that. |
|
|
| (326902) | |
Re: Brooklyn subway needs |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Sat Oct 21 06:09:29 2006, in response to Re: Brooklyn subway needs, posted by R4 Bryn Mawr LCL/R5 Paoli EXP on Fri Oct 20 18:56:02 2006. The Q79 has an extra transfer though, since it doesn't really go anywhere.Couldn't it be combined with the Q12 or Q36? |
|
|
| (326903) | |
Re: Brooklyn subway needs |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Sat Oct 21 06:14:28 2006, in response to Re: Brooklyn subway needs, posted by R4 Bryn Mawr LCL/R5 Paoli EXP on Fri Oct 20 18:56:02 2006. Otherwise it looks like the two-fare zone contains only the S60, but again you'd be taking some unusual routes in certain cases to pull it off with one fare. |
|
|
| (326905) | |
Re: Brooklyn subway needs |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Sat Oct 21 06:22:31 2006, in response to Re: Brooklyn subway needs, posted by Edwards! on Fri Oct 20 17:48:55 2006. Most are left overs from the trolly days...Or worse still, trackless routes combining a jumble of bits not served by trolleys. Most in my neck of the woods have been rerouted and combined with other routes... But they still probably don't resemble the "blank canvas" approach at all. Never the less..its still a jumble of craziness. Okay, so here's the challenge: can anyone redesign the Brooklyn Bus Network so that it makes sense? There have been precedents for cities introducing entirely new networks (when I was in Leipzig, the tram network was completely reworked, with the slogan "Das neue Netz. Schneller. Einfacher. Direkter."). |
|
|
| (326906) | |
Re: Extending E may not work well |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Sat Oct 21 06:39:51 2006, in response to Re: Extending E may not work well, posted by AlM on Sat Oct 21 06:00:46 2006. The local tracks could and use[d] to be able to handle 30 train per hour...just like the express..When did NYCT ever run 30 tph on the Queens Blvd local tracks? The statement is one of ability to handle (capacity). The TA itself, declared the local track capacity at 34 tph. |
|
|
| (326908) | |
Re: Extending E may not work well |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Sat Oct 21 07:14:04 2006, in response to Re: Extending E may not work well, posted by Stephen Bauman on Sat Oct 21 06:39:51 2006. The statement is one of ability to handle (capacity).Literally you are correct, but the double affirmation ("could and use to be able") sort of implies that the 30 tph actually happened. |
|
|
| (326921) | |
Re: Edwards declares the truth! |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Sat Oct 21 10:38:34 2006, in response to Re: Extending E may not work well, posted by Edwards! on Sat Oct 21 02:26:44 2006. "I never own a train set..unlike some of you..and I will act like I know everything there is to know about the system,unlike you."Your honesty is most appreciated and very refreshing. |
|
|
| (326929) | |
Re: Extending E may not work well |
|
|
Posted by #1 Brighton Exp Bob on Sat Oct 21 12:10:58 2006, in response to Re: Extending E may not work well, posted by Osmosis Jones on Fri Oct 20 23:01:41 2006. How about combining them east of Jamaica and run it out Merrick Blvd to City Line |
|
|
| (326930) | |
Re: Brooklyn subway needs |
|
|
Posted by #1 Brighton Exp Bob on Sat Oct 21 12:17:17 2006, in response to Re: Brooklyn subway needs, posted by Rail Blue on Sat Oct 21 06:22:31 2006. LA was completely re worked in the late 70s, and Vegas in 92, so why not Brooklyn, and most of LA Routes are much longer then any in NYC |
|
|
| (326940) | |
Re: Extending E may not work well |
|
|
Posted by Osmosis Jones on Sat Oct 21 12:51:20 2006, in response to Re: Extending E may not work well, posted by #1 Brighton Exp Bob on Sat Oct 21 12:10:58 2006. That can work, though it would require that this Springfield Boulevard be at least 5 tracks to meet passenger demands. |
|
|
| (326941) | |
Re: Extending E may not work well |
|
|
Posted by #1 Brighton Exp Bob on Sat Oct 21 12:55:27 2006, in response to Re: Extending E may not work well, posted by Osmosis Jones on Sat Oct 21 12:51:20 2006. Why 5 Tracks? |
|
|
|
Page 6 of 12 |
||
