|
|
| Re: G southern terminal changed to Church (345497) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 19 of 20 |
||
|
| (349090) | |
Re: G southern terminal changed to Church |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed Dec 6 13:57:57 2006, in response to Re: G southern terminal changed to Church, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed Dec 6 13:55:43 2006. Nope, that one was the first to go (gone by the end of 1987). At least Forest Parkway's remained open until early 1989. |
|
|
| (349091) | |
Re: SAS Nassau option Re: G southern terminal changed to Church |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed Dec 6 13:58:09 2006, in response to Re: SAS Nassau option Re: G southern terminal changed to Church, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed Dec 6 13:56:22 2006. Wouldn't it be great if the 3rd Ave el was still there? I don't think the 3rd Ave was a dual contract el, so it may not have been able to handle BMT sized cars, but I would have diverted the 6 there, and allowed the 2nd Ave line to take over the Pelham line, which is built to BMT specs. |
|
|
| (349096) | |
Re: SAS Nassau option Re: G southern terminal changed to Church |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed Dec 6 14:02:49 2006, in response to Re: SAS Nassau option Re: G southern terminal changed to Church, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed Dec 6 13:58:09 2006. I have plenty of fantasy maps which actually incorporate the el, but those came later. I didn't know about this el until after I had come up with the Nassau/2nd Ave idea. The portion over 3rd Ave was built mostly before the dual contracts, though the whole el used steel subway cars from the late 50's to the end in '73. The portion over Webster Ave dates to 1920 and probably could support today's subway trains without problems. |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (349100) | |
Re: SAS Nassau option Re: G southern terminal changed to Church |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed Dec 6 14:06:20 2006, in response to Re: SAS Nassau option Re: G southern terminal changed to Church, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed Dec 6 14:02:49 2006. Yes, steel cars would have been fine on the 3rd Ave el (even if just IRT sized from the Lex line). The R12's ran on the 3rd Ave el without a problem. |
|
|
| (349102) | |
Re: SAS Nassau option Re: G southern terminal changed to Church |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed Dec 6 14:08:38 2006, in response to Re: SAS Nassau option Re: G southern terminal changed to Church, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed Dec 6 14:06:20 2006. Though the R12's did have to be modified to run on the structure. I'd still rebuild the whole damned thing south of Fordham Road. The el was ugly and outdated, it'd need massive rebuilding for 600' B division equipment. A simple bolted steel structure for a 2 track line would do fine. |
|
|
| (349109) | |
Re: G southern terminal changed to Church |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Wed Dec 6 14:19:15 2006, in response to Re: G southern terminal changed to Church, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed Dec 6 12:49:44 2006. It is not an express stop. Q's still skip it.In track layout terms, yes. But diagramatically, it's probably better to think of it as express (as express trains - the N - stop there), and view the Q train as a weird terminal branch north of 42nd St. |
|
|
| (349112) | |
Re: SAS Nassau option Re: G southern terminal changed to Church |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Wed Dec 6 14:23:04 2006, in response to Re: SAS Nassau option Re: G southern terminal changed to Church, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed Dec 6 12:34:08 2006. I like your plan.Could you run the J, the Q and the T all on one track in each direction (eg the section of track south of up to and including 72nd St)? |
|
|
| (349119) | |
Re: SAS Nassau option Re: G southern terminal changed to Church |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed Dec 6 14:35:30 2006, in response to Re: SAS Nassau option Re: G southern terminal changed to Church, posted by RonInBayside on Wed Dec 6 14:23:04 2006. It would probably be impossible. J and Z trains run a combined 12 TPH, the Q runs at 10. That's 22 right there, without the additional T. It would really only work on a 4 track line, but we'll never see that. |
|
|
| (349125) | |
Re: 5 to Utica vs Flatbush (was G Southern Terminal Changed to Church) |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Wed Dec 6 14:45:09 2006, in response to Re: 5 to Utica vs Flatbush (was G Southern Terminal Changed to Church), posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed Dec 6 13:38:19 2006. It's a relay. Like Continental. |
|
|
| (349126) | |
Re: 5 to Utica vs Flatbush (was G Southern Terminal Changed to Church) |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed Dec 6 14:46:39 2006, in response to Re: 5 to Utica vs Flatbush (was G Southern Terminal Changed to Church), posted by Rail Blue on Wed Dec 6 14:45:09 2006. It also has additional tracks east of the station to line trains up. I believe it could handle all rush hour 4/5 service without too much difficulty. |
|
|
| (349127) | |
Re: G southern terminal changed to Church |
|
|
Posted by Eric B on Wed Dec 6 14:46:49 2006, in response to Re: G southern terminal changed to Church, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed Dec 6 08:13:14 2006. That was a gray "K", on the R110 sign. I later heard rumors about them using "Y", but it was not official, and signs weren't printed. |
|
|
| (349132) | |
Re: G southern terminal changed to Church |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed Dec 6 14:55:27 2006, in response to Re: G southern terminal changed to Church, posted by Eric B on Wed Dec 6 14:46:49 2006. The local Ridgewood paper (Times Newsweekly) called it the "Y", but I guess you know how true everythingn in print is..... |
|
|
| (349134) | |
Re: SAS Nassau option Re: G southern terminal changed to Church |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Wed Dec 6 14:55:59 2006, in response to Re: SAS Nassau option Re: G southern terminal changed to Church, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed Dec 6 14:02:49 2006. I have plenty of fantasy maps which actually incorporate the el, but those came later.Scans? |
|
|
| (349141) | |
Re: 5 to Utica vs Flatbush (was G Southern Terminal Changed to Church) |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Wed Dec 6 15:03:18 2006, in response to Re: 5 to Utica vs Flatbush (was G Southern Terminal Changed to Church), posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed Dec 6 14:46:39 2006. It still has only one arrivals (fumigation) track. |
|
|
| (349160) | |
Re: SAS Nassau option Re: G southern terminal changed to Church |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed Dec 6 15:52:10 2006, in response to Re: SAS Nassau option Re: G southern terminal changed to Church, posted by Rail Blue on Wed Dec 6 14:55:59 2006. I wish. They're rolled up in my basement. I drew them from scratch. |
|
|
| (349162) | |
Re: 5 to Utica vs Flatbush (was G Southern Terminal Changed to Church) |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed Dec 6 15:55:41 2006, in response to Re: 5 to Utica vs Flatbush (was G Southern Terminal Changed to Church), posted by Rail Blue on Wed Dec 6 15:03:18 2006. And one destination track. While fumigation is underway, trains ahead of it can cross over and head back north. It's a lot like Forest Hills, but with both platforms on different levels, as opposed to being side-by-side. |
|
|
| (349170) | |
Re: SAS Nassau option Re: G southern terminal changed to Church |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Wed Dec 6 16:05:11 2006, in response to Re: SAS Nassau option Re: G southern terminal changed to Church, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed Dec 6 15:52:10 2006. I wish. They're rolled up in my basement. I drew them from scratch.Please, please, please, find some way of getting these online! |
|
|
| (349171) | |
Re: 5 to Utica vs Flatbush (was G Southern Terminal Changed to Church) |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Wed Dec 6 16:06:16 2006, in response to Re: 5 to Utica vs Flatbush (was G Southern Terminal Changed to Church), posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed Dec 6 15:55:41 2006. And one destination track. While fumigation is underway, trains ahead of it can cross over and head back north.But what about the trains behind it? |
|
|
| (349209) | |
Re: 5 to Utica vs Flatbush (was G Southern Terminal Changed to Church) |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed Dec 6 17:24:12 2006, in response to Re: 5 to Utica vs Flatbush (was G Southern Terminal Changed to Church), posted by Rail Blue on Wed Dec 6 16:06:16 2006. In, fumigate, out. It can be done if enough personnel are assigned to the platform. |
|
|
| (349211) | |
Re: SAS Nassau option Re: G southern terminal changed to Church |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed Dec 6 17:26:31 2006, in response to Re: SAS Nassau option Re: G southern terminal changed to Church, posted by Rail Blue on Wed Dec 6 16:05:11 2006. Some would look really silly today, given my lack of knowledge back then. My G train to Times Sq. via the Steinway tubes idea isn't feasible for example. |
|
|
| (349275) | |
Re: SAS Nassau option Re: G southern terminal changed to Church |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Wed Dec 6 19:21:08 2006, in response to Re: SAS Nassau option Re: G southern terminal changed to Church, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed Dec 6 17:26:31 2006. Some would look really silly today, given my lack of knowledge back then.Well, there's always the flip-side that there'll be some real outside-thebox thinking going on on them. My G train to Times Sq. via the Steinway tubes idea isn't feasible for example. A 34th St Line is quite tempting... |
|
|
| (349352) | |
Re: 5 to Utica vs Flatbush (was G Southern Terminal Changed to Church) |
|
|
Posted by R4 Bryn Mawr LCL/R5 Paoli EXP on Wed Dec 6 21:14:52 2006, in response to Re: 5 to Utica vs Flatbush (was G Southern Terminal Changed to Church), posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed Dec 6 12:25:27 2006. But there are far more 5s to Utica than Es to 179. |
|
|
| (349356) | |
Re: 5 to Utica vs Flatbush (was G Southern Terminal Changed to Church) |
|
|
Posted by David of Broadway on Wed Dec 6 21:16:04 2006, in response to Re: 5 to Utica vs Flatbush (was G Southern Terminal Changed to Church), posted by R4 Bryn Mawr LCL/R5 Paoli EXP on Wed Dec 6 21:14:52 2006. In fact, back when the map showed a diamond-5 to Flatbush, the map was downright incorrect. During rush hours, the circle-5 generally went to Flatbush while the diamond-5 went to Utica. |
|
|
| (349366) | |
Re: 5 to Utica vs Flatbush (was G Southern Terminal Changed to Church) |
|
|
Posted by Kriston Lewis on Wed Dec 6 21:26:35 2006, in response to Re: 5 to Utica vs Flatbush (was G Southern Terminal Changed to Church), posted by R4 Bryn Mawr LCL/R5 Paoli EXP on Wed Dec 6 07:03:51 2006. |
|
|
| (349468) | |
Re: 5 to Utica vs Flatbush (was G Southern Terminal Changed to Church) |
|
|
Posted by Railman718 on Thu Dec 7 00:38:10 2006, in response to Re: 5 to Utica vs Flatbush (was G Southern Terminal Changed to Church), posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed Dec 6 17:24:12 2006. Its never that easy there is always some homeless person who dont want to get off that train at Utica which just makes things really peachy... |
|
|
| (349474) | |
Re: 5 to Utica vs Flatbush (was G Southern Terminal Changed to Church) |
|
|
Posted by italianstallion on Thu Dec 7 00:55:16 2006, in response to Re: 5 to Utica vs Flatbush (was G Southern Terminal Changed to Church), posted by Kriston Lewis on Wed Dec 6 21:26:35 2006. Yes, I already pointed that out. |
|
|
| (349488) | |
Re: 5 to Utica vs Flatbush (was G Southern Terminal Changed to Church) |
|
|
Posted by smooth on Thu Dec 7 02:03:13 2006, in response to Re: 5 to Utica vs Flatbush (was G Southern Terminal Changed to Church), posted by smooth on Wed Dec 6 10:21:36 2006. Brooklyn-bound 4 switched from express to local track at Union Sq this afternoon. The strip map was reloaded it seemed as the local program. Not the same thing as switching from a 4 to a 5, to be sure, but worth mentioning. |
|
|
| (349491) | |
Re: J/Z Skip Stop Re: G southern terminal changed to Church |
|
|
Posted by smooth on Thu Dec 7 02:10:31 2006, in response to Re: J/Z Skip Stop Re: G southern terminal changed to Church, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed Dec 6 12:38:21 2006. Having never been that far out on the Canarsie Line, are the modifications post-demolition such that they would be difficult to undo? Is new construction a possibility? |
|
|
| (349599) | |
Re: SAS Nassau option Re: G southern terminal changed to Church |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Thu Dec 7 12:04:36 2006, in response to Re: SAS Nassau option Re: G southern terminal changed to Church, posted by Rail Blue on Wed Dec 6 19:21:08 2006. I also had an idea for a 23rd St. line for the Crosstown, but I'm sure G riders would bitch that it only connects to north/south lines at local stops. |
|
|
| (349600) | |
Re: 5 to Utica vs Flatbush (was G Southern Terminal Changed to Church) |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Thu Dec 7 12:06:32 2006, in response to Re: 5 to Utica vs Flatbush (was G Southern Terminal Changed to Church), posted by Railman718 on Thu Dec 7 00:38:10 2006. I've seen them do it in 60 seconds at 205th St. |
|
|
| (349609) | |
Re: SAS Nassau option Re: G southern terminal changed to Church |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Thu Dec 7 12:19:14 2006, in response to Re: SAS Nassau option Re: G southern terminal changed to Church, posted by Rail Blue on Wed Dec 6 19:21:08 2006. 23rd St and 34th st are very nice places for a crosstown subway. 42nd St has one, and essentially 53rd hs it too. I'd like to see 125 St get one. |
|
|
| (349612) | |
Re: J/Z Skip Stop Re: G southern terminal changed to Church |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Thu Dec 7 12:22:32 2006, in response to Re: J/Z Skip Stop Re: G southern terminal changed to Church, posted by smooth on Thu Dec 7 02:10:31 2006. No. The platform and steelwork are still there, though the canopy has been removed completely. It could be restored, but would cost a lot. |
|
|
| (349630) | |
Re: 5 to Utica vs Flatbush (was G Southern Terminal Changed to Church) |
|
|
Posted by Railman718 on Thu Dec 7 13:02:19 2006, in response to Re: 5 to Utica vs Flatbush (was G Southern Terminal Changed to Church), posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Thu Dec 7 12:06:32 2006. A minute not bad at all, not bad... |
|
|
| (349681) | |
Re: G southern terminal changed to Church |
|
|
Posted by Wado MP73 on Thu Dec 7 14:34:06 2006, in response to Re: G southern terminal changed to Church, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed Dec 6 13:27:49 2006. Yep. A day away and too much to catch up. Viewing flat now but I won't bother to reply to older posts unless I really feel like it. |
|
|
| (349882) | |
Re: G southern terminal changed to Church |
|
|
Posted by Eric B on Thu Dec 7 23:15:13 2006, in response to Re: G southern terminal changed to Church, posted by Wado MP73 on Thu Dec 7 14:34:06 2006. Surpised nobody caught it today, but the Daily News did a seoparatr story on this today: G Line Pulls out Stops. Says the extension is actually for "track work" in 2008 (the budget for it is in 2007). People are hoping it would become permanent. I wonder if that will be the completion of the Bergen work. Wonder why it would still be 2 more years (It seems that they have been doing nothing at all on it recently).Notice the one person suggests service would be better with the arrival of "the G train's great nemesis, the V"! |
|
|
| (349884) | |
Re: G southern terminal changed to Church |
|
|
Posted by Grand Concourse on Thu Dec 7 23:19:30 2006, in response to Re: G southern terminal changed to Church, posted by jrr4 on Wed Dec 6 13:22:55 2006. Whoa I didn't even notice it had that many responses! |
|
|
| (349927) | |
Re: SAS Nassau option Re: G southern terminal changed to Church |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Fri Dec 8 03:19:18 2006, in response to Re: SAS Nassau option Re: G southern terminal changed to Church, posted by RonInBayside on Thu Dec 7 12:19:14 2006. Well..there WOULD have been a 34th street crosstown..if the bottom of the economy hadn't dropped out during the 1930's.As you know[or may not],the IND planned on building a 10th avenue subway...it would have croosed 34th st..and connected with the Second Avenue subway..sort of how the IRT does with the TIMES SQUARE SHUTTLE. But as you can see..the 10th Avenue line was dropped pretty soon to be taken up later if funds were availible..after they realised that money wouldn't be found[not even with WPA grants]..and the ORIGINAL PLAN was broken up into PHASES[like todays SAS...] Phase ONE ORIGINALY included the SAS grand design..with it operating directly out of the Concourse Line... As it became clear that the SAS portion would be MASSIVE...funding was moved to start the new Fulton st..and 6th avenue subways FIRST..SWITCH construction starts between the HILLSIDE and Van Wyck lines...Connect the 8th avenue subway with the Concourse route....and DELAY the South Brooklyn line under FT.Hamilton Pky. As we know..most id not all of the delays turned into perminate defferals..such as the 10th ave..34th st..Second avenue..Ft Hamilton..and last the Van Wyck subways. Even PHASE TWO was eliminated completely...with the most potenial of being built at that time being the Worth st line..even as far as the UTICA AVENUE lines contract ALMOST being set out for bid! Shame. |
|
|
| (349928) | |
Re: SAS Nassau option Re: G southern terminal changed to Church |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Fri Dec 8 03:25:51 2006, in response to Re: SAS Nassau option Re: G southern terminal changed to Church, posted by RonInBayside on Thu Dec 7 12:19:14 2006. Well..there WOULD have been a 34th street crosstown..if the bottom of the economy hadn't dropped out during the 1930's.As you know[or may not],the IND planned on building a 10th avenue subway...it would have croosed 34th st..and connected with the Second Avenue subway..sort of how the IRT does with the TIMES SQUARE SHUTTLE. But as you can see..the 10th Avenue line was dropped pretty soon to be taken up later if funds were availible..after they realised that money wouldn't be found[not even with WPA grants]..and the ORIGINAL PLAN was broken up into PHASES[like todays SAS...] Phase ONE ORIGINALY included the SAS grand design..with it operating directly out of the Concourse Line... As it became clear that the SAS portion would be MASSIVE...funding was moved to start the new Fulton st..and 6th avenue subways construction FIRST. SWITCH construction starts between the HILLSIDE and Van Wyck lines[with the HILLSIDE LINE being built FIRST and the Van Wyck line later being srcapped]... Connect the 8th avenue subway with the Concourse route and DELAY the South Brooklyn line under FT.Hamilton Pky[with it later being scrapped] As we know..most,if not all of the delays turned into cancellations..such as the 10th ave,34th st,Second avenue,Ft Hamilton,and last,the Van Wyck subways. Even PHASE TWO was eliminated completely...with the most potenial of being built at that time being the Worth st line..even as far as the UTICA AVENUE lines contract ALMOST being set out for bid! Shame. |
|
|
| (349929) | |
Re: SAS Nassau option Re: G southern terminal changed to Church |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Fri Dec 8 03:29:22 2006, in response to Re: SAS Nassau option Re: G southern terminal changed to Church, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Thu Dec 7 12:04:36 2006. I don't understand why you figure we would "bitch" about Manhattan service...Understand this.. All we want is DECENT SERVICE.[like our 6 car trains back for starters]. PERIOD. Not the RED CARPET TREATMENT. Any change is good..and the current plan to Church avenue is a START WORTH DOING. So kill that noise about what we would "bitch" about. |
|
|
| (349943) | |
Re: SAS Nassau option Re: G southern terminal changed to Church |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Fri Dec 8 06:31:28 2006, in response to Re: SAS Nassau option Re: G southern terminal changed to Church, posted by Edwards! on Fri Dec 8 03:29:22 2006. Any change is good..and the current plan to Church avenue is a START WORTH DOING.You'll lose it in a few years. |
|
|
| (350007) | |
Re: SAS Nassau option Re: G southern terminal changed to Church |
|
|
Posted by smooth on Fri Dec 8 10:12:36 2006, in response to Re: SAS Nassau option Re: G southern terminal changed to Church, posted by Terrapin Station on Fri Dec 8 06:31:28 2006. Because? |
|
|
| (350014) | |
Re: SAS Nassau option Re: G southern terminal changed to Church |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Fri Dec 8 10:26:33 2006, in response to Re: SAS Nassau option Re: G southern terminal changed to Church, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Thu Dec 7 12:04:36 2006. I also had an idea for a 23rd St. line for the Crosstown, but I'm sure G riders would bitch that it only connects to north/south lines at local stops.:-) Express/local distinctions don't really matter all that much below 59th St. In fact, it might help to ride the local, in case you want 14/6 or Spring St IND. So where did your 23rd St line go once it got into Brooklyn? |
|
|
| (350027) | |
Re: SAS Nassau option Re: G southern terminal changed to Church |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri Dec 8 11:18:54 2006, in response to Re: SAS Nassau option Re: G southern terminal changed to Church, posted by Edwards! on Fri Dec 8 03:29:22 2006. Nothing's really wrong with G service as it is now. Crowding is a problem everywhere. Only East Side IRT riders have the right to complain that they endure a unique suffering. |
|
|
| (350030) | |
Re: SAS Nassau option Re: G southern terminal changed to Church |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri Dec 8 11:24:27 2006, in response to Re: SAS Nassau option Re: G southern terminal changed to Church, posted by Rail Blue on Fri Dec 8 10:26:33 2006. It connected to the G after a sharp curve north of Greenpoint. It also turned north on 8th Ave and terminated underneath the existing Penn Station stop. It had other stations at 7th Ave, 6th Ave, Madison Square and 2nd Ave, connecting to all the lines crossing over it at each stop. |
|
|
| (350051) | |
Re: SAS Nassau option Re: G southern terminal changed to Church |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Fri Dec 8 11:47:18 2006, in response to Re: SAS Nassau option Re: G southern terminal changed to Church, posted by Edwards! on Fri Dec 8 03:19:18 2006. You're right.But that's water under the bridge. All we can do is try to do the best we can now. |
|
|
| (350213) | |
Re: SAS Nassau option Re: G southern terminal changed to Church |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Fri Dec 8 20:11:50 2006, in response to Re: SAS Nassau option Re: G southern terminal changed to Church, posted by Terrapin Station on Fri Dec 8 06:31:28 2006. Why? |
|
|
| (350226) | |
Re: SAS Nassau option Re: G southern terminal changed to Church |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Fri Dec 8 20:59:06 2006, in response to Re: SAS Nassau option Re: G southern terminal changed to Church, posted by Edwards! on Fri Dec 8 03:25:51 2006. Well..there WOULD have been a 34th street crosstown..if the bottom of the economy hadn't dropped out during the 1930's.Hey! and they even HAD a 34th St Crosstown line: 
|
|
|
| (351709) | |
Re: J/Z Skip Stop Re: G southern terminal changed to Church |
|
|
Posted by David of Broadway on Mon Dec 11 18:21:35 2006, in response to Re: J/Z Skip Stop Re: G southern terminal changed to Church, posted by David of Broadway on Wed Dec 6 12:30:17 2006. Still doing your research? Take your time. Make sure to answer all of the questions. |
|
|
| (351713) | |
Re: J/Z Skip Stop Re: G southern terminal changed to Church |
|
|
Posted by Newkirk Plaza David on Mon Dec 11 18:25:01 2006, in response to Re: J/Z Skip Stop Re: G southern terminal changed to Church, posted by David of Broadway on Mon Dec 11 18:21:35 2006. Don't waste your time. Ron IS BS has yet to show us a plan to have each major complex in Manhattan to be served by only one single building entrance. This includes both IRT and IND stations inside 34th Penn. |
|
|
| (351716) | |
Re: J/Z Skip Stop Re: G southern terminal changed to Church |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Mon Dec 11 18:26:23 2006, in response to Re: J/Z Skip Stop Re: G southern terminal changed to Church, posted by David of Broadway on Wed Dec 6 12:30:17 2006. "If you have done the research to indicate that, despite the fact that 1 trains are currently overcrowded (i.e., people have to wait for several trains to pass before they can fit on board) at 20 tph,"That's your opinion. Do you have data to show this is a consistent event (no, you don't)? Perhaps MTA does. "The tracks leading to the two South Ferries will cross at grade. In other words, northbound trains out of the new terminal will conflict with southbound trains into the old loop" Not with competent interlocking management. "with a layout similar to that at Jamaica Center, will be able to turn 24 tph, even though Jamaica Center itself can only turn 12 tph, please post your reasoning now. " You claim to see that similarity. But your analysis is too superficial to be worth anything. |
|
|
|
Page 19 of 20 |
||
