|
|
| May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle (428152) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
|
Page 1 of 16 |
|
|
|
| (428159) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri May 11 12:12:13 2007, in response to May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by Newkirk Plaza David on Fri May 11 11:56:12 2007. I don't consider Archer Ave. an adequate replacement for the Jamaica Ave. el. |
|
|
| (428160) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Fri May 11 12:17:27 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri May 11 12:12:13 2007. I disagree.The Jamaica El itself wasn't adequate for what that area needs (it should have had 3 tracks or even 4) On the other hand, the current Archer Av arrangement is far superior in most respects. It provides direct service to both the Jamaica Line and Queens Blvd lines, and is directly integrated with the LIRR and AirTrain. Extending the J subway to Archer Av and Merrick Blvd. would restore the orihgial Jamaica El coverage. I suppose one could bemoan the loss of the Queens Blvd and Metro. Av stations, but in the long run I'm not sure those were huge losses. |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (428162) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri May 11 12:19:20 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by RonInBayside on Fri May 11 12:17:27 2007. Yes, the billions spent on Archer Ave. were well spent, replacing a perfectly good el with a subway which made it easier to channel even more riders onto the Queens Blvd. IND. |
|
|
| (428164) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Fri May 11 12:23:25 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri May 11 12:19:20 2007. The community asked for the El to ripped down. Other than not finishing the subway on time (I agree the time gap was very bad), the TA did exactly what it was supposed to do."the billions spent" What billions? No subway project in the pereiod between the 1960s and 1980s reached the $1 billion mark. |
|
|
| (428166) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by Newkirk Plaza David on Fri May 11 12:31:34 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by RonInBayside on Fri May 11 12:23:25 2007. The original terminus of the Archer/Merrick extension was supposed to be Springfield Blvd and Merrick Blvd.Jamaica Center was supposed to be a station, not the terminus. This "terminal" is a fire trap, there are not enough exits from the E platform to the mezzanine, the passage to the escalators is narrow, and the crossover switches are too far away from the western end of this station. |
|
|
| (428167) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by Larry Fendrick (NotchIt)-Webmaster on Fri May 11 12:32:33 2007, in response to May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by Newkirk Plaza David on Fri May 11 11:56:12 2007. CulverShuttle.com |
|
|
| (428171) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by (SIR) North Shore Line on Fri May 11 12:51:28 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri May 11 12:12:13 2007. I never lived to see the Jamaica Avenue El run past 121st Street but the current Archer Ave extension gets the job done well. Although it would've been nice if the lines could've been extended down to 168th St at the very least.On a side note, has anyone been to any of the Archer Ave (E and J/Z) stations lately? It looks (and smells) as though they've done some spring cleaning Sutphin Blvd and Jamaica Center. The stations used to smell worse than the Bronx Zoo but it seems that the odd smells have dispersed and the stations seemed to have been sanitized as well. |
|
|
| (428176) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by Max Roberts on Fri May 11 12:55:49 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by Larry Fendrick (NotchIt)-Webmaster on Fri May 11 12:32:33 2007. 1000 passengers a day, not bad. I suspect that in a bad year, Hainault to Woodford in London would have carried less. Anyone have figures for Epping to Ongar? |
|
|
| (428182) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by Mitch45 on Fri May 11 13:16:25 2007, in response to May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by Newkirk Plaza David on Fri May 11 11:56:12 2007. When I was a little kid in the early '70s, my parents and I used to visit my grandparents who lived in Boro Park. We used to take the F train to Ditmas Avenue and walk to 44th Street, where they lived.I distinctly remember seeing a set of elevated tracks curve away from the station and head down into the distance, to points (then) unknown. I remember thinking how odd it was that I never saw a train operating on it. Then again, we used to only make this trip on Sundays, and by the early '70s, the Culver Shuttle probably had very limited service on weekends. |
|
|
| (428185) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Fri May 11 13:27:31 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by Newkirk Plaza David on Fri May 11 12:31:34 2007. "The original terminus of the Archer/Merrick extension was supposed to be Springfield Blvd and Merrick Blvd. "Agreed. Consider my previous response amended. However, I was comparing it to the El will only extended to 168th street. "This "terminal" is a fire trap, there are not enough exits from the E platform to the mezzanine," Nonsense. Not a fire hazard at all. Rather nicely designed if anything. "The passage to the escalators is narrow," Agreed that this could be better in terms of passenger capacity. "and the crossover switches are too far away from the western end of this station." That's often touted here but the only factor you're looking at is capacity. The TA may have placed the switch where it is to reduce the noise inflicted on people on the platform. Since no one from the TA knowledgable about the specifics of the decision has ever posted here it's silly to conclude that we know all about the TA's "mistake." |
|
|
| (428186) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Fri May 11 13:28:10 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by (SIR) North Shore Line on Fri May 11 12:51:28 2007. Great! |
|
|
| (428188) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri May 11 13:31:08 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by Newkirk Plaza David on Fri May 11 12:31:34 2007. But it's no longer the worst "new" station in the system. That dishonor now falls to 21st St/Queensbridge. |
|
|
| (428189) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by Red Line to Glenmont on Fri May 11 13:32:07 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by Mitch45 on Fri May 11 13:16:25 2007. I don't think it was that limited, maybe every 12-15 minutes. However until, I don't know maybe, 1968, it was a two-track line except at 9th Avenue and Ditmas Avenue. I don't remember exactly when they started going just back and forth on one track. I friend of mine lived between Church Avenue (F) and 13th Avenue (S) and sometimes we'd take it. We all called the C&BB RR (Cemetery and Bacci Ball Railroad), because it ran to the Green-wood Cemetery, and the old men played bacci between the rails of the old freight tracks underneath it on Sundays. |
|
|
| (428192) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri May 11 13:34:27 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by (SIR) North Shore Line on Fri May 11 12:51:28 2007. I'm not arguing the Archer Ave. subway has no redeeming qualities. It's certainly eased my commute from Woodhaven to Shea and other points in northern Queens. But I can't defend the billions spent on a replacement subway when so many other parts of the city had greater need (like the UES). |
|
|
| (428194) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri May 11 13:36:10 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by Larry Fendrick (NotchIt)-Webmaster on Fri May 11 12:32:33 2007. Great stuff. It gives those of us too young to have ridden this thing a good idea what it was like. |
|
|
| (428200) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri May 11 13:46:29 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by Red Line to Glenmont on Fri May 11 13:32:07 2007. I believe the one track service began in the mid-60's, after a snowstorm forced one track out of service. Nobody probably complained, and yet another opportunity to downgrade service was seized upon. Not sure when the Manhattan-bound track was removed. Here's a photo from 1967 showing it still in place: 
|
|
|
| (428203) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Fri May 11 13:49:17 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri May 11 13:34:27 2007. Once again, it was not "billions." If you're going to argue a point, check your facts. No single subway project in New York reached the billion mark at that time.The 63rd st project and SAS werre started previous to the Archer project, and then interrupted. The 63rd st Extension opened a year after Archer. Your observations have little basis in reality. Once the El was taken down in favor of a subway that was to reach further than the El, the TA's only responsible action was to finish it. They did, though not to the extent desired. In the 1960s Jamaica was in dire need of better subway service, just as much as the UES, but for different reasons. The Archer Av line triggered a reinvestment in the community and helped in the effort to increase employment and reduce crime. Archer Av's ROI is very high and was worth every penny spent on the project. |
|
|
| (428204) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Fri May 11 13:51:16 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri May 11 13:36:10 2007. Cute little shuttle but largely redundant. Its removal was no loss.On the other hand, the loss of the Myrtle El was not good. I'd favor a new underground subway to restore that service. |
|
|
| (428205) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri May 11 13:54:33 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by RonInBayside on Fri May 11 13:51:16 2007. True. While I still think the structure would have been an ideal route for the M train (instead of clogging up the West End line), it's loss was no great deal. The Fort Hamilton Parkway station was remarkably close to the one of the same name on the West End, I'm surprised it got ANY patronage in the shuttle days. |
|
|
| (428218) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by R 36 ML 9542 on Fri May 11 14:33:16 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by RonInBayside on Fri May 11 13:49:17 2007. Why couldnt they keep BOTH the Jamaica El AND the Archer Ave in service at the SAME TIME? Does any one have any photos of the Jamaica El after it was closed down? Does any one have any photos of it being taken down? What was used to take the El down? Torches? |
|
|
| (428225) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri May 11 14:53:07 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by R 36 ML 9542 on Fri May 11 14:33:16 2007. I have no pictures, but very vivid memories. The first closure, in 1977, resulted in a very quick demolition. By 1979, the structure was reduced to chopped off pillars all the way to Sutphin Blvd. These pillars, used to hold up signage and street lighting, were removed and replaced around 1981. The structure from Sutphin Blvd to the LIRR overpass, closed in 1985, was demolished in late 1990. I still have incredibly vivid memories of waiting for the Q44 bus to the Bronx Zoo, probably in the summer of 1978, and seeing workmen using chainsaws to chop up the northbound track on the el at Sutphin/Jamaica. It scared the hell out of me because I didn't really understand why this was happening and I thought the whole line was going to be destroyed. The next time I was there, it was ALL gone. |
|
|
| (428230) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by SUBWAYMAN on Fri May 11 15:06:09 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri May 11 13:31:08 2007. What is wrong with 21st St/Queensbridge? |
|
|
| (428241) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Fri May 11 15:19:44 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by R 36 ML 9542 on Fri May 11 14:33:16 2007. It would make sense to keep the El running until the Archer Av line was complete, and then shut it down and demolish it. This did not happen, and I agree with Chris that the sequence of events and timing were piss poor. However, the merchants along Jamaica Av contributed to this situation by pressing for the El to come down.Spilled milk. |
|
|
| (428243) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Fri May 11 15:21:33 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by SUBWAYMAN on Fri May 11 15:06:09 2007. It doesn't have a transfer inside fare control to 76th St service. :0) |
|
|
| (428262) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Fri May 11 16:07:00 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri May 11 13:31:08 2007. Neither is.Sutphin Archer has been the worst since shortly after I started using it. |
|
|
| (428264) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Fri May 11 16:09:57 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by RonInBayside on Fri May 11 12:17:27 2007. I think the older setup may have had more capacity then what currently exists.BTW. 3 track line without a yard on one end has no more capacity then a 2 track line(well-- I suppose you could theoretically run 1 more train... ) |
|
|
| (428266) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by mr_brian on Fri May 11 16:14:21 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by SUBWAYMAN on Fri May 11 15:06:09 2007. Ceiling doesn't look so good.But the Archer Av subway stations all look worse, imo. |
|
|
| (428268) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Fri May 11 16:20:28 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by R30A on Fri May 11 16:09:57 2007. "I think the older setup may have had more capacity then what currently exists."No. Capacity is pretty much identical on the lower level; service is improved in the global sense due to your being able to choose either the E or J (meaning you can travel in either direction). "3 track line without a yard on one end has no more capacity then a 2 track line" I assume you mean a tail track. What you are saying is that two tracks plus tails is equal to or better than 3 tracks and no tails. That seems reasonable. In this case, if I recall correctly, the TA reduced the Jamaica Line to two tracks in the final stretch in Manhattan and of course it has only two tracks crossing the "Manny B." |
|
|
| (428269) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Fri May 11 16:21:04 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by RonInBayside on Fri May 11 16:20:28 2007. Sorry I meant Willy B. |
|
|
| (428273) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Fri May 11 16:29:32 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by Newkirk Plaza David on Fri May 11 12:31:34 2007. This "terminal" is a fire trap,Considering how many stations have far fewer means of egress than this station, I'd say that you're wrong. |
|
|
| (428274) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Fri May 11 16:31:45 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by RonInBayside on Fri May 11 16:20:28 2007. Jamaica Center Lower level is MUCH worse then old 168 as a terminal provided that 168 was like any other dual contracts elevated terminal. (12 vs 20-28 TPH)Considering the fact that 179 could handle all the service from Queens Boulevard, I suspect that the overall capacity of queens rapid transit has been lowered. |
|
|
| (428275) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Fri May 11 16:32:40 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by J trainloco on Fri May 11 16:29:32 2007. The current South Ferry station has fewer entrances (I'm not referring to the rebuild). |
|
|
| (428277) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Fri May 11 16:33:49 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by R30A on Fri May 11 16:31:45 2007. I suspect that the overall capacity of queens rapid transit has been lowered.?? Your suspicion is incorrect. |
|
|
| (428278) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Fri May 11 16:34:44 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by RonInBayside on Fri May 11 16:32:40 2007. And York St, and B'way Junction/ENY, and Rockaway Pkwy/Canarsie..... |
|
|
| (428279) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Fri May 11 16:36:56 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by J trainloco on Fri May 11 16:33:49 2007. Why?I doubt anything else along the J limits capacity to below 12 TPH... |
|
|
| (428280) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Fri May 11 16:38:07 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by R30A on Fri May 11 16:31:45 2007. "Jamaica Center Lower level is MUCH worse then old 168 as a terminal provided that 168 was like any other dual contracts elevated terminal. (12 vs 20-28 TPH"Even if you are correct, Meaningless comparison considering that J service hasn't run even 20 tph for a very long time. "Considering the fact that 179 could handle all the service from Queens Boulevard, I suspect that the overall capacity of queens rapid transit has been lowered" That's not only false, it's laughably silly. Queens Blvd. capacity globally is higher due to the 63rd St tunnel project, whereas east of 71-Continental it's basically the same, except that trains can now be distributed to two branches. Total train throughput has dropped because only the F serves the Hillside branch except at rush hour, but that was because the riders were dissatisfied with the F/R service offered right after Archer opened. |
|
|
| (428281) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Fri May 11 16:39:03 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by J trainloco on Fri May 11 16:29:32 2007. Actually... ALL of the stations openned around then have fewer means of egress! JCPA has more exits then Sutphin, Lexington, Roosevelt Isl. Queensbridge, and(I think) Van Wyck... |
|
|
| (428282) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Fri May 11 16:39:26 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by R30A on Fri May 11 16:36:56 2007. You don't know that the J is limited to below 12 tph. If you can cite a TA source for that, please do. |
|
|
| (428283) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Fri May 11 16:39:55 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by J trainloco on Fri May 11 16:34:44 2007. Agreed. |
|
|
| (428284) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Fri May 11 16:41:09 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by R30A on Fri May 11 16:36:56 2007. Er, I forgot about the J. I don't consider it 'Queens Transit'. Either way, it's not like the J is bursting at the seams in Queens. |
|
|
| (428285) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Fri May 11 16:42:29 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by R30A on Fri May 11 16:39:03 2007. Fewer means of egress than what? |
|
|
| (428286) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Fri May 11 16:43:08 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by J trainloco on Fri May 11 16:41:09 2007. If it serves Queens, it's Queens transit."it's not like the J is bursting at the seams in Queens. " It would be nice if more people rode it. I'd be in favor of extending it, rebuilding the El to add a third track and reopening the idled tracks in Manhattan if that would help. |
|
|
| (428288) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by Fred G on Fri May 11 16:52:14 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by R30A on Fri May 11 16:07:00 2007. What did you do to it?your pal, Fred |
|
|
| (428289) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by Dan on Fri May 11 16:52:28 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by Mitch45 on Fri May 11 13:16:25 2007. I remember riding BMT standards on it in early 1969, and possibly even in the fall of that year.The long-gone Culver Shuttle has it's own website: http://www.culvershuttle.com/ |
|
|
| (428290) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Fri May 11 16:53:42 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by RonInBayside on Fri May 11 16:38:07 2007. Even if you are correct, Meaningless comparison considering that J service hasn't run even 20 tph for a very long time.It isnt a meaningless comparison. However nice it would be to have such service, nobody is suggesting to run 20TPH on the J, 13 TPH on the J, might be useful though, as trains are currently quite crowded at 12 TPH, but 13 TPH CANNOT be handled by the current terminal! That's not only false, it's laughably silly. Queens Blvd. capacity globally is higher due to the 63rd St tunnel project, whereas east of 71-Continental it's basically the same, except that trains can now be distributed to two branches. No ron, it isnt. 63rd did not change queens boulevard capacity whatsoever. 63rd made the existing capacity on the local tracks more useful, but the same amount of trains can be run as before. Provided 179 can handle 30 TPH(It has in the past IIRC) 179 could handle it all. (Assuming, as you brought up, that the locals dont extent past roosevelt. ) |
|
|
| (428292) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Fri May 11 16:55:50 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by J trainloco on Fri May 11 16:42:29 2007. Jamaica Center itself. |
|
|
| (428293) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Fri May 11 16:56:57 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by R30A on Fri May 11 16:53:42 2007. "but 13 TPH CANNOT be handled by the current terminal!"According to you. You have how many years working at the TA? Building layouts for Parsons Brinkerhoff? Designing tunnels for DMJM+Harris? Bring us a citation from somewhere. |
|
|
| (428294) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Fri May 11 17:00:08 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by RonInBayside on Fri May 11 16:56:57 2007. Go there and watch!When they currently run 12 and can't handle it, how can they handle 13? |
|
|
| (428295) | |
Re: Increasing QB capacity |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Fri May 11 17:00:36 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by R30A on Fri May 11 16:53:42 2007. You are correct about the 63rd St point - I should have said "Manhattan-bound."But my point remains - no loss of capacity east of 71-Continental, justy distributed differently. Incidentally, there IS a way you can increase capacity east of 71 St. 1) Run a LOCAL train to Archer Av branch at 12 tph. 2) Run other Locals to 179 St 3) Run express to 179 st on the express track. You get the credit for this because you made me think of it. |
|
|
|
|
Page 1 of 16 |
|
