|
|
| Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle (428152) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 15 of 16 |
||
|
| (430726) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Wed May 16 08:53:42 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by J trainloco on Wed May 16 00:22:44 2007. Chicken and egg. Build the Myrtle subway, and within 2 years of operating service, you'll see full trains. |
|
|
| (430727) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Wed May 16 08:54:23 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by SMAZ on Wed May 16 02:40:05 2007. Certainly. |
|
|
| (430807) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed May 16 12:39:39 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by J trainloco on Wed May 16 00:21:17 2007. Again, you're assuming the service cuts were a reaction to declining patronage. On many lines the city wanted to abandon, service cuts were meant to force patronage down, to a point that abandonment could be considered. The Third Ave. el is a prime example. It was progressively cut back in the early 1950's. Ridership declined, numbers of trains were reduced and in 1955 the city announced that the whole "surviving" ridership could more efficiently be moved by the Lexington Ave. subway. |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (430945) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Wed May 16 18:52:34 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by J trainloco on Wed May 16 00:21:17 2007. Man..what wrong with you?Thats the same "logic" the politicians used to get lines removed.. Case in point,the outer end of the Jamaica El..the 3rd avenue el in the Bronx AND Manhattan...and the Myrtle El in Brooklyn.. In EACH and EVERY one of the circumstances...service was WELL patronized. With the 3RD AVENUE EL...it was well know that the private developers wanted the line gone to attract big business..even to the point where removing a much sturdier elevated a block over was deemed foolish. The city,seeing this as a mistake..but still wanting its tax money from new homes and businesses along the avenues..again promised a NEW SUBWAY under second avenue. We know the results.The city government took the TAX MONEY..gladly..but no new subway was built...at least none under SECOND AVENUE. Strange thing is..the city couldn't afford to OPERATE a new subway under that street..not to mention Build it. The 60's brought about changes..the city was fallin apart and the transit system was suffering from neglect.. Several plans were drawn up to "replace" the OLD with the NEW..such as the remaining 3rd avenue el in the Bronx with a line over and along Park avenue[todays Metro North ROW] via a connection to the WEST FARMS LINE at 149th st,and a NEW SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY from Lower Manhattan to White Plains Road/241 st[taking over the IRT EL]. While these plans were being drawn..the city was trying to bring back Neighborhoods that were declining..by building a new type of housing development.. Model Cities was a low lying complex spread out with small 3 to 4 story stuctures..enclosing parkland..simular to the previous NYCHA...only on a smaller scale. Plan had them located in Brooklyn..Bronx..Upper Manhattan.. On a MASSIVE SCALE..the Brooklyn plans had the entire Myrtle avenue corridor from Broadway to Jay st redeveloped into a "Model Cites neighborhood"..joining the already existing NYC HOUSING units. Several were built in the Downtown/Clinton Hill area.. Plans also called for the UPGRADING of the Myrtle Avenue elevated to handle ALL STEEL subway cars..along with a new car order called the R39.. Sad to say..none of this had a good ending as we know the rest of the story... In any case..driving riders away from a line in order to "PROVE" low ridership is a vile and underhanded thing to do...but the people in charge of the system during that time didn't really give a damn about how the system was handled..and figured LESS WAS MORE...DON'T LIKE IT?..TAKE THE BUS..OR buy a car like the NORMAL PEOPLE DO. The Lasting effects...or shall we say..the bad image and taste the MTA left us with is still lingering about like a bad cold that wont go away. Times have change,TODAY...and I can say this.. They are now trying to PRESERVE rather than destroy.. Why? I gather that NOW..people are NOT willing to allow Big Government to roll over them without a fight...and due to this..we still have the Jamaica Avenue El operating in Queens..unlike what the MTA WANTED TO DO..which was cut the line back to Cresent/Fulton st...with NO rail service to Jamaica. We can learn from the past. |
|
|
| (431025) | |
Re: Weekend additions of CPW service |
|
|
Posted by Grand concourse on Wed May 16 19:42:57 2007, in response to Re: Weekend additions of CPW service, posted by J trainloco on Tue May 15 11:30:57 2007. Make the D local - there's no need for that much express service on CPW. |
|
|
| (431060) | |
Re: Weekend additions of CPW service |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Wed May 16 20:05:38 2007, in response to Re: Weekend additions of CPW service, posted by E Line Fan on Tue May 15 11:28:44 2007. Prospect Park...145th st |
|
|
| (431067) | |
Re: Weekend additions of CPW service |
|
|
Posted by Osmosis Jones on Wed May 16 20:13:39 2007, in response to Re: Weekend additions of CPW service, posted by Grand concourse on Wed May 16 19:42:57 2007. Wouldn't (D) riders protest this? |
|
|
| (431073) | |
Re: Weekend additions of CPW service |
|
|
Posted by Railman718 on Wed May 16 20:17:49 2007, in response to Re: Weekend additions of CPW service, posted by Osmosis Jones on Wed May 16 20:13:39 2007. Let alone the Crews who work it... |
|
|
| (431093) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Wed May 16 20:32:36 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by RonInBayside on Wed May 16 08:53:42 2007. But, there are places where service is needed more desperately.If we were going to return to the days of the early 1900s, where we have all the $$ in the world to spend, then, I'd be in full support of a myrtle ave line. Otherwise, there are 10 or more projects I'd put ahead of it. |
|
|
| (431097) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Wed May 16 20:34:32 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed May 16 12:39:39 2007. Again, you're assuming the service cuts were a reaction to declining patronage.Which in this case, they were. Once connected to the IND, there was little reason to continue to operate a route that was treated as a stepchild even before the IND. |
|
|
| (431101) | |
Re: Weekend additions of CPW service |
|
|
Posted by CurAke79 on Wed May 16 20:36:15 2007, in response to Re: Weekend additions of CPW service, posted by Grand concourse on Wed May 16 19:42:57 2007. Yes the CPW need an express service....thats why the C is local on CPW....who the hell wants 2 sit on a local D all the way from Coney Island to 205th Street-Norwood |
|
|
| (431109) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Wed May 16 20:41:39 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by Edwards! on Wed May 16 18:52:34 2007. In this instance, I'm talking about Culver, which was pretty useless once the IND was connected. Even before then, all the Culver got was token service to Nassau st.The 60's brought about changes..the city was fallin apart and the transit system was suffering from neglect.. Several plans were drawn up to "replace" the OLD with the NEW..such as the remaining 3rd avenue el in the Bronx with a line over and along Park avenue[todays Metro North ROW] via a connection to the WEST FARMS LINE at 149th st,and a NEW SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY from Lower Manhattan to White Plains Road/241 st[taking over the IRT EL]. While these plans were being drawn..the city was trying to bring back Neighborhoods that were declining..by building a new type of housing development.. Model Cities was a low lying complex spread out with small 3 to 4 story stuctures..enclosing parkland..simular to the previous NYCHA...only on a smaller scale. Plan had them located in Brooklyn..Bronx..Upper Manhattan.. On a MASSIVE SCALE..the Brooklyn plans had the entire Myrtle avenue corridor from Broadway to Jay st redeveloped into a "Model Cites neighborhood"..joining the already existing NYC HOUSING units. Several were built in the Downtown/Clinton Hill area.. Plans also called for the UPGRADING of the Myrtle Avenue elevated to handle ALL STEEL subway cars..along with a new car order called the R39.. Sad to say..none of this had a good ending as we know the rest of the story... Model Cities was a terrible idea, but because of bad architecture, not bad motives. For once, political entities were down to invest large sums of money into the communities. And they did it using what was the wisdom of the day. LeCorbusier was, (and still is) one of the most important architects of all time, but it turns out his 'tower in the park' residential plan was terrible, taking life off the street and fostering a haven for crime. You can't blame people for spending money on what they thought was the best idea at the time. When It comes to Myrtle, I agree with you 100%: It should not have been demolished. It should have been hooked into Montague or Rutgers, or even the Manhattan bridge tracks. But now that it's gone, there are too many other far more important initiatives to get done (Even within Brooklyn; I'd rather see Utica Ave subway or Bay Ridge ROW service first). |
|
|
| (431128) | |
Re: Weekend additions of CPW service |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Wed May 16 21:08:34 2007, in response to Re: Weekend additions of CPW service, posted by CurAke79 on Wed May 16 20:36:15 2007. Only 2 people per train ride from Coney Island to 205th street. |
|
|
| (431173) | |
Re: Weekend additions of CPW service |
|
|
Posted by Grand concourse on Wed May 16 21:59:34 2007, in response to Re: Weekend additions of CPW service, posted by CurAke79 on Wed May 16 20:36:15 2007. For 7 more stops? The express isn't that fast or much of a time saver. The C at the very least should be 10-cars on the weekend when the B isn't running if they won't add extra trains. |
|
|
| (431177) | |
Re: Weekend additions of CPW service |
|
|
Posted by CurAke79 on Wed May 16 22:03:34 2007, in response to Re: Weekend additions of CPW service, posted by Grand concourse on Wed May 16 21:59:34 2007. Your right the C train should have an extra 2 cars added...but the A and D trains still need 2 run express....make no sense to have like 2-3 trains running on the local track |
|
|
| (431179) | |
Re: Weekend additions of CPW service |
|
|
Posted by Grand concourse on Wed May 16 22:09:10 2007, in response to Re: Weekend additions of CPW service, posted by CurAke79 on Wed May 16 22:03:34 2007. huh? |
|
|
| (431184) | |
Re: Weekend additions of CPW service |
|
|
Posted by CurAke79 on Wed May 16 22:21:54 2007, in response to Re: Weekend additions of CPW service, posted by Grand concourse on Wed May 16 22:09:10 2007. Sorry 4 the confusion...I was agreeing that the C train should have an extra 2 cars added...but the A and D trains still need 2 run express....it make no sense to have the A, C and D trains running on the local track on the weekends |
|
|
| (431188) | |
Re: Weekend additions of CPW service |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Wed May 16 22:22:59 2007, in response to Re: Weekend additions of CPW service, posted by CurAke79 on Wed May 16 22:21:54 2007. No one is saying have all the trains on the local. |
|
|
| (431281) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Thu May 17 00:19:41 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by J trainloco on Wed May 16 20:32:36 2007. There I agree with you. |
|
|
| (431309) | |
Re: Weekend additions of CPW service |
|
|
Posted by Grand concourse on Thu May 17 01:41:35 2007, in response to Re: Weekend additions of CPW service, posted by CurAke79 on Wed May 16 22:21:54 2007. Obviously if the C is local then the A will still run express, but for the D it can be switched to either the local or express track b4 swtiched to 6th Av.And what all local? The D runs express on 6th Av and 4th Av. It isn't going to be all local. Again for 7 stops CPW would benifit from more service than for the express to run past them. If they want express for 7 more stops then that's what the A is for. |
|
|
| (431310) | |
Re: Weekend additions of CPW service |
|
|
Posted by Grand concourse on Thu May 17 01:42:21 2007, in response to Re: Weekend additions of CPW service, posted by Edwards! on Wed May 16 20:05:38 2007. Exactly. |
|
|
| (431334) | |
Re: Weekend additions of CPW service |
|
|
Posted by Q Brightliner Harry on Thu May 17 02:43:06 2007, in response to Re: Weekend additions of CPW service, posted by Edwards! on Wed May 16 20:05:38 2007. Running it to Prospect Park would require fumigating it there. That might result in delaying the Q behind it. |
|
|
| (431391) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Thu May 17 08:25:17 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by RonInBayside on Wed May 16 08:54:23 2007. Soitanly!:) |
|
|
| (431394) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Thu May 17 08:32:35 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by Edwards! on Mon May 14 18:38:14 2007. The unrebuilt el could have supported steel subway cars in terms of gross weight, but not axle load. Running one subway train one time probably wouldn't have been cause for concern (unless it was a train of Triplexes), but doing so over a period of time could very well have caused the structure to collapse. |
|
|
| (431446) | |
Re: Weekend additions of CPW service |
|
|
Posted by E Line Fan on Thu May 17 10:29:17 2007, in response to Re: Weekend additions of CPW service, posted by Grand concourse on Wed May 16 21:59:34 2007. The best part of the expresses is from 125th Street to 59th Street. There they've a 66 block run. The locals themselves have a bit of a nice run from 72d Street to 59th Street. |
|
|
| (431447) | |
Re: Weekend additions of CPW service |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Thu May 17 10:32:48 2007, in response to Re: Weekend additions of CPW service, posted by Grand concourse on Thu May 17 01:41:35 2007. D shouldnt be express on 4th ave on weekends either. |
|
|
| (431451) | |
Re: Weekend additions of CPW service |
|
|
Posted by AMoreira81 on Thu May 17 10:40:54 2007, in response to Re: Weekend additions of CPW service, posted by R30A on Thu May 17 10:32:48 2007. People have been complaining about that en masse (with MAJOR complaints made from entire neighborhoods), but the MTA has stuck to its guns. |
|
|
| (431452) | |
Re: Weekend additions of CPW service |
|
|
Posted by Railman718 on Thu May 17 10:42:12 2007, in response to Re: Weekend additions of CPW service, posted by R30A on Thu May 17 10:32:48 2007. You already got the Nancy and Romeo trains stopping on 4th Ave why have three services on one track?Then have Drama at 36th street(where the Delta goes to the West End) if a train has issues.. |
|
|
| (431453) | |
Re: Weekend additions of CPW service |
|
|
Posted by Railman718 on Thu May 17 10:43:35 2007, in response to Re: Weekend additions of CPW service, posted by R30A on Thu May 17 10:32:48 2007. In addition you are also talking about changing the Work Programs when you do this as well,this costs money and time. |
|
|
| (431458) | |
Re: Weekend additions of CPW service |
|
|
Posted by Q Brightliner Harry on Thu May 17 10:58:35 2007, in response to Re: Weekend additions of CPW service, posted by Grand concourse on Wed May 16 21:59:34 2007. Are there crush loads on the C on weekends? If not, the length of the train matters little. The frequency is important. The cheapest way of increasing CPW local service during off hours would probably be to run the D as a local when the B is not running. |
|
|
| (431460) | |
Re: Weekend additions of CPW service |
|
|
Posted by AMoreira81 on Thu May 17 11:02:12 2007, in response to Re: Weekend additions of CPW service, posted by Railman718 on Thu May 17 10:43:35 2007. A rather insignificant amount of money, however, in the big picture. If the MTA can't afford that, then it needs to get its house in order. |
|
|
| (431489) | |
Re: Weekend additions of CPW service |
|
|
Posted by E Line Fan on Thu May 17 11:44:28 2007, in response to Re: Weekend additions of CPW service, posted by Q Brightliner Harry on Thu May 17 10:58:35 2007. A CPW version of the old Brighton Line service pattern? |
|
|
| (431491) | |
Re: Weekend additions of CPW service |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Thu May 17 11:47:06 2007, in response to Re: Weekend additions of CPW service, posted by Q Brightliner Harry on Thu May 17 10:58:35 2007. Yes, they are, but I doubt they would be if the D were local. |
|
|
| (431506) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Thu May 17 12:14:34 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by J trainloco on Wed May 16 20:41:39 2007. When It comes to Myrtle, I agree with you 100%: It should not have been demolished. It should have been hooked into Montague or Rutgers, or even the Manhattan bridge tracks. It didn't even need that. It was useful just running between Metropolitan Ave and Bridge St. |
|
|
| (431508) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Thu May 17 12:16:54 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by J trainloco on Wed May 16 20:34:32 2007. Because the bulk of the service was diverted elsewhere. Trains were not lost. With regards to both Myrtle and 3rd Ave, trains WERE lost and it's riders forced onto alternative rail or replacement bus routes. |
|
|
| (431536) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Thu May 17 12:50:45 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Thu May 17 12:16:54 2007. Good comparison. |
|
|
| (431645) | |
Re: Weekend additions of CPW service |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Thu May 17 15:45:14 2007, in response to Re: Weekend additions of CPW service, posted by R30A on Thu May 17 11:47:06 2007. I rarely observe crush loaded C trains on the weekends. Usually, they do get a little more packed than they should for 2 stops. But not crush loaded. |
|
|
| (431781) | |
Re: Weekend additions of CPW service |
|
|
Posted by Grand concourse on Thu May 17 19:57:28 2007, in response to Re: Weekend additions of CPW service, posted by Q Brightliner Harry on Thu May 17 02:43:06 2007. Prospect Park is the only place till all the way down to Kings Hgwy that has switches. And they are not running the B express all the way down or local.Besides J/M trains terminate there whenever the 4 is cut back to Bowling Green on the weekends due to GO's. B ending there will not be that bad. |
|
|
| (431788) | |
Re: Weekend additions of CPW service |
|
|
Posted by New Flyer #857 on Thu May 17 20:10:50 2007, in response to Re: Weekend additions of CPW service, posted by Railman718 on Thu May 17 10:42:12 2007. No. R trains only on the 4th Ave Local on weekend daytime hours. |
|
|
| (431840) | |
Re: Weekend additions of CPW service |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Thu May 17 21:53:10 2007, in response to Re: Weekend additions of CPW service, posted by R30A on Thu May 17 10:32:48 2007. Why not? |
|
|
| (431865) | |
Re: 3rd Avenue El being torn down |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Thu May 17 22:25:31 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed May 16 12:39:39 2007. But there were other factors with the 3rd Avenue El as well:The entire neighborhood of 3rd Avenue in Manhattan was changing then, and many of the older buildings over time would be replaced by newer high-rises. It also as I understood it made much of the east side (east of 3rd avenue) safer, as many people who would have never lived there before the El came down moved into that part of Manhattan as I understood it. It would be great now if the Els had been retained and were still standing, but you have to remember what the mentality was in the '50s. |
|
|
| (431873) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by Wayne-MrSlantR40 on Thu May 17 22:34:45 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by Grand concourse on Fri May 11 18:49:52 2007. The dark brown all over everything does NOT help matters.wayne |
|
|
| (431887) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Thu May 17 22:48:06 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by Grand concourse on Fri May 11 18:49:52 2007. It was a dark cave as far back as the day it opened (I was there). I also really wish they'd remove the coverings over the windows at Jamaica/Van Wyck. That station looks better with daylight shining in. |
|
|
| (431891) | |
Re: 3rd Avenue El being torn down |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Thu May 17 22:52:45 2007, in response to Re: 3rd Avenue El being torn down, posted by Wallyhorse on Thu May 17 22:25:31 2007. I understand why the el had to go. It was old and obsolete. But it should have remained in service until the SAS was built. That fact would have spurred construction of this line decades ago. I still don't understand why the 3rd Ave el wasn't torn down in 1942 and the 2nd Ave. el retained. It was a newer structure, had connections to Queens lines and was a long block further to the east. Even today, 3rd Ave and 2nd Ave are totally different in character. 3rd Ave. is commercial, 2nd more residential. |
|
|
| (431909) | |
Re: 3rd Avenue El being torn down |
|
|
Posted by E Line Fan on Thu May 17 23:13:48 2007, in response to Re: 3rd Avenue El being torn down, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Thu May 17 22:52:45 2007. Okay, the Third Avenue El was elderly - but from 1970 until April 29, 1973 the R12s were on it - why couldn't the R15s logically follow? You want elderly - there's a section of the Broadway El that is still in use today, 114 years after opening. |
|
|
| (431920) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Thu May 17 23:36:28 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by J trainloco on Wed May 16 20:34:32 2007. even before the IND?Ground was broken for it in 1925...so you are saying it was "treated like a stepchild" BEFORE THAT? |
|
|
| (431940) | |
Re: Weekend additions of CPW service |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Fri May 18 00:14:46 2007, in response to Re: Weekend additions of CPW service, posted by AMoreira81 on Thu May 17 10:40:54 2007. What people are complaining?I ride the 4th ave local often..and haven't heard anything like what you state. |
|
|
| (431942) | |
Re: Weekend additions of CPW service |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Fri May 18 00:15:19 2007, in response to Re: Weekend additions of CPW service, posted by New Flyer #857 on Thu May 17 20:10:50 2007. That why there should be extra M service. |
|
|
| (431954) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Fri May 18 00:45:10 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by RonInBayside on Tue May 15 11:42:27 2007. While having a subway under Myrtle Avenue would be cool..thinking about the construction leaves a bad taste in my mouth.But an arial structure wouldn't be objected to if it pleasing to the eye. |
|
|
| (432100) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Fri May 18 08:06:09 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by Wayne-MrSlantR40 on Thu May 17 22:34:45 2007. Eeeewwwwwwww!! |
|
|
|
Page 15 of 16 |
||
