|
|
| Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle (428152) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 5 of 16 |
||
|
| (428757) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Sat May 12 17:45:21 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by J trainloco on Fri May 11 22:23:58 2007. "If the need arose..."It was outlined in PHASE 2 of the 10 year plan in 1968 that Parsons would only serve as the interm terminal for the Jamaica line. |
|
|
| (428758) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Sat May 12 17:46:34 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by RonInBayside on Fri May 11 21:17:06 2007. Bravo. |
|
|
| (428759) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Sat May 12 17:51:52 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by RonInBayside on Sat May 12 16:26:58 2007. You can do better than that. Just google him. |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (428763) | |
Re: Increasing QB capacity |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Sat May 12 17:54:30 2007, in response to Re: Increasing QB capacity, posted by Grand concourse on Sat May 12 16:50:32 2007. Well..it IS the truth. |
|
|
| (428777) | |
Re: Increasing QB capacity |
|
|
Posted by AMoreira81 on Sat May 12 18:41:28 2007, in response to Re: Increasing QB capacity, posted by Ian Lennon on Fri May 11 22:46:34 2007. And passengers who have to be woken up, because they were resting after a hard day at work. |
|
|
| (428778) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by AMoreira81 on Sat May 12 18:43:09 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by RonInBayside on Sat May 12 16:17:00 2007. However, it REDUCES revenue per vehicle mile, which should matter more. |
|
|
| (428796) | |
Re: Increasing QB capacity |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Sat May 12 19:24:31 2007, in response to Re: Increasing QB capacity, posted by South Brooklyn Railway on Sat May 12 17:10:16 2007. Yes! And turkey drumsticks... |
|
|
| (428797) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Sat May 12 19:30:28 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by Stephen Bauman on Sat May 12 17:51:52 2007. Biography from S9 dot comDave Pirmann's site, which disagrees with your interpretation: "On September 10th, 1977, the Jamaica Elevated was permanently closed between Queens Blvd and 168th Street. The last revenue train left 168th Street at 12 midnight. Oddly, it was the politicians and the businesses in the area that wanted the El closed before the Archer Avenue subway would open. The TA really wasn't interested in tearing it down. In fact, on September 20th, the TA ordered demolition of the structure to stop and they wanted to determine the cost of restoring the service. The moratorium didn't last long, for demolition was resumed in October. Ironically, Macy's announced the impending closure of their Jamaica store shortly after El service ended." Member of board of JWT advertising |
|
|
| (428827) | |
Re: Increasing QB capacity |
|
|
Posted by Railman718 on Sat May 12 20:24:25 2007, in response to Re: Increasing QB capacity, posted by Bill from Maspeth on Sat May 12 17:17:04 2007. I agree with you 110% Bill..Until you experience these things frist hand you will never know.. |
|
|
| (428837) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sat May 12 20:34:06 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sat May 12 12:19:33 2007. Yes, you are right, it would have had to have been rebuilt....but of course, not anything too extreme. Yes, the stations would have had to have been redone, but don't forget, Fort Hamilton and 13th were built no differently than any of the other F line stations on it's el, it's just that they weren't maintained. However, most of the other current F stations were rebuilt anyway over time. And of course the track structure, but again, that wasn't anything they didn't have to do on most of the other lines in the 80's either... |
|
|
| (428840) | |
Re: M Train in Brooklyn (Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sat May 12 20:37:44 2007, in response to Re: M Train in Brooklyn (Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sat May 12 15:47:35 2007. Yeah, the M is mostly needed on 4th Ave, not the West End El. The M via the Culver route terminating at Ditmas would have made much more sense, as not only would it serve 4th AVe just like it does now....it also would have given F riders a nice option to Broadway via the M (and same platform transfer), but also for F riders down for the FInancial district, via Nassau St. |
|
|
| (428846) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Sat May 12 21:26:30 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by RonInBayside on Sat May 12 19:30:28 2007. This is so funny..This man knew absolutely NOTHING about running the system..and during his leadership,the system suffered even More than before. He even ADMITTED he had no idea why they[the governor] appointed him to head the MTA... |
|
|
| (428847) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sat May 12 21:36:56 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by RonInBayside on Sat May 12 13:54:26 2007. You really are mentally ill aren't you? |
|
|
| (428849) | |
Re: M Train in Brooklyn (Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by Bzuck on Sat May 12 21:44:12 2007, in response to Re: M Train in Brooklyn (Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sat May 12 20:37:44 2007. I agree - but it will never happen |
|
|
| (428850) | |
Re: M Train in Brooklyn (Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sat May 12 21:45:25 2007, in response to Re: M Train in Brooklyn (Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by Bzuck on Sat May 12 21:44:12 2007. Well of course...the line has been torn down... |
|
|
| (428851) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Sat May 12 21:46:47 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by RonInBayside on Sat May 12 16:20:12 2007. Button Pushing,Ron?Lets say we stick with this issue..and sum up whats going on here.. Macy's was the CORE LEADER as to having the EL removed in the JAMAICA BUSINESS DISTRICT...Not the SOLE leader...that much IS clear. What matters here is why the MTA caved into the business intrest..instead of doing whats best for its everyday riders. Whats best is keeping the EL open..untill the Archer subway connection could be made. Amazing,how this went bad so quickly. |
|
|
| (428852) | |
Re: M Train in Brooklyn (Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Sat May 12 21:47:28 2007, in response to Re: M Train in Brooklyn (Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sat May 12 21:45:25 2007. With no chance of being revived. |
|
|
| (428853) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by David of Broadway on Sat May 12 21:48:09 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by J trainloco on Fri May 11 22:47:05 2007. That's right. |
|
|
| (428854) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sat May 12 21:48:19 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sat May 12 16:04:52 2007. YEah, what a ridiculous station for a terminal.... Sutphin would have been so much more logical. |
|
|
| (428855) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sat May 12 21:49:54 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by RonInBayside on Sat May 12 16:11:43 2007. The E would be the more logical line to extend, if not doing both. |
|
|
| (428859) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by Grand concourse on Sat May 12 21:59:53 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sat May 12 21:49:54 2007. Extend the E, but maybe they should connect the J/Z to the E as non revenue. |
|
|
| (428862) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by David of Broadway on Sat May 12 22:04:02 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by RonInBayside on Fri May 11 21:17:06 2007. That's right. He cites no sources. And neither do you. As I said, "He's cited as many TA sources as you have."Unlike you, however, he presents his arguments without resort to ad hominem attacks. |
|
|
| (428863) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Sat May 12 22:04:59 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by Grand concourse on Sat May 12 21:59:53 2007. Perhaps..but the tunnels shift after Parsons...the upper turns south,and the lower continues along Archer. |
|
|
| (428866) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by Grand concourse on Sat May 12 22:17:57 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by Edwards! on Sat May 12 22:04:59 2007. They can always abandon that spur and have it to go strait along Archer - assuming that is the direction of the extension. |
|
|
| (428868) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by David of Broadway on Sat May 12 22:24:10 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sat May 12 12:19:33 2007. Has it occurred to anyone that (a) the D alone might not adequately serve the West End line, and (b) some West End passengers might find a direct service to lower Manhattan convenient?In fact, the M could easily turn at 9th Avenue. Instead it continues down to Bay Parkway. I suggest that, perhaps, there's a reason! |
|
|
| (428872) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Sat May 12 22:43:14 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by David of Broadway on Sat May 12 22:24:10 2007. Hummm..Could it be also,that some guy in the RTO thought it would be a good idea to revive the old TT Chambers st service? This was the plan before the Manny B shuffle during the 80's. It called for a rush hour service from the West End..to Chambers st under the name of the T LINE. The Manny B problem changed this..and the M line was sent down the West End instead..for good,as it seems. I though the idea sucked THEN..and I think it sucks NOW. What CAN be done...is increase the D trains TPH to what it USE to be..short turn some of them at Bay Pky... The M can be turned at Broad st..and extend the J to 95th during the Middays and evenings. |
|
|
| (428876) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by SLRT on Sat May 12 22:50:28 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. Please don't forget: Culver Shuttle Closes in The Third Rail. |
|
|
| (428877) | |
Re: M Train in Brooklyn (Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by David of Broadway on Sat May 12 22:53:14 2007, in response to Re: M Train in Brooklyn (Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sat May 12 15:47:35 2007. And Broadway.Not to mention intra-Brooklyn passengers. |
|
|
| (428879) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by Dand124 on Sat May 12 22:56:33 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by RonInBayside on Fri May 11 13:51:16 2007. On the other hand, the loss of the Myrtle El was not good. I'd favor a new underground subway to restore that service.Why? the G train is only about quarter mile away. |
|
|
| (428880) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by Dand124 on Sat May 12 22:56:43 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by RonInBayside on Fri May 11 13:51:16 2007. On the other hand, the loss of the Myrtle El was not good. I'd favor a new underground subway to restore that service.Why? the G train is only about a quarter mile away. |
|
|
| (428881) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sat May 12 22:58:05 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by Dand124 on Sat May 12 22:56:43 2007. The is not a replacement, and does not serve the same people the Myrtle El did. |
|
|
| (428884) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by Dand124 on Sat May 12 23:01:43 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sat May 12 22:58:05 2007. Why not? The two lines are very close. |
|
|
| (428887) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sat May 12 23:10:50 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by Dand124 on Sat May 12 23:01:43 2007. Just try and catch the G train from the M or J, the neighborhoods served by the old Myrtle to Downtown Brooklyn, and see if the G is a "replacement". |
|
|
| (428888) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by David of Broadway on Sat May 12 23:11:47 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by Edwards! on Sat May 12 22:43:14 2007. RTO doesn't decide on service patterns. OP does.And OP doesn't select service patterns based on nostalgia. Does the D in Manhattan and the Bronx need more service than it already has? Can the 4th Avenue, 6th Avenue, and CPW expresses handle more service than they already have? Can Gold Street and 59 and 145 and 205 deal with more trains than they already deal with? Why on earth does Bay Ridge need extra service -- the J, no less! -- middays and evenings? Oh, and what problem, precisely, are you trying to solve here? |
|
|
| (428892) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by Newkirk Plaza David on Sat May 12 23:24:26 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by Edwards! on Sat May 12 22:43:14 2007. Funny, you said in a previous post about how the QJ Jamaica-Coney Island sucked because of the length of the route, and crews hated it, yet you advocate and equally long and useless route from Jamaica to Bay Ridge, a la RJ.Where on earth does 4th Ave need two local services during non-rush hours? |
|
|
| (428893) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by Dand124 on Sat May 12 23:24:41 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sat May 12 23:10:50 2007. While I'm sure some of the people who used the El were headed to downtown Brooklyn, I'd imagine the vast majority transferred towards Manhattan at Jay Street. I don't think providing a direct link between the J and M trains and Downtown Brooklyn is a priority. |
|
|
| (428894) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sat May 12 23:29:03 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by Dand124 on Sat May 12 23:24:41 2007. Maybe, maybe not, but either way, the G is not a replacement line for what was once there....served completely different people and purposes. |
|
|
| (428899) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by AMoreira81 on Sat May 12 23:47:25 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by David of Broadway on Sat May 12 23:11:47 2007. Actually, on weekends, the C does need help on weekends...help that could be provided by the D running local on CPW. (The particular area is the Museum of Natural History that warrants more service.) |
|
|
| (428900) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by David of Broadway on Sat May 12 23:49:40 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by AMoreira81 on Sat May 12 23:47:25 2007. More than one station on CPW needs more weekend service, IMO.But what does that have to do with rush hours (i.e., the times that the M currently runs to Bay Parkway)? |
|
|
| (428901) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by AMoreira81 on Sat May 12 23:51:38 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by David of Broadway on Sat May 12 23:49:40 2007. There are other things that need to be improved too...things that OP doesn't see the cost/benefit in...such as extending the C to Lefferts Boulevard and running the A only to the Rockaways (fewer A trains needed to provide more service). |
|
|
| (428902) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by David of Broadway on Sat May 12 23:57:37 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by AMoreira81 on Sat May 12 23:51:38 2007. I'm not sure what you mean. It's a longer trip to the Rockaways than to Lefferts. What you propose (whether it's a good idea or a bad idea) would increase costs quite a bit (assuming current A and C headways are maintained). |
|
|
| (428903) | |
The (M) and the (QB) Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by E Line Fan on Sun May 13 00:03:13 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri May 11 13:54:33 2007. In the end, the Culver Shuttle was using one track. If the M.T.A. had restored the second track and ran the (M) Metropolitan Avenue - Ditmas Avenue, would the (QB) have been expanded to a 6am to an 8pm weekdays route or more likely would the (QB) have become the Brighton Express and the (D) the Brighton Local? |
|
|
| (428921) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Sun May 13 00:25:08 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by David of Broadway on Sat May 12 23:11:47 2007. Nothing,silly boy.Just one of the "facts" that You folks toss around so often.. My little tid bit just happens to be based on some truth. Grow up. |
|
|
| (428924) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by TheGreatOne2k7 on Sun May 13 00:27:43 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by David of Broadway on Sat May 12 23:11:47 2007. The (D) could use a bit more service during middays, since it can get crowded, maybe 8 minute headways during middays instead of 10 minute headways.I also saw somewhere that the (D) could be crowded during evenings, if this is true, running the last 5 (B) trains in service to the Bronx (since they are running to the yard anyway, like the last 3 (W) trains running to Brooklyn) could help that. The (D) also has a problem staying on schedule, since I have had to wait more than 10 minutes several times (not late evening or late night either). (D) is even worse when several (B)s show up at 145 and no (D)s show up for a while. |
|
|
| (428925) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by David of Broadway on Sun May 13 00:28:32 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by Edwards! on Sun May 13 00:25:08 2007. Boy, you won that argument hands down! |
|
|
| (428928) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Sun May 13 00:31:44 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by Dand124 on Sat May 12 23:24:41 2007. Maybe thats the problem here...you're not thinking. |
|
|
| (428931) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by TheGreatOne2k7 on Sun May 13 00:35:32 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by Edwards! on Sat May 12 22:43:14 2007. Running the (J) to Bay Ridge-95th St during late nights would eliminate the (R) shuttle service and would allow the (D) (and maybe the (N)) to run express on 4 Av 24/7. Maybe the (J) or (M) could run to Bay Ridge in place of the (R). (R) could terminate at 9 Av on weekdays and Whitehall St on weekends. This also means that Broad Street would be open regularly on weekends again. This would give all south Brooklyn branches 24/7 service to Manhattan, also good for Staten Island residents who travel through Brooklyn to get the bus to go to SI. |
|
|
| (428935) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Sun May 13 00:49:07 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by David of Broadway on Sun May 13 00:28:32 2007. stop selling yourself short.You "base your bullshit" on the same bullshit everyone else does. Does that make you special..? No..but unlike some of Us...You and a few others go to extremes to "prove" that "Your" special kind of BULLSHIT holds more weight,than ALL the rest of us. Save it.. You don't WORK for the MTA.. You are JUST A USER of a service,trying be the spam. Shut up. |
|
|
| (428937) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Sun May 13 00:50:46 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by Edwards! on Sun May 13 00:49:07 2007. LOL |
|
|
| (428938) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Sun May 13 00:51:37 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by Edwards! on Sun May 13 00:49:07 2007. You and a few others go to extremes to "prove" that "Your" special kind of BULLSHIT holds more weight,than ALL the rest of us.Um, the points David raised are 100% valid. Why don't you stop acting so immature? |
|
|
|
Page 5 of 16 |
||
