|
|
| Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle (428152) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 12 of 16 |
||
|
| (429624) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Mon May 14 01:28:14 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by E Line Fan on Mon May 14 00:42:10 2007. Rutgers: The line would turn right onto Flatbush, sharing a ROW with the Existing tracks to the Bridge, and then extend under that until the manhattan Br. crosses Jay, where the lines would merge. Ideally, a tie in would be constructed to DeKalb as well.Montague: Line turns left under Ashland/Navy, then right onto Willoughby. Connects to the line at flatbush ave ext. |
|
|
| (429625) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Mon May 14 01:29:02 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by SMAZ on Mon May 14 00:59:52 2007. ....Service patterns can be adjusted you know. |
|
|
| (429627) | |
Re: Increasing QB capacity |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Mon May 14 01:30:33 2007, in response to Re: Increasing QB capacity, posted by TheGreatOne2k7 on Mon May 14 01:22:16 2007. No he didn't. BG is not an exception, at least not on paper. |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (429634) | |
Re: Increasing QB capacity |
|
|
Posted by TheGreatOne2k7 on Mon May 14 01:38:52 2007, in response to Re: Increasing QB capacity, posted by J trainloco on Mon May 14 01:30:33 2007. He did in another post (not in this thread) months ago |
|
|
| (429665) | |
Re: Increasing QB capacity |
|
|
Posted by stephenk on Mon May 14 03:32:03 2007, in response to Re: Increasing QB capacity, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun May 13 16:09:08 2007. "Do other systems require train operators to pull outside of a terminal, then walk the length of the train so that it can pull back in from the reverse end?"These are the relay methods used for some metro system which do NOT fumigate their trains at relay termini. The following systems have drivers change ends using a narrow platform alongside the relay track:- Paris Vienna Berlin Prague Montreal Santiago The following systems have drivers at both ends of the train:- Madrid Paris Moscow St Petersburg Santiago Prague The following systems reverse trains automatically:- Vienna (unattended) Paris (unattended) Hong Kong (? attended) Madrid (driver in outbound cab only) Lyon (unattended) Many metro systems are repeated above, as they have different policies for different times of day, and different termini. |
|
|
| (429666) | |
Re: Increasing QB capacity |
|
|
Posted by stephenk on Mon May 14 03:37:56 2007, in response to Re: Increasing QB capacity, posted by Broadway Lion on Sun May 13 12:23:09 2007. At some Tokyo Metro termini, they have a member of fumigation staff per car. I have observed a train being fumigated in just 20seconds during the rush hour!However, I can't see MTA paying for up to 10 staff per shift at a relay terminal! |
|
|
| (429676) | |
Re: Increasing QB capacity |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Mon May 14 05:14:29 2007, in response to Re: Increasing QB capacity, posted by stephenk on Mon May 14 03:37:56 2007. You only need it during rush hours. |
|
|
| (429688) | |
Re: Increasing QB capacity |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Mon May 14 06:53:34 2007, in response to Re: Increasing QB capacity, posted by Railman718 on Sun May 13 21:11:26 2007. Beacuse this is who we work for thats why, things can change from District to District even though it shouldnt be the case..I don't disagree that you have to follow the rules even if they seem a bit silly. But Bill was giving a specific justification for a policy, and I was wondering how that justification made sense. If you're saying that it doesn't make sense, that's fine. But Bill was certainly implying that the justification did make sense. |
|
|
| (429692) | |
Re: Increasing QB capacity |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon May 14 07:04:25 2007, in response to Re: Increasing QB capacity, posted by RonInBayside on Sun May 13 13:39:16 2007. What do R32s have to do with this conversation about 205th St? |
|
|
| (429700) | |
Re: Increasing QB capacity |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Mon May 14 07:39:32 2007, in response to Re: Increasing QB capacity, posted by J trainloco on Mon May 14 05:14:29 2007. You only need it during rush hours.Hiring part timers is not an option. Split shifts are not an option. If you want extra fumigation conductors, then you must pay for two eight hour shifts per conductor to cover both morning and evening rush hours. |
|
|
| (429707) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .Try a new a new theory |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Mon May 14 08:12:50 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .Try a new a new theory, posted by BMTLines on Sun May 13 23:23:48 2007. "I don't think it would have mattered - they lost the walk-in traffic generated by the El -"When the El closed, that's true. Again, not sure what Macy's was thinking. "when the subway moved to Archer Ave people got on their buses there to continue their rides home and did not go out of their way to visit the stores." False. Macy's had already closed by then. The loss if shoppers was due to no subway at all (the subway ended at 121 st). Archer Av stations brought the shoppers back. They are not out of the way at all for stores on parallel blocks of Jamaica Avenue, as even casual observation will tell you. There is no station at Archer/Merrick (equivalent of 168/Jamaica), and I agree there was some impact there, as it shifted the center of the CBD slightly west. The TA rerouted buses to a new set of shelters along Jamaica Center's footprint but they are not taking shoppers away from stores. Just the opposite - the stores are benefitting from the transit system's bringing them in from all directions. |
|
|
| (429709) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Mon May 14 08:18:29 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by J trainloco on Sun May 13 23:48:28 2007. True.When I had meetings in Lower Manhattan in 2004, the J was my train. It took me directly to my meeetings. I got off at Foley Square and walked 3 short blocks. I would have liked express service better, but the time wasn't bad at all. I tried using the J and transferring to the Lex to go to Midtown. That actually worked OK too, but the problem was that my bus ride to get to Jamaica Center was longer than the bus ride to get to Main Street - Flushing. Sowhen I went tomidtown meetings my preferred train was the 7. |
|
|
| (429710) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Mon May 14 08:22:16 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by J trainloco on Mon May 14 01:29:02 2007. I agree. Hook up the tunnels. Worstcase: Run the new Myrtle train to Brooklyn at first, figure out a new service pattern (have lots of meetings where people scream at you to tell you how sucky your planning is), then extend the train toManhattan and make everyone equally unhappy.There's no such thing as people who are actually satisfied at a hearing about transit. The municipal code requires you to be unhappy and tell MTA "You guys suck" or they throw you out of the meeting. 8-) |
|
|
| (429711) | |
Re: M Train in Brooklyn (Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by Mr. D - TYPE on Mon May 14 08:23:03 2007, in response to Re: M Train in Brooklyn (Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by Bzuck on Sun May 13 09:41:07 2007. My thoughts, D = runs express inBrooklyn to / from Bay Parkway peak hours - which is possible since the middle track is reverseable and therefore dual signaled, while the m runs local to coney. Nassau street service is very underutilized.If any line in Brooklyn deserved 24 / 7 express service, it would be the Brighton line. I have been on Brrighton trains [ Q / D ] @ 11 p.m. that looked like rush hour. |
|
|
| (429712) | |
Re: Increasing QB capacity |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Mon May 14 08:24:36 2007, in response to Re: Increasing QB capacity, posted by Stephen Bauman on Mon May 14 07:39:32 2007. Agreed. TWU will not agree to any other scheme. |
|
|
| (429714) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Mon May 14 08:27:32 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sat May 12 12:09:53 2007. Another Chambers St. in the making? |
|
|
| (429715) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Mon May 14 08:28:41 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by Wayne-MrSlantR40 on Fri May 11 18:37:30 2007. Call the plumbers!Send for the lifeguards! Man the oars! |
|
|
| (429717) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Mon May 14 08:33:46 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sat May 12 12:09:53 2007. That's horrible.One of the biggest expenses of building subway and commuter rail tunnels in western Queens is ground water mitigation. That's why MTA has to spend zillions building slurry walls everywhere. East Side Access is doing that. A nice chunk of the $645 million Connector project did that. Maybe the TA did NOT spend enough doing that when the original extension opened in 1989. I wonder if it's even possible to keep water out 100%. A lot of tunnels have small leaks in them all the time. You have to patrol them with maintenance crews, always plugging leaks when you find them. |
|
|
| (429718) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Mon May 14 08:35:43 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by Wayne-MrSlantR40 on Fri May 11 18:37:30 2007. If it belongs to the city, who knows how long the city would take to get around to it.Maybe people who use the station should call 311 and bug the city until it does something. Squeaky wheel gets the grease... |
|
|
| (429722) | |
Re: Increasing QB capacity |
|
|
Posted by David of Broadway on Mon May 14 08:43:45 2007, in response to Re: Increasing QB capacity, posted by J trainloco on Mon May 14 01:30:33 2007. I could be wrong, but I think that's right. |
|
|
| (429724) | |
Re: M Train in Brooklyn (Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by David of Broadway on Mon May 14 08:53:51 2007, in response to Re: M Train in Brooklyn (Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by Mr. D - TYPE on Mon May 14 08:23:03 2007. Yes, that's a brilliant idea. Take away Midtown access from most users of the line so that a few lucky ones can save four minutes.I ride the Brighton line northbound around the end of the service day for the B -- I'm usually on the 20:25 or 20:35 B or on one of the Q's in that vicinity. Neither the B nor the Q has more than a few passengers in each car. Going southbound, of course the trains are a bit more crowded, but I rarely see more than a few standees in each car. |
|
|
| (429725) | |
Re: The (M) and the (QB) Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Mon May 14 09:04:56 2007, in response to Re: The (M) and the (QB) Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by E Line Fan on Sun May 13 19:59:32 2007. Since Brighton locals operated via tunnel during certain hours and bridge other times, the TA decided to distinguish them by designating the tunnel version the QT and the bridge version the QB. These local services did not operate at the same time - it was either one or the other. The QT operated at the same time as the Q - roughly 6 AM to 7 PM on weekdays. The QB ran when the Q and QT did not operate. In other words, the QB held down the fort during evenings, nights and weekends and made all local stops.With the opening of the Chrystie St. connection, the Q and QT ceased to be and the QB became a rush hour, peak direction service that ran express in Manhattan and local in Brooklyn. From November 27, 1967 to August 16, 1968 it terminated at Brighton Beach. On August 19, it was extended to Coney Island and the D began terminating at Brighton Beach when it ran express in Brooklyn. As has been documented, the new routings that were part of Chrystie St. meant no more Broadway service on the Brighton except during rush hours. Hard to believe it took as long as it did to finally get it straightened out. |
|
|
| (429728) | |
Re: Increasing QB capacity |
|
|
Posted by AMoreira81 on Mon May 14 09:13:20 2007, in response to Re: Increasing QB capacity, posted by TheGreatOne2k7 on Mon May 14 01:22:16 2007. Bowling Green, however, isn't always the case. A train could go OOS at Bowling Green and then proceed up the West Side to get to the yard. |
|
|
| (429732) | |
Re: Increasing QB capacity |
|
|
Posted by Fytton on Mon May 14 09:33:32 2007, in response to Re: Increasing QB capacity, posted by RonInBayside on Mon May 14 08:24:36 2007. People on this board don't always distinguish between different sorts of 'impossible'. 'Contrary to the laws of physics' is really impossible. 'Unconstitutional', in a US context, is close to impossible. 'Illegal' (like running light rail and freight on the same tracks without a time separation) could be altered by a future legislature. 'Contrary to MTA regulations' could be altered by a future MTA management, possibly needing legislative approval, possibly not. 'The TWU won't agree to it' could be changed by a future, different TWU leadership, or (less desirably) by a future ruthless union-busting management.Because so many people can't see the difference between the different kinds of impossible, we get posters here saying that things that are happily done on other US transit systems, or on successful transit systems in other countries, are 'impossible' ever to implement in NYC. It's not so. |
|
|
| (429733) | |
Re: Increasing QB capacity |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Mon May 14 09:35:20 2007, in response to Re: Increasing QB capacity, posted by Fytton on Mon May 14 09:33:32 2007. OK. I accept your logic."Unlikely," "against the odds," or "uphill battle" might be descriptions that are more appropriate. |
|
|
| (429734) | |
Re: Increasing QB capacity |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Mon May 14 09:36:56 2007, in response to Re: Increasing QB capacity, posted by TheGreatOne2k7 on Mon May 14 01:38:52 2007. Yes, I believe he did, but I've never heard of anyone trying it. |
|
|
| (429735) | |
Re: Increasing QB capacity |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Mon May 14 09:39:36 2007, in response to Re: Increasing QB capacity, posted by Fytton on Mon May 14 09:33:32 2007. People on this board don't always distinguish between different sorts of 'impossible'.Agreed. In this context, I doubt anything will change. MTA management is not going to make a huge fuss with the union to get a work rules change that won't save it much money. In other contexts, it definitely irritates me when people say things are impossible just because they are politically very difficult. The best example is Metro North access to Penn after ESA is done. Yes, it's politically very tricky. But as the west side gets more developed an increasing number of NY constituents really want it, which may be enough of an impetus for the MTA to make it happen. |
|
|
| (429737) | |
Re: Increasing QB capacity |
|
|
Posted by MJF on Mon May 14 09:43:57 2007, in response to Re: Increasing QB capacity, posted by David of Broadway on Sun May 13 22:40:44 2007. Let's not nitpick the term "revenue trackage." The BB loop is revenue trackage because it's considered the route of service. The examples you sighted for Parkchester and Bay Parkway will take a regularly scheduled train off it's route. Not part of the regular service. |
|
|
| (429738) | |
Re: Increasing QB capacity |
|
|
Posted by David of Broadway on Mon May 14 09:47:42 2007, in response to Re: Increasing QB capacity, posted by MJF on Mon May 14 09:43:57 2007. The relays (with the exception of City Hall) are not along the scheduled routes -- that's correct. But the trackage is certainly available for revenue service. The issue at hand is not one of revenue trackage. |
|
|
| (429739) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .Try a new a new theory |
|
|
Posted by MJF on Mon May 14 09:50:24 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .Try a new a new theory, posted by RonInBayside on Sun May 13 23:16:13 2007. If the merchants in Jamaica thought the TA would be forced to speed up implementation of Archer Av they took a gamble and lost. I can't imagine that the Jamaicaa Chamber of Commerce and the area merchants would take that risk in the name of brightening up the look of Jamaica Avenue.I'm not taking one side over another on this matter. I'd just like to hear a plausible theory on why anyone would want to cut off subway service to a shopping district. |
|
|
| (429744) | |
Re: Increasing QB capacity |
|
|
Posted by AMoreira81 on Mon May 14 09:56:39 2007, in response to Re: Increasing QB capacity, posted by Fytton on Mon May 14 09:33:32 2007. However, in New York State, unions basically own the legislature, and a union-busting manager would probably be what results in the ELIMINATION of the Taylor Law.The union is in the pockets of our Legislature. Union-busting management would result in a likely (illegal) strike that would probably only be resolved by the dissolution of that agency and a new agency taking it over. The state wants to keep its employees somewhat happy so that they get the most out of them. |
|
|
| (429745) | |
Re: Increasing QB capacity |
|
|
Posted by AMoreira81 on Mon May 14 09:59:47 2007, in response to Re: Increasing QB capacity, posted by AlM on Mon May 14 09:39:36 2007. However, MTA attempts to get rules changes to save it money resulted in an illegal strike back in 2005...and the resulting contract was voted down by TWU 100 on the vote of subways.The question is, what will it take to satisfy the union? (The MTA's honoring the existing contract, no matter how painful, might be a start.) |
|
|
| (429746) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .Try a new a new theory |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon May 14 10:00:29 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .Try a new a new theory, posted by BMTLines on Sun May 13 23:23:48 2007. It's even the little things....walking to the staion, passing the deli to pick up a coffee and bagel at a deli, passing the shoestore and seeing a pair of shoes in the window, picking up a slice of pizza for lunch, grabbing shampoo at the drug store....these little things add up over time, and multiply that by all the passengers (thus foot traffic) that were gone once the el was gone |
|
|
| (429749) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon May 14 10:03:52 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by MJF on Sun May 13 21:21:59 2007. Macy's was more of a destination that all the other little stores along the strip. If someone wants Macy's they will go to Macy's, loosing the incidental food traffic walking to the stations is a much harder blow on little stores which rely on this traffic than a dept store. You are not going out of your way to go to the little deli on the corner for your bacon and egg sandwich in the morning with your coffee, or to the drug store at the bottom of the stairs for some quick items, or to a little clothes store. Those are the businesses that suffered most. |
|
|
| (429765) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by MJF on Mon May 14 10:33:53 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon May 14 10:03:52 2007. Agreed. And that's why I find it hard to believe that the Jamaica merchants were calling for the tearing down of the el without a replacement subway line being provided. It's illogical. |
|
|
| (429774) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Mon May 14 10:54:30 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by Grand concourse on Sun May 13 19:30:33 2007. No doubt that even without politics being involved, some R46's would have showed up in Jamaica when new. But politics DID get involved, and Jamaica got all of them, handing down the R38's and slants to other lines (the A and B/AA). |
|
|
| (429776) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Mon May 14 11:00:23 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by Edwards! on Sun May 13 19:56:28 2007. Myrtle would have needed a major overhaul. It's stations were too narrow and new cars were needed, as the Q's were already past their prime. They probably should have been splintered years before. Wooden platforms would have needed replacement in the 1970's. Yes, developers wanted it torn down, but you can't deny the decrepit condition it was in in 1969. |
|
|
| (429777) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Mon May 14 11:02:17 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by MJF on Sun May 13 21:21:59 2007. It was definatley urban. Jamaica was located in an area where lots of former trolly lines converged. Later, they became bus routes. Jamaica was the Times Square of Queens up to the 1970's. |
|
|
| (429778) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Mon May 14 11:04:12 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon May 14 10:03:52 2007. Funny, we never really shopped at Macy's when going to Jamaica. Mays was the choice, as was Gertz, where both my mother and grandmother bought all their clothes. My favorite destination was always the McDonalds on 165th St. |
|
|
| (429779) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Mon May 14 11:05:21 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by MJF on Mon May 14 10:33:53 2007. It's also a figment of Ron's imagination. |
|
|
| (429781) | |
Re: The (M) and the (QB) Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Mon May 14 11:11:21 2007, in response to Re: The (M) and the (QB) Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by J trainloco on Sun May 13 18:09:02 2007. No, Brighton local service was always from Broadway, either via tunnel on weekdays (QT) or via bridge on weekends and evenings (QB). Before 1967, the Brighton line saw only a handful of Banker's specials during rush hours, and those ran express north of Kings Highway. All el service terminated in 1920, when the Flatbush Ave corridor opened connecting Prospect Park to Dekalb Ave. |
|
|
| (429783) | |
Re: The (M) and the (QB) Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Mon May 14 11:13:25 2007, in response to Re: The (M) and the (QB) Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Mon May 14 09:04:56 2007. Don't forget, the original Chrystie St. plan had no QB at all. It was one small concession the newly formed MTA gave to riders when formulating the service plan. |
|
|
| (429785) | |
Re: The (M) and the (QB) Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Mon May 14 11:18:22 2007, in response to Re: The (M) and the (QB) Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by E Line Fan on Sun May 13 20:23:58 2007. No, the QJ was eliminated altogether at the end of 1972. It went back to only "J" after. Extending the IND letter system to the BMT was problematic, since it was filled with routes which were both express and local on some part of it's run. The 1960 plan moved away from the simple single/double letter system in favor of other ideas. In 1967, it was further muddled by expanding it to include a route which shared two distinct lines (QJ for Brighton and Jamaica, RJ for 4th Ave. and Jamaica, etc). No wonder the whole system was abandoned in the 1980's. |
|
|
| (429786) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .Try a new a new theory |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Mon May 14 11:27:55 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .Try a new a new theory, posted by MJF on Mon May 14 09:50:24 2007. No one in their right mind bought the idea that getting rid of an el would speed up construction of it's replacement subway. Cynicism was already a powerful force by 1970. I often wonder if the demolition of this el was DESIGNED to destroy Jamaica and force it's shoppers elsewhere, like Green Acres, which had a brand new Macy's IIRC. Racism also played a minor role, IMHO. Jamaica became more and more black through the 1960's. When I was little, trips to Jamaica consisted of my only personal interaction with black people, until I went to junior high. |
|
|
| (429787) | |
Re: M Train in Brooklyn (Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Mon May 14 11:29:44 2007, in response to Re: M Train in Brooklyn (Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by David of Broadway on Mon May 14 08:53:51 2007. Yeah, West Enders would be up in arms. This line has NEVER had any scheduled express service of any kind and it's understandable why. |
|
|
| (429789) | |
Re: M Train in Brooklyn (Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by Eric B on Mon May 14 11:37:53 2007, in response to Re: M Train in Brooklyn (Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by Edwards! on Sun May 13 23:34:10 2007. I would say limied service, just to provide two-way connectibility between Court and Broad during rush hours, and the closest place to rurn the non-peak direction would be 9th. So perhaps every other train through to Brooklyn, while the rest turn at Chambers, maintaining service for Queens even when the 4th Ave. portion is delayed. |
|
|
| (429801) | |
Re: Increasing QB capacity |
|
|
Posted by Wado MP73 on Mon May 14 12:06:37 2007, in response to Re: Increasing QB capacity, posted by Fytton on Mon May 14 09:33:32 2007. People on this board don't always distinguish between different sorts of 'impossible'.I think it's part of the American culture. The use of words like "great" and "never" also differs from the British. |
|
|
| (429802) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .Try a new a new theory |
|
|
Posted by MJF on Mon May 14 12:06:52 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .Try a new a new theory, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Mon May 14 11:27:55 2007. I'm not that much of a conspiracist. Why would the city want to lose the revenue to Nassau County? |
|
|
| (429810) | |
Re: M Train in Brooklyn (Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon May 14 12:19:44 2007, in response to Re: M Train in Brooklyn (Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by Eric B on Mon May 14 11:37:53 2007. What is with the Chambers too, I don't understand why M's can't terminate at Broad, especially middays when not going through Montague. |
|
|
| (429811) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .Try a new a new theory |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon May 14 12:20:34 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .Try a new a new theory, posted by MJF on Mon May 14 12:06:52 2007. I don't follow what you are saying. |
|
|
|
Page 12 of 16 |
||
