|
|
| Re: New Transit Museum Facility (559236) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 3 of 7 |
||
|
| (559499) | |
Re: New Transit Museum Facility |
|
|
Posted by Russ on Sat Jan 26 13:33:12 2008, in response to Re: New Transit Museum Facility, posted by Broadway Lion on Sat Jan 26 13:03:40 2008. Nice work! One day, when Google Maps allows more than 20 lines to be displayed, I'll post my fantasy map. |
|
|
| (559502) | |
Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Sat Jan 26 13:41:17 2008, in response to Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave, posted by Russ on Sat Jan 26 12:38:58 2008. That doesn't answer if such a new station would address the terminal capacity problem for QB locals.There are many solutions that address the terminal capacity problem for Queens Blvd locals. Building a new terminal is one of the most expensive. It's also the one with the longest lead time. It's impossible to assess what the capacity of a terminal would be, until its exact details are known. On the surface, it's difficult to visualize how a terminal located east (Jamaica side) of the yard could effectively utilize the loop tracks. will cost money There's money and there's MONEY. New construction of lines and stations is: MONEY. Buying new equipment for additional service is: MONEY. Rescheduling equipment to provide service where it's needed is: money. |
|
|
| (559504) | |
Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Sat Jan 26 14:13:54 2008, in response to Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave, posted by AlM on Sat Jan 26 11:51:08 2008. (E) is moved to the 8th Avenue Express Tracks at 50th Street, yes it *is* a merge with the (A) instead of the (C), but there is no merge of the (C) south of Spring Street which is more prone to delays since the trains are more crowded by then.The (V) and the (C) are an even swap, but the southbound (C) will have to merge with the (F), but since they will both be running the same tunnel, one will have to wait for the other, and since both are controlled by W 4th Street, the dispatcher with the holding lights can figure that one out pretty well. The North bound (V) will have to merge with the (F) south of West 4th Street, but the (V) being dispatched from so near by, can easily be timed to arrive between the (F)s. ROAR |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (559515) | |
Re: New Transit Museum Facility |
|
|
Posted by Newkirk Images on Sat Jan 26 15:05:43 2008, in response to Re: New Transit Museum Facility, posted by Russ on Sat Jan 26 12:18:36 2008. That said, if money was no object, building a museum on a deck over CIY could work out well. Lots of space, and close proximity to the largest subway yard and the largest subway terminal.The current Transit Museum is perfect the way it is, with gallery display space, a movie theater and two tracks for equipment display. Also the downtown Brooklyn location is perfect since it is in a decommissioned actual station with actual tower. The Transit Museum should stay right where it is and if the Rockaway Line needs extra service then takeover the abandoned Rockaway Line before the Rail 2 Trail freaks confiscate it. Run the (V) to the Rockaways or whatever. As far as the SAS goes, forget a tunnel to Brooklyn and terminate it at Chambers St. Plenty of subways, the Municipal Bldg. and City Hall to boot. Bill "Newkirk" Transit Museum Member |
|
|
| (559522) | |
Re: New Transit Museum Facility |
|
|
Posted by Russ on Sat Jan 26 15:16:44 2008, in response to Re: New Transit Museum Facility, posted by Newkirk Images on Sat Jan 26 15:05:43 2008. The current Transit Museum is perfect the way it is, with gallery display space, a movie theater and two tracks for equipment display. Also the downtown Brooklyn location is perfect since it is in a decommissioned actual station with actual tower.That's great until it is needed for revenue service again. The Transit Museum should stay right where it is and if the Rockaway Line needs extra service then takeover the abandoned Rockaway Line before the Rail 2 Trail freaks confiscate it. Run the (V) to the Rockaways or whatever. I don't see how that addresses future capacity needs to run trains between Fulton St and Manhattan. As far as the SAS goes, forget a tunnel to Brooklyn and terminate it at Chambers St. Plenty of subways, the Municipal Bldg. and City Hall to boot. Stopping short of the Lower Manhattan CBD is thoroughly inadequate. That's why the SAS will be built to Hanover Square. The real estate industry drives this city, as it has for over a hundred years, and that industry will see to it that the SAS goes to that CBD. After that, it probably goes to Brooklyn. Building a subway around the Transit Museum is case of the tail wagging the dog. |
|
|
| (559531) | |
Re: New Transit Museum Facility |
|
|
Posted by Newkirk Images on Sat Jan 26 15:28:48 2008, in response to Re: New Transit Museum Facility, posted by Russ on Sat Jan 26 15:16:44 2008. Building a subway around the Transit Museum is case of the tail wagging the dog.Who said anything about building a subway around the Transit Museum ? It took 80 odd years to build the SAS and, now we will have the #7 west side extension. That's all that's on the MTA plate for the forseeable future. GET REAL! Bill "Newkirk" Transit Museum Member |
|
|
| (559546) | |
Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave |
|
|
Posted by Russ on Sat Jan 26 15:46:29 2008, in response to Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave, posted by Stephen Bauman on Sat Jan 26 13:41:17 2008. There are many solutions that address the terminal capacity problem for Queens Blvd locals. Building a new terminal is one of the most expensive. It's also the one with the longest lead time.How can QB local service reach 30tph without a new terminal, and without a change in the fumigation rules? It's impossible to assess what the capacity of a terminal would be, until its exact details are known. On the surface, it's difficult to visualize how a terminal located east (Jamaica side) of the yard could effectively utilize the loop tracks. Here's an idea of what it would be like. Not sure where the station entrance would be. View Larger Map |
|
|
| (559552) | |
Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave |
|
|
Posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Sat Jan 26 15:55:51 2008, in response to Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave, posted by Broadway Lion on Fri Jan 25 23:07:24 2008. If you switch the V south of W. 4th, you have to switch it again at Canal St. |
|
|
| (559575) | |
Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave |
|
|
Posted by Kriston Lewis on Sat Jan 26 16:34:59 2008, in response to Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave, posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Sat Jan 26 15:55:51 2008. He probably meant the V goes on to World Trade Center. |
|
|
| (559576) | |
Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Sat Jan 26 16:35:35 2008, in response to Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave, posted by Russ on Sat Jan 26 15:46:29 2008. How can QB local service reach 30tph without a new terminal, and without a change in the fumigation rules?The fumigation rules are an operational not physical constraint. Work rule changes can be established, within collective bargaining. These changes would address union concerns that led to the fumigation rule. It will require more operating personnel, but that would a lot less expensive than new construction. Here's an idea of what it would be like. Not sure where the station entrance would be. I lived in Kew Gardens Hills for 8 years and know the area quite well. Any construction that extends outside the existing confines of the yard will be met with fierce community opposition. The yard has problems with previous toxic waste disposal problems. There's another problem. You've effectively cut access to the yard. The two left tracks on the lead come from Continental. The two right tracks come from Van Wyck. There are crossovers, at grade, that would permit trains from Continental to reach the rightmost tracks. However, that would effectively block access to the yard, with locals coming in and departing at 30 tph each way. |
|
|
| (559584) | |
Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave |
|
|
Posted by Russ on Sat Jan 26 16:43:20 2008, in response to Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave, posted by Stephen Bauman on Sat Jan 26 16:35:35 2008. The fumigation rules are an operational not physical constraint. Work rule changes can be established, within collective bargaining. These changes would address union concerns that led to the fumigation rule. It will require more operating personnel, but that would a lot less expensive than new construction.I don't know the history of the fumigation rules. Were they originally established from a request by the Union, and if so, why? How receptive would they be to change? It seems a bit difficult to plan changes based on a collective bargaining agreement that does not yet exist. If they are receptive to changes, how much more personnel would be required? |
|
|
| (559587) | |
Re: New Transit Museum Facility |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Sat Jan 26 16:49:27 2008, in response to Re: New Transit Museum Facility, posted by Russ on Sat Jan 26 15:16:44 2008. I don't see how that addresses future capacity needs to run trains between Fulton St and Manhattan.EXISTING infrastructure cannot provide future capacity even if you stand on you head and wiggle your ears! If you need a new tunnel, then you need a new trunk to connect it to. There is no point in pouring new wine into old wine skins. Make new wine skins. When spending that much money it is far better to make a whole new system. ROAR |
|
|
| (559590) | |
Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Sat Jan 26 16:52:28 2008, in response to Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave, posted by Russ on Sat Jan 26 16:43:20 2008. Were they originally established from a request by the Union, and if so, why? How receptive would they be to change?The reason seems to be fear of physical harm by hangers-on during a relay. A fix that allayed such fear, e.g., police/security personnel on board during a relay, should work. Of course, that's an appropriation of police/security resources, but MTA could obviously appropriate those same resources in less useful ways then enabling better service and allaying the concerns of their employees. |
|
|
| (559591) | |
Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Sat Jan 26 16:54:22 2008, in response to Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave, posted by Kriston Lewis on Sat Jan 26 16:34:59 2008. Correct the (V) is on the Local Tracks and it will be the only train to terminate at Chambers/WTC.The idea is that the only trains to enter the Cranberry tunnel will be those running on the 8th Avenue Express tracks. ROAR |
|
|
| (559594) | |
Re: New Transit Museum Facility |
|
|
Posted by Russ on Sat Jan 26 16:55:38 2008, in response to Re: New Transit Museum Facility, posted by Broadway Lion on Sat Jan 26 16:49:27 2008. Fulton St can handle 60tph between the local and express tracks. The Cranberry Tunnel can only feed 30tph. The most cost effective way to feed more capacity into Fulton St is to use Court St.A whole new system would cost far more just to match the 30tph capacity differential that currently exists between Fulton St and Cranberry. |
|
|
| (559596) | |
Re: New Transit Museum Facility |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Sat Jan 26 17:05:19 2008, in response to Re: New Transit Museum Facility, posted by Russ on Sat Jan 26 16:55:38 2008. But your train must have a northern terminal somewhere. And where will that be? The LION has demonstrated HOW new service could be sent through there, and the alignments that the LION has chosen were selected because of MINIMAL interference with existing stuff. It just so happens that the LION's plan spares the existing transit museum because that seems the BEST WAY TO DO IT.  Show me where you would put new tunnels where they would not have to cross existing tunnels. Show me where you would put new lines so that they would have least interference with existing lines, while also having MAXIMUM usability and passenger transfer possibilities. Show me how you can 
|
|
|
| (559598) | |
Re: New Transit Museum Facility |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Sat Jan 26 17:06:26 2008, in response to Re: New Transit Museum Facility, posted by Russ on Sat Jan 26 16:55:38 2008. Fulton St can handle 60tph between the local and express tracks. The Cranberry Tunnel can only feed 30tph. The most cost effective way to feed more capacity into Fulton St is to use Court St.You're tacitly assuming that the Fulton St Line demands 30 tph on each track; I'm not sure that's true. Moreover, it's possible that Court St might be too shallow to use with the construction techniques that would be used. |
|
|
| (559601) | |
Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Sat Jan 26 17:08:38 2008, in response to Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave, posted by trainsarefun on Sat Jan 26 16:52:28 2008. The reason seems to be to refrain from taking geese into relays and yards. It is not nice to take geese into relays and especially into yards where there are CATS that might try to eat the geese.Mostly it is a liability issue, and as far as the lion knows the push for this came from the MTA rather than from the TWU. ROAR |
|
|
| (559611) | |
Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave, incorrect, make it Church Av. |
|
|
Posted by Chipper10 on Sat Jan 26 17:15:45 2008, in response to Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave, posted by Broadway Lion on Sat Jan 26 16:54:22 2008. The "V" train, I hope, will be extended making all stops to Church Av with an "F"express when the Culver Viaduct is completed in 2012. |
|
|
| (559613) | |
Re: New Transit Museum Facility |
|
|
Posted by Russ on Sat Jan 26 17:17:03 2008, in response to Re: New Transit Museum Facility, posted by trainsarefun on Sat Jan 26 17:06:26 2008. You're tacitly assuming that the Fulton St Line demands 30 tph on each track; I'm not sure that's true.I believe that Fulton St will need more than 30tph over the next 20 years. Moreover, it's possible that Court St might be too shallow to use with the construction techniques that would be used. How deep does it have to be? |
|
|
| (559615) | |
Re: New Transit Museum Facility |
|
|
Posted by Russ on Sat Jan 26 17:18:27 2008, in response to Re: New Transit Museum Facility, posted by Broadway Lion on Sat Jan 26 17:05:19 2008. SAS to Court St. |
|
|
| (559617) | |
Re: New Transit Museum Facility |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Sat Jan 26 17:21:52 2008, in response to Re: New Transit Museum Facility, posted by Russ on Sat Jan 26 17:18:27 2008. Ahh... I see. You are going to have your new train cut under both the Montague and the Joralemon tunnels.Smooth play, Shakespeare! ROAR |
|
|
| (559622) | |
Re: New Transit Museum Facility |
|
|
Posted by Russ on Sat Jan 26 17:33:15 2008, in response to Re: New Transit Museum Facility, posted by Broadway Lion on Sat Jan 26 17:21:52 2008. You are going to have your new train cut under both the Montague and the Joralemon tunnels.Nope. Look at the SAS alignment to Hanover Square. It has to take a slightly circuitous route that would have it approach Court St in a tunnel that would cleanly be south of Montague and Joralemon. |
|
|
| (559624) | |
Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave, incorrect, make it Church Av. |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Sat Jan 26 17:36:36 2008, in response to Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave, incorrect, make it Church Av., posted by Chipper10 on Sat Jan 26 17:15:45 2008. And *I* hope that the (V) goes to Chambers WTC and that the (C) will go to Church Street.This will give 6th Avenue a much needed access to lower Manhattan, and will give Culver patrons the option of 6th Avenue or 8th Avenue. ROAR |
|
|
| (559626) | |
Re: New Transit Museum Facility |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Sat Jan 26 17:37:41 2008, in response to Re: New Transit Museum Facility, posted by Russ on Sat Jan 26 17:17:03 2008. It will need to be down in the bedrock if they are using TBMs and especially if you have to undercut the Montague and Joralemon tunnels.ROAR |
|
|
| (559627) | |
Re: New Transit Museum Facility |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Sat Jan 26 17:38:47 2008, in response to Re: New Transit Museum Facility, posted by Russ on Sat Jan 26 17:17:03 2008. TBM construction usually involves rather deep stations. Look at the ESA and ARC terminals. Not sure how deep the SAS stations will be, but Lexington Av-63rd St is fairly deep |
|
|
| (559628) | |
Re: New Transit Museum Facility |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Sat Jan 26 17:41:41 2008, in response to Re: New Transit Museum Facility, posted by Broadway Lion on Sat Jan 26 17:37:41 2008. That's my thinking too. |
|
|
| (559630) | |
Re: New Transit Museum Facility |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Sat Jan 26 17:45:54 2008, in response to Re: New Transit Museum Facility, posted by Russ on Sat Jan 26 17:33:15 2008.  |
|
|
| (559632) | |
Re: New Transit Museum Facility |
|
|
Posted by Russ on Sat Jan 26 17:48:43 2008, in response to Re: New Transit Museum Facility, posted by Broadway Lion on Sat Jan 26 17:37:41 2008. From the SAS FEIS Chapter 2, Pages 14-15:Both the northern and southern portions of the alignment would be designed so as not to preclude future connections to the Bronx and Brooklyn... In the south, by constructing the Hanover Square Station south of Wall Street at approximately 110 feet below street level, the elevation would be deep enough to allow for the potential extension of Second Avenue Subway service to Brooklyn, and is approximately 15 feet deeper than the station depth identified in the SDEIS. |
|
|
| (559651) | |
Re: New Transit Museum Facility |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Sat Jan 26 18:38:21 2008, in response to Re: New Transit Museum Facility, posted by Russ on Sat Jan 26 17:48:43 2008. You also there have your answer as to why I don't think Court St is deep enough on the other end of your proposed line.Also, however, I don't think it's fair to read "designed so as not to preclude" to read something more like "designed to enable". The alignment looks more aimed at northwestern Staten Island than Brooklyn Heights. |
|
|
| (559654) | |
Re: New Transit Museum Facility |
|
|
Posted by Russ on Sat Jan 26 18:50:53 2008, in response to Re: New Transit Museum Facility, posted by trainsarefun on Sat Jan 26 18:38:21 2008. You also there have your answer as to why I don't think Court St is deep enough on the other end of your proposed line.While I don't know if it is too shallow, considering that the shallowest SAS station built with a TBV is 50-60' deep (55th St,) it does look challenging. I don't know how deep Court St. is, but if I had to guess, I'd say that it is 40' deep. Also, however, I don't think it's fair to read "designed so as not to preclude" to read something more like "designed to enable". The alignment looks more aimed at northwestern Staten Island than Brooklyn Heights. I disagree. "Designed so as not to preclude" makes it fairly clear that the SAS will be south of all existing subway lines before it leaves Manhattan. The orientation is towards Staten island, which is why I said that connecting the SAS to Brooklyn would involve a "slightly circuitous route." |
|
|
| (559657) | |
Re: New Transit Museum Facility |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Sat Jan 26 18:59:18 2008, in response to Re: New Transit Museum Facility, posted by Russ on Sat Jan 26 11:58:55 2008. Wrong. Museum should move to a location that generates more revenue.I've been saying for years, that 42/8av lower level would be a gold mine. All those tourists looking to spend their Euro would love some of the merch available at the museum. And that's what it's all about-making money. It would be better to have a smaller display, but rotate the cars on display regularly, to keep buffs coming back. Why let people see everything in one trip, when you can maybe get them to come back in four months to see a car that currently isn't on display? |
|
|
| (559668) | |
Re: New Transit Museum Facility |
|
|
Posted by Russ on Sat Jan 26 19:12:20 2008, in response to Re: New Transit Museum Facility, posted by LuchAAA on Sat Jan 26 18:59:18 2008. I've been saying for years, that 42/8av lower level would be a gold mine.That's being destroyed to allow the 7 to be extended. |
|
|
| (559669) | |
Re: New Transit Museum Facility |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Sat Jan 26 19:14:02 2008, in response to Re: New Transit Museum Facility, posted by Russ on Sat Jan 26 18:50:53 2008. "Designed so as not to preclude" makes it fairly clear that the SAS will be south of all existing subway lines before it leaves Manhattan. The orientation is towards Staten island, which is why I said that connecting the SAS to Brooklyn would involve a "slightly circuitous route."Well, you know that I disagree with reading, without more warrant for it, but we'll have a few decades to see who's ultimately right.... |
|
|
| (559672) | |
Re: New Transit Museum Facility |
|
|
Posted by BMTLines on Sat Jan 26 19:18:13 2008, in response to Re: New Transit Museum Facility, posted by LuchAAA on Sat Jan 26 18:59:18 2008. And that's what it's all about-making moneyIts primary function should be to preserve history. |
|
|
| (559673) | |
Re: New Transit Museum Facility |
|
|
Posted by Russ on Sat Jan 26 19:18:28 2008, in response to Re: New Transit Museum Facility, posted by trainsarefun on Sat Jan 26 19:14:02 2008. Here's some positive phrasing from page 10 of the executive summary, "In the south, the Hanover Square Station would be constructed to allow for a potential future extension of Second Avenue Subway service to Brooklyn." |
|
|
| (559674) | |
Re: New Transit Museum Facility |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Sat Jan 26 19:19:23 2008, in response to Re: New Transit Museum Facility, posted by BMTLines on Sat Jan 26 19:18:13 2008. Money helps to preserve history too.... |
|
|
| (559679) | |
Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave |
|
|
Posted by WayneJay on Sat Jan 26 19:31:35 2008, in response to "V" to Euclid Ave, posted by Train Dude on Fri Jan 25 22:05:29 2008. If it switched tracks at Jay Street, but wouldn't that also become a potential bottleneck at Jay? |
|
|
| (559680) | |
Re: New Transit Museum Facility |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Sat Jan 26 19:32:06 2008, in response to Re: New Transit Museum Facility, posted by Russ on Sat Jan 26 19:18:28 2008. Perhaps, although it's facing the wrong way to be headed to Brooklyn, of course. Not sure why that should be, when the station's 110' down. |
|
|
| (559686) | |
Re: New Transit Museum Facility |
|
|
Posted by Russ on Sat Jan 26 19:58:02 2008, in response to Re: New Transit Museum Facility, posted by trainsarefun on Sat Jan 26 19:32:06 2008. I'm not sure either. Perhaps tunneling under a river bed requires that all other tunnels are cleared first. It is also possible that using a the Water St alignment requires that it be that way before it leaves Manhattan. A look at pages 9 & 10 of this 1.5MB 2003 presentation to CB1 shows exactly where the platform will be: http://mta.info/capconstr/sas/documents/030619_sas_for_cb1.pdf |
|
|
| (559688) | |
Re: New Transit Museum Facility |
|
|
Posted by BMTLines on Sat Jan 26 19:59:59 2008, in response to Re: New Transit Museum Facility, posted by trainsarefun on Sat Jan 26 19:19:23 2008. But that should not be its PRIMARY function - and the money should only be used to benefit historical preservation and restoration. I wonder how much ends up in the MTA general fund instead? |
|
|
| (559691) | |
Re: New Transit Museum Facility |
|
|
Posted by Russ on Sat Jan 26 20:11:04 2008, in response to Re: New Transit Museum Facility, posted by BMTLines on Sat Jan 26 19:59:59 2008. Well, museums should also serve as educational facilities in addition to historical preservation.As far as making money from visitors go, museums are not very good at that. That's why they are constantly seeking donations. Then there is the economic impact of a museum. The Met, MoMA and Natural History all have definite positive impacts on New York's economy. Smaller museums are much more difficult to measure. Based on my many visits to the Transit Museum, I'd guess that it is not a big revenue generator for the economy, and that it's net impact might even be negative if opportunity cost is fully measured. Even if the Transit Museum does not have a positive impact on the economy, and I don't know this to be the case, it is still a worthwhile endeavor for the City. It is my belief that transit advocacy needs a vehicle for public education, and I believe that the museum is an outstanding platform for this. Another reason why I believe that it is important is because it is an outstanding capsule of part of our collective heritage. |
|
|
| (559740) | |
Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave |
|
|
Posted by B47man on Sat Jan 26 23:01:50 2008, in response to Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave, posted by AlM on Sat Jan 26 11:13:52 2008. Like Far Rock said: 1) Let the "V" run along 53rd st then travel along 8th Av & Fulton as the local sevice. 2) Let the "C"run along CPW,53rd & 6th Av as the local to 2nd Av. This will eliminate any bottlenecks at W.4th and/or Jay St. And how would the "M" and "C"be merged into a single line? Maybe its me, cause I dont see how..Maybe I overlooked something..... |
|
|
| (559745) | |
Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Sat Jan 26 23:13:22 2008, in response to Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave, posted by B47man on Sat Jan 26 23:01:50 2008. 1) Let the "V" run along 53rd st then travel along 8th Av & Fulton as the local sevice.How will people along the Queens Blvd line between Roosevelt and 23rd-Ely get to 6th Ave? |
|
|
| (559754) | |
Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave |
|
|
Posted by Eric B on Sat Jan 26 23:47:29 2008, in response to "V" to Euclid Ave, posted by Train Dude on Fri Jan 25 22:05:29 2008. Aside from just a "what if" idea being tossed around, I keep hearing from diffferent people about them doing this for the next phase of WTC work. It's supposed to be like any time now. So has anyone heard what's up with it?Also, that would affect the E, so I wonder why the V would be extended. It also seems to include the C or E being sent to Lefferts, or something like that. |
|
|
| (559756) | |
Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave |
|
|
Posted by B47man on Sat Jan 26 23:55:42 2008, in response to Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave, posted by Stephen Bauman on Sat Jan 26 23:13:22 2008. "V" train to 7th Ave; transfer to the "D"... |
|
|
| (559782) | |
Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave |
|
|
Posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Sun Jan 27 02:30:50 2008, in response to "V" to Euclid Ave, posted by Train Dude on Fri Jan 25 22:05:29 2008. Hmmmm...Since you are the OP in this thread, that leads me to believe that the MTA is seriously considering this. In theory, it sounds like a great move. Downtown gets direct 6th Avenue service and Fulton Street riders get their choice of both Manhattan IND trunk lines without having to transfer at Jay St. I think they should give serious consideration to running the V to Euclid, but... ...is it practical? Will the switches at either Jay St or the switches at West 4th and Canal Sts be able to handle it all? Or will delays at either Jay or West 4th become every day occurrences for 6th and 8th Avenue riders and crews as a result of running the V to Euclid? |
|
|
| (559797) | |
Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Sun Jan 27 04:47:52 2008, in response to Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave, posted by FarRock on Sat Jan 26 08:57:47 2008. The (B) and (C) flipped northern terminals in the 90s. Your proposal would re-flip them. I would agree to this BTY. |
|
|
| (559800) | |
Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Sun Jan 27 05:31:03 2008, in response to Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave, posted by AlM on Sat Jan 26 11:47:55 2008. It would also crush the (A) since it would become the only 8th Av service going to Lower Manhattan. |
|
|
| (559801) | |
Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Sun Jan 27 05:32:42 2008, in response to Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave, posted by Stephen Bauman on Sat Jan 26 12:23:04 2008. I think that the (A) runs more TPH then that during the rush. |
|
|
|
Page 3 of 7 |
||
