|
|
| Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave (559236) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 4 of 7 |
||
|
| (559802) | |
Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Sun Jan 27 05:40:00 2008, in response to Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave, posted by B47man on Sat Jan 26 23:01:50 2008. The 6th Av tracks after Columbus Circle are the express tracks and go via Manny B to Brooklyn not to 2nd Av. It would mess up the (B/D) to add an "orange (C)" that would then have to diverge again to join the (F) and it would rob CPW local riders of 8th Av service. A disaster. Fulton riders would get a Blue (V) instead of their Blue (C). There would be no purpose for this. |
|
|
| (559805) | |
Re: New Transit Museum Facility |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Sun Jan 27 05:59:43 2008, in response to Re: New Transit Museum Facility, posted by Broadway Lion on Sat Jan 26 17:05:19 2008. My idea would connect the Montauge St "Yellow Line" after Court St station to the outer tracks at Shermerhorn St. The TM stub tracks would remain as they are west of there. Of course for the (T) to get to Montaugue, it would have to merge into Nassau St first. A whole lot cheaper then your Purple Line and it "Pineapple St Tunnel". |
|
|
| (559806) | |
Re: New Transit Museum Facility |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Sun Jan 27 06:04:16 2008, in response to Re: New Transit Museum Facility, posted by Russ on Sat Jan 26 19:58:02 2008. It would also have to bore under the Brooklyn-Battery Tunnel. It could take a straight shot to Governors Island and after a stop there it could then curve towards Brooklyn. |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (559807) | |
Re: New Transit Museum Facility |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Sun Jan 27 06:09:44 2008, in response to Re: New Transit Museum Facility, posted by Broadway Lion on Sat Jan 26 13:03:40 2008. The Manhattan part of the Purple Line can be done with a (7) extension down Hudson St. The (7) IS the Purple Line. I like the BPC service. The Yellow/Brown Line is better suited for a Shermerhorn Connection and wouldn't require a new river tunnel. |
|
|
| (559808) | |
Re: New Transit Museum Facility |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Sun Jan 27 06:11:24 2008, in response to Re: New Transit Museum Facility, posted by Osmosis Jones on Sat Jan 26 12:23:15 2008. Floyd Bennet Field is better suited for an Aviation Museum. A lot of aviation history has taken place there. |
|
|
| (559811) | |
Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Sun Jan 27 06:30:30 2008, in response to Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave, posted by Broadway Lion on Sat Jan 26 14:13:54 2008. I would love for most of that to work. I have to disagree with the (E) to Fulton however. A better plan would be for some (C) trains to merge with (A) at 50th St. These trains would be known as the |
|
|
| (559815) | |
Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Sun Jan 27 06:52:09 2008, in response to Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave, posted by SMAZ on Sun Jan 27 05:31:03 2008. It would also crush the (A) since it would become the only 8th Av service going to Lower Manhattan.You mean to carry Port Authority and upper Manhattan/Bronx commuters to lower Manhattan? Because the V would also be going there. |
|
|
| (559817) | |
Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Sun Jan 27 07:10:04 2008, in response to Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave, posted by SMAZ on Sun Jan 27 06:30:30 2008. I would love for most of that to work. I have to disagree with the (E) to Fulton however. A better plan would be for some (C) trains to merge with (A) at 50th St. These trains would be known as the |
|
|
| (559819) | |
Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Sun Jan 27 07:15:54 2008, in response to Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave, posted by AlM on Sun Jan 27 06:52:09 2008. You mean to carry Port Authority and upper Manhattan/Bronx commuters to lower Manhattan?Yes. If the (E) and (C) flip below W4 St, the (A) would be the only "Blue" service going to Lower Manhattan. People at local stations along CPW would be completely cut off from a one-seat ride to Downtown and would have to jam onto the (A) as would those at NYP and PABT. This would also crush the (1/2/3) for the same reason. The (V) would not join this line until Greenwich Village. |
|
|
| (559823) | |
Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Sun Jan 27 08:01:10 2008, in response to Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave, posted by AlM on Sat Jan 26 11:47:55 2008. The ORIGINAL ROUTING for ALL 6TH AVENUE LOCAL trains IS LOWER MANHATTAN..not Houston st.The same exact thing for the 8th avenue local...its tracks are route towards HOUSTON ST..not Spring/Church... The MTA/TA operates it lines the way it doe today just because it CAN..not because they SHOULD. |
|
|
| (559867) | |
Re: New Transit Museum Facility |
|
|
Posted by Newkirk Images on Sun Jan 27 11:01:33 2008, in response to Re: New Transit Museum Facility, posted by Russ on Sat Jan 26 20:11:04 2008. 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.That being said as the old saying goes, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". The Transit Museum need not be moved to some ridiculous location where it will wither and die. Sorry if I got on your case about another location for the Transit Museum, but as a member I am also a close friend of the founder of the Transit Museum and preserver of the museum fleet, Don Harold. If it weren't for Don, there would be no museum and no preserved and running museum cars. There would be no special place where transit history in New York City could be displayed. I can't think a better place for the museum. The abandoned Court St. station would be an enticement for a Brooklyn extension of the SAS as you suggested. But the Transit Museum has been around for about 32 years and has had it's ups and downs and I am confident that it's going to stay put. A couple of weeks ago when I visited the museum and ran into Willam (Mr.R10) Padron, I saw numerous young couples with children and strollers who didn't look like railfans. I'll bet they rode the Holiday Train and they wanted to see the Transit Museum for themselves. Now that's what the Transit Museum does best. Bill "Newkirk" Transit Museum Member |
|
|
| (559875) | |
Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Sun Jan 27 11:15:20 2008, in response to Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave, posted by SMAZ on Sun Jan 27 05:32:42 2008. It can approach 14-15 peak tph, as I recall, on the main part of the route, especially during the 4 peakmost hours of the day. |
|
|
| (559884) | |
Re: 8 Track Tunnel to Brooklyn |
|
|
Posted by Russ on Sun Jan 27 11:29:08 2008, in response to Re: New Transit Museum Facility, posted by Newkirk Images on Sun Jan 27 11:01:33 2008. I don't think that any of us want to see the Transit Museum suffer.Anyway, I got to thinking about all of the potential future rail connections, between Brooklyn and Manhattan, that were floated by public officials over the last decade. They are: the SAS, E train, LIRR and AirTrain. I might have missed something, but that's a full plate right there. As I see the E train connection also including the C train, that would mean that the C, E and T would probably need separate tunnels. That's 8 tracks. You can't squeeze all of that through Court St. Here's what I envision: a prefabricated 8 track tunnel similar to the 63rd St. tunnel. Bottom 4 tracks for the LIRR and AirTrain, top 4 for the subway. If this were to happen, a Schermerhorn St alignment would be out, and that would preserve the current location of the Transit Museum. There could be a new subway station at Court St & State or Atlantic. The C and E could still be hooked up to Fulton St local tracks. The SAS could be hooked up the 4th Av. |
|
|
| (559885) | |
Re: New Transit Museum Facility |
|
|
Posted by Michael549 on Sun Jan 27 11:29:11 2008, in response to Re: New Transit Museum Facility, posted by Newkirk Images on Sun Jan 27 11:01:33 2008. There are a number of "transit fans" on the forums who would demolish their own mother's home, if that meant that they could run a transit line somewhere! I am kidding of course, but not by much.It is just that too often folks propose stuff that will never ever see the light of any day, that has no serious chance of ever becoming real, that it really seems like a waste of "electronic ink". Some folks here spent the past 8-months arguing about the V-train on the Broadway line, now they are arguing about such a route on Fulton Street, and before that about the V-train to Culver. Other folks are arguing about a new subway tunnel to Roosevelt Island only - while others talk about reviving the IND Second System. Then they argue about that their ideas not being taken "seriously", when any kind of concensus on an issue is immediately thrown away for the latest new idea. So "Let's redesign the whole subway" just because some folks feel that they have to wait too long for a train. The idea that there are limits: financial, legal, practical - etc - just has no meaning - its as if "we can color our paper maps anyway we want" without any concerns or realities. While some of this is in the realm of fantasy and just jaw-boning, its ... So the best advice that I can give is - do not worry about the Transit Museum - it will be around in its present location for a long time. As one who has taken his classes there on many a trip, and still enjoy it - for as long as the MTA supports the Museum it will be around. Those on the forums who would "tear it down" for their latest new subway idea, will be discussing another issue in a month or less, and previous "just got to do it" bright ideas will be forgotten. Mike |
|
|
| (559895) | |
Re: New Transit Museum Facility |
|
|
Posted by BMTLines on Sun Jan 27 11:38:02 2008, in response to Re: New Transit Museum Facility, posted by Michael549 on Sun Jan 27 11:29:11 2008. Bottom line is that they are having enough trouble getting financing to build the SAS and what amounts to a one or two stop extension of the 7 train. Does anyone realistically think that they will EVER build another East River tunnel within the next 300 years? By that time the entire transit system or even NYC itself may be a ruin as we have moved on to colonies in Mars ;-) |
|
|
| (559896) | |
Re: 8 Track Tunnel to Brooklyn |
|
|
Posted by Newkirk Images on Sun Jan 27 11:38:27 2008, in response to Re: 8 Track Tunnel to Brooklyn, posted by Russ on Sun Jan 27 11:29:08 2008. Nice chatting with you, have a nice day !Bill "Newkirk" |
|
|
| (559897) | |
Re: New Transit Museum Facility |
|
|
Posted by FarRock on Sun Jan 27 11:39:32 2008, in response to Re: New Transit Museum Facility, posted by Newkirk Images on Sun Jan 27 11:01:33 2008. More space will be needed since more trains are retiring. The current location is perfect and should remain where it is. An extension of the transit musuem can be on the NB abandoned platform at Hoyt. Just build a wall on the edge of the platform near the northbound (A) and (C) tracks. Set turnstyles at the current location so you can pay your admission with a Metrocard. You can getta transfer to go the Hoyt location to see the trains which would have a turnstlye set up somewhere. It's probably possible to set up the turnstyles that it will take the admission price off the card and you can only get a transfer between the 2 locations and not from a regular station or bus to musuem. Unlimiteds wont work. |
|
|
| (559898) | |
Re: New Transit Museum Facility |
|
|
Posted by Russ on Sun Jan 27 11:40:13 2008, in response to Re: New Transit Museum Facility, posted by BMTLines on Sun Jan 27 11:38:02 2008. Does anyone realistically think that they will EVER build another East River tunnel within the next 300 years?Yes. If you look at existing trends, there will be more subway expansion in our lifetimes beyond the 7 train and SAS. |
|
|
| (559901) | |
Re: New Transit Museum Facility |
|
|
Posted by Newkirk Images on Sun Jan 27 11:44:40 2008, in response to Re: New Transit Museum Facility, posted by BMTLines on Sun Jan 27 11:38:02 2008. By that time the entire transit system or even NYC itself may be a ruin as we have moved on to colonies in Mars ;-)NYC will be abandoned all in ruins with aging new tech trains sitting on rusty tracks long disused with full length SAS nearing completion ! Nostradamus could have predicted this. Bill "Newkirk" |
|
|
| (559904) | |
Re: New Transit Museum Facility |
|
|
Posted by Russ on Sun Jan 27 11:51:08 2008, in response to Re: New Transit Museum Facility, posted by Michael549 on Sun Jan 27 11:29:11 2008. So the best advice that I can give is - do not worry about the Transit Museum - it will be around in its present location for a long time.Don't be so sure. The existing trends in the city for population and GCP growth are expected to continue, as are those pertaining to energy prices and carbon emmisions. This is a stark contrast to 30 years ago. When the SAS is complete, and as long as current trends continue it will be, it will be extended to Brooklyn. The idea that there are limits: financial, legal, practical - etc - just has no meaning It has enormous meaning. If Court St is the path of least resistance, then that is where the SAS will go. If a more compelling alternative is devised, and there is at least a decade to do so, then that will be used. One thing is fairly certain with regard to reopening Court St for revenue service. Until the SAS and E trains are extended to Brooklyn, Court St is valid and realistic option. |
|
|
| (559905) | |
Re: New Transit Museum Facility |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Sun Jan 27 11:51:54 2008, in response to Re: New Transit Museum Facility, posted by BMTLines on Sun Jan 27 11:38:02 2008. 300 years, no.Within a century, probably. |
|
|
| (559906) | |
Re: New Transit Museum Facility |
|
|
Posted by BMTLines on Sun Jan 27 11:52:19 2008, in response to Re: New Transit Museum Facility, posted by Russ on Sun Jan 27 11:40:13 2008. And I dream about a new BMT Corp re-privatizing the subway (usually if I go to bed after having a couple of shots of Ouzo)... Then reality sinks in after I wake up ;-) |
|
|
| (559907) | |
Re: New Transit Museum Facility |
|
|
Posted by Newkirk Images on Sun Jan 27 11:56:13 2008, in response to Re: New Transit Museum Facility, posted by FarRock on Sun Jan 27 11:39:32 2008. I don't know about the Hoyt-Schermerhorn idea. The museum currently is tucked away in it's own corner of the system away from the fray. That in a way is good. But I feel two locations may be a bit much.Bill "Newkirk" |
|
|
| (559909) | |
Re: New Transit Museum Facility |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Sun Jan 27 12:01:18 2008, in response to Re: New Transit Museum Facility, posted by Russ on Sun Jan 27 11:51:08 2008. As I've said in other posts, and as I thought you yourself supported, Court St is probably too shallow unless you envision construction on the surface through Brooklyn Heights, which won't be too likely, believe you me.It's possible there could - and this is long-range speculation, so the usual caveats apply - be a deep station somewhere under the Transit Museum. But count the steps from street down to the platforms - not that many. Look at how the projected southernmost station in Manhattan is supposed to be some 110' feet below. Look at where the lower level platforms are at 63rd St. |
|
|
| (559910) | |
Re: New Transit Museum Facility |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Sun Jan 27 12:05:59 2008, in response to Re: New Transit Museum Facility, posted by Newkirk Images on Sun Jan 27 11:56:13 2008. Seems like with the cars to be retired in the coming years, and the overall fleet size expanding, what TM might need is more yard space to layup trains for rotating exhibits.How many additions can be expected of the current cars in their last years of service? These classes all use married pairs, right, so that's at least 2 cars per class of R32/38/40/42. Taken both looks of the R40 and that's another pair. |
|
|
| (559916) | |
Re: New Transit Museum Facility |
|
|
Posted by Russ on Sun Jan 27 12:24:08 2008, in response to Re: New Transit Museum Facility, posted by trainsarefun on Sun Jan 27 12:01:18 2008. As I've said in other posts, and as I thought you yourself supported, Court St is probably too shallow unless you envision construction on the surface through Brooklyn Heights, which won't be too likely, believe you me.I did write that it looks challenging, but I'm not an engineer. Surface construction in Brooklyn Heights would face local opposition. How much probably depends on how invasive it is, and how long it lasts. My thinking is now that Court St is probably not the best option. That said, when the day comes to extend the SAS to Brooklyn, does anyone seriously think that Court St will not be on a list of potential alignments? A full cost-benefit analysis will be conducted, and intangibles like the Museum's benefits will be factored in. We've probably got at least a decade until this becomes a real part of the MTA's agenda. |
|
|
| (559922) | |
Re: New Transit Museum Facility |
|
|
Posted by BMTLines on Sun Jan 27 12:28:08 2008, in response to Re: New Transit Museum Facility, posted by Russ on Sun Jan 27 12:24:08 2008. We've probably got at least a decade until this becomes a real part of the MTA's agenda.It took 75+ years from when the SAS was first proposed to finally get the part above 60th street to the point where it might actually open. Do you really think there will be more construction any time in the next 75 - 100 years..... You are really optimistic. |
|
|
| (559925) | |
Re: New Transit Museum Facility |
|
|
Posted by Russ on Sun Jan 27 12:40:02 2008, in response to Re: New Transit Museum Facility, posted by BMTLines on Sun Jan 27 12:28:08 2008. t took 75+ years from when the SAS was first proposed to finally get the part above 60th street to the point where it might actually open. Do you really think there will be more construction any time in the next 75 - 100 years..... You are really optimistic.Let's look at what happened in those 75 years. a) Transportation infrastructure expansion was overwhelmingly biased against rail. b) Then New York's population shrunk. c) Global thinking about how to build cities changed d) Starting With Koch and Rohatyn, New York then began to get its house in order. So here we are today. No one will expand roads, and yet the population is booming. The SAS is being built because we now live in a different political environment. Yeah, I'm not being optimistic, I'm being realistic. Citing the last three-quarters of a century, without regard to trends, does not really qualify as an accurate interpretation of history, nor does it serve as a model to forecast future developments. |
|
|
| (559927) | |
Re: New Transit Museum Facility |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Sun Jan 27 12:51:58 2008, in response to Re: New Transit Museum Facility, posted by BMTLines on Sun Jan 27 12:28:08 2008. So far, the times have favored us in rail expansion much more so than in the first decades of the postwar era, in this metropolitan area, at least.But you're right that things can change, and often fast. The economy is going frigid now - let's see what happens to this new luxury housing built one what people in the trade call 'frontiers', e.g., McCarren Park, LIC, etc., whether a glut oversupply results, or whether prices continue onward and upward toward infinity as time progresses. A recent report from Far Rockaway suggests strongly that there's an increase in housing supply and decrease in demand (at the offering prices, anyway): The prices of the homes that do sell are off 15 percent in a year, brokers say, noting a certain appeal to buyers in that statistic. But homes are lingering for up to a year, when in 2005 they often changed hands in two months, they add. And supply could shoot up in 2008, according to Ms. Doresca; in mid-January, there were 270 homes for sale on the whole Rockaway peninsula, and as owners suffer mortgage trouble, that inventory could top 400 this year. Currently, the market’s low end is a one-story 1940 bungalow on Beach 24th Street, with three bedrooms and a bath, for $279,000, according to the Stratus multiple listings service. At the high end is a 1920 Colonial Revival in Bayswater, with 3,000 square feet, for $800,000. The median price is $550,000, which can now buy a two-family built in the last few years, with three bedrooms upstairs and two below, usually off Mott Avenue, the main commercial drag. As we also know, MTA makes money off the real estate market too, so as that cools, there's less income for the authority too. But if one adopts the attitude that we're going to build to stimulate development, maybe that indicates something different. It's too early to yet tell what will happen. Conservative estimates: I anticipate that LIRR ESA will be completed by 2020. To operate that with service increases will require a purchase of new rolling stock (and possibly overhaul of the M3s). SAS should be operational to at least 96th St by 2020 too. Not so sure about LIRR's 3rd mainline track - we'll have to see what happens, and there's sure to be a ton of opposition, so the some political horse-trading might be necessary. As for the rest of SAS, things are cloudy so far. Across ye olde North River, I'm much less knowledgeable, but it looks like the ARC project will be going forward - we'll see what happens with Portal Bridge replacement as an indicator. As for the rest, I'd have to think and read more on that, although it looks like ARC will have highest priority in terms of what I've read. |
|
|
| (559931) | |
Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave |
|
|
Posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Sun Jan 27 13:13:16 2008, in response to Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave, posted by Broadway Lion on Fri Jan 25 23:07:24 2008. True...I think that's why the V should switch over to the 8th Avenue line south of West 4th St, not Jay. That way, the V can also directly serve Downtown. |
|
|
| (559933) | |
Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave |
|
|
Posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Sun Jan 27 13:20:42 2008, in response to Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave, posted by SMAZ on Sun Jan 27 07:15:54 2008. Yes, I think the C and E should stay as they are, with the V joining them below West 4th. But can the switches at both West 4th and Canal handle all the merging? That's something that remains to be seen... |
|
|
| (559934) | |
Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave |
|
|
Posted by Osmosis Jones on Sun Jan 27 13:27:45 2008, in response to Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave, posted by B47man on Sat Jan 26 23:01:50 2008. 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.....West 4th Street>Broadway-Lafayette Street>Lower East Side-2nd Avenue>Essex Street. |
|
|
| (559935) | |
Re: New Transit Museum Facility |
|
|
Posted by Wado MP73 on Sun Jan 27 13:28:45 2008, in response to Re: New Transit Museum Facility, posted by Russ on Sat Jan 26 11:58:55 2008. Many transit museums around the World have no rail connections to the system. You don't have to limit the location to an existing transit facility if you don't mind that. They won't be able to easily do museum runs with the cars on exhibit, but even now, only part of the preserved cars are on display at the museum and it's not like they move the cars when the museum is open.Just a thought. Now good luck finding sponsors. |
|
|
| (559936) | |
Re: New Transit Museum Facility |
|
|
Posted by BMTLines on Sun Jan 27 13:33:36 2008, in response to Re: New Transit Museum Facility, posted by Wado MP73 on Sun Jan 27 13:28:45 2008. Move it to Steamtown... |
|
|
| (559938) | |
Re: New Transit Museum Facility |
|
|
Posted by FarRock on Sun Jan 27 13:45:04 2008, in response to Re: New Transit Museum Facility, posted by Wado MP73 on Sun Jan 27 13:28:45 2008. Trains need to be able to do museums runs in the system. |
|
|
| (560009) | |
Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Sun Jan 27 17:15:12 2008, in response to Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave, posted by SMAZ on Sun Jan 27 05:32:42 2008. I think that the (A) runs more TPH then that during the rush.Yes it does. I looked at the 6-9 mintute headway in the schedule and stopped there. I looked it up again and counted between 4:30 and 5:30 at W4th. It was 14 tph. That makes it 37 tph between Canal and H-S. They haven't operated more than 36 tph since the Third Ave El went to South Ferry. |
|
|
| (560060) | |
Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave |
|
|
Posted by Wado MP73 on Sun Jan 27 19:52:25 2008, in response to Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave, posted by Osmosis Jones on Sun Jan 27 13:27:45 2008. Lower East Side-2nd AvenueI like that but that's an oopsie. |
|
|
| (560081) | |
Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Sun Jan 27 20:32:07 2008, in response to Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave, posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Sun Jan 27 13:20:42 2008. You can have some (C) trains merging with the (A) at 50th St and give it a (C) Diamond designation. The rest would terminate at WTC. The (V)(A) and (C) Diamond should all then fit into Cranberry St. The (C) Diamond could be the Rock Park train, The (V) the Euclid Local, the (A) could add trains at Lefferts and Far Rock from trains no longer using Rock Park. |
|
|
| (560087) | |
Re: SAS to Brooklyn/Staten Island |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Sun Jan 27 20:38:52 2008, in response to Re: New Transit Museum Facility, posted by SMAZ on Sun Jan 27 06:04:16 2008. Or perhaps, once it reaches the Seaport Station, it could be done where trains are able to leave there for Brooklyn, with from Hanover Square, that being the launching pad for trains to Staten Island. |
|
|
| (560092) | |
Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave |
|
|
Posted by Grand concourse on Sun Jan 27 20:44:04 2008, in response to Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave, posted by Edwards! on Sun Jan 27 08:01:10 2008. They should've just built the 6th Av line going strait down 6th Av rather than to curve East on Houston. And have 8th Av curve East on Houston rather than going down 6th.6th Av [A,C,E] 8th Av [B,D,F,V] |
|
|
| (560094) | |
Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave |
|
|
Posted by Grand concourse on Sun Jan 27 20:44:53 2008, in response to Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave, posted by AlM on Sat Jan 26 11:13:52 2008. That's what I implied too, seems like my post was over looked. oh well. Good to see you share my ideas too. |
|
|
| (560095) | |
Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave |
|
|
Posted by Grand concourse on Sun Jan 27 20:45:14 2008, in response to Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave, posted by AlM on Sat Jan 26 11:13:52 2008. That's what I implied too, seems like my post was over looked. oh well. Good to see you have similar* ideas too. |
|
|
| (560097) | |
Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave |
|
|
Posted by Grand concourse on Sun Jan 27 20:46:51 2008, in response to Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave, posted by Stephen Bauman on Sat Jan 26 12:23:04 2008. F would swap w/the E so the F would terminate at WTC. A and v would be the only ones going thru the tunnel. So other than maybe a slight increace of V trains, there should be enough space for both trains. |
|
|
| (560099) | |
Re: SAS to Brooklyn/Staten Island |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Sun Jan 27 20:47:54 2008, in response to Re: SAS to Brooklyn/Staten Island, posted by Wallyhorse on Sun Jan 27 20:38:52 2008. Why should SI get express rail service to Lower Manhattan with a long, costly tunnel under the harbor? And that would seem to make it difficult to write up a timetable for this 2nd Av-SI line with this monkey wrench thrown into station spacing. |
|
|
| (560100) | |
Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Sun Jan 27 20:49:36 2008, in response to Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave, posted by Grand concourse on Sun Jan 27 20:44:04 2008. Why are you switching express routes? The switches at Washington Sq don't allow that move. |
|
|
| (560104) | |
Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave |
|
|
Posted by Grand concourse on Sun Jan 27 20:51:18 2008, in response to Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave, posted by B47man on Sat Jan 26 23:55:42 2008. Not a good plan, even on weekends ppl at 5th Av and Lex still waits on the platform for the V to 6th Av rather than to read the signs. They will neither read them nor approve of taking another train one stop just to go back down.Plus what's the point of switching the C and V if they are going to just replace the letter designation south of 53rd? Then you may as well leave things as they are. |
|
|
| (560106) | |
Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave |
|
|
Posted by Grand concourse on Sun Jan 27 20:55:03 2008, in response to Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave, posted by trainsarefun on Sun Jan 27 20:49:36 2008. I said should've when the IND was built. And technically it would've been interesting like had the IRT been built down Broadway rather than to 7th Av and BMT down 7th Av.Of course I know the express tracks are NOT connected to each other. |
|
|
| (560107) | |
Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave |
|
|
Posted by Grand concourse on Sun Jan 27 20:57:58 2008, in response to Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave, posted by AlM on Sat Jan 26 11:13:52 2008. Finally, if the E ran down Culver it would give southern BMT a direct to 8th Av line rather than just 6th Av or Broadway.Besides if riders wants 6th Av there would be a direct cross-platform transfer at Broadway-Houston station b4 W4th where they can take teh escalator/elevator/stairs 2 levels down. |
|
|
| (560115) | |
Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Sun Jan 27 21:07:03 2008, in response to Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave, posted by Grand concourse on Sun Jan 27 20:55:03 2008. Ok, I wasn't following - thanks for follow-up. |
|
|
| (560116) | |
Re: Further 7 line extension |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Sun Jan 27 21:08:43 2008, in response to Re: New Transit Museum Facility, posted by SMAZ on Sun Jan 27 06:09:44 2008. That is a good thought:I like the idea of extending the 7 line further south, as previously noted after Javits via 11th avenue to 14th Street, and then from there to a station that might have to be on a curve at 14th/9th-10th-11th Avenues in order to have it then proceed down Husdon Street. On Hudson, it could then proceed to where you suggested. |
|
|
|
Page 4 of 7 |
||
