|
|
| Re: SAS to Brooklyn/Staten Island (559236) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 5 of 7 |
||
|
| (560126) | |
Re: SAS to Brooklyn/Staten Island |
|
|
Posted by (SIR) North Shore Line on Sun Jan 27 21:21:56 2008, in response to Re: SAS to Brooklyn/Staten Island, posted by trainsarefun on Sun Jan 27 20:47:54 2008. Have you been following any of our discussions over the past 2 years?Firstly, it seems that you've forgotten that Staten Island is a borough of New York City just like the rest. Staten Island has ever increasing traffic and transit dilemmas that can't be solved until a rail connection is built. Staten Island also has the most pollution in NYC...and just about thee longest transit/traffic commutes in America. Staten Island then has the most potential for growth out of the 5 boroughs and a rail connection would do just that. As right now, there are no skyscrapers or any of the liking here. A rail connection to St. George would have the same effect that the HBLR did to Jersey City/Pavonia-Newport. The tallest buildings we have on SI are the projects in all reality. When the (T) line is finally running, it would be fully automated by CBTC meaning that the large spacing would have no effect on the line, just like BART's 4-mile long Transbay Tunnel that is shared by 4 different automated lines. |
|
|
| (560130) | |
Re: New Transit Museum Facility |
|
|
Posted by Grand concourse on Sun Jan 27 21:29:41 2008, in response to Re: New Transit Museum Facility, posted by trainsarefun on Sat Jan 26 12:17:18 2008. Exactly! I've always said those would make nice alternatives to teh current museum location. plus if both stations were connected via one long platform [built over the road bed of the 'nb express track' then you can have one very long platform for the entire collection.] |
|
|
| (560131) | |
Re: SAS to Brooklyn/Staten Island |
|
|
Posted by Russ on Sun Jan 27 21:29:55 2008, in response to Re: SAS to Brooklyn/Staten Island, posted by (SIR) North Shore Line on Sun Jan 27 21:21:56 2008. Hanover Square> Downtown Brooklyn> 4th Avenue> 65th St Tunnel to St. George. |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (560135) | |
Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Sun Jan 27 21:33:43 2008, in response to Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave, posted by Edwards! on Sat Jan 26 03:37:00 2008. What do you think :) |
|
|
| (560138) | |
Re: SAS to Brooklyn/Staten Island |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Sun Jan 27 21:36:34 2008, in response to Re: SAS to Brooklyn/Staten Island, posted by (SIR) North Shore Line on Sun Jan 27 21:21:56 2008. Have you been following any of our discussions over the past 2 years?Not really; I'm a relative neophyte, here. Firstly, it seems that you've forgotten that Staten Island is a borough of New York City just like the rest. Not that they oughtn't get rail service. It should just go through NJ or Brooklyn. When the (T) line is finally running, it would be fully automated by CBTC meaning that the large spacing would have no effect on the line, just like BART's 4-mile long Transbay Tunnel that is shared by 4 different automated lines. We'll see.... No miracles on the 14th St-Canarsie Line yet. |
|
|
| (560173) | |
Re: SAS to Brooklyn/Staten Island |
|
|
Posted by (SIR) North Shore Line on Sun Jan 27 22:23:58 2008, in response to Re: SAS to Brooklyn/Staten Island, posted by Russ on Sun Jan 27 21:29:55 2008. We already established that the above routing via 4th Avenue wouldn't be feasible as the ferry could just continue doing it's job in a quicker time. |
|
|
| (560177) | |
Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Sun Jan 27 22:29:45 2008, in response to Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave, posted by SMAZ on Sun Jan 27 20:32:07 2008. THAT was even too complicated to read, much less understand.ROAR |
|
|
| (560184) | |
Re: SAS to Brooklyn/Staten Island |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Sun Jan 27 22:37:03 2008, in response to Re: SAS to Brooklyn/Staten Island, posted by (SIR) North Shore Line on Sun Jan 27 22:23:58 2008. So? I'm sure that a direct line from Ft Hamilton to Whitehall St would be quicker than the R route, but there's a decent reason why that's not built, no? |
|
|
| (560197) | |
Re: SAS to Brooklyn/Staten Island |
|
|
Posted by (SIR) North Shore Line on Sun Jan 27 22:49:55 2008, in response to Re: SAS to Brooklyn/Staten Island, posted by trainsarefun on Sun Jan 27 22:37:03 2008. The only thing holding such a line back is $$$. Did you miss this discussion?(R) Extension Idea |
|
|
| (560201) | |
Re: SAS to Brooklyn/Staten Island |
|
|
Posted by Grand concourse on Sun Jan 27 23:07:36 2008, in response to Re: SAS to Brooklyn/Staten Island, posted by (SIR) North Shore Line on Sun Jan 27 21:21:56 2008. "When the (T) line is finally running, it would be fully automated by CBTC meaning that the large spacing would have no effect on the line, just like BART's 4-mile long Transbay Tunnel that is shared by 4 different automated lines."Apples to oranges. You can't compare the 2 systems. SI is just 1 of 5 boroughs while the BART links SF to Oakland and is a major link. A 5 mile tunnel b/w 2 boroughs is not a justified expense. If it was a tunnel that connected Manhattan to NJ then it would be justifed since it would be used by a larger group of riders. SI maybe growing, but it is not compareable in size to other boroughs like Brooklyn or Queens. SI still has the free ferry and express buses. The only rail connection that is possible would be to Brooklyn [but should not be connected to the R as a continuous subway line, but more a shuttle w/an across the platform transfer]. |
|
|
| (560203) | |
Re: SAS to Brooklyn/Staten Island |
|
|
Posted by Russ on Sun Jan 27 23:10:38 2008, in response to Re: SAS to Brooklyn/Staten Island, posted by (SIR) North Shore Line on Sun Jan 27 22:23:58 2008. IIRC, that was established based on the assumption that the local tracks would be used. Also, no one factored in the time needed to walk from the ferry to the subway in Manhattan. |
|
|
| (560218) | |
Re: SAS to Brooklyn/Staten Island |
|
|
Posted by Russ on Sun Jan 27 23:45:51 2008, in response to Re: SAS to Brooklyn/Staten Island, posted by Grand concourse on Sun Jan 27 23:07:36 2008. The only rail connection that is possible would be to Brooklyn [but should not be connected to the R as a continuous subway line, but more a shuttle w/an across the platform transferYou want to build a multi-billion dollar tunnel for a shuttle? |
|
|
| (560222) | |
Re: SAS to Brooklyn/Staten Island |
|
|
Posted by Grand concourse on Sun Jan 27 23:58:23 2008, in response to Re: SAS to Brooklyn/Staten Island, posted by Russ on Sun Jan 27 23:45:51 2008. No way would I want the R extended and I'd rather it be the SIRT that runs to Brooklyn than a subway to SI. [Ok so not a shuttle, but a branch from Tottenville then.] |
|
|
| (560223) | |
Re: SAS to Brooklyn/Staten Island |
|
|
Posted by Grand concourse on Sun Jan 27 23:59:23 2008, in response to Re: SAS to Brooklyn/Staten Island, posted by Grand concourse on Sun Jan 27 23:58:23 2008. Running w/the main line up to a certain point then branching off at a station to go to Brooklyn. |
|
|
| (560227) | |
Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Mon Jan 28 00:40:52 2008, in response to Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave, posted by Broadway Lion on Sun Jan 27 22:29:45 2008. It would look better on a map.(A): 207th St-Lefferts Blvd and Far Rockaway/Mott Av via 8th Av and Fulton Express (C): 168th St- WTC via 8th Av Local (V): 71st St/Forest Hills-Euclid Av via 6th Av local and Fulton Local This should result in about 26-28 TPH between Canal St and Hoyt-Shermerhorn. |
|
|
| (560232) | |
Re: Further 7 line extension |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Mon Jan 28 00:52:43 2008, in response to Re: Further 7 line extension, posted by Wallyhorse on Sun Jan 27 21:08:43 2008. Since it would be deep bore it wouldn't have to curve by much to reach Hudson St from West St/16th St or so. Have a diagonal station between 16th and 14th and then let it curve under buildings from there to Hudson St. Stack an (L) line station on top of this diagonal station and run that north to at least 42nd St. |
|
|
| (560233) | |
Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave |
|
|
Posted by Grand concourse on Mon Jan 28 00:53:29 2008, in response to Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave, posted by SMAZ on Sun Jan 27 20:32:07 2008. If you are going to do all that then you may as well leave the V alone and take some E trains and run them express on fulton along w/the A and keep the C and V as they are. |
|
|
| (560236) | |
Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Mon Jan 28 00:58:28 2008, in response to Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave, posted by Grand concourse on Sun Jan 27 20:44:04 2008. As Edwards! pointed out, the 6th and 8th Av locals at least were built to do just that. As in:6th Av local: (F)(V) 6th Av to WTC/Chambers/Brooklyn 8th Av local: (C)(E) 8th Av to 2nd Av/Rutgers/Brooklyn The expresses would have to remain as is. Does anyone know at what point and why did the IND choose the current pattern over the more logical one? |
|
|
| (560238) | |
Re: Switching the C and V trains |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Mon Jan 28 01:01:25 2008, in response to Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave, incorrect, make it Church Av., posted by Broadway Lion on Sat Jan 26 17:36:36 2008. Good points:I had previously brought up the idea myself on this, and yes, perhaps having the C and V switch terminals once construction is complete on the Culver Line, and especially if the lower level of Bergen Street on the F can be fixed and reopened. That way, you can have the C and G trains both running local to Church Avenue while the F runs express there, giving riders the option of 6th and 8th avenue service (and in the case of those who have to take the local in this scenario, they can make an across-the-platform transfer at Jay Street or earlier if they want the F). |
|
|
| (560239) | |
Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Mon Jan 28 01:01:38 2008, in response to Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave, posted by Grand concourse on Mon Jan 28 00:53:29 2008. Some (E) Diamond to Brooklyn trains would get the same job done. However that would be a terribly long ride from Jamaica to the Rockaways for the personnel involved. |
|
|
| (560240) | |
Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave |
|
|
Posted by Grand concourse on Mon Jan 28 01:03:24 2008, in response to Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave, posted by trainsarefun on Sun Jan 27 21:07:03 2008. np |
|
|
| (560242) | |
Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave |
|
|
Posted by Grand concourse on Mon Jan 28 01:05:10 2008, in response to Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave, posted by SMAZ on Mon Jan 28 01:01:38 2008. Then those can run from 71st then - strait from the yard. |
|
|
| (560246) | |
Re: Further 7/L line extensions |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Mon Jan 28 01:15:04 2008, in response to Re: Further 7 line extension, posted by SMAZ on Mon Jan 28 00:52:43 2008. That is something else I have said previously:It would be a very good idea to also have the L train go towards at least the Javits Center or 42nd. From there, the L could continue with a stop at 50th street-11th Avenue and then stop at 57th Street-10th avenue before continuing up Amsterdam Avenue to a new terminal at 72nd where Amsterdam Avenue and Broadway meet underneath the 1/2/3 station there OR as I also previously wrote continuing up 11th avenue with stops at 50th and 57th and then contiuing up West End Avenue with stops at 72nd and either 79th or 86th before terminating at 96th (with a transfer there to the 1/2/3) or continuing to where West End ends, then continuing under the 1 up Broadway to a new terminal at 116th/Columbia University. |
|
|
| (560255) | |
Re: New Transit Museum Facility |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Mon Jan 28 02:09:15 2008, in response to Re: New Transit Museum Facility, posted by Michael549 on Sun Jan 27 11:29:11 2008. The so-called "idea of the week" arguments about the (V) are more then legitimate. Unlike other fun unrealistic fantasy plans about the SAS or what have you, the (V) is an underused asset that can bring major benefits if extended "somewhere", whether that somewhere is the Culver, the Fulton or Bklyn-Bway. None of it would require any new construction. It's not fantasy but something that could be done within the end of the year and discussions about it are far from a waste of "electronic ink". |
|
|
| (560268) | |
Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Mon Jan 28 03:16:42 2008, in response to Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave, posted by Grand concourse on Sun Jan 27 20:57:58 2008. Not only that but the Lex and the SAS would get a good transfer to 8th Av service at Bleeker and Houston St respectively. |
|
|
| (560269) | |
Re: Further 7/L line extensions |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Mon Jan 28 03:28:11 2008, in response to Re: Further 7/L line extensions, posted by Wallyhorse on Mon Jan 28 01:15:04 2008. IAWTP |
|
|
| (560271) | |
Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Mon Jan 28 03:30:59 2008, in response to Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave, posted by Grand concourse on Mon Jan 28 01:05:10 2008. (R)+(V)+some(E) trains out of 71st may not be doable. I think that a rush hour (C) Diamond would be more simple from an operational standpoint. |
|
|
| (560295) | |
Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Mon Jan 28 07:14:18 2008, in response to Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave, posted by SMAZ on Mon Jan 28 00:40:52 2008. The V will be merging with the: R (Continental); E (Queens Plaza); F (50th St) and now back to the E (W4th). This guarantees that there will be merging conflicts at W 4th; at all but a few select service levels.According to the schedules the running time between Queens Plaza and W 4th is 19 and 17 minutes for the E and V, respectively. The rush hour headway for the E is 4 minutes. The V's slots should be 2 minutes behind the E. An E leaves Queens Plaza at 8:00 and a V leaves at 8:02. That E arrives at W4th at 8:19. The V arrives at W4th at 8:19. Oops!!! |
|
|
| (560309) | |
Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave/Merging the C with the M |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Mon Jan 28 07:47:29 2008, in response to Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave, posted by Osmosis Jones on Sat Jan 26 12:24:45 2008. This could also work:While yes, it does mean 8th avenue riders who want to go between 59th and 14th would have to switch to the A at 59th, it needs to be remembered those going to West 4th or below can stay on the C to West 4th and just get off there or switch to the A at West 4th (which for those who normally would take the C to West 4th would be only one extra stop) OR if such are looking for 50th or 23rd Street in particular can take the C to 7th avenue and switch there to the E across the platform. There are ways to work around that sticking point. A C-M merger could also work as that would provide Broadway Brooklyn riders with access to upper Manhattan in addition to Midtown. |
|
|
| (560311) | |
Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave/Merging the C with the M |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Mon Jan 28 07:50:11 2008, in response to Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave, posted by SMAZ on Sun Jan 27 07:15:54 2008. Except:C riders can in that scenario can also ride to 7th avenue for an across-the-platform transfer to the E, so that would not be as big a deal once they got used to that. Not everyone would crush the A train at CC. |
|
|
| (560338) | |
Re: SAS to Brooklyn/Staten Island |
|
|
Posted by (SIR) North Shore Line on Mon Jan 28 09:57:20 2008, in response to Re: SAS to Brooklyn/Staten Island, posted by Russ on Sun Jan 27 23:45:51 2008. This "shuttle" would be to the entire borough of Staten Island as the LIRR is to Long Islanders and the Metro-North is to commuters Upstate. |
|
|
| (560346) | |
Re: New Transit Museum Facility |
|
|
Posted by Mr RT on Mon Jan 28 10:30:32 2008, in response to Re: New Transit Museum Facility, posted by Newkirk Images on Sat Jan 26 15:05:43 2008. I agree.The only thing I would add is the need for storage space of cars saved that aren't currently in the museum, e.g. ones used for trips or to change the mix of what's on display. The problem for the museum now is that the current space is sufficient for an excellent "subway" display, but not when you include buses, TBTA, LIRR, M-N, etc. I think they are trying to do too much in the space they have, but that's politics. |
|
|
| (560359) | |
Re: SAS to Brooklyn/Staten Island |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Mon Jan 28 11:11:16 2008, in response to Re: SAS to Brooklyn/Staten Island, posted by Russ on Sun Jan 27 23:45:51 2008. LION would NOT build a Tunnel.LION would consider LRV, and would usurp a traffic lane in each direction on the VNB for this new service. The LION would also usurp all parking lanes on major SI roadways for his LRV. *THEN* we will see how committed SIers are to a connection with the world. The LION's route would have a new dedicated, elevated ROW concurrent with the BQE into the BBT with a set of loops in Lower Manhattan.   |
|
|
| (560362) | |
Re: SAS to Brooklyn/Staten Island |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Mon Jan 28 11:14:40 2008, in response to Re: SAS to Brooklyn/Staten Island, posted by Russ on Sun Jan 27 23:10:38 2008. 1) YES Local tracks MUST be used, for to do otherwise would require switching and delay of ALL trains.2) It also does not factor in the time it takes to walk from your office to the subway, or from the ferry to the train, or from the train to another bus, and from the other bus to your home. It is enough to show that from the foot of the South Ferry Terminal to St George, or from Whitehall Street to 95th Street is identical. ERGO the BOAT Beats the Train to SI, esp considering the (RR) train. ROAR |
|
|
| (560363) | |
Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Mon Jan 28 11:23:34 2008, in response to Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave, posted by SMAZ on Mon Jan 28 01:01:38 2008. Ah Hem...Chambers Street can serve as a break point. One Crew work from JamCenter to Chambers Another takes over from Chambers to Wherever No Problem. Crews will be happy to work with the MTA on any implementation that they need to run. That is to say that agreements *can* be reached. ROAR |
|
|
| (560364) | |
Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave, incorrect, make it Church Av. |
|
|
Posted by Pk Slope F on Mon Jan 28 11:24:57 2008, in response to Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave, incorrect, make it Church Av., posted by Broadway Lion on Sat Jan 26 17:36:36 2008. I don't mean to open a can of worms with this one, but I need to ask it anyway.Many people have stated that 6th Avenue passengers are in great need of access to Lower Manhattan. Where are these people? I don't think there is that big of a need for 6th Ave trains to switch to the 8th Ave line going south. Think about it. The only stations on 6th Ave where people would need a train that switches south of West 4th would be from West 4th to Rockefeller Center. Queens passengers could easily take an E, and upper Manhattan passengers could easily take the A/C. I personally think the V should stay on its current route onto Houston Street, either switching to the M (as mentioned in countless other posts)... or I'd rather prefer seeing it go to Church to help alleviate the bottlenecks on the F (in both AM and PM rush hours). |
|
|
| (560374) | |
Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave |
|
|
Posted by Dupont Circle Station on Mon Jan 28 11:40:17 2008, in response to "V" to Euclid Ave, posted by Train Dude on Fri Jan 25 22:05:29 2008. I say fawgeddabowdit. Merge the M and V into an "M" that goes to QB via 6th. Send the C to WTC and the E to Lefferts. Turn the Hillside extra E runs at Euclid. Since the A wouldn't have to do Lefferts any longer, the peak schedule could be tweaked to not overserve the Rockaways and free-up some space in Cranberry, or the excess can turn at Euclid. |
|
|
| (560377) | |
Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Mon Jan 28 11:47:48 2008, in response to Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave, posted by Broadway Lion on Mon Jan 28 11:23:34 2008. Chambers Street can serve as a break point.One Crew work from JamCenter to Chambers Another takes over from Chambers to Wherever No Problem. Whose brake handle? Change T/O and change brake handle means discharge and recharge brakes. Time taken is 60 seconds for recharge plus exchange of T/O's. I thought the object was to get more tph not less. |
|
|
| (560382) | |
Re: New Transit Museum Facility |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Mon Jan 28 11:59:22 2008, in response to Re: New Transit Museum Facility, posted by SMAZ on Mon Jan 28 02:09:15 2008. But nothing can be done with it without affecting other services, both with its need for equipment, its destinations, and its potential interference at the interlockings.ROAR |
|
|
| (560396) | |
Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Mon Jan 28 12:59:52 2008, in response to Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave, posted by Stephen Bauman on Mon Jan 28 11:47:48 2008. How does recharging work on the trains where the engineer doesn't bring his own brake handle; his key when pulled out will discharge the brakes? |
|
|
| (560415) | |
Re: SAS to Brooklyn/Staten Island |
|
|
Posted by Russ on Mon Jan 28 13:58:19 2008, in response to Re: SAS to Brooklyn/Staten Island, posted by (SIR) North Shore Line on Mon Jan 28 09:57:20 2008. The LIRR and MNCR terminates in a CBD. I believe that his idea is to terminate the SIR in the middle of South Brooklyn. |
|
|
| (560461) | |
Re: New Transit Museum Facility |
|
|
Posted by Wado MP73 on Mon Jan 28 16:10:55 2008, in response to Re: New Transit Museum Facility, posted by FarRock on Sun Jan 27 13:45:04 2008. It would be nice to have an annex where they could display buses and cars that would never be used on museum runs.Again, just a thought. |
|
|
| (560484) | |
Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave, incorrect, make it Church Av. |
|
|
Posted by R-1-9 on Mon Jan 28 16:58:09 2008, in response to Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave, incorrect, make it Church Av., posted by Pk Slope F on Mon Jan 28 11:24:57 2008. There was talk(a few years ago) that "V" trains will go to Church ave.during rush hours,or day time hours;but because of not enough cars,that is not going to happen |
|
|
| (560493) | |
Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave |
|
|
Posted by Wado MP73 on Mon Jan 28 17:15:46 2008, in response to Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave, posted by SMAZ on Mon Jan 28 00:58:28 2008. 10/30/1954. I think it had to do with the PABT opening a few years earlier.Even without the WTC, I don't think they would send the Sixth Ave. trains down to the financial district during rush again. It would put too much burden on the A, 1, 2 AND 3. |
|
|
| (560533) | |
Re: SAS to Brooklyn/Staten Island |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Mon Jan 28 18:19:30 2008, in response to Re: SAS to Brooklyn/Staten Island, posted by Broadway Lion on Mon Jan 28 11:11:16 2008. Right...LRV/LRT systems are the wave of the future for new rapid transit here in NYC.. Lets keep it real,folks..subways are a billion dollars a mile here..[take a good look at the over priced SAS PHASE 1..and thats only two miles long..its topping out at close to 4 BILLION DOLLARS..you think they will be able to REALLY FINISH 8 MILES of MANHATTAN ONLY SUBWAY?] A LRT along the same route would've cost much less... More to the point..a Narrows tunnel will cost BILLIONS alone..so WHY NOT use the Bridges inner roadways on the lower levels for LRT's? |
|
|
| (560538) | |
Re: SAS to Brooklyn/Staten Island |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Mon Jan 28 18:23:54 2008, in response to Re: SAS to Brooklyn/Staten Island, posted by (SIR) North Shore Line on Sun Jan 27 22:23:58 2008. The pproblem here is that ANY TUNNEL built to and thur STATEN ISLAND has to be a multi use project..for commuter/freight/rapid transit...Anything less would make the project useless. |
|
|
| (560540) | |
Re: SAS to Brooklyn/Staten Island |
|
|
Posted by Russ on Mon Jan 28 18:25:22 2008, in response to Re: SAS to Brooklyn/Staten Island, posted by Grand concourse on Sun Jan 27 23:58:23 2008. No way would I want the R extended and I'd rather it be the SIRT that runs to Brooklyn than a subway to SI. [Ok so not a shuttle, but a branch from Tottenville then.]I wouldn't want the R extended to Staten Island either. I doubt that the SIR will ever be extended to Brooklyn unless it is incorporated into the subway. There's no way, under any realistic funding scenario, that billions of dollars will become available to extend the SIR to Brooklyn. A much more realistic option is to convert the SIR to subway standards (this type of thing has been done before) and connect it to the 4th Av line at 65th St. |
|
|
| (560543) | |
Re: SAS to Brooklyn/Staten Island |
|
|
Posted by Russ on Mon Jan 28 18:31:03 2008, in response to Re: SAS to Brooklyn/Staten Island, posted by Broadway Lion on Mon Jan 28 11:14:40 2008. 1) YES Local tracks MUST be used, for to do otherwise would require switching and delay of ALL trains.Express tracks can be used, unless a law has been passed prohibiting it. By the time such a line is built, the signal system should be far more capable. 2) It also does not factor in the time it takes to walk from your office to the subway, or from the ferry to the train, or from the train to another bus, and from the other bus to your home. That misses the point as it is not part of the relevant comparison between the ferry and a potential subway. Most commuters who take the ferry then take the subway. That additional time is part of their commute, and it will be factored in to any commuters decision about which transportation option will be chosen. |
|
|
| (560545) | |
Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Mon Jan 28 18:32:26 2008, in response to Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave, posted by Wado MP73 on Mon Jan 28 17:15:46 2008. 10/30/1954. I think it had to do with the PABT opening a few years earlier.That's the date that the Culver became part part of the IND. They couldn't extend the F past Church Ave because the F was running 11 car trains. It had to be the D. That meant switching the D. The E was already operating via Chambers during rush hours to provide local service on the Fulton St Line. It was a bit confusing because it operated to Bway-Lafayette during non-rush hours. |
|
|
| (560548) | |
Re: SAS to Brooklyn/Staten Island |
|
|
Posted by Grand concourse on Mon Jan 28 18:34:09 2008, in response to Re: SAS to Brooklyn/Staten Island, posted by Russ on Mon Jan 28 18:25:22 2008. To do that would mean having to extend all SIRT stations to accomodate an 8-car train plus you would need to have heet/turnstiles at all stations so riders won't get a 'free ride' all the way from SI to Brooklyn to Manhattan.I still say leave both systems separate. |
|
|
|
Page 5 of 7 |
||
