|
|
| Re: Scans of service change brochure (was: Archer Avenue at 20) (717730) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 3 of 5 |
||
|
| (718660) | |
Re: Scans of service change brochure (was: Archer Avenue at 20) |
|
|
Posted by G1Ravage on Thu Dec 11 14:22:52 2008, in response to Re: Scans of service change brochure (was: Archer Avenue at 20), posted by Kew Gardens Teleport on Thu Dec 11 14:14:08 2008. Yeah...no wonder nobody knows anything about the service there. |
|
|
| (718663) | |
Re: some Sutphin Blvd pictures Re: Archer Avenue at 20 |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Dec 11 14:26:53 2008, in response to some Sutphin Blvd pictures Re: Archer Avenue at 20, posted by trainsarefun on Wed Dec 10 11:09:22 2008. Simply beautiful for something only 20 years old (and looked like this 10 years ago already). At least Chambers St has time on it's side to it's defense.Here's one taken of Sutphin in March 2001 by David Pirman (it says C2004, but that's probably when he loaded it, not when he took it as the caption says 3/01. The station was less than 13 years old in this photo:  Now compare that to a 1920's totally unrenovated or untouched station: |
|
|
| (718664) | |
Re: some Sutphin Blvd pictures Re: Archer Avenue at 20 |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Dec 11 14:27:08 2008, in response to some Sutphin Blvd pictures Re: Archer Avenue at 20, posted by trainsarefun on Wed Dec 10 11:09:22 2008. Simply beautiful for something only 20 years old (and looked like this 10 years ago already). At least Chambers St has time on it's side to it's defense.Here's one taken of Sutphin in March 2001 by David Pirman (it says C2004, but that's probably when he loaded it, not when he took it as the caption says 3/01. The station was less than 13 years old in this photo: Now compare that to a 1920's totally unrenovated or untouched station: 
|
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (718674) | |
Re: some Sutphin Blvd pictures Re: Archer Avenue at 20 |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Thu Dec 11 14:44:32 2008, in response to some Sutphin Blvd pictures Re: Archer Avenue at 20, posted by trainsarefun on Wed Dec 10 11:09:22 2008. Needs a lot of cleaning and work to reduce moisture. I would guess that there's mold somewhere. |
|
|
| (718684) | |
Re: Scans of service change brochure (was: Archer Avenue at 20) |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Dec 11 15:21:00 2008, in response to Re: Scans of service change brochure (was: Archer Avenue at 20), posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Thu Dec 11 14:19:27 2008. The Ronkonkoma Branch got similar service to the Patchogue segment, if I am not mistaken. That was the end of commuter service long before electrification. |
|
|
| (718687) | |
Re: Scans of service change brochure (was: Archer Avenue at 20) |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Dec 11 15:21:57 2008, in response to Re: Scans of service change brochure (was: Archer Avenue at 20), posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Thu Dec 11 14:15:53 2008. Oh snap, I never noticed that! |
|
|
| (718697) | |
Re: Scans of service change brochure (was: Archer Avenue at 20) |
|
|
Posted by Wado MP73 on Thu Dec 11 15:50:05 2008, in response to Re: Scans of service change brochure (was: Archer Avenue at 20), posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Dec 11 15:21:57 2008. I just checked mine. Same thing! lol |
|
|
| (718718) | |
Re: Scans of service change brochure (was: Archer Avenue at 20) |
|
|
Posted by Kew Gardens Teleport on Thu Dec 11 17:16:03 2008, in response to Re: Scans of service change brochure (was: Archer Avenue at 20), posted by Wado MP73 on Thu Dec 11 15:50:05 2008. ROTFLMAO :-D |
|
|
| (718723) | |
Re: Archer Avenue at 20 |
|
|
Posted by R42 4787 on Thu Dec 11 17:32:09 2008, in response to Re: Archer Avenue at 20, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Dec 11 12:33:12 2008. Slanted R40s remained the mainstay on the B until late 1997 (when swapped onto the Q), apparently due to complaints from Bensonhurst/Borough Park residents. |
|
|
| (718726) | |
Re: Archer Avenue at 20 |
|
|
Posted by R42 4787 on Thu Dec 11 17:40:03 2008, in response to Re: Archer Avenue at 20, posted by R30A on Thu Dec 11 13:28:48 2008. Name a single station which you think is worse than Sutphin Blvd, and WHY that station is worse?21 St-Van Alst (G)? |
|
|
| (718735) | |
Re: Archer Avenue at 20 |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Thu Dec 11 18:08:09 2008, in response to Re: Archer Avenue at 20, posted by R42 4787 on Thu Dec 11 17:40:03 2008. Van Alst has some water damage to one wall. The other side is in very good shape. The Asymmetry is impressive. |
|
|
| (718769) | |
Re: Archer Avenue at 20 |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Thu Dec 11 19:46:32 2008, in response to Re: Archer Avenue at 20, posted by R30A on Thu Dec 11 13:36:12 2008. Rockaway Park branch isn't great, but is still in arguably better shape than Sutphin.Compare the ridership of the all Rockaway Park Branch stations combined to Sutphin Blvd-Archer Av. That's quite relevant. Also compare the age of the stations. Sutphin Blvd-Archer Av was shoddy from day one. At 5 years old, it looked worn. At 10 years old, it needed rehab. Now, it's pathetic. |
|
|
| (718772) | |
Re: some Sutphin Blvd pictures Re: Archer Avenue at 20 |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Thu Dec 11 19:51:39 2008, in response to Re: some Sutphin Blvd pictures Re: Archer Avenue at 20, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Dec 11 14:26:53 2008. By 2004, the R46 shot would be a rarity, so that leads to favor the earlier date as well. Then again, it looks like the R32 trainset pictured is signed up for the R route.Sutphin Blvd-Archer Av looked cheap and shoddy from the get-go. Queensbridge-21 St though looked amazing, and to a much better extent than its sister Archer Av stations, still has got it. By 5 years old, Sutphin Blvd-Archer Av already looked old. |
|
|
| (718774) | |
Re: some Sutphin Blvd pictures Re: Archer Avenue at 20 |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Thu Dec 11 19:53:30 2008, in response to Re: some Sutphin Blvd pictures Re: Archer Avenue at 20, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Dec 11 14:27:08 2008. The Canarsie Line mosaics are such a nice touch, so easy to miss, but once you catch what's going on there, the noticing the intricacy is its own reward. |
|
|
| (718801) | |
Re: some Sutphin Blvd pictures Re: Archer Avenue at 20 |
|
|
Posted by 33rd Street on Thu Dec 11 21:09:36 2008, in response to Re: some Sutphin Blvd pictures Re: Archer Avenue at 20, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Dec 11 14:27:08 2008. Sutphin looks worse now. I'll post photos sometime tomorrow. |
|
|
| (718853) | |
Re: Archer Avenue at 20 |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Thu Dec 11 23:01:35 2008, in response to Re: Archer Avenue at 20, posted by RonInBayside on Thu Dec 11 13:24:27 2008. Ahh...resorting to type,are we?Kinda like Forest Gump... |
|
|
| (718867) | |
Re: Archer Avenue at 20 |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Thu Dec 11 23:31:10 2008, in response to Re: Archer Avenue at 20, posted by Edwards! on Thu Dec 11 23:01:35 2008. If Forrest Gump weren't fictional, that would be an insult to him.... |
|
|
| (718871) | |
Re: Archer Avenue at 20 |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Dec 11 23:36:35 2008, in response to Re: Archer Avenue at 20, posted by trainsarefun on Thu Dec 11 19:46:32 2008. Very accurate post. Every word of it. |
|
|
| (718873) | |
Re: Archer Avenue at 20 |
|
|
Posted by Wayne-MrSlantR40 on Thu Dec 11 23:38:04 2008, in response to Re: Archer Avenue at 20, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Thu Dec 11 13:26:25 2008. 205th - The drip pans there HAVE helped some; at least there's no standing water any more....Sutphin/Archer (upper); 5th Avenue /53rd; 21st-Van Alst; Lex/53rd (YES, EVEN AFTER REHAB, the attempt at water mitigation did not work), Mott Avenue (149/Concourse), 157th/Broadway, Wilson Avenue (L) lower level, Bowery, Chambers, 3rd Ave/138th Street, any open-cut station on the Sea Beach, there is quite a list of decrepitude. wayne |
|
|
| (718880) | |
Re: Archer Avenue at 20 |
|
|
Posted by El-Train on Thu Dec 11 23:43:23 2008, in response to Re: Archer Avenue at 20, posted by Wayne-MrSlantR40 on Thu Dec 11 23:38:04 2008. Add 145th Street (both Broadway AND Lenox) to that list. Especially the Broadway station, it's missing entire name plaques! The two 145th St stations, 157th St and Bleecker St: the four worst-looking circa-1904 stations in the system. |
|
|
| (718884) | |
Re: Archer Avenue at 20 |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Dec 11 23:45:23 2008, in response to Re: Archer Avenue at 20, posted by El-Train on Thu Dec 11 23:43:23 2008. Wow, 1904 was 104 years ago.....1988 was 20 years ago. Which stations have age on their side? |
|
|
| (718886) | |
Re: Archer Avenue at 20 |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Thu Dec 11 23:48:39 2008, in response to Re: Archer Avenue at 20, posted by El-Train on Thu Dec 11 23:43:23 2008. Lawrence St-Metrotech is butt ugly, especially considering the glitzy hope for the commercial center above. |
|
|
| (718887) | |
Re: Archer Avenue at 20 |
|
|
Posted by El-Train on Thu Dec 11 23:49:31 2008, in response to Re: Archer Avenue at 20, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Dec 11 23:45:23 2008. I was just talking about the worst looking 1904 stations, not Suckphin Blvd and it's skid-marked ceiling............*tumbleweed* Yeah I'm not quite good at humor. =D |
|
|
| (718948) | |
Re: Archer Avenue at 20 |
|
|
Posted by 33rd Street on Fri Dec 12 02:33:26 2008, in response to Re: Archer Avenue at 20, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Dec 11 23:45:23 2008. The funny part is 1904, 1932 and 1988 shared the same calender.October 27th in 1904, 1932 and 1988 falled on a Wednesday. Also, December 11th falled on a Sunday on those three years. |
|
|
| (718949) | |
Re: Archer Avenue at 20 |
|
|
Posted by 33rd Street on Fri Dec 12 02:38:50 2008, in response to Re: Archer Avenue at 20, posted by El-Train on Thu Dec 11 23:43:23 2008. I'll add 23rd Street on the East Side IRT to that list. Bleecker Street would look better once the connection from Broadway-Lafayette to the uptown 6 is built. |
|
|
| (719009) | |
Re: Archer Avenue at 20 |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Fri Dec 12 07:41:23 2008, in response to Re: Archer Avenue at 20, posted by 33rd Street on Fri Dec 12 02:38:50 2008. 23rd St one of the worst? No. It could use a renovation to get rid of it's bad late 1980's renovation....but it's certainly not in a "top 5 or 10" of bad stations. Bleecker, perhaps, but 23rd St? No. |
|
|
| (719010) | |
Re: Archer Avenue at 20 |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Fri Dec 12 07:42:37 2008, in response to Re: Archer Avenue at 20, posted by trainsarefun on Thu Dec 11 23:48:39 2008. Yes, Lawrence is "ugly", but that is more because it's an "afterthought" station, built into the subway tunnel after the line was already built. |
|
|
| (719019) | |
Re: Archer Avenue at 20 |
|
|
Posted by AMoreira81 on Fri Dec 12 08:07:14 2008, in response to Re: Archer Avenue at 20, posted by RonInBayside on Thu Dec 11 12:32:47 2008. Well, for starters, the construction of the station was extremely poor. Simply using a concrete ceiling would have been more prudent.The same can be said of all of the 1980s stations. Rip out the current ceilings and replace them with concrete. |
|
|
| (719021) | |
Re: Archer Avenue at 20 |
|
|
Posted by AMoreira81 on Fri Dec 12 08:09:30 2008, in response to Re: Archer Avenue at 20, posted by RonInBayside on Thu Dec 11 12:53:14 2008. Given the age of these stations and comparing it to other stations, stations should be built so that they don't need repair as much.The ceiling problems here has caused collateral damage to the escalators at this station. You're not seeing the big picture. A station at age 16 even should not be looking worse than one of the original IRT or IND stations. |
|
|
| (719024) | |
Re: Archer Avenue at 20 |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Fri Dec 12 08:14:08 2008, in response to Re: Archer Avenue at 20, posted by AMoreira81 on Fri Dec 12 08:09:30 2008. Exactly, but he has a hard on for the Archer stations for some reason, and can't admit that. I have nothing against the Archer extention. I think it was a great idea to connect the Queens Blvd and Jamaica lines (although feel it should have gobe further than Parsons), but there is no mistaking that the design of those stations, as well as the materials leaves much to be desired. |
|
|
| (719031) | |
Re: Archer Avenue at 20 |
|
|
Posted by AMoreira81 on Fri Dec 12 08:21:08 2008, in response to Re: Archer Avenue at 20, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Fri Dec 12 08:14:08 2008. Good idea, but awful construction indeed. |
|
|
| (719066) | |
Re: Archer Avenue at 20 |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Fri Dec 12 10:22:03 2008, in response to Re: Archer Avenue at 20, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Fri Dec 12 07:42:37 2008. I just figured that after the Metrotech boom - I hear even now that a big new tenant is coming to 6 Metrotech, if I recall correctly - they would beautify it a bit. |
|
|
| (719090) | |
Re: Archer Avenue at 20 |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri Dec 12 10:58:01 2008, in response to Re: Archer Avenue at 20, posted by Wado MP73 on Thu Dec 11 13:12:38 2008. You never saw those signs in use because the JFK Express was using R44's by the time it was extended to 57th/6th. |
|
|
| (719229) | |
Re: Archer Avenue at 20 |
|
|
Posted by Wado MP73 on Fri Dec 12 16:51:27 2008, in response to Re: Archer Avenue at 20, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri Dec 12 10:58:01 2008. I thought 63rd Street predated the switch to R44. Of course, I could be wrong. |
|
|
| (719484) | |
Re: Archer Avenue at 20 |
|
|
Posted by R42 4787 on Sat Dec 13 02:08:10 2008, in response to Re: Archer Avenue at 20, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Thu Dec 11 11:04:27 2008. The font (Helvetica?) on these circa 1988 rollsigns is the same as some of the R36 WF rollsigns on the 7, which were likely installed around the same time just after GOH. Some R33 MLs might have had similar rollsigns as well. |
|
|
| (719567) | |
Re: Archer Avenue at 20 |
|
|
Posted by kawasakir142 on Sat Dec 13 09:11:01 2008, in response to Re: Archer Avenue at 20, posted by gbs on Wed Dec 10 02:36:17 2008. Jamaica Center is the pits me n my wash team did it on monday and when we did the pubilic bathrooms they were a disgrace lookin like jail cells. The best looking of all the newest stations is 21st Queensbridge. Stations like Van Wyck, Sutphin, and Parsons should have been built like the rest of the IND stations because Parsons/Archer is a dead end. If it were to be built to like springfield blvd then it wouldnt be so overcrowded since less people would leave the station to transfer to buses. |
|
|
| (719588) | |
Re: Archer Avenue at 20 |
|
|
Posted by aem7ac on Sat Dec 13 10:26:08 2008, in response to Re: Archer Avenue at 20, posted by kawasakir142 on Sat Dec 13 09:11:01 2008. OK, so I am the only one who likes the Archer Ave subway, because it reminded me of the Alewife Extension. That's the only segment on the NYC subway system that looks vaguely like a subway to me. I'm an 80s child. The rest of the system looks like some kind of a relic! |
|
|
| (719617) | |
Re: Archer Avenue at 20 |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Sat Dec 13 11:52:36 2008, in response to Re: Archer Avenue at 20, posted by aem7ac on Sat Dec 13 10:26:08 2008. I like the Archer Av line too. That's two of us. |
|
|
| (719618) | |
Re: Archer Avenue at 20 |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Sat Dec 13 11:54:34 2008, in response to Re: Archer Avenue at 20, posted by kawasakir142 on Sat Dec 13 09:11:01 2008. Maybe. On the other hand, extending the subway to Springfield would likely attract some new riders who drive cars now. So you'd have a lot more people on the train than just bus riders. |
|
|
| (719637) | |
Re: Archer Avenue at 20 |
|
|
Posted by PHXTUSbusfan on Sat Dec 13 12:24:50 2008, in response to Re: Archer Avenue at 20, posted by aem7ac on Sat Dec 13 10:26:08 2008. The Archer Ave line reminds me a lot of the BART in San Francisco. I don't mind it but it does appear that the stations need some TLC. BTW, Jamaica-Van Wyck was the 1st subway station I entered when I went to NY, the contrast of the 1980s design with the R32s (which are great cars but just scream OLD to me) was a priceless introduction to the subway. |
|
|
| (719655) | |
Re: Archer Avenue at 20 |
|
|
Posted by aem7ac on Sat Dec 13 12:51:15 2008, in response to Re: Archer Avenue at 20, posted by PHXTUSbusfan on Sat Dec 13 12:24:50 2008. How did you end up at Jamaica Van Wyck? Guess you were driven from the JFK airport to a friend who lived in Queens/a hotel room, near Van Wyck?Subway station maintenance is just a difficult thing all around. I see that the Alewife Extension is in better condition, but only marginally so. I'm not sure if it's a design issue or a utility maintenance issue. It may have something to do with the soil conditions etc also. Also bear in mind that Archer Ave is used by many more trains and people than the Alewife Extension. |
|
|
| (719658) | |
Re: Archer Avenue at 20 |
|
|
Posted by aem7ac on Sat Dec 13 12:53:08 2008, in response to Re: Archer Avenue at 20, posted by North-Easten T/O on Wed Dec 10 09:16:43 2008. Did they mint commerative tokens? What did those look like?I really like Archer Ave. Even though it isn't finished, it is a sign of modern progress and the biggest subway opening since the Chrystie St. Connexion. We need more Archer Avenues. |
|
|
| (719659) | |
Re: Archer Avenue at 20 |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sat Dec 13 12:54:56 2008, in response to Re: Archer Avenue at 20, posted by aem7ac on Sat Dec 13 12:53:08 2008. We need new subway lines, not expensive el replacements, which is what Archer Ave. is. |
|
|
| (719670) | |
Re: Archer Avenue at 20 |
|
|
Posted by PHXTUSbusfan on Sat Dec 13 13:12:50 2008, in response to Re: Archer Avenue at 20, posted by aem7ac on Sat Dec 13 12:51:15 2008. Actually, I flew into LGA airport, took a taxi to the Clarion Hotel Jamaica (which is where I stayed and got a rate close to $100/night which didn't break the bank for me) and then walked over to Jamaica Van Wyck. Since I stayed at the hotel 2 blocks from the station, I went through that station 4x a day on April 26-33. |
|
|
| (719675) | |
Re: Archer Avenue at 20 |
|
|
Posted by aem7ac on Sat Dec 13 13:16:07 2008, in response to Re: Archer Avenue at 20, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sat Dec 13 12:54:56 2008. We need new subway lines, not expensive el replacements, which is what Archer Ave. is.I disagree, Chris. We should definitely put new subway lines, but I think all the best places for new subway lines are where els have been removed and have not yet been put back. 1. Archer Avenue to 168 St. (and beyond) 2. Second Avenue Of course we also need some core capacity to support the expansion: 3. Conversion of LIRR Lower Montauk Branch to the Penn Station/Grand Central trunk line, conversion of the LIRR Main Line to subway. There are a few other ones that may or may not make sense, depending on the economy: 4. G Train to Broadway-Myrtle 5. 3rd Avenue el in the Bronx After that we're looking at some railroad conversions: 6. J train to Valley Stream, via Merrick Blvd 7. 7 train to Port Washington 8. 4 train via Utica Avenue to the Flatlands 9. I am sure there are others in Queens that others can think of. Of course, this list isn't in priority order. I'd love to see the BMT Eastern Division infrastructure in the Downtown be put to good use. I'm just not sure what one would use it for. Maybe there is some way to route some of the Queens trains over to use the Willy B crossing instead of the congested Queens Blvd trunk. Maybe a junction between the BMT el and the IND at Lorimer St./Broadway |
|
|
| (719680) | |
Re: Archer Avenue at 20 |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Sat Dec 13 13:37:11 2008, in response to Re: Archer Avenue at 20, posted by aem7ac on Sat Dec 13 12:53:08 2008. Agreed. |
|
|
| (719682) | |
Re: Archer Avenue at 20 |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Sat Dec 13 13:39:33 2008, in response to Re: Archer Avenue at 20, posted by aem7ac on Sat Dec 13 13:16:07 2008. Nice ideas.I would support a TIF finance package (similar to the one used to extend the 7 to Javits) to help fund an Archer Av extension with a new station at Merrick Blvd (lower level J) and an extension of the F train to 188th Street. |
|
|
| (719683) | |
Re: Archer Avenue at 20 |
|
|
Posted by aem7ac on Sat Dec 13 13:40:51 2008, in response to Re: Archer Avenue at 20, posted by RonInBayside on Sat Dec 13 13:39:33 2008. But no one has that kind of money in Queens.Besides, it can't just go out to one new station at Merrick Blvd. It really needs to go to Valley Stream. |
|
|
| (719686) | |
Re: Archer Avenue at 20 |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Sat Dec 13 13:43:12 2008, in response to Re: Archer Avenue at 20, posted by aem7ac on Sat Dec 13 13:40:51 2008. I agree with you. The redevelopment along Hillside Av can produce some of the money and redevelopment of the shopping strip east of Parsons/Archer can produce more. It will not fund the whole thing as the Far West Side TIF does; however it can help. If the TIF pays 30-35% of the cost of the new extensions, MTA and federal contributions can be less. |
|
|
| (719696) | |
Re: Archer Avenue at 20 |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Sat Dec 13 14:35:38 2008, in response to Re: Archer Avenue at 20, posted by aem7ac on Sat Dec 13 13:16:07 2008. 1. Archer Avenue to 168 St. (and beyond)Of course, this was not done in the original case, and so it would come probably two to three score too late for the area at the former Jamaica Av Line terminal. That said, would the expensive subway extension be worth the cost? The LIRR Main Line runs along almost exactly the same alignment. It has stations at Hillside (180-184 Sts or so, since Hillside-Holban Yards break up the grid, massively underused, since it's 12-car platforms for a handful of employees and occasional visitors); re-locate Hollis station to Francis Lewis Blvd; existing Queens Village station at Springfield Blvd. 2. Second Avenue And someday, part of this may be completed, about a century after it was first talked about. Hopefully instead of MTA spending its limited capital funds unwisely, it will choose to focus on this one project, completing it within another century or so, or just before the time when flying cars become affordable to own and maintain. 3. Conversion of LIRR Lower Montauk Branch to the Penn Station/Grand Central trunk line, conversion of the LIRR Main Line to subway. Because LIRR commuters want to take far longer commutes..... Basically, the far cheaper solution is to (1) increase current service such that every bit of track and terminal capacity is used during peak hours (Roberts, Ravitch, Bloomberg, et al, are just lying when they say that we are already there), (2) subsidize LIRR and MNCR within NYC and alter their fare structure and fare collection system while running rapid transit style trainsets (faster acceleration, more doors, layout designed to move passengers on and off in separate streams) on them and build extensions to terminals in New York and Brooklyn to handle them, and (3) focus on building new trunk lines which would have high ridership one at a time. The alternative you have outlined simply wastes money. Given all of the waste that there already is, taxpayers should scoff at any such suggestion. |
|
|
|
Page 3 of 5 |
||
