|
|
| Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? (729191) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
|
Page 1 of 5 |
|
|
|
| (729196) | |
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by Bill From Maspeth on Sat Jan 3 18:03:13 2009, in response to Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by olivermuc on Sat Jan 3 17:56:31 2009. The Fulton St. IND orignally terminated at Rockaway Ave. Was ENY (B'way Jct. today) late too? |
|
|
| (729203) | |
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by olivermuc on Sat Jan 3 18:11:58 2009, in response to Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by Bill From Maspeth on Sat Jan 3 18:03:13 2009. Well, actually it was, wasn't it?The Fulton St line was planned to extend far further east, just as the Hillside Ave/QB line. In contrast to the Hillside Ave line, the Fulton St extension actually did happen, yet a little bit different from what was outlined in the IND Second System plans. In any way, it wouldn't make very much sense to end a 4-track line at a station with 2 side platforms in the long run. |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (729205) | |
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Sat Jan 3 18:15:10 2009, in response to Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by olivermuc on Sat Jan 3 17:56:31 2009. Sounds plausible. |
|
|
| (729208) | |
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Sat Jan 3 18:21:35 2009, in response to Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by Bill From Maspeth on Sat Jan 3 18:03:13 2009. Construction on the IND S/O Rockaway Av continued until 1942 when wartime restrictions on materials halted further construction. The entire tunnel infrastructure to Euclid (76 St?) including Pitkin Yd and the yard leads were completed but rails and signals were not installed and tile work was only completed at Bway/ENY. The ENY tile work is the last of the old style tiles as the tile work on the stations S/O ENY is of a more modern type. Track and signals were completed into ENY in 1946 and to Euclid (76 St?) in 1948. When the first train of R-10s entered service the IND still terminated at ENY. The last conventional GRS Model 5 interlocking machine on the property is at Bway/ENY although there is some question as to the lineage of the Model 5 GRS machine at K/Hwy on the F. Why the ENY interlocking machine is a conventinal lever machine and the interlocking machines at Euclid and Pitkin Yds are push button is a mystery to me since by the time ENY opened, the more modern machines were available. The only possibility might be that the ENY interlocking machine was installed circa 1942 prior to the installation of the track and signals and sat dormant in the tower until installation of the track and signals after the war. |
|
|
| (729214) | |
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by olivermuc on Sat Jan 3 18:32:15 2009, in response to Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by randyo on Sat Jan 3 18:21:35 2009. Thanks for the outline of these details, which explain a lot to me (i.e. the different tilework). It's new and very interesting to me that wartime actually did halt subway construction in NYC.Maybe the 179th St station on the QB line was delayed because of this, too? |
|
|
| (729217) | |
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by vfrt on Sat Jan 3 18:35:22 2009, in response to Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by randyo on Sat Jan 3 18:21:35 2009. Wasn't another station east of 179 Street partially built? Something about glass tiles visible on the sidewalk somewhere out on Hillside Avenue in the '200' streets area. |
|
|
| (729228) | |
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by olivermuc on Sat Jan 3 18:47:09 2009, in response to Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by vfrt on Sat Jan 3 18:35:22 2009. This is one of the "IND ghosts" often mentioned.Nycsubway.org mentions the IND "1940 extension proposal", which planned for the Hillside Ave line to be extended to 184th St (which was actually built, the relay tracks of the 179th St station continue eastwards until 184th St) and then to 212th St. |
|
|
| (729240) | |
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by Error46146 on Sat Jan 3 19:19:16 2009, in response to Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by olivermuc on Sat Jan 3 18:47:09 2009. So why didn't they make a station if the tracks are already there? |
|
|
| (729243) | |
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by daDouce Man on Sat Jan 3 19:31:04 2009, in response to Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by olivermuc on Sat Jan 3 18:47:09 2009. I've always wondered about the Hillside Avenue line east of 179 Street. There are 2 levels there. I don't think both were supposed to be being to Hillside/City Line. |
|
|
| (729246) | |
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by olivermuc on Sat Jan 3 19:39:13 2009, in response to Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by daDouce Man on Sat Jan 3 19:31:04 2009. Before the Archer Ave subway opened in 1988, the E and F trains both ran out to 179th St. In rush hour, that meant a train had to be turned every 2.5 mins, which you need capacity for. Also you need extra space if a train breaks down and has to be put out of service, plus space for a spare train which the IND seemed to have in former times.Still, 8 relay tracks seem a bit too generous even by IND standards. Maybe one level was planned for turning/storing trains and one level for a further extension east. |
|
|
| (729248) | |
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Sat Jan 3 19:45:23 2009, in response to Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by olivermuc on Sat Jan 3 19:39:13 2009. While we're on this point, part of the planning for the IND was plenty of "gap trains" particularly during rush hour service ... they were still doing that when I worked there and picked up some OT just sitting on a siding as a "spare tire" reading a paper. The area between 72 and 81 was one of many which would hold a train "just in case." But the concept of "gap trains" was based on the IRT experience and the IND was built to ensure that service interruptions were as minimal as possible. |
|
|
| (729256) | |
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by olivermuc on Sat Jan 3 19:53:48 2009, in response to Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by SelkirkTMO on Sat Jan 3 19:45:23 2009. Which would explain the 8 relay tracks at 179th St. You could always have two or three spare trains sitting at 179th St.Now, if a delay would hold outbound E and F trains somewhere along Queens Boulevard, you could at least put in these spare trains to have at least some inbound service on Hillside Ave. |
|
|
| (729262) | |
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Sat Jan 3 20:06:01 2009, in response to Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by olivermuc on Sat Jan 3 19:53:48 2009. And additional holding tracks elsewhere in the system, even in Manhattan. North of 167th in the Bronx, CPW, 8th Avenue around 42nd, and several other spots I'm sure as well ... flexibility was what it was all about ... |
|
|
| (729269) | |
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by olivermuc on Sat Jan 3 20:12:39 2009, in response to Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by SelkirkTMO on Sat Jan 3 20:06:01 2009. The IND was really generously planned and built... which is why almost all of the ~110 original IND stations have closed exits and/or mezzanines. Some IND stations even have more closed exits/stairways than open ones, especially along the Concourse and Crosstown Lines.It seems that many IND stations (take away the major transfer points) could easily handle 5 or 10 times the people they serve today. |
|
|
| (729276) | |
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Sat Jan 3 20:30:21 2009, in response to Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by olivermuc on Sat Jan 3 20:12:39 2009. Folks forget that the IND was essentially built with federal "stimulus money" at a time when NYC had great political power in Washington. Thus, the opportunity to truly "build like a Brit Shickhouse" was there and the engineers took advantage of it. The shortcomings of the IRT and BMT designs as well as the expected expansion after the depression showed itself in planning for tremendous capacity and the financial wherewithall to build it while the opportunity existed.Had WWII not happened, the second system as well as a possible third expansion might have actually happened. And of course, after the war, automobiles became reasonable in price and the expected expansions never occurred. But imagine what the IND would have become were it not for the 1940's and a total change in the culture ... |
|
|
| (729277) | |
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Sat Jan 3 20:40:59 2009, in response to Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by olivermuc on Sat Jan 3 17:56:31 2009. Let's see now, 1937 to 1950, hmmmmmm, what could have interfered with the completion of the 169th St. to 179th St segment of the IND? DO you think that World War II might have had something to do with it? |
|
|
| (729308) | |
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by Kew Gardens Teleport on Sat Jan 3 21:34:27 2009, in response to Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by vfrt on Sat Jan 3 18:35:22 2009. Perhaps trains could have operated from 188/Hillside to 76/Pitkin... |
|
|
| (729311) | |
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Sat Jan 3 21:47:37 2009, in response to Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by Error46146 on Sat Jan 3 19:19:16 2009. Because 184th St isn't far enough to justify a station.I* think you could make a case now for a station at 188th Street, because the north side of Hillside Av has been rezoned in that area, and as the economy recovers, you're going to see higher density housing develop from 169 St to 188th Street. |
|
|
| (729318) | |
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by Jeff Rosen on Sat Jan 3 22:01:17 2009, in response to Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by Train Dude on Sat Jan 3 20:40:59 2009. I doubt it. We didn't enter the war until the end of 1941 and finished in August 1945. You would think 179 should have been finished with the rest of the line, especially as the O.P. stated, 169 isn't great as a terminal. I would think the real reason is the same as why the Second Avenue Subway is taking so long; bureaucratic delays and nonsense. |
|
|
| (729322) | |
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Sat Jan 3 22:11:10 2009, in response to Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by Jeff Rosen on Sat Jan 3 22:01:17 2009. Well, thefact that 169th St was completed in 1937 doesn't mean that all work stopped then, Work could have proceeded until 1940 or even 41 before WWII halted it. Of course this is just conjecture on my part. |
|
|
| (729323) | |
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Sat Jan 3 22:12:44 2009, in response to Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by Jeff Rosen on Sat Jan 3 22:01:17 2009. 169 sucks eggs as a terminal."We didn't enter the war until the end of 1941 and finished in August 1945." But then the troops came home and that had to be dealt with, and then Robert Moses came along and screwed everything up. The 179 St extension was the last expansion NYC managed to arrange before Moses closed the door. |
|
|
| (729324) | |
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Sat Jan 3 22:13:23 2009, in response to Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by Train Dude on Sat Jan 3 22:11:10 2009. From what I've been told by others, you're both right. However, the shortages began well before our entry into the war under the "Lend Lease" program as well as the need to prepare to enter the war which began in earnest in 1939 ... you don't just go off to war without preparing for it in advance ... |
|
|
| (729336) | |
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Sat Jan 3 22:37:55 2009, in response to Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by SelkirkTMO on Sat Jan 3 22:13:23 2009. 1937 also marked the beginning of another recession as the Roosevelt Administration and Congress prematurely cut off on the New deal stimulus, which did have a positive effect, just not enough, before it was terminated; they raised taxes, cut spending, and after that, the hugely big stimulus program called WW2 demanded all resources.I don't think that full war footing came until 1941-1942, really, although as you say, there was motion in that direction probably starting as early as late 1939. Lesson to today's agencies: get as much money as you can as soon as you can! Because you don't know when they will turn the spigot to block the flow! |
|
|
| (729339) | |
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by Jeff Rosen on Sat Jan 3 22:39:41 2009, in response to Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by Train Dude on Sat Jan 3 22:11:10 2009. There was IND expansion between '37 and '50, just not during the war years. From 1937 to 1939 they constructed the Worlds Fair connection from Queens Blvd and after the war they extended the Fulton St line and connected it to BMT Liberty El. |
|
|
| (729346) | |
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by Bill From Maspeth on Sat Jan 3 22:43:08 2009, in response to Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by SelkirkTMO on Sat Jan 3 19:45:23 2009. There are no rush hour gap trains today. Terminal supervision, and hopefully gap stations down the line are passing up the information, has to adjust the leaving times of the trains on hand in the event of a delay coming up so he doesn't literally run out of trains. |
|
|
| (729351) | |
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Sat Jan 3 22:45:27 2009, in response to Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by Jeff Rosen on Sat Jan 3 22:39:41 2009. Postwar, you had the huge development boom in Eastern Queens as well. Whole complexes of multiple dwelling buildings. Fresh Meadows, Oakland Gardens, Little Neck, etc. |
|
|
| (729356) | |
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Sat Jan 3 22:55:04 2009, in response to Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by trainsarefun on Sat Jan 3 22:37:55 2009. According to my parents (who were involved) the war planning began in earnest here in 1937 although the Japanese part of it didn't start until 1939 ... it was known within the government that we were going to be sucked in, but the plan was to hold off as long as possible and build the needed gear. First for Britain, then for ourselves. By 1938, economy notwithstanding, shortages in steel and other materials had already begun. This phenomenon was also seen widely with infrastructure that was due for replacement (streetcars and such) being asked to remain in service for as long as possible to reduce the need for civilian materials. |
|
|
| (729358) | |
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Sat Jan 3 23:00:02 2009, in response to Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by Bill From Maspeth on Sat Jan 3 22:43:08 2009. I understand they pretty much did away with all of that by around 1974 or so ... that was a sweet job hanging out armed with only a newspaper and never turning a wheel. :) |
|
|
| (729398) | |
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Sun Jan 4 03:35:09 2009, in response to Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by RonInBayside on Sat Jan 3 22:12:44 2009. not so..the city did manage to peel out a few routes extensions... |
|
|
| (729400) | |
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Sun Jan 4 03:49:04 2009, in response to Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by RonInBayside on Sat Jan 3 21:47:37 2009. It certainly sounds like a station at 188th Street would work on the F line, especially if it were also a four-track station (or a station similar to 69th Street station in Upper Darby on the Market-Frankford Line here in Philly that has a side plaform for the termimnal and then loops to an island platform with two tracks). Since the line already extends to 184th, that tunnel build would likely not be as costly as it would otherwise. |
|
|
| (729401) | |
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by Mitch45 on Sun Jan 4 04:02:54 2009, in response to Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by olivermuc on Sat Jan 3 17:56:31 2009. 1) World War II2) Robert Moses grabbing all available money for his highways and public works projects. |
|
|
| (729410) | |
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by G1Ravage on Sun Jan 4 05:46:18 2009, in response to Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by randyo on Sat Jan 3 18:21:35 2009. Speaking of towers, I've always wondered why Parsons Boulevard Tower, Roosevelt Avenue Tower, Northern Boulevard Tower, and Fifth Avenue (Lexington Avenue) Tower had GRS's, but Continental Tower, Kew Gardens Tower, and Jamaica Yard Tower had US&S. I forget, but I think Queens Plaza Tower was also GRS. |
|
|
| (729412) | |
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by G1Ravage on Sun Jan 4 05:52:08 2009, in response to Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by daDouce Man on Sat Jan 3 19:31:04 2009. The local tracks go to/from the lower level, and the express tracks go to/from the upper level. It's not evident to me which level would've continued eastward, but the other level obviously would've been used to turn trains if 179 Street were to remain a terminal for one service.But Jamaica - 179 Street does get a lot of service during the rush hour, even without the (E) regularly going there. Having four platformed tracks and eight relay tracks does help! |
|
|
| (729416) | |
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Sun Jan 4 06:06:31 2009, in response to Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by Mitch45 on Sun Jan 4 04:02:54 2009. Actually, 1 is valid, not *quite* so number 2 ... I personally despised Robert Moses for what he did by splitting the Bronx in two and turning MY borough into a shithouse. :(But fact is, Henry Ford is to blame here ... autos were getting reasonable for most mensches before the war. AFTER the war, so many people couldn't buy shit because it just wasn't available (or restricted) that they threw all their earnings into banks and when the war ended, THEY BOUGHT CARS ... they had THAT much extra "saved cash" and the GI Bill worked out your cookie-cutter box in Levittown for ya. It was the sheer VOLUME of car purchases and DEMAND for highways that blew the crap out of the "public transit" reality ... people had CARS now and could go where they needed to go ... NOW. They didn't have to depend on schedules, or transfers or "one seat ride" anymore. And those who actually PAID ATTENTION to the trend are to be congratulated (in terms of TODAY'S burrocraps) for even NOTICING a change in trends. Compare to our CURRENT sausage-crafter mindset. :( But that's what happened - anyone worth a conversation is welcome, but let's call Moses for what he really was ... a burrocrap with lots of statistical analysis who saw that the world was changing, public transit was about to give way to personal transit and there wasn't shit for that available, if we're going to survive politically, we'd better have highways since trolleys are dead, and so's the SAE ... Might not have served us NOW, but did sure serve us at the time. That's what people get for "short term value" from politics, banking, you name it ... only the Chinese think LONG term, and that's why they're gonna CONTINUE to kick our asses. But that's for OI. :) |
|
|
| (729419) | |
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Sun Jan 4 06:40:27 2009, in response to Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by SelkirkTMO on Sun Jan 4 06:06:31 2009. A lot of that is true:As much as in retrospect it would have been better to expand mass transit (as is finally starting to happen now), the fact is, back then, cars were being bought at tremendous rates and the need for highways, which would turn out to still be true today was there. That was the mentality back then. |
|
|
| (729420) | |
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by Bill From Maspeth on Sun Jan 4 06:54:23 2009, in response to Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by Wallyhorse on Sun Jan 4 03:49:04 2009. There are hidden costs. Like you would have to excavate further to lay up trains. If you want the same lay up capacity as 179 that's even more dinero. If you don't, your operating costs are higher because your switchmen have to go to a farther away place to lay up or put in trains vs. how it currently is at 179. That means more personell are needed since it takes longer for the man to do one move. Extend to 188, extend to Francis Lewis Blvd., extend to Springfield Blvd., extend to Nassau Co. Fantastic. Where does the money for expansion come from? Some of us deal with reality, some us deal with fantasy-the stuff that will never happen. |
|
|
| (729421) | |
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Sun Jan 4 06:59:31 2009, in response to Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by Wallyhorse on Sun Jan 4 06:40:27 2009. For better or worse, back in THOSE times, politicians actually paid ATTENTION to constituents. And when they were unhappy, something actually HAPPENED. :( |
|
|
| (729423) | |
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by Mitch45 on Sun Jan 4 07:16:49 2009, in response to Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by SelkirkTMO on Sun Jan 4 06:59:31 2009. That was before the "public authority" came along and insulated the politicians from criticism and accountability. To his credit, Moses predicted that a public authority would not work as well for the subway as it did for bridges and tunnels. |
|
|
| (729430) | |
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Sun Jan 4 07:33:42 2009, in response to Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by Mitch45 on Sun Jan 4 07:16:49 2009. Dunno there, never bothered to study it ... when I lived in the city, trains did it for me - cars were for 2nd and 11th in the dead of night or the Jerky Turnpike ... :)But at LEAST those folks LISTENED back then to as Leona Helmsley put it, "the LITTLE people." :( |
|
|
| (729438) | |
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by Kew Gardens Teleport on Sun Jan 4 08:07:52 2009, in response to Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by G1Ravage on Sun Jan 4 05:52:08 2009. I suspect the upper level is the one that would have continued. The stations would be shallower, and the trains expresses. |
|
|
| (729444) | |
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Jan 4 08:26:04 2009, in response to Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by Bill From Maspeth on Sat Jan 3 18:03:13 2009. The Fulton St. IND orignally terminated at Rockaway Ave. Was ENY (B'way Jct. today) late too?Totally not the same thing. Broadway-East new York was built, tiled, and ready to go, however, because of the war, they couldn't get the metal to install the rest of the tracks and signalling to terminate at that station, so they terminated it at Roackaway Ave. But Bway-East New York was there already. In fact, while Bway-East New York was even tiled and ready to go, outside of the wiring and tracks, etc, the line was built all the way to Euclid (and perhaps even further to the controversial 76th St), but past east new York it was just station shells. East New York was a ready station, outside of it's trackage and signalling/wiring. |
|
|
| (729445) | |
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Jan 4 08:27:20 2009, in response to Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by randyo on Sat Jan 3 18:21:35 2009. You are absolutely correct. It's a totally different situation that what happened at 169th. |
|
|
| (729446) | |
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Jan 4 08:29:52 2009, in response to Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by olivermuc on Sat Jan 3 19:39:13 2009. It could very well be so that they could "short turn" trains over there. |
|
|
| (729447) | |
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Jan 4 08:31:12 2009, in response to Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by Kew Gardens Teleport on Sun Jan 4 08:07:52 2009. I would also assume it would have been the expresses that continue further.Was 179th St always planned to be an express station? Or was it originally just supposed to be just another local station on the line? |
|
|
| (729448) | |
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Jan 4 08:32:05 2009, in response to Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by Kew Gardens Teleport on Sat Jan 3 21:34:27 2009. That surely would have been one hell of a ghost train using two ghost terminals. |
|
|
| (729449) | |
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Jan 4 08:33:05 2009, in response to Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by olivermuc on Sat Jan 3 20:12:39 2009. Too bad, perhaps they could have used all that money built on overbuilding to add a few stations here and there. Oh well, they never knew the IND se3cond system would never be built. |
|
|
| (729450) | |
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Jan 4 08:33:47 2009, in response to Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by SelkirkTMO on Sat Jan 3 20:30:21 2009. We can blame Hitler and Japan..... |
|
|
| (729451) | |
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Jan 4 08:35:47 2009, in response to Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by Train Dude on Sat Jan 3 22:11:10 2009. It's an actual reason for why trains terminated at Rockaway Ave instead of Bway-East New York (and on to Euclid) for so long a time, but in that case, Bway-East New York was already built, and ready to go, they just didn't have the metal to bring the tracks and signalling to that station to be able to open it, and that's because of the metal going to the war effort. |
|
|
| (729452) | |
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Jan 4 08:39:07 2009, in response to Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by RonInBayside on Sat Jan 3 22:12:44 2009. That's false. Quite a few expansions happened after the war. The rest of the Fulton line opened (although truncated), the connection to the Liberty El, the entire takeover to Rockaways, and others.The car changed a lot, but that was a national trend, not just in the skapegoat of Moses' New York. Cities were ripping up their trolley systems and building interstate highways all over the country, not just New York. Moses was good at bringing money for those projects to New York. it's not like that money would have went to "transit" if not for Moses. Instead, the money would have not come to New York at all, and would instead have went to some other city for "their" road and bridge projects. |
|
|
|
|
Page 1 of 5 |
|
