|
|
| Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? (729191) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 3 of 5 |
||
|
| (729761) | |
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by Kew Gardens Teleport on Sun Jan 4 19:07:10 2009, in response to Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by Wallyhorse on Sun Jan 4 13:06:05 2009. We would be crippled now if we didn't have the highways.Probably have the wrong highways though... |
|
|
| (729763) | |
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Sun Jan 4 19:09:30 2009, in response to Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by BMTLines on Sun Jan 4 17:31:15 2009. I was looking at the copy of the book as you have it posted and I nociced a few inconsistencies. It mentions 65/3, Crescent St, Fulton/Nostrand and 60 St/Jamaica as being mechanical interlockings. However, 65/3 is also shown as being set up for automatic operation. How can a mechanical interlocking plant be set up for automatic operation? It doesn't sound plausible to me. Where "60 St/Jamaica" is is a mystery to me since even if you consider the term "Jamaica" to apply to the entire Jamaica Av Line, there are no interlockings or provisons for any between Crescent St and 111 St, and in any event, the entire structure between Cypress Hills and 168 St is part of the dual contracts and would have had some sort of power operated interlockings installed at the time of construction. The same would be true of Fulton/Nostrand and Crescent St since the rebuilt 3 track Fulton St El structure from Nostrand east was also part of the dual contracts and would have some sort of power interlocking installed upon construction. |
|
|
| (729765) | |
Re: Extending the F beyond 179th Street |
|
|
Posted by Kew Gardens Teleport on Sun Jan 4 19:10:00 2009, in response to Re: Extending the F beyond 179th Street, posted by Wallyhorse on Sun Jan 4 13:19:58 2009. It's one that could be done in bits Paris-Line-14-style too. |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (729767) | |
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Sun Jan 4 19:12:39 2009, in response to Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by Kew Gardens Teleport on Sun Jan 4 19:02:44 2009. Any estimate on the running time from Sagamore Av to 34 St? :) |
|
|
| (729783) | |
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Sun Jan 4 19:48:52 2009, in response to Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by Kew Gardens Teleport on Sun Jan 4 19:02:44 2009. Very good! |
|
|
| (729790) | |
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by Kew Gardens Teleport on Sun Jan 4 20:01:23 2009, in response to Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by trainsarefun on Sun Jan 4 19:12:39 2009. Any estimate on the running time from Sagamore Av to 34 St? :)Extrapolating at 1½-2 minutes per stop, 59-66 minutes. To make the numbers easy: Subway: 62 minutes + average wait 3 minutes = 65 minutes LIRR: 45 minutes + average wait 30 minutes = 75 minutes Okay, that's not a valid comparison on all sorts of levels, but it's not as ridiculous a subway extension as it might first sound. |
|
|
| (729792) | |
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Sun Jan 4 20:06:37 2009, in response to Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by Kew Gardens Teleport on Sun Jan 4 20:01:23 2009. In subway territory, the LIRR is something you use on a schedule, or if you want to completely avoid beggars on the train, or if you wan to increase your chances of getting a seat. |
|
|
| (729800) | |
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by MJF on Sun Jan 4 20:22:56 2009, in response to Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by randyo on Sun Jan 4 17:23:53 2009. You are correct about Parsons/Hillside. It's a US&S. |
|
|
| (729801) | |
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by MJF on Sun Jan 4 20:24:16 2009, in response to Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by randyo on Sun Jan 4 17:27:19 2009. I think your answer was the best. Bway-ENY probably had the GRS machine installed before the line was completed. |
|
|
| (729826) | |
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Sun Jan 4 21:45:28 2009, in response to Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by randyo on Sun Jan 4 17:45:44 2009. My 1948 Hagstrom's IND map has this footnote: "F trains do not stop at Sutphin Blvd., Van Wyck Blvd and 75th (Puritan) Ave." |
|
|
| (729828) | |
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Sun Jan 4 21:51:27 2009, in response to Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Sun Jan 4 21:45:28 2009. That's correct. during most hours F trains ran express N/O Ctl. What is interesting is that both befor and after 179 opened, F trains di not stop at 169 St during rush hours. After 179 opened, Fs stopped at 169 St during non rush periods. |
|
|
| (729831) | |
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Sun Jan 4 21:53:19 2009, in response to Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by randyo on Sun Jan 4 21:51:27 2009. "What is interesting is that both befor and after 179 opened, F trains di not stop at 169 St during rush hours."Meaning the F turned short of 169 St. |
|
|
| (729832) | |
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Sun Jan 4 21:54:08 2009, in response to Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by MJF on Sun Jan 4 20:24:16 2009. That could be but I wonder why the interlocking machine would be installed before the switches and signals unless it was ready for delivery earlier. |
|
|
| (729834) | |
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Sun Jan 4 21:55:11 2009, in response to Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by RonInBayside on Sun Jan 4 21:53:19 2009. Correct. Before 179 opened, rush hour Fs turned at Parsons. |
|
|
| (729835) | |
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Sun Jan 4 21:55:57 2009, in response to Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by randyo on Sun Jan 4 21:54:08 2009. Which piece of equipment i easier to install first?The boiler in my house in Kansas city was installed after the foundation was poured but before just about anything else was built. |
|
|
| (729838) | |
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Sun Jan 4 21:57:17 2009, in response to Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by RonInBayside on Sun Jan 4 21:55:57 2009. I would imagine that the parts would have been delivered to the tower location and the machine assembled inside the tower. |
|
|
| (729839) | |
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Sun Jan 4 21:58:29 2009, in response to Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by randyo on Sun Jan 4 21:57:17 2009. So the two are independent of each other (ie it doesn't matter whether switches are put in first or machine first). |
|
|
| (729850) | |
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by grimace1169 on Sun Jan 4 23:25:17 2009, in response to Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by MJF on Sun Jan 4 09:47:16 2009. Both levels end at the same point. The upper level just looks longer but remember the lower level needs room to get down below. You are correct about the timbers that line the upper level bulkhead. The waterbugs love them! |
|
|
| (729856) | |
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Jan 4 23:38:16 2009, in response to Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by grimace1169 on Sun Jan 4 23:25:17 2009. Where have you been!?!?! |
|
|
| (729857) | |
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Jan 4 23:41:07 2009, in response to Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by randyo on Sun Jan 4 17:27:19 2009. I have no idea, but probably because the infastructure for the switching at East New York was done before the war, and was also set to go, but at Euclid, which was only a shell at the time of the war, was actually completed all those years later. |
|
|
| (729858) | |
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Jan 4 23:43:20 2009, in response to Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by VictorM on Sun Jan 4 13:55:13 2009. Perhaps they used tracks that were removed from the surface route? |
|
|
| (729859) | |
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Jan 4 23:46:27 2009, in response to Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by Russ on Sun Jan 4 17:08:10 2009. And once again, that was typical of most cities at the time. |
|
|
| (729860) | |
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by tunnelrat on Sun Jan 4 23:49:53 2009, in response to Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by G1Ravage on Sun Jan 4 05:52:08 2009. Since i,ve been in da-bronx since wednesday,i,m coming in late on this post&won`t read ever post.here`s what I know for a fact.179st&the upper&lower levels were constructed BEFORE WWII.the tunnels stop at 184st& nothing was built beyound the bulkheads.this was told to me by vincent seyfried who grew up in an apt.building at 184st&watched construction of the ind.from his window.the upper level was supposed to go to little neck p`way as a 2-track line past 184st,thats why the wooden wall is there.the tracks for the upper level were put in sometime in the late `50`s I hope this will answer some questions about this line. |
|
|
| (729861) | |
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by grimace1169 on Sun Jan 4 23:50:36 2009, in response to Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Jan 4 23:38:16 2009. LOL! I wish I knew sometimes. Lurking mostly, but time gets short. Working and having a third child take up a good chunk. I got tired of reading about who has a bigger what on some of the threads but the good posts from yourself and randy, selkirk, redbird and a few others I can't recall at the moment keep me coming back from afar. Thanks! All the best for the new year by the way. Take care! |
|
|
| (729862) | |
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by G1Ravage on Sun Jan 4 23:59:06 2009, in response to Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by MJF on Sun Jan 4 20:22:56 2009. D'oh! I wasn't thinking. |
|
|
| (729866) | |
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by Russ on Mon Jan 5 00:13:07 2009, in response to Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Jan 4 23:46:27 2009. And once again, that was typical of most cities at the time.That is absolutely not true. New York was the only city in the U.S. building highways at that time at that scale. Moses was not following the trend. He was setting it. |
|
|
| (729873) | |
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Mon Jan 5 00:35:26 2009, in response to Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Jan 4 23:46:27 2009. Um, no. The interstate highway system came in the 1950s, long after Moses started doing his thing. Plus, New York was alone in having a truly world class subway system, so to deny it any funding for expansion at all was not typical of most other cities because they had nothing comparable.Los Angeles did follow and expand on Moses' model in the 1950s, when city and state government stood by and allowed GM to destroy the trolley system and limit public transportation to buses. |
|
|
| (729883) | |
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by Michael549 on Mon Jan 5 01:01:22 2009, in response to Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by Russ on Sun Jan 4 17:08:10 2009. Russ, I am in full agreement with what you and others have written about Robert Moses, and his activities and the consequences, etc. However, there were ideas and movements for different living arrangements well before Robert Moses became the Power Broker in power in NYC.The "city nightmare" model (walk-up crowded tenements, noisy el-trains, etc) was not well favored by many, even if that was what was available for long periods of time. Again, as I had stated in the previous message, there were a lot of interests from any sectors for a different kind of living arrangement, and not just in or around New York City. Again, I am not disputing what has been said about Robert Moses, but some issues were broader than him. Mike |
|
|
| (729885) | |
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by VictorM on Mon Jan 5 01:03:33 2009, in response to Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Jan 4 23:43:20 2009. No, I could hear them installing the underground tracks while the temporary tracks were still in use. |
|
|
| (729891) | |
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by AEM-7AC #901 on Mon Jan 5 01:30:12 2009, in response to Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by RonInBayside on Mon Jan 5 00:35:26 2009. New York was alone in having a truly world class subway systemI believe the English and French may have claims upon that designation... |
|
|
| (729893) | |
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Mon Jan 5 01:35:55 2009, in response to Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by AEM-7AC #901 on Mon Jan 5 01:30:12 2009. Ayup, but they had no Moses virus. |
|
|
| (729899) | |
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Mon Jan 5 02:17:22 2009, in response to Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Jan 4 12:25:12 2009. Not really....the local tracks from Utica to Rockaway were covered over with a temp platform....east of Rockaway,the trains crossed over to the Manhattan bound trackway. Simple enough. |
|
|
| (729903) | |
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Mon Jan 5 03:37:07 2009, in response to Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by trainsarefun on Sun Jan 4 15:07:15 2009. No union labor restrictions and rules back then, I guess!The Davis-Bacon Act governing prevailing wages and union rules was already in effect when that portion of the IND was under construction. |
|
|
| (729918) | |
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by Kew Gardens Teleport on Mon Jan 5 06:59:27 2009, in response to Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by RonInBayside on Mon Jan 5 01:35:55 2009. Ayup, but they had no Moses virus.They just took their time to screw it up. You can read all about the failed urban motorways in London here, apart from one particularly crazy example, which is here. I say it's crazy, but without it, the inner ends of the Westway (A40/A40(M)/M40), the Eastway (A12/M11/M12/roadgeek argument), the M1, and the Camden Town By-Pass made absolutely no sense. Bizarrely, one of the few bits that did get built was the section of the Westway that drops everyone on The French arguably got it vaguely right: they built their Perifreak and didn' |
|
|
| (729921) | |
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by Kew Gardens Teleport on Mon Jan 5 07:01:28 2009, in response to Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by RonInBayside on Mon Jan 5 01:35:55 2009. Ayup, but they had no Moses virus.They just took their time to screw it up. You can read all about the failed urban motorways in London here, apart from one particularly crazy example, which is here. I say it's crazy, but without it, the inner ends of the Westway (A40/A40(M)/M40), the Eastway (A12/M11/M12/roadgeek argument), the M1, and the Camden Town By-Pass made absolutely no sense. Bizarrely, one of the few bits that did get built was the section of the Westway that drops everyone on The French arguably got it vaguely right: they built their Perifreak and didn't smash up central Paris. There is massive unfinished business around the A86 though. |
|
|
| (729930) | |
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Mon Jan 5 07:37:20 2009, in response to Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by Kew Gardens Teleport on Sun Jan 4 19:02:44 2009. That makes me wonder:What would be the distance to get it to run to Belmont Park? Especially since there likely will be a "racino" there by the time such would be built, I suspect it would be a very needed station if you're going to extend the line as it also can become a major park-and-ride facility other than on Belmont and (in years it's there) Breeders' Cup days. |
|
|
| (729934) | |
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Jan 5 07:46:52 2009, in response to Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by VictorM on Mon Jan 5 01:03:33 2009. Wasn't the surface route four tracks instead of two though? |
|
|
| (729935) | |
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Jan 5 07:50:34 2009, in response to Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by Edwards! on Mon Jan 5 02:17:22 2009. It must have operated somewhat similar to other stations that were not meant to be a terminal, such as Flatbush Ave, 121st St or Queens Blvd on the J.The covering over of the local tracks answers a lot of questions, meaning they used the express tracks in that station at the time. It's easier using an island plaform station as a terminal, but as we know, side platform stations can be used as terminals too if they need be. Did the trains leave from either side platform, or did they enter in the eastbound station unload, and then come back on the manhattan bound side? |
|
|
| (729936) | |
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Jan 5 07:55:19 2009, in response to Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by JayZeeBMT on Sun Jan 4 18:30:42 2009. Interestingly, the LIRR proposed building a two-track line which would have stopped in Levittown, but it never happened. Now Levittown is almost totally car-dependentThe old Central Branch went right through what is now Levittown. Isn't the two track line through Levittown the old Central Branch? The old Central Branch was still there when Levittown was built. In fact, a lot of the homes materials were brought in through the railroad on the Central Branch. I don't know if it was Moses that "made" the LIRR abandon the Central Branch, but I don't believe it was. Moses was ALSO the reason Staten Island still has no rail connection with the other boroughs. The Verrazano-Narrows Bridge was supposed to carry cars on the upper deck, and TRAINS on the lower. Where would the approaches for such a railroad have been in Brooklyn? Considering the height of that bridge, you would have had either a SEVERE grade to get onto that bride, or the ramp approaches would have been half way through Brooklyn. I thought it was the height of that bridge that was a factor two in no RR on it. |
|
|
| (729938) | |
Re: Extending Queens Blvd. Locals to 179th Street |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Mon Jan 5 08:04:24 2009, in response to Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by Michael549 on Sun Jan 4 16:26:52 2009. Mike:That is something that should seriously be considered if the line to 179 ever gets extended beyond there. You are right, some might oppose it, but it would allow the E and F to run express all the way across Queens Blvd. and might be a serious incentive to have the V become a full-time, 24/7 line (regardless of whether or not it was combined with the M). |
|
|
| (729963) | |
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Jan 5 10:00:01 2009, in response to Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by Russ on Mon Jan 5 00:13:07 2009. No, what you are saying is absolutely not true.Robert Moses was a product of his time, not a cause of it. Yes, he got a LOT of money TO New York. But that was FEDERAL money that if he didn't bring it to New York, it would have went to other cities for "their" road or bridge project. New York is completely not unique in what was happening at the time. Cities were unfortunately scaling not spending money en mass on transit projects, and unfortunately, even worse, dismanteling. For example, Los Angeles. The city was laced with trolley infastructure, some of it even in subway. It was bought by the tire manufacturers and GM and they only bought it to dismantle it. Here's a little on it, and this is just one example around the country and of one city: http://www.geocities.com/los_angeles_coast/public_transportation.html |
|
|
| (729964) | |
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Jan 5 10:01:00 2009, in response to Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by Michael549 on Mon Jan 5 01:01:22 2009. Well written. |
|
|
| (729965) | |
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Jan 5 10:07:49 2009, in response to Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by RonInBayside on Mon Jan 5 00:35:26 2009. Most cities stopped spending money on transit after the war. New York was not unique in that.Moses brought money to NY for these roads and bridges, and it's not like that money would have come anyway but instead for transit. That wasn't happening at any large amount anywhere. Moses wasn't the cause of that, although he was a product of it. The problem wasn't Moses getting money to NY for roads. The problem was that there was no similar man out there getting money for transit. But that "man" wasn't anywhere in any city to any degree. |
|
|
| (729988) | |
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Mon Jan 5 11:41:12 2009, in response to Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by Michael549 on Sun Jan 4 16:26:52 2009. Unfortunatley, Hillside Ave riders bitched from day #1 when the R replaced the E in 1988. That service was downgraded in 1990 and eliminated in 1992. People are too used to having Hillside Ave local trains running express west of Forest Hills. |
|
|
| (729991) | |
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Mon Jan 5 11:48:08 2009, in response to Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by randyo on Sun Jan 4 21:51:27 2009. That was due to all the bus x-fers at 169th, which could not be handled by the E alone during non-rush hours. Prior to Archer Ave, most F's ran local between 179th and Continental in both directions for about 2 hours after the AM rush. I never understood why. |
|
|
| (729992) | |
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Mon Jan 5 11:50:47 2009, in response to Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Jan 5 07:50:34 2009. I'm not aware of switches which would allow Manhattan-bound trains to leave Rockaway Ave. from either track. And I don't see how any island platform could have worked, since there would be no way to access it from the side platforms. |
|
|
| (729998) | |
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by Michael549 on Mon Jan 5 11:59:39 2009, in response to Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Jan 5 07:55:19 2009. From a previous message: "Moses was ALSO the reason Staten Island still has no rail connection with the other boroughs. The Verrazano-Narrows Bridge was supposed to carry cars on the upper deck, and TRAINS on the lower. "While the above statement is basically true, Robert Moses is NOT THE ONLY REASON for there not being a subway connection to the other boroughs. Please remember that if the Brooklyn Rapid Transit railroad had not gone bankrupt (in part due to the aftermath of a certain accident in Brooklyn, you may have heard of it - Malbone Street), and other financial aspects -- there would have been a subway tunnel connection to Staten Island. After the BRT failed, the BMT subway was risen from its ashes, but it did not have enough money to run its current operations and build any brand new lines. Again, as I said, Robert Moses (in full evil guise) can be blamed for many things - I do not dispute that. Robert Moses IS NOT THE ONLY REASON why there is not a Staten Island subway connection. Mike |
|
|
| (729999) | |
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Mon Jan 5 12:01:40 2009, in response to Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by Michael549 on Mon Jan 5 11:59:39 2009. Fair enough |
|
|
| (730009) | |
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by Kew Gardens Teleport on Mon Jan 5 12:17:09 2009, in response to Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by Wallyhorse on Mon Jan 5 07:37:20 2009. Hillside is getting on from a mile from Jamaica Av by Springfield Blvd. The J would be a better candidate for Belmont Park. |
|
|
| (730080) | |
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Mon Jan 5 13:28:26 2009, in response to Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Mon Jan 5 11:41:12 2009. They've been hard-wired.:) |
|
|
|
Page 3 of 5 |
||
