|
|
| Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? (729191) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 4 of 5 |
||
|
| (730100) | |
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Jan 5 14:10:17 2009, in response to Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by Michael549 on Mon Jan 5 11:59:39 2009. Thanks again for a post that brings rationality to the discussion. |
|
|
| (730128) | |
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Mon Jan 5 15:51:10 2009, in response to Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Jan 4 23:41:07 2009. I would imagine that the infrastructure for the ramps to Grant and the yard leads to Pitkin (and possibly the elusive 76 St station) were constructed at the same time since the late trainmaster George Abere recalls seeing the walls surrounding Pitkin Yd when he was a teenager going to high school and wondering what it was. |
|
|
| (730129) | |
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Mon Jan 5 15:54:05 2009, in response to Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Mon Jan 5 11:48:08 2009. If I recall, prior to Archer Av non rush hour Fs ran lcl N/O Ctl. |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (730138) | |
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Mon Jan 5 16:19:08 2009, in response to Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Mon Jan 5 11:50:47 2009. During the years Rockaway Av was used as a terminal, there was a diamond Xover between the exp tracks N/O the station and trains stub ended in the station. Between the exp and lcl tracks in the area of the Xover there are extra colums to support the subway roof to make up for the lack of columns that should have been between the exp tracks but were not installed to allow for the installation of the Xovers. These switches were controlled from Utica tower and if you look at the model board, you can see the outline of the painted out Xovers and the signals. The levers are also still in place on the machine but since they are now spare levers, they are painted yellow. At about what would be the 9 car stop marker on the S/B lcl tk, there is a short section of ballasted type 1 track on both exp tracks where the bumping blocks were located. When ENY first opened, the temporary wooden platforms were removed from over the N/B lcl track only. S/B trains continued on A3 tk S/O Utica to the diamond Xover between the exp tracks N/O ENY. Trains then crossed over to the N/B exp tk and utilizing the diamond Xover between the lcl tracks stub ended on either the N/B exp or lcl tk at the N/B platform at ENY and returned N/B on the N/B lcl track. The last time I was at ENY (now Bway Jct) station, the reverse car markers were still in place. I don't have any info as to when the tracks and special work immediately S/O the station were completed allowing trains to proceed on the S/B local tk into ENY station and relay S/O the station or even if that was done at all before the line was completed all the way to Euclid. Since there was a wooden platform extension just past the bumping blocks to allow passengers access between the two terminal tracks similar to Flatbush on the IRT, it might have been possible to construct an island platform over the express tracks ans use the local tracks to turn the trains but that would have required more complicated rearrangement of the support columns N/O the station and a much longer diamond Xover to span the distance across all 4 trackways and the B of T probably felt that such an expenditure was unnecessary for what was going to be a temporary operation. |
|
|
| (730144) | |
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Mon Jan 5 16:37:47 2009, in response to Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Jan 5 10:07:49 2009. Not being up on local Chicago politics, I can't say for certain if any one individual can be said to be responsible for the expansion of the Chicago transit sytem combined with highway construction of the 1950s. That being said, I have a video called "Streamlining Chicago" which was made as a film in the early 1940s describing the expansion plans for the Chicago transit system which also included construction of new highways with rapid transit ROWs in their center medians. At the time the city of Chcago had an agecy called the "Department of Subways and Superhighways" which was to oversee the construction of new highways and subway lines and the coordination between the two. The first of these projects was the construction of the Congress St Expressway which along with providing a new automotive access route, allowed relocation of the Garfield Park El into the Highway median. Other similar projects followed ahich not only provided new Highways such as the Kennedy and Dan Ryan but also supplied rapid transit service to areas that had not previously had rapid transit service. If Moses had not been so vehemently anti mass transit, similar projects could have been constructed along the LI Expway, the Grand Central Pky and the Van Wyck Expwy, just to name a few, at a far smaller expense than subway construction. Other urban areas such as LA, DC, and Baltimore have rapid transit lines in highway medians and these operations have been highly successful. New York, the alleged "greatest city in the world" is fast losing that designation and thanks to the greedy self serving excuses for politcal leaders will soon lose it completely. |
|
|
| (730149) | |
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by 33rd Street on Mon Jan 5 16:48:50 2009, in response to Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Jan 4 08:39:07 2009. 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.Reasons such as this is whats choking New York City. If New York Cuiy had a much more expanded mass transit system, you wouldn't need all these express buses. In addition, all of the cars that travel within the CBD. If Robert Moses had used that money for mass transit projects, he would have done something good in the long run. Too bad Robert Moses screwed up the Lower East Side/East Village. |
|
|
| (730155) | |
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by 33rd Street on Mon Jan 5 16:56:31 2009, in response to Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by randyo on Mon Jan 5 15:54:05 2009. You are correct on that. The May 24th, 1987 map denotes the E as a full-time local and the F as a part-time local. |
|
|
| (730165) | |
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Mon Jan 5 17:23:26 2009, in response to Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by 33rd Street on Mon Jan 5 16:48:50 2009. You should see what the Cross Bronx did for the Bronx. :( |
|
|
| (730168) | |
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Mon Jan 5 17:30:51 2009, in response to Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Jan 4 08:39:07 2009. "The rest of the Fulton line opened (although truncated),"Granted, that's true. "the entire takeover to Rockaways" That was just a trade between railroad lines at the time. while a good thing, it's not an expansion. Not a good example. "Instead, the money would have not come to New York at all," False. Moses could easily have made an accommodation for transit wirthin the road projects, and yes the money would still have come to NY. Moses single-handedly fucked up transit expansion in NY. |
|
|
| (730170) | |
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by 33rd Street on Mon Jan 5 17:35:40 2009, in response to Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by SelkirkTMO on Mon Jan 5 17:23:26 2009. I've read plenty of information on the effects. Moses really did eff up The Bronx with that.LoMex would have be far more worse if it were built. |
|
|
| (730178) | |
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Mon Jan 5 17:57:43 2009, in response to Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by 33rd Street on Mon Jan 5 17:35:40 2009. I suspect that was a major reason why it was stopped, and continued decades after in stopping "Westway" ... |
|
|
| (730186) | |
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Jan 5 18:22:31 2009, in response to Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by 33rd Street on Mon Jan 5 16:48:50 2009. Reasons such as this is whats choking New York City. If New York Cuiy had a much more expanded mass transit system, you wouldn't need all these express buses. In addition, all of the cars that travel within the CBD.Again, it wasn't just NY not expanding transit, most cities were not at the time unfortunately. Cars, buses, and things on tires are what were being expanded, not things on rails. If Robert Moses had used that money for mass transit projects, he would have done something good in the long run. Not other city was spending money en mass on transit either. Not just NY. NYC would not be the city it is today without it's bridges and highways. They were necessary. Once the car was invented, it was inevidable. NYC would have choked on small local roads, while other cities instead expanded. Everything you use today, from the computer you bought at Best Buy (example), to the food you eat came in on an interstate highway, and crossed bridges, etc to get here. You need roads for that. |
|
|
| (730188) | |
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Jan 5 18:27:41 2009, in response to Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by RonInBayside on Mon Jan 5 17:30:51 2009. That was just a trade between railroad lines at the time. while a good thing, it's not an expansion. Not a good example.It could have just been abandoned like other LIRR lines were unfortunately abandoned. Such as the Whitestone branch. It's actually a small miracle that so much money was spent on rebuilding the line across Jamaica Bay. We are lucky to have it. False. Moses could easily have made an accommodation for transit wirthin the road projects, and yes the money would still have come to NY Yes, I never denied that. Moses single-handedly fucked up transit expansion in NY. Not entirely. Again, it was a national trend. No major city at the time was expanding transit. NY is not unique in that. It's unfortunate, but GM, the tire companies, and many other forces within the car industry that we are now trying to bail out had a lot to do with the destruction of trolley systems around the country, and there was no real expansion of transit in most cities on any large scale in that era, with perhaps just a small few exceptions. Again, the major problem in that era wasn't "Robert Moses" lobbying for roads. The problem was that there wasn't a similar guy out there lobbying for transit. But again, there wasn't anyone doing that in any city at the time either. |
|
|
| (730190) | |
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Jan 5 18:31:01 2009, in response to Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by randyo on Mon Jan 5 16:37:47 2009. Yes, CHicago is one of the rare few exceptions, but again, that city was born out of the railroads, so it always had a high presence of rail.Other urban areas such as LA, DC, and Baltimore have rapid transit lines in highway medians and these operations have been highly successful. Yes, LA built the Green line in the 90's, and I believe the Gold line in early 2000's. That is now - not then. |
|
|
| (730197) | |
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by Russ on Mon Jan 5 19:09:28 2009, in response to Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Jan 5 10:00:01 2009. You're citing what happened in the 1950s. I'm talking about what Moses did in the 1930s - before highways were being constructed in the US, and before mass transit was being discarded for the automobile. In the 1930s, Moses wasn't part of "the times." He was defining it. Prior to WWII, most of the highways in the U.S. had been built by Robert Moses. |
|
|
| (730211) | |
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by MJF on Mon Jan 5 19:47:57 2009, in response to Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by grimace1169 on Sun Jan 4 23:25:17 2009. I'm not so sure both levels end at the same point. Go up the emergency exit from the LL to the UL. There seems to be more room at the corresponding point on the UL to the bumper blocks. But you make a good point about the ramps to the LL. I'm not around 179 enough to be sure but that was always my impression. I'll look into this. |
|
|
| (730215) | |
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by MJF on Mon Jan 5 19:51:00 2009, in response to Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by G1Ravage on Sun Jan 4 23:59:06 2009. Nah. Chit happens. ;-) |
|
|
| (730218) | |
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Mon Jan 5 20:13:34 2009, in response to Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Jan 5 18:31:01 2009. Actually, the point I was trying to make is that at the same time when Moses was EXcluding rapid transit from his highway plans, Chicago was making plans INcluding rapid transit. |
|
|
| (730242) | |
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by VictorM on Mon Jan 5 21:18:56 2009, in response to Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Jan 5 07:46:52 2009. Except for a short stretch in East NY, and another short stretch in Woodhaven, it was only 2 tracks. |
|
|
| (730309) | |
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by grimace1169 on Mon Jan 5 23:53:19 2009, in response to Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by MJF on Mon Jan 5 19:47:57 2009. It seems that way. I was curious hoping one was longer than the other but the survey markers were the same on both levels. IIRC the emer exit is right by the signals to come out from the LL and when you go upstairs you are right across from the back of an E train laid up on 3 or 4. |
|
|
| (730317) | |
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Tue Jan 6 01:12:11 2009, in response to Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by randyo on Mon Jan 5 20:13:34 2009. Exactly. |
|
|
| (730318) | |
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Tue Jan 6 01:13:18 2009, in response to Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Jan 5 18:27:41 2009. "Not entirely. Again, it was a national trend"Read up on Chicago elsewhere in this thread. |
|
|
| (730323) | |
Re: Extending the F beyond 179th Street |
|
|
Posted by Grand concourse on Tue Jan 6 02:55:31 2009, in response to Re: Extending the F beyond 179th Street, posted by Wallyhorse on Sun Jan 4 13:19:58 2009. It does depend on how much Obama promises to send to NYC in $ aid for transit. |
|
|
| (730332) | |
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Tue Jan 6 04:10:40 2009, in response to Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by Kew Gardens Teleport on Mon Jan 5 12:17:09 2009. That I agree (with the E and J actually), but I was more curious in this case. |
|
|
| (730333) | |
Extending the Archer Avenue Line |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Tue Jan 6 04:16:34 2009, in response to Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by RonInBayside on Sun Jan 4 17:25:28 2009. Which is why I think Belmont Park would be a good extension, especially because of there likely being a "racino" in place by the time it got built:What could be done is to have the "normal" terminal station near the entrance to the track on the grandstand side, and then a barebones terminal under the parking lot on the backstrech that can mainly be used to layup trains, however, on big days can be used to drop off and pick up passengers (and have a mini-yard similar to 179 as well). |
|
|
| (730370) | |
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Tue Jan 6 07:21:26 2009, in response to Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Jan 5 18:22:31 2009. And that is something a lot of people refuse to understand:The need was there for the roads at that time, though if Moses had thought further ahead, provisions could have been made for mass transit to have been put in with the roads at a later date. The problems was, no one in the 1940's and '50s could have seen the boom that would come in the '70s, '80s and '90s that would set up the need for greatly expanded mass transit. |
|
|
| (730375) | |
Re: Extending the F beyond 179th Street |
|
|
Posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Tue Jan 6 07:45:34 2009, in response to Re: Extending the F beyond 179th Street, posted by Grand concourse on Tue Jan 6 02:55:31 2009. We'll see how many promises Beano keeps. |
|
|
| (730380) | |
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by Russ on Tue Jan 6 07:57:49 2009, in response to Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by Wallyhorse on Tue Jan 6 07:21:26 2009. The problems was, no one in the 1940's and '50s could have seen the boom that would come in the '70s, '80s and '90s that would set up the need for greatly expanded.That is absolutely not true. These future problems were identified at least as early as the 1930s. Moses was repeatedly asked to include provisions for rail in his projects, but he always refused. |
|
|
| (730385) | |
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Jan 6 08:13:27 2009, in response to Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by Russ on Tue Jan 6 07:57:49 2009. At the time, the majority of people looked at rail as old fashioned, and dying, and cars and buses as the wave of the future.This is also when the Railroads, and much public transportation was PRIVATELY held, and were looked at as businesses, not public entities. The Railroads were in a state of chaos falling to bankruptcy. They weren't taken over by the municipalities. Sure you had the city owned IND, but in general, most rail transportation was still in private hands. People looked at them much like today we are looking at the failing car companies, etc (on a somewhat similar term) Again, you are looking at the situation with 20/20 vision, and taking TODAY's attitudes and knowledge on PUBLIC rail transportation, and trying to place that into an era when attitudes and situations on/with rail were quite different, and quite to the contrary. Hindsight is 20/20. |
|
|
| (730386) | |
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Jan 6 08:15:17 2009, in response to Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by VictorM on Mon Jan 5 21:18:56 2009. Okay thanks. I just always have visions of this four track railroad, but perhaps those are just the old photos I am thinking of. |
|
|
| (730387) | |
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Jan 6 08:16:57 2009, in response to Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by RonInBayside on Tue Jan 6 01:13:18 2009. I already explained Chicago, and it's one of the few rare exceptions. And Chicago was BORN out of the railroads. There was ALWAYS much more of a rail presense/attitude there, as the city wouldn't even exist as it does without all the railroads coming together there. I already said, "Most cities with a few rare exceptions" in most of my statements, and Chicago is one of those "few rare exceptions". |
|
|
| (730389) | |
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Jan 6 08:21:46 2009, in response to Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by Russ on Mon Jan 5 19:09:28 2009. But the cars were invented and began to become en mass by the 1920's already. That's when the car revolution was beginning. And it wasn't just Moses, the tire/car manufacturers also had LOTS to do with this. People's attitudes were changing once cars began to become affordable to the average person. Better roads became a necessity once that began. If someone could finally afford a car and drive between point a and point b, why would they want to sit on a train instead?He was not "defining" it, he saw what was coming. Blame the inventors of cars then, or those that made them affordable. Again, you are taking TODAYS attitudes, and trying to place them into another era. Once again, Hindsight is 20/20, and even so, most people would never go back to a time when personal cars didn't rule. |
|
|
| (730391) | |
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Jan 6 08:30:29 2009, in response to Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by randyo on Mon Jan 5 20:13:34 2009. And as mentioned, Chicago (which was BORN out of the railroads, and always had a high rail presence/attitude), is one of the very rare and few exceptions.And you also mentioned Los Angeles. If any city can't be included in this it's LA. IF you think NY was screwed out of "rail" (which isn't really true, as NY has one of the best rail transportation systems in the country, even if it could lead much to be desired as well), LA is the anti-NY. LA was lined with interurban and urban rail transportation, and EVERY but of it was ripped up. It even had many underground sections through the city. PRIVATELY owned. Again, the key here is that you are taking today's thought of "public" rail, and trying to bring that to an era when much of it was still privately held. The rail systems were BOUGHT out, and destroyed afterwards. The fact that LA now has the Green line in a freeway, and part of the Gold line in one, has nothing to do with planning back then. Their freeways just have a lot more room in general. While in NY it's huge to have a three+ lane highway (6+ if thinking bidirectionally), in LA, 5 lanes in one direction is common on many of them. There is way more room, and it was done RECENTLY to put the rail in the median, not in Moses' era. And if you are screaming about how much was destroyed in neighborhoods for a 3 lane (in each direction) expressway such as the Cross Bronx, LIE, Gowanas, etc, imagine if they needed an additional 120 feet of destruction through those neighborhoods to allow for enough room for something in the median. The LIE (at least in Queens were this transit would be needed) and the Cross Bronx are fit like a puzzle through the neighborhoods, and think of what was knocked down for just the 3 lanes (in each direction). |
|
|
| (730393) | |
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by VictorM on Tue Jan 6 09:01:35 2009, in response to Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Jan 6 08:30:29 2009. I agree. For example, two solid columns of homes approximately 4 miles long had to be torn down, or in a few cases relocated, to make room for the Van Wyck Expressway. It would have been much worse if they had had to make even more room for a median rapid transit line, and the money certainly wasn't there for a subway under one of the service roads. |
|
|
| (730400) | |
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Tue Jan 6 09:43:56 2009, in response to Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by VictorM on Tue Jan 6 09:01:35 2009. Nonsense. At that point it would have made little difference. If you're already bisecting a neighborhood with an expressway (and I'm not denying the impact that this causes) then adding a transit medium makes zero difference. It's a non-issue, especially in a time when the highway buildings were wrecking people's homes with no recourse. |
|
|
| (730401) | |
Robert Moses Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Jan 6 09:44:19 2009, in response to Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by VictorM on Tue Jan 6 09:01:35 2009. And again, it's not that I think Moses did everything right. Far from it. But he's been used as a scapegoat for everything. There are WAY more factors involved, and again, one of the biggest is that most of the rail transportation systems were still privately owned in the beginning of his era. They only began to be publically owned near the end of his tenure in many cases.People can't take today's conditions, and attitudes, and try and place them in a different era when conditions and attitudes were different. Robert Moses didn't create the car dependancy we have, the people who invented cars did (and thank god they did), and once they were affordable, there was no stopping it. |
|
|
| (730402) | |
Re: Robert Moses Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Tue Jan 6 09:48:40 2009, in response to Robert Moses Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Jan 6 09:44:19 2009. Since we can't crank back the clock, allnwe can do is go from here. And the work in progress now is pretty good. It's what we can do. |
|
|
| (730405) | |
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by Lou From Middletown NY on Tue Jan 6 09:53:02 2009, in response to Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by Michael549 on Mon Jan 5 11:59:39 2009. One of Cudahy's points in The Malbone Street Wrek, is that even without Malbone St, the BRT would have gone bankrupt at the exactly the same time it did. He documents just about every civil settlement the company made in relation to the accident, and most of them are shocklingly low - even for 1918. The real reason for the BRT bankruptcy was the part of the Dual Contracts which froze the fare at five cents.One of the real reasons the SI link was not built, was because of John Hylan - ironic considering that when Hylan died, they named a street after him IN Staten Island... |
|
|
| (730426) | |
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by TUNNELRAT on Tue Jan 6 11:21:42 2009, in response to Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by Lou From Middletown NY on Tue Jan 6 09:53:02 2009. test |
|
|
| (730428) | |
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Jan 6 11:25:11 2009, in response to Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by RonInBayside on Tue Jan 6 09:43:56 2009. It's not "zero difference" There is no room for a median right now. In order to make a median large enough to have bidirectional trains in it, you would need at least another 60-100 feet wideness to the right of way of the expressway. Since the average building lot in NYC is about 20-25 feet in attached home neighborhoods, that would mean at least 3-5 more houses taken down on every cross street, on each side of the street. So that would be an addition 6-10 buildings on EVERY cross street, give or take. I wouldn't call that "zero difference" and it most certainly is an issue, even if the highway was "wrecking people's homes with no recourse". An addition 3-10 on each block is quite a lot of homes more, and quite a lot more money too. |
|
|
| (730461) | |
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Jan 6 12:13:50 2009, in response to Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Jan 6 11:25:11 2009. Here's an example of how some of the expressways cut through the neighborhoods. And the same holds true for the straight portions of the ROW's, but I used one of the curves for this example, but again, the same holds true for the whole expressway projects.This of course is totally not to scale, but the premise is the same as if I used measurements. The point is, to add a median into a tight ROW as these expressways were built into, would mean at least 3 to 5 more houses on each side of every street to be taken down, and that's all along the ROW. That's a lot more displacement, as well as cost to aquire:   
|
|
|
| (730463) | |
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Tue Jan 6 12:19:30 2009, in response to Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Jan 6 11:25:11 2009. You missed my point.In the 1950s, nobody gave a shit how many homes you wrecked. So putting in transit in the median would be far more beneficial in the long haul than the few homes you supposedly saved. Housing gets rebuilt; density changes. |
|
|
| (730479) | |
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Jan 6 13:08:42 2009, in response to Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by RonInBayside on Tue Jan 6 12:19:30 2009. It's still not zero difference. It's a big difference. Yes, I agree, "nobody gave a crap", but that's the point too, nobody gave a crap about transit either at the time...and again, most rail transit was still in private (and failing) private hands.Taking down an additional 5-10 buildings per block is a HUGE different. Some of them vere 6-8 family homes (and yes, some only 2 or 3 family homes), but on just one block with 6-8 familys, that could be 64 to 80 more families PER BLOCK evicted on some blocks. Or 30 families on blocks with 3 family homes. That's a lot of people,IN ADDITION to the 100's of families per block ALREADY displaced for the main project. So yes, you can make it sound easy, "just throw in a median", but through many sections of the ROW, that means an extra 50-100 feet, and even 50 feet is hard to come by in congested urban areas. |
|
|
| (730480) | |
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Tue Jan 6 13:08:49 2009, in response to Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Jan 6 08:21:46 2009. With the economy being what it is along with other coexistent conditions, we may have no choice but to go back (or forward) to a time when personal cars don't rule. |
|
|
| (730486) | |
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Jan 6 13:36:45 2009, in response to Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by randyo on Tue Jan 6 13:08:49 2009. That may or may not be true, but we can't apply that thinking of today to what was a different era during Moses' era and people's thinking. Back then, people were thinking about roads and their private cars. |
|
|
| (730488) | |
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by Fred G on Tue Jan 6 13:41:45 2009, in response to Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Jan 6 08:21:46 2009. You're correct that you can't look back with today's attitudes. Even more recently in my parents' early lives, once you had money to buy a car you were somebody (even moreso if it was just you and your girl and not 6 other dudes lol). The idea was that you were "sprung" from public transportation, even if just on weekends like it was for most.your pal, Fred |
|
|
| (730493) | |
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by Fred G on Tue Jan 6 14:01:01 2009, in response to Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by Fred G on Tue Jan 6 13:41:45 2009. Anyway, car ownership now isn't some big event (ok maybe your first one is), and we'll probably see the automobile slip as the prime motivation for all things designed and built.your pal, Fred |
|
|
| (730494) | |
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Jan 6 14:08:57 2009, in response to Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by Fred G on Tue Jan 6 14:01:01 2009. You may or may not be right. I don't disagree. However, again, that is our thought TODAY. People here are trying to place that thought on an era when people thought the complete opposite. |
|
|
| (730504) | |
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by Kew Gardens Teleport on Tue Jan 6 14:36:35 2009, in response to Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Jan 6 11:25:11 2009. Since the average building lot in NYC is about 20-25 feet in attached home neighborhoodsThat strikes me as being quite wide. |
|
|
| (730511) | |
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Jan 6 14:59:33 2009, in response to Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by Kew Gardens Teleport on Tue Jan 6 14:36:35 2009. 6 family houses are usually about 25 feet wide. Your typical brownstone anywhere from between 18 and 20. You can use 20 then...so that would automatically make it about 5 buildings on each side of the street in, if you need 100 feet....10 per every block it crosses (both sides of the street). That's a lot of extra houses for a median. |
|
|
|
Page 4 of 5 |
||
