|
|
| Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? (729191) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 5 of 5 |
||
|
| (730515) | |
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Tue Jan 6 15:13:51 2009, in response to Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Jan 6 08:13:27 2009. Exactly:The attitude and mindset in the 1940s and '50s was far different than it would become in later years. No one could realistically have thought that far ahead at that time. Sure, the problems may have been identified in the 1930's, but it needs to be remembered that was before the boom in cars necessitated the change in focus to the roads. |
|
|
| (730517) | |
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Tue Jan 6 15:15:33 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. Exactly:No one in those days was thinking ahead to what we would have 50+ years later. Only now are we trying to play catch up. |
|
|
| (730523) | |
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by B47man on Tue Jan 6 15:32:36 2009, in response to Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by olivermuc on Sat Jan 3 18:32:15 2009. There was also one other factor too: Around this time, the age of Robert Moses had begun. |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (730535) | |
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by TUNNELRAT on Tue Jan 6 16:35:14 2009, in response to Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Jan 6 14:59:33 2009. They could have built an EL over the van wyck.that was one of the original 2nd.phase ind. plans.a combo of a subway& EL to 116ave& the vanwyck. |
|
|
| (730539) | |
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by Kew Gardens Teleport on Tue Jan 6 16:40:47 2009, in response to Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Jan 6 14:59:33 2009. I guess I'm used to streets that look like this -- I worked out the other day that the frontages are about 14 ft each,
|
|
|
| (730543) | |
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Tue Jan 6 17:05:07 2009, in response to Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Jan 6 14:59:33 2009. Your typical brownstone anywhere from between 18 and 20.Depends on the neighborhood. In mine they are all 23'. |
|
|
| (730544) | |
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by G1Ravage on Tue Jan 6 17:06:15 2009, in response to Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by Kew Gardens Teleport on Tue Jan 6 16:40:47 2009. Yay, England!Watching British comedies has taught me that the double yellow line adjacent to the curb indicates a no parking zone. It's sort of the opposite in New York. A double yellow line would run down the center of the street, and separates traffic in both directions. Dashed white lines separates lanes of traffic in the same direction. |
|
|
| (730546) | |
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Tue Jan 6 17:09:51 2009, in response to Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by AlM on Tue Jan 6 17:05:07 2009. I've seen narrower ones in Philly, again, depending on the neighborhood. |
|
|
| (730549) | |
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Tue Jan 6 17:19:05 2009, in response to Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by RonInBayside on Tue Jan 6 17:09:51 2009. I've also seen extremely narrow ones in Baltimore. |
|
|
| (730550) | |
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Tue Jan 6 17:19:53 2009, in response to Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by TUNNELRAT on Tue Jan 6 16:35:14 2009. That's an idea - a narrow T-bent that would occupy one lane for the columns - and you could stack the tracks on top of each other as opposed to side by side. |
|
|
| (730551) | |
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Tue Jan 6 17:20:45 2009, in response to Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by randyo on Tue Jan 6 17:19:05 2009. Yup. The Northeast is full of these... |
|
|
| (730618) | |
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by Kew Gardens Teleport on Tue Jan 6 18:52:07 2009, in response to Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by G1Ravage on Tue Jan 6 17:06:15 2009. Yay, England!To be objectionably pedantic, that's Wales. It's sort of the opposite in New York. A double yellow line would run down the center of the street, and separates traffic in both directions. Dashed white lines separates lanes of traffic in the same direction. So what means NO PARKING? |
|
|
| (730624) | |
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Jan 6 19:01:12 2009, in response to Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by TUNNELRAT on Tue Jan 6 16:35:14 2009. Yup, and they could do that on the LIE, or most of the other expressways too. Just look at AirTrain on the Van Wyck. |
|
|
| (730626) | |
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Jan 6 19:02:44 2009, in response to Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by Kew Gardens Teleport on Tue Jan 6 16:40:47 2009. Yes, that's pretty narrow for NYC. There may be some older frontages at about 15 feet, but the average is closer to 20 for let's say Brownstones. The average 6 family Brooklyn/Queens tenemant is about 25 feet wide. |
|
|
| (730627) | |
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Jan 6 19:04:06 2009, in response to Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by AlM on Tue Jan 6 17:05:07 2009. Yes, and that was my original footage mentioned about 20-25 foot lots. Of course it varies, but that is the average. |
|
|
| (730636) | |
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by AEM-7AC #901 on Tue Jan 6 19:21:17 2009, in response to Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by Kew Gardens Teleport on Tue Jan 6 18:52:07 2009. So what means NO PARKING?We use signage to denote NO PARKING. |
|
|
| (730639) | |
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Tue Jan 6 19:24:29 2009, in response to Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by randyo on Mon Jan 5 16:19:08 2009. Thanks. That explains a lot. |
|
|
| (730641) | |
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by Kew Gardens Teleport on Tue Jan 6 19:27:10 2009, in response to Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by AEM-7AC #901 on Tue Jan 6 19:21:17 2009. So what determines the extent of the restriction? |
|
|
| (730642) | |
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Tue Jan 6 19:28:34 2009, in response to Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by randyo on Mon Jan 5 15:54:05 2009. As far as I can remember, midday F's ran express between Continental and Parsons/Hillside, stopping at 169th. Rush hours it skipped 169th. Weekends and nights it ran local. At least that's the way the maps explained it. My experience was that the F ran local all the way to Continental between 9 and 11 AM. I never understood why the maps said otherwise. |
|
|
| (730643) | |
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by Kew Gardens Teleport on Tue Jan 6 19:29:33 2009, in response to Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Jan 6 19:02:44 2009. I suppose it's two different approaches to density... |
|
|
| (730648) | |
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by Kew Gardens Teleport on Tue Jan 6 19:37:44 2009, in response to Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Tue Jan 6 19:28:34 2009. Maybe this might help... |
|
|
| (730664) | |
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Tue Jan 6 20:23:41 2009, in response to Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by Kew Gardens Teleport on Tue Jan 6 19:27:10 2009. Conflicting times and exceptions are posted on multiple signs on the same pole. NYC has a sadistic desire to check to see if you can read and interpret. Which is why many of us find this place amusing. :) |
|
|
| (730666) | |
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Tue Jan 6 20:27:21 2009, in response to Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by RonInBayside on Sun Jan 4 17:25:28 2009. Parsons/Archer was never intended to be the terminal for the E Line. The line was to have benn extended along the LIRR ROW to Springfield Blvd where a proper terminal and small yard were to be located. |
|
|
| (730675) | |
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Tue Jan 6 20:48:46 2009, in response to Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by randyo on Tue Jan 6 20:27:21 2009. Agreed.Think of where the tail tracks end now. Any use for a station there? |
|
|
| (730802) | |
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by Michael549 on Wed Jan 7 11:09:00 2009, in response to Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by G1Ravage on Tue Jan 6 17:06:15 2009. From a previous message: "It's sort of the opposite in New York. A double yellow line would run down the center of the street, and separates traffic in both directions. Dashed white lines separates lanes of traffic in the same direction."In both cases, the double yellow line means the same thing - that is do not cross this line unless you have really have to (that is they generally do not want one to cross this line), and to make sure that it is truly safe to do so. Since in the British/London case, the double-yellow lines are against the curb - how often does one truly have to cross the curb? (smile) Mike |
|
|
| (730831) | |
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Wed Jan 7 11:54:19 2009, in response to Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by RonInBayside on Tue Jan 6 20:48:46 2009. You've got 3000 feet of tunnel beyond Parsons/Archer. Surely a station or two could have been incorporated. |
|
|
| (730884) | |
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Wed Jan 7 12:43:46 2009, in response to Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by randyo on Mon Jan 5 15:54:05 2009. Well..sometimes it was...sometimes it wasn't...!Most cases...the Midday F skipped 75th,VanWyck, Sutphin..then stopped at 169th st. |
|
|
| (731009) | |
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by Kew Gardens Teleport on Wed Jan 7 21:00:56 2009, in response to Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by Michael549 on Wed Jan 7 11:09:00 2009. In both cases, the double yellow line means the same thing - that is do not cross this line unless you have really have toThat's a double white line in Britain, although crossing one of those is actually illegal. Most of the time, the centre line is a dashed white line. Yellow lines show the extent of the signed parking restriction. And, yes, there are rules about how many yellow lines correspond to certain types of restrictions, and no, I can't remember them. how often does one truly have to cross the curb? Often enough for these signs to have been invented: 
|
|
|
| (731049) | |
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Wed Jan 7 22:05:11 2009, in response to Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Tue Jan 6 19:28:34 2009. I rode on a number of express F train in the late 80s before the Archer Ave. line opened that skipped 75th Ave. (I boarded at Union Turnpike) |
|
|
| (731122) | |
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by Michael549 on Thu Jan 8 01:47:44 2009, in response to Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by Kew Gardens Teleport on Wed Jan 7 21:00:56 2009. I stand corrected, you have raised good point.Mike |
|
|
| (731133) | |
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Thu Jan 8 06:38:24 2009, in response to Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Jan 6 14:08:57 2009. Which continued to be true for many years afterward:Even in the 1970's and '80s, you STILL had this attitude among many, even if the Subway (even when it was in its worst state) was still the best way to get around. It was only with the advent of the MetroCards, unlimited rides and free bus-to-subway transfers in the late 1990s did this attitude begin to change to what we have today. |
|
|
| (731134) | |
Re: Why medians for trains were not included |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Thu Jan 8 06:48:25 2009, in response to Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Jan 6 12:13:50 2009. Exactly:The parts where homes were destroyed to make way for the highways would have been even WORSE had a median been built for mass transit. While yes, NOW that would not have looked so bad in retrospect, it was bad enough at that time and some areas have never fully recovered from what happened at that time. Those diagrams spell that out very well. The mentality in general then was far different than it is 75 years later when we know the needs for new transit. |
|
|
| (731159) | |
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by Kew Gardens Teleport on Thu Jan 8 08:34:12 2009, in response to Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by Michael549 on Thu Jan 8 01:47:44 2009. Incidentally, I've now located a fairly comprehensive set of UK signs and markings. |
|
|
| (731176) | |
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by fytton on Thu Jan 8 10:10:42 2009, in response to Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by Kew Gardens Teleport on Wed Jan 7 21:00:56 2009. 'And, yes, there are rules about how many yellow lines correspond to certain types of restrictions, and no, I can't remember them.'Dotted yellow line: no parking for a period *less* than the full working day on weekdays. Solid single yellow line: no parking for the full working day on weekdays (defined as 8 a.m.-6 p.m. Monday-Saturday, so far as the one outside my house is concerned). Double yellow lines: no parking for a period longer than the full working days on weekdays - often, no parking at any time. The exact times are posted on small signs attached to lampposts. Having said all that, the yellow lines are virtually unenforced, in Bedford anyway... The non-enforcement of the double yellow lines on parts of the main road past my house makes life very difficult at times for the bus drivers on Bedford route 4. Plus: solid red line - no *stopping* at any time, not even for loading/unloading. Those are mostly in London ('Red Routes') and I believe they *are* enforced. |
|
|
| (731180) | |
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by Kew Gardens Teleport on Thu Jan 8 10:38:03 2009, in response to Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by fytton on Thu Jan 8 10:10:42 2009. And then there are also kerb markings for loading restrictions. Perhaps the Bedford problem is lorries stopping for 20 minutes to unload in the middle of rush hour? |
|
|
| (731398) | |
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Fri Jan 9 05:06:09 2009, in response to Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Jan 6 19:01:12 2009. That I aqgree, and it would get subway lines to where they are needed. I can think of St. John's (which I believe is not too far from the LIE) as a prime beneficiary of this. |
|
|
| (731401) | |
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by Kew Gardens Teleport on Fri Jan 9 07:28:13 2009, in response to Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by Wallyhorse on Fri Jan 9 05:06:09 2009. It would also give the IND Queens Local a sensible non-relay terminus.... This is an R train to Alley Park ... |
|
|
| (731692) | |
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by G1Ravage on Sat Jan 10 03:46:56 2009, in response to Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by Kew Gardens Teleport on Tue Jan 6 19:27:10 2009. The sign has arrows pointing in the direction the restriction extends in. The restriction continues until you reach a sign saying something different. |
|
|
| (731696) | |
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by G1Ravage on Sat Jan 10 03:58:27 2009, in response to Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by Kew Gardens Teleport on Tue Jan 6 18:52:07 2009. 
 |
|
|
|
Page 5 of 5 |
||
