|
|
| Re: 2nd Ave Subway Setback (811502) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 2 of 4 |
||
|
| (811677) | |
Re: 2nd Ave Subway Setback |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Wed Jul 22 12:12:21 2009, in response to Re: 2nd Ave Subway Setback, posted by Easy on Tue Jul 21 21:22:00 2009. Two tracks with less frequent stops is the way to go. That way every train is a semi-express train.You need station spacing per demand consistent with maintaining ideal throughput, otherwise you have to figure out how to get people to board/alight the train faster. And if you put the station spacing so far apart as to be more than comfortable walking distance away, people are just going to go for some other option making the huge capital expenditure something of a waste. As it is, SAS borders on that anyway, as operationally described anyhow, something like 8 peak tph added for several billion dollars; for a fraction of that much, let's just max out 4/5/6 service first. |
|
|
| (811679) | |
Re: 2nd Ave Subway Setback |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Wed Jul 22 12:16:30 2009, in response to Re: 2nd Ave Subway Setback, posted by Think twice on Wed Jul 22 09:13:15 2009. I worry about long term capacity. To me the express tracks we have are more valuable for the capacity they provide (for more branches to the other boroughs) than the speed they allow.Initially, we're talking about something like 3-8 tph on the stubway, depending on time of day. So that still leaves plenty of capacity left over. As it is, very little of NYCT's trackage is operated at practical capacity anyway; it's basically just the Queens Blvd express tracks D1/D3 during part of the peak period between 36 St and 71 Av. |
|
|
| (811680) | |
Re: 2nd Ave Subway Setback |
|
|
Posted by Think twice on Wed Jul 22 12:20:05 2009, in response to Re: 2nd Ave Subway Setback, posted by trainsarefun on Wed Jul 22 12:12:21 2009. for a fraction of that much, let's just max out 4/5/6 service first.A second local on the Lex? |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (811694) | |
Re: 2nd Ave Subway Setback |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Wed Jul 22 12:49:06 2009, in response to Re: 2nd Ave Subway Setback, posted by Think twice on Wed Jul 22 12:20:05 2009. A second local on the Lex?Nothing quite so drastic - could just run more 6 trains. Obviously it's increased costs, but the problem with capacity on 6 trains is that trains experience dwell time that's too high at stations, because they're too loaded to move people on and off. Adding more trains solves that problem, since you have less people on each train then, but it does cost more. |
|
|
| (811701) | |
Re: 2nd Ave Subway Setback |
|
|
Posted by Easy on Wed Jul 22 12:55:10 2009, in response to Re: 2nd Ave Subway Setback, posted by trainsarefun on Wed Jul 22 12:12:21 2009. I can't imagine them only running 8TPH on the T. You sure about that? That sounds like the level for the Q portion. I would have guessed at least 12 and likely 15 TPH for the T, but I haven't heard.Will the platform doors help people board faster? Anyway I still think that you'll see that two tracks works better because it works better operationally as trains will be more regular. How much of the problems of people taking long to board and holding doors stems from the fact that the trains are often late and miss intervals due to one thing or another? Peter Rosa is always writing about big gaps in service. It seems to happen very often. |
|
|
| (811709) | |
Re: 2nd Ave Subway Setback |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Wed Jul 22 13:10:36 2009, in response to Re: 2nd Ave Subway Setback, posted by Easy on Wed Jul 22 12:55:10 2009. I can't imagine them only running 8TPH on the T. You sure about that? That sounds like the level for the Q portion.Yes; it is. But the joke about the T route is that it only starts running after hell freezes over. Will the platform doors help people board faster? Not really - probably slower, actually, since that's just making the plumbing more complicated, so it's easier to clog up the drain. How much of the problems of people taking long to board and holding doors stems from the fact that the trains are often late and miss intervals due to one thing or another? Many of them, especially during peak hours. The train falls a little behind time for whatever reason, and then it's taking on more than the scheduled load by 5%.....10%......20%....30%....on and on until there's a conga line of trains stuck behind it. Peter Rosa is always writing about big gaps in service. It seems to happen very often. It does happen; and it's often disastrous to one's commute. |
|
|
| (811754) | |
Re: 2nd Ave Subway Setback |
|
|
Posted by b44nyc on Wed Jul 22 14:40:28 2009, in response to Re: 2nd Ave Subway Setback, posted by trainsarefun on Wed Jul 22 13:10:36 2009. What would be hilarious if the new Hudson tunnel gets completed before the SAS. |
|
|
| (811760) | |
Re: 2nd Ave Subway Setback |
|
|
Posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Wed Jul 22 14:52:33 2009, in response to Re: 2nd Ave Subway Setback, posted by vfrt on Wed Jul 22 11:32:44 2009. We may actually see 96th, 86th and 72nd Streets open within our lifetimes. The rest of the line... that's anyone's guess. |
|
|
| (811768) | |
Re: 2nd Ave Subway Setback |
|
|
Posted by Mitch45 on Wed Jul 22 15:26:44 2009, in response to Re: 2nd Ave Subway Setback, posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Wed Jul 22 14:52:33 2009. I doubt it. I think the MTA will eventually halt construction to "reassess" the project. In the "interim," the MTA will "improve service" on the bus line on 2nd Avenue. And that will be that.Lets face it - the City screwed up big time when it tore down the 3rd Avenue El. |
|
|
| (811790) | |
Re: 2nd Ave Subway Setback |
|
|
Posted by Elkeeper on Wed Jul 22 16:47:29 2009, in response to Re: 2nd Ave Subway Setback, posted by Mitch45 on Wed Jul 22 15:26:44 2009. And the lower part of the 2nd Ave el, from Chatham Square to 60th St. |
|
|
| (811794) | |
Re: 2nd Ave Subway Setback |
|
|
Posted by E and F and sometimes J on Wed Jul 22 17:08:35 2009, in response to 2nd Ave Subway Setback, posted by b44nyc on Tue Jul 21 20:25:13 2009. Good. I'm glad it's likely not going to be built. Poorly conceived, poorly constructed, poorly funded, and poorly built to handle NYC's rapidly growing population.The line should be four tracks from 125th St, and tie into the JMZ at Kenmare St. JMZ trains can terminate at Chambers St, during rush-hour. It should have two tracks down 125th St, to make all current subway stops, and a stop at Amsterdam Ave. The line will turn upwards and terminate under 137th St, City College. The second two tracks will head Bronx bound and stop at 3rd Ave (6), Third Ave/The Hub and then tie into the Grand Concourse subway replacing the (4) train up to Bedford Park blvd. where it will rise up and terminate at Woodlawn using the Jerome Ave el. Part of my 2040 proposal. |
|
|
| (811801) | |
Re: 2nd Ave Subway Setback |
|
|
Posted by Grand Concourse on Wed Jul 22 17:31:57 2009, in response to Re: 2nd Ave Subway Setback, posted by Olog-hai on Wed Jul 22 02:58:56 2009. Wha? That doesn't make much sense. |
|
|
| (811802) | |
Re: 2nd Ave Subway Setback |
|
|
Posted by Grand Concourse on Wed Jul 22 17:34:01 2009, in response to Re: 2nd Ave Subway Setback, posted by E and F and sometimes J on Wed Jul 22 17:08:35 2009. What they should've done was build the 2 local tracks with space in the middle as provisions for the express tracks. And the stations should've been 2 side plaforms than on island platform. |
|
|
| (811803) | |
Re: 2nd Ave Subway Setback |
|
|
Posted by Grand Concourse on Wed Jul 22 17:34:14 2009, in response to Re: 2nd Ave Subway Setback, posted by E and F and sometimes J on Wed Jul 22 17:08:35 2009. What they should've done was build the 2 local tracks with space in the middle as provisions for the express tracks. And the stations should've been 2 side plaforms than one* island platform. |
|
|
| (811805) | |
Re: 2nd Ave Subway Setback |
|
|
Posted by Grand Concourse on Wed Jul 22 17:35:41 2009, in response to Re: 2nd Ave Subway Setback, posted by Terrapin Station on Wed Jul 22 05:49:29 2009. Again, what good is an LRT if it is still obstructed by cars blocking the box? You may as well have SBS with it's own dedicated lane. |
|
|
| (811810) | |
Re: 2nd Ave Subway Setback |
|
|
Posted by b44nyc on Wed Jul 22 17:47:14 2009, in response to Re: 2nd Ave Subway Setback, posted by Grand Concourse on Wed Jul 22 17:35:41 2009. Is there going to be a portal for a possible future run into the Bronx to Co-Op City or is there a plan for it to continue west on 125 eventually? |
|
|
| (811811) | |
Re: 2nd Ave Subway Setback |
|
|
Posted by E and F and sometimes J on Wed Jul 22 17:51:20 2009, in response to Re: 2nd Ave Subway Setback, posted by Grand Concourse on Wed Jul 22 17:34:14 2009. Good points! Also I glossed over another damning fact are the the lack of transfers to existing subway lines. Especially the omission of a 63rd/Second Ave stop on Second Ave and the nominal 59th St, connection. |
|
|
| (811819) | |
Re: 2nd Ave Subway Setback |
|
|
Posted by Grand Concourse on Wed Jul 22 18:05:41 2009, in response to Re: 2nd Ave Subway Setback, posted by E and F and sometimes J on Wed Jul 22 17:51:20 2009. I don't think you need 63rd St, I think 59th would've been better. There you could build a connection to the Lexington Av station and are within walking distance to the RI tram and the Q60 bus.They should've built the 53rd St stop than the 55th street one. And I still think the 7 should have a stop at 2nd Av for a more direct transfer to the SAS. |
|
|
| (811829) | |
Re: 2nd Ave Subway Setback |
|
|
Posted by E and F and sometimes J on Wed Jul 22 18:17:30 2009, in response to Re: 2nd Ave Subway Setback, posted by Grand Concourse on Wed Jul 22 18:05:41 2009. They could have angled the station where it has a connection to both. 59th St already straddles Lexington to 3rd Ave so a SAS station would line up in the middle.The 7 train needs a direct connection to SAS. Like I said before, a poorly planned subway line. |
|
|
| (811834) | |
Re: 2nd Ave Subway Setback |
|
|
Posted by Grand Concourse on Wed Jul 22 18:24:03 2009, in response to Re: 2nd Ave Subway Setback, posted by E and F and sometimes J on Wed Jul 22 18:17:30 2009. Agreed, the 7 needs a station near 2nd Av. I don't understand how they think the current GC stop is sufficient with a long corridor to the SAS. |
|
|
| (811844) | |
Re: 2nd Ave Subway Setback |
|
|
Posted by Easy on Wed Jul 22 19:06:46 2009, in response to Re: 2nd Ave Subway Setback, posted by Grand Concourse on Wed Jul 22 17:34:14 2009. You do understand that a large part is being tunneled with a TBM? You would want an extra TBM to make a 3rd tunnel that may or may not get used?It seems that TBM subways predominantly use island platforms. As long as it's wide enough I don't see any problem. It's a different type of line for NYC, but I think that when it opens in 20 years people will see how much better it works than the existing lines. |
|
|
| (811845) | |
Re: 2nd Ave Subway Setback |
|
|
Posted by Easy on Wed Jul 22 19:06:53 2009, in response to Re: 2nd Ave Subway Setback, posted by Grand Concourse on Wed Jul 22 17:34:14 2009. You do understand that a large part is being tunneled with a TBM? You would want an extra TBM to make a 3rd tunnel that may or may not get used?It seems that TBM subways predominantly use island platforms. As long as it's wide enough I don't see any problem. It's a different type of line for NYC, but I think that when it opens in 20 years people will see how much better it works than the existing lines. |
|
|
| (811846) | |
Re: 2nd Ave Subway Setback |
|
|
Posted by Easy on Wed Jul 22 19:07:56 2009, in response to Re: 2nd Ave Subway Setback, posted by Easy on Wed Jul 22 19:06:53 2009. Wow double post! Well, my keyboard is not the best, I admit that. |
|
|
| (811856) | |
Re: 2nd Ave Subway Setback - Duh |
|
|
Posted by Mellow One on Wed Jul 22 19:20:52 2009, in response to 2nd Ave Subway Setback, posted by b44nyc on Tue Jul 21 20:25:13 2009. Its only been 69 years since the upper section of the line was closed, just one lifetime. |
|
|
| (811938) | |
Re: 2nd Ave Subway Setback |
|
|
Posted by terrapin station on Wed Jul 22 22:06:19 2009, in response to Re: 2nd Ave Subway Setback, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed Jul 22 07:37:46 2009. but there merges cause a lot of problems |
|
|
| (811940) | |
Re: 2nd Ave Subway Setback |
|
|
Posted by 7th Avenue Express on Wed Jul 22 22:09:20 2009, in response to Re: 2nd Ave Subway Setback, posted by Olog-hai on Wed Jul 22 02:02:50 2009. all of these setbacks, we will probably all be dead when this is completed. |
|
|
| (811961) | |
Re: 2nd Ave Subway Setback - Duh |
|
|
Posted by Elkeeper on Wed Jul 22 22:28:37 2009, in response to Re: 2nd Ave Subway Setback - Duh, posted by Mellow One on Wed Jul 22 19:20:52 2009. Great photo! Looks like 2nd Ave in the 60's. |
|
|
| (811974) | |
Re: 2nd Ave Subway Setback |
|
|
Posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Wed Jul 22 22:52:14 2009, in response to Re: 2nd Ave Subway Setback, posted by Mitch45 on Wed Jul 22 15:26:44 2009. Yes, they did. They really did. They should have left the 3rd Avenue El up until completion of the subway. |
|
|
| (812011) | |
Re: 2nd Ave Subway Setback |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Thu Jul 23 00:56:23 2009, in response to Re: 2nd Ave Subway Setback, posted by Grand Concourse on Wed Jul 22 17:31:57 2009. And why not? A PATH car should hold around 150 passengers with a decent amount of space for each passenger. At the 25 TPH PATH currently barely manages to squeeze through the WTC station (and as a regular commuter on their also-ran system I have certainly experienced my share of lengthy delays), with eight car trains that works out to 30000 passengers per hour. Since they run trains between 7 and 8 cars long with a train length from 357 to 408 feet. Thus a replacement LRT would be composed of around 4 90 foot long cars, although 100 foot long LRTs may be better. The 90 foot S70 Avantos used by Charlotte and San Diego have a capacity of 230 passengers per car, and so would be capable of transporting 27600 passengers per hour with 30 trains per hour operated through the tunnel. In fact with a change to the seating to accomodate a greater number of standees and reduce the number of blind end cabs, as on the PATH cars, they likely could top 250 people per car and thus equal the capacity of the existing PATH system. The 6 foot longer Avantos used in Houston (and measuring 96 feet between the couplers) accomodate 240 passengers, and thus would likely accomodate more than a PATH train with the standee capacity improvements I mentioned in the prior sentence.I don't quite get the obsession around here with the particular variant of mass transit used by a given operation. Ultimately all we're talking about is a piece of floor with some seats on it which gets people from point A to point B. What does it matter if it has a specific title or set of characteristics? The difference between heavy and light rail is slim at best, and the operational flexibility of an LRT in providing through service from NYC to Tenafly, Bayonne, West Side Ave, and Grove Street makes the case for LRTs on PATH a fairly strong one, especially in light of their capacity neutrality. |
|
|
| (812100) | |
Re: 2nd Ave Subway Setback |
|
|
Posted by Aq Arcticson on Thu Jul 23 13:21:30 2009, in response to Re: 2nd Ave Subway Setback, posted by Grand Concourse on Wed Jul 22 17:34:14 2009. Couldn't they always add the express tracks on a lower level like it is on Lexington Ave? Or would it be too deep? |
|
|
| (812107) | |
Re: 2nd Ave Subway Setback |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Thu Jul 23 13:28:02 2009, in response to Re: 2nd Ave Subway Setback, posted by Grand Concourse on Wed Jul 22 17:34:14 2009. No, they certainly should NOT have done that. Wow. Where do you get this stuff from? How would that save any significant money over just building a 4 track subway??? |
|
|
| (812136) | |
Re: 2nd Ave Subway Setback |
|
|
Posted by Grand Concourse on Thu Jul 23 14:08:10 2009, in response to Re: 2nd Ave Subway Setback, posted by Aq Arcticson on Thu Jul 23 13:21:30 2009. Not sure, but they probably could build another level under the current one, but 2nd av isn't narrow like Lexington Av is, that is why I still think they should've just built with provisions for the express tracks. |
|
|
| (812141) | |
Re: 2nd Ave Subway Setback |
|
|
Posted by LA Scott on Thu Jul 23 14:18:50 2009, in response to Re: 2nd Ave Subway Setback, posted by Grand Concourse on Thu Jul 23 14:08:10 2009. You cannot easily do this with a TBM.Using one tube per track, you need a much larger space than with cut-and-cover. It would probably be just as cheap (or cheaper) to build a 3rd avenue subway if the capacity is needed in the future. |
|
|
| (812168) | |
Re: 2nd Ave Subway Setback |
|
|
Posted by Think twice on Thu Jul 23 16:30:58 2009, in response to Re: 2nd Ave Subway Setback, posted by Aq Arcticson on Thu Jul 23 13:21:30 2009. Maybe with a wider diameter TBM there would have been space for a double-decked pair of tracks like the Lex.
|
|
|
| (812169) | |
Re: 2nd Ave Subway Setback |
|
|
Posted by Think twice on Thu Jul 23 16:34:50 2009, in response to Re: 2nd Ave Subway Setback, posted by Grand Concourse on Wed Jul 22 17:34:14 2009. Looking at this layout, it seems to me that even with their current plans they could have made it four tracks with narrower platforms. Or maybe double-decked it.
|
|
|
| (812182) | |
Re: 2nd Ave Subway Setback |
|
|
Posted by FYBklyn1959 on Thu Jul 23 17:51:07 2009, in response to Re: 2nd Ave Subway Setback, posted by Think twice on Thu Jul 23 16:34:50 2009. LOL @ the R-44 or R-46s depicted in the drawing. At this rate, they'll be lucky if the R-160s are still in service by the time the SAS is operational. :( |
|
|
| (812187) | |
Re: 2nd Ave Subway Setback |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Thu Jul 23 18:04:05 2009, in response to Re: 2nd Ave Subway Setback, posted by Think twice on Thu Jul 23 16:34:50 2009. "Looking at this layout, it seems to me that even with their current plans they could have made it four tracks with narrower platforms."No. |
|
|
| (812202) | |
Re: 2nd Ave Subway Setback |
|
|
Posted by R32_3672 on Thu Jul 23 18:30:22 2009, in response to Re: 2nd Ave Subway Setback, posted by FYBklyn1959 on Thu Jul 23 17:51:07 2009. Lol,I figured this would happen tipical mta for you they can't even move fast enough and so disorderly imo how long does it take to build 3 stations and look how long it took 2 build the current south ferry station. |
|
|
| (812210) | |
Re: 2nd Ave Subway Setback |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Thu Jul 23 18:57:39 2009, in response to Re: 2nd Ave Subway Setback, posted by b44nyc on Wed Jul 22 17:47:14 2009. I suspect eventually you will see both, with one branch going up the old Third Avenue El route in The Bronx and the other going across 125th Street, which I think will be important with Columbia expanding greatly over the next 15 years or so. |
|
|
| (812220) | |
Re: 2nd Ave Subway Setback |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Thu Jul 23 19:17:43 2009, in response to Re: 2nd Ave Subway Setback, posted by 7th Avenue Express on Wed Jul 22 22:09:20 2009. So? The Montclair Connection was proposed nine decades before it was built. |
|
|
| (812222) | |
Re: 2nd Ave Subway Setback |
|
|
Posted by Think twice on Thu Jul 23 19:18:50 2009, in response to Re: 2nd Ave Subway Setback, posted by Terrapin Station on Thu Jul 23 18:04:05 2009. Because? |
|
|
| (812228) | |
Re: 2nd Ave Subway Setback |
|
|
Posted by Subterranean Railway on Thu Jul 23 19:31:22 2009, in response to Re: 2nd Ave Subway Setback, posted by Think twice on Thu Jul 23 19:18:50 2009. Because the 100 foot wide tube would've been used for a scrapped three-track plan for 72nd St. It wasn't intended to cover the entirety of the line. A four track station is far too large for a mere 70 foot wide tube.See this PDF for more information. FWIW, the 100' tube also probably wouldn't have been able to accommodate a two platform, four track station with sufficiently wide platforms. |
|
|
| (812235) | |
Re: 2nd Ave Subway Setback - Duh |
|
|
Posted by Mellow One on Thu Jul 23 20:46:45 2009, in response to Re: 2nd Ave Subway Setback - Duh, posted by Mellow One on Wed Jul 22 19:20:52 2009. That is the stub at Second Ave & 59th St.The north end of the line at 128th St had a stub that looked like this in 1941. |
|
|
| (812242) | |
Re: 2nd Ave Subway Setback - Duh |
|
|
Posted by Mellow One on Thu Jul 23 21:19:35 2009, in response to Re: 2nd Ave Subway Setback - Duh, posted by Mellow One on Thu Jul 23 20:46:45 2009. It must have been some sort of a thrill ride going north to make the turn at 59th St onto the bridge and not see the structure north of 59th St any more. We assume that the switch track and points were removed from the northbound local track at 59th St. |
|
|
| (812246) | |
Re: 2nd Ave Subway Setback |
|
|
Posted by Easy on Thu Jul 23 21:48:32 2009, in response to Re: 2nd Ave Subway Setback, posted by LA Scott on Thu Jul 23 14:18:50 2009. It would probably be just as cheap (or cheaper) to build a 3rd avenue subway if the capacity is needed in the future.Only if they don't build stations. lol Even then I doubt that it would be just as cheap. |
|
|
| (812275) | |
Re: 3rd Ave El/SAS |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Thu Jul 23 22:42:10 2009, in response to Re: 2nd Ave Subway Setback, posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Wed Jul 22 22:52:14 2009. Except the 3rd Avenue El would have had to undergo a massive rehabilitation project sometime in the 1960's or '70s had it remained up. While that could have happened, I'm not sure that would have anyway.That said, the SAS problems are understandable because of all the economic changes that have happened in just the last few years. I suspect eventually it will get finished, however. |
|
|
| (812278) | |
Re: 2nd Ave Subway Setback |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Thu Jul 23 22:44:33 2009, in response to Re: 2nd Ave Subway Setback, posted by shiznit1987 on Wed Jul 22 08:57:23 2009. And that is how I would do it to rebuild the 3rd Avenue El, which as previously noted I would do as a double-deck line that would have 12-car, 720 foot trains on it and 750-foot platforms (to accomodate 10 75-foot car trains if that were ever needed). |
|
|
| (812282) | |
Re: 3rd Ave El/SAS |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Thu Jul 23 22:46:55 2009, in response to Re: 3rd Ave El/SAS, posted by Wallyhorse on Thu Jul 23 22:42:10 2009. The property owners wanted it down, as did the City. Often ignored in analyses of the IND is how els coming down was really job # 1 in terms of NYC's priorities. |
|
|
| (812472) | |
Re: 2nd Ave Subway Setback |
|
|
Posted by Think twice on Fri Jul 24 17:29:36 2009, in response to Re: 2nd Ave Subway Setback, posted by Subterranean Railway on Thu Jul 23 19:31:22 2009. Thank you Subterranean Railway for elaborating. |
|
|
| (812481) | |
2nd ave bus rapid transit |
|
|
Posted by newlots#2 on Fri Jul 24 18:19:37 2009, in response to Re: 2nd Ave Subway Setback, posted by Think twice on Fri Jul 24 17:29:36 2009. They need to give it up, just begin bus rapid transit on 2nd and 1st aves. What is bus rapid transit? It's buses run at subway headways. All you need is a paint brush to create the bus lanes, meter maids to hand out tickets and tow trucks to tow cars and some more buses and bus drivers.It's absurd to build a new subway into an area of already dense luxury housing. This city needs more affordable housing within reasonable commuting time to manhattan. That means more heavy rail into under developed areas like glendale, middle village, ridgewood, and maspeth, to jamaica and parts of eastern queens. That's how the upper east side got to be the upper east side in the first place. Proximity to the lex. Those rich masters of the universe a-holes are taking black cars and express buses to work anyway. Bus rapid transit is the way to go. Heavy rail to outlying areas. I know this is a rail oriented group, but that's how I feel. |
|
|
|
Page 2 of 4 |
||
