|
|
| Small Question About The (E) (850060) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
|
Page 1 of 4 |
|
|
| (850060) | |
Small Question About The (E) |
|
|
Posted by Union Turnpike on Thu Oct 29 22:41:06 2009 In the 1970's when the (E) ran express rush hours in Manhattan, how did it become express from 53d Street and how did it access 53d Street from the express? |
|
|
| (850070) | |
Re: Small Question About The (E) |
|
|
Posted by daDouce Man on Thu Oct 29 23:00:54 2009, in response to Small Question About The (E), posted by Union Turnpike on Thu Oct 29 22:41:06 2009. When the E ran rush hour express:Coming from Brooklyn the E ran ran express from Canal to 42/8 then switched over to the E line like the current E local does bow. When the E was coming from Queens, it ran on its regular route to 50/8 then went to the Lower Level at 42/8. Later on it'd switch to the express track just before 42/8. These days it switches to the local track just after leaving 50/8 |
|
|
| (850099) | |
50 St/8 Av is a unique station |
|
|
Posted by gbs on Fri Oct 30 01:29:41 2009, in response to Re: Small Question About The (E), posted by daDouce Man on Thu Oct 29 23:00:54 2009. It's always been marked as a local station on the maps, but when the E ran express in Manhattan (and Brooklyn) during rush hours, 50 St was technically an express stop for the E, but never for the A express.Nevertheless, the maps never showed this distinction, and it has looked like a typical local station (like 23 St or Spring St) on all the maps, despite its unique 2-level design and various local/express service pattern possibilities. |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (850104) | |
Re: Small Question About The (E) |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Fri Oct 30 02:41:26 2009, in response to Re: Small Question About The (E), posted by daDouce Man on Thu Oct 29 23:00:54 2009. The E expresses originally switched to the express track N/O 42/8. In the late 1960s/early 1970s, it was decided to use the lower level of 42/8 which up until that time had been used only for the Rockaway specials and Aqueduct specials. |
|
|
| (850138) | |
Re: 50 St/8 Av is a unique station |
|
|
Posted by daDouce Man on Fri Oct 30 07:02:07 2009, in response to 50 St/8 Av is a unique station, posted by gbs on Fri Oct 30 01:29:41 2009. The E always stopped at 50 St/8 Ave both when it was a Manhattan (and Brooklyn) local and express. If you can explain why the station itself was built that way, I'd like to know why Nostrand/Fulton was built with a 2-level design. |
|
|
| (850139) | |
Re: Small Question About The (E) |
|
|
Posted by daDouce Man on Fri Oct 30 07:07:44 2009, in response to Re: Small Question About The (E), posted by randyo on Fri Oct 30 02:41:26 2009. In the late 1960s/early 1970s, it was decided to use the lower level of 42/8 which up until that time had been used only for the Rockaway specials and Aqueduct specials.It sort of backs the contention that the lower level was built to prevent the IRT from extending their Flushing line from going past Times Square. |
|
|
| (850150) | |
Re: 50 St/8 Av is a unique station |
|
|
Posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Fri Oct 30 07:50:45 2009, in response to Re: 50 St/8 Av is a unique station, posted by daDouce Man on Fri Oct 30 07:02:07 2009. The 50th St. station was built the way it is because of the flying junction between 50th and 59th Sts. You have Ethel trains turning off to Queens as well as Bob and Ted trains coming over from 6th Ave. Since 53rd St. was used as the crosstown route to Queens, there wouldn't have been enough room north of 50th St. to squeeze in wye turnoffs such as the ones south of 59th St. |
|
|
| (850170) | |
Re: Small Question About The (E) |
|
|
Posted by lrg5784 on Fri Oct 30 09:13:13 2009, in response to Re: Small Question About The (E), posted by randyo on Fri Oct 30 02:41:26 2009. Yeah, that lower level was always a mystery. It's possible that it was used to create some flexibility along the line. It's just like how 59th Street has three platforms, and the middle platform barely got any use until the 1960s. |
|
|
| (850208) | |
Re: Nostrand Ave. |
|
|
Posted by jabrams on Fri Oct 30 10:52:19 2009, in response to Re: 50 St/8 Av is a unique station, posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Fri Oct 30 07:50:45 2009. I think Nostrand Ave. was an afterthought. Most IND stations (except Franklin Ave.) were two levels down (mezzanine and platforms). So Nostrand was probably converted to an express stop after planned were made, thus the express tracks raise to what was to be the mezzanine, that is why the express polatform is twice as wide as the local platform (it goes obver the local tracks. I think an express stop at Franklin Ave. would have been a better idea. What the original subway planners did was make express stops based upon the main streets, and not stops where competing trains crossed each other (Franklin Ave., 59th on the IRT, 72nd could have been a local stop, and there are many others throughout the system. |
|
|
| (850212) | |
Re: Nostrand Ave. |
|
|
Posted by lrg5784 on Fri Oct 30 10:57:21 2009, in response to Re: Nostrand Ave., posted by jabrams on Fri Oct 30 10:52:19 2009. You would also know that Nostrand Avenue was converted as an afterthought because of the simple fact that Nostrand Avenue is the only bi-level station where the local trains stop on the lower level and the express trains stop on the express. Name any station that follows this pattern like Nostrand Avenue.... |
|
|
| (850222) | |
Re: Nostrand Ave. |
|
|
Posted by MGL on Fri Oct 30 11:24:08 2009, in response to Re: Nostrand Ave., posted by jabrams on Fri Oct 30 10:52:19 2009. "Franklin Ave., 59th on the IRT, 72nd could have been a local stop"59 St. on the Lex was originally a local stop only. Michael |
|
|
| (850224) | |
Re: Nostrand Ave. |
|
|
Posted by jabrams on Fri Oct 30 11:27:48 2009, in response to Re: Nostrand Ave., posted by lrg5784 on Fri Oct 30 10:57:21 2009. Bergen St. on the F. (although its in reverse). |
|
|
| (850232) | |
Re: Nostrand Ave. |
|
|
Posted by JFK DEPOT on Fri Oct 30 11:46:57 2009, in response to Re: Nostrand Ave., posted by lrg5784 on Fri Oct 30 10:57:21 2009. 59th and 86th Streets Lexington Ave IRT6 local upstairs and 4 and 5 trains Downstairs |
|
|
| (850236) | |
Re: Small Question About The (E) |
|
|
Posted by Mitch45 on Fri Oct 30 11:55:42 2009, in response to Re: Small Question About The (E), posted by lrg5784 on Fri Oct 30 09:13:13 2009. That lower level is gone now, right? Destroyed for the 7 extension? |
|
|
| (850246) | |
Re: Small Question About The (E) |
|
|
Posted by lrg5784 on Fri Oct 30 12:34:38 2009, in response to Re: Small Question About The (E), posted by Mitch45 on Fri Oct 30 11:55:42 2009. The part where the (7) will go through will be completely destroyed, rendering the lower level useless for train service because the (7) will block the tunnel passage. The portals, from what I heard, will be sealed up. So most likely, whatever is left of the lower level will be used as storage space. |
|
|
| (850247) | |
Re: Nostrand Ave. |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Fri Oct 30 12:49:55 2009, in response to Re: Nostrand Ave., posted by lrg5784 on Fri Oct 30 10:57:21 2009. You have to understand the layout of Nostrand/Fulton area..its incredibly dense...any 4 track wide subway station under such a narrow street would have devastated businesses along the route[sort of what the SAS is doing now along Second Avenue]...You couldn't build a station like Utica Avenue or ENY in such close confines unless you destroy some property..something the business owners did not want. Also..since there was a plan to build a route along Bedford avenue..it made sense to build it as an express station...as an upper/lower level type.. No muss..no fuss. |
|
|
| (850248) | |
Re: 50 St/8 Av is a unique station |
|
|
Posted by VictorM on Fri Oct 30 12:52:19 2009, in response to Re: 50 St/8 Av is a unique station, posted by daDouce Man on Fri Oct 30 07:02:07 2009. The reason Nostrand Av was built that way it is probably because Fulton St is too narrow at that point for a single level express station with island platforms. In general, island platforms should be much wider than side platforms. Consider this: if you're standing against the wall on a local (side) platform, you're safe, but if that same width platform were an island platform you'd be in danger of falling onto the other track! Fulton St is much wider at Utica Av, so that express station has all 4 tracks on the same level, with wide island platforms. |
|
|
| (850249) | |
Re: Nostrand Ave. |
|
|
Posted by lrg5784 on Fri Oct 30 12:52:23 2009, in response to Re: Nostrand Ave., posted by jabrams on Fri Oct 30 11:27:48 2009. Well, just notice how many express stops are on the lower level, while the local tracks are on the upper part, but NOT the case with Nostrand Avenue. it is the only station with the reverse. |
|
|
| (850250) | |
Re: Small Question About The (E) |
|
|
Posted by cortelyounext on Fri Oct 30 12:52:23 2009, in response to Small Question About The (E), posted by Union Turnpike on Thu Oct 29 22:41:06 2009. As can be seen by the plethora of technical responses to your inquiry, the question was, at the very least, medium. |
|
|
| (850254) | |
Re: 50 St/8 Av is a unique station |
|
|
Posted by Michael549 on Fri Oct 30 12:55:46 2009, in response to 50 St/8 Av is a unique station, posted by gbs on Fri Oct 30 01:29:41 2009. Remember that when the IND subway was built, Madison Square Garden was located at 50th Street between 8th and 9th Avenues. When the 8th Avenue subway was built it was meant to replace the 9th Avenue elevated line which also had a branch crossing 53rd Street and traveling down Sixth Avenue. So these kinds of elements were incorporated into the designs of the IND subway.Mike |
|
|
| (850259) | |
Re: 50 St/8 Av is a unique station |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Fri Oct 30 13:15:49 2009, in response to Re: 50 St/8 Av is a unique station, posted by VictorM on Fri Oct 30 12:52:19 2009. The reason why Utica was built that way was due to foresight..the BOT planned a line under Utica avenue to South Brooklyn and THIS STATION was a major transfer point between both services.Since BOTH lines were to be four track systems..it was expected to generate a great deal of traffic from riders coming and going between the two. Property was taken on BOTH sides of Fulton st[BOYS and GIRLS HS sits directly above the Queens bound track and blocks the UTICA AVENUE SUBWAY south, rendering it useless. |
|
|
| (850261) | |
Re: 50 St/8 Av is a unique station |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri Oct 30 13:17:03 2009, in response to Re: 50 St/8 Av is a unique station, posted by daDouce Man on Fri Oct 30 07:02:07 2009. If you can explain why the station itself was built that way, I'd like to know why Nostrand/Fulton was built with a 2-level design.The theory I postulated many years ago on Subtalk was that Nostrand Ave was initially designed as a local station, with a full length mezzanine(like Lafayette Ave) and that construction began before the desire to make it an express stop was first demonstrated. The design was hastily modified to allow the express tracks to rise up one level and use the mezzanine as an express platform. This station is unique in that it has the express level above the local, the only bi-level express station with this configuration (others, like Bergen St and 86th St are local over express). If you go to Nostrand Ave and imagine the tracks on the lower level, the upper level looks identical to the mezzanines seen at Lafayette, Ralph Ave, and on several stations under Queens Blvd. |
|
|
| (850263) | |
Re: 50 St/8 Av is a unique station |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri Oct 30 13:21:34 2009, in response to Re: 50 St/8 Av is a unique station, posted by Edwards! on Fri Oct 30 13:15:49 2009. The same would have been done at Nostrand Ave.Remember that Nostrand Ave. on the nearby IRT and the el station above the IND were both built as local stations. I think that the IND subway was initially designed the same way, before someone took note of the long gap in express service between Utica Ave and Hoyt/Schermerhorn. Or Nostrand Ave increased in importance between the mid teens and early 30's. |
|
|
| (850266) | |
Re: Nostrand Ave. |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri Oct 30 13:24:21 2009, in response to Re: Nostrand Ave., posted by lrg5784 on Fri Oct 30 12:52:23 2009. There is no other station like this in the system. It would have been idiotic to design it this way from the beginning. I still remember the flippable signs noting "all service on lower level" which the Nostrand Ave token booth clerks would change when the rush hour express service ended right inside the turnstyles on the upper level. |
|
|
| (850267) | |
Re: Nostrand Ave. |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri Oct 30 13:25:51 2009, in response to Re: Nostrand Ave., posted by Edwards! on Fri Oct 30 12:49:55 2009. Fulton St. is narrow for much of it's length. I'm still amazed how they squeezed 4 tracks under a street no wider than Jamaica or Myrtle Aves. |
|
|
| (850268) | |
Re: 50 St/8 Av is a unique station |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Fri Oct 30 13:26:59 2009, in response to Re: 50 St/8 Av is a unique station, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri Oct 30 13:21:34 2009. It was a major shopping district then,like today..the opposite of the IRT station...plus it was a transfer point to the LIRR's Nostrand station a few blocks away.I agree the station was redesigned..but for different reasons. |
|
|
| (850271) | |
Re: Nostrand Ave. |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Fri Oct 30 13:48:00 2009, in response to Re: Nostrand Ave., posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri Oct 30 13:25:51 2009. Most Fulton street stations are directly under the street.Very shallow cut and cover..so the tunnels are resting right next to building foundations...Take notice next time you walk along Fulton st the position of the sidewalk vents.Most are in the middle of the sidewalk..not on the curb. The line is right against the building line. |
|
|
| (850280) | |
Re: Small Question About The (E) |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Fri Oct 30 13:59:09 2009, in response to Small Question About The (E), posted by Union Turnpike on Thu Oct 29 22:41:06 2009. a "y" junction at the north end..where as any train to /from 53rd st had the option of operation as a express or local.This was done due to the plans for the an 8th avenue express[E] and 8th avenue local[EE] from Queens to Brooklyn via Fulton st..Worth St..or Houston[South Fourth or Essex st]... Since the E only ran during rush hours..the EE operated most of the time as the local. untill 1940. |
|
|
| (850281) | |
Re: Nostrand Ave. |
|
|
Posted by lrg5784 on Fri Oct 30 14:00:42 2009, in response to Re: Nostrand Ave., posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri Oct 30 13:24:21 2009. Yeah, I find it real weird myself. Luckily, (A) and (C) riders are aware that all trains stop downstairs at night, whereas if a stranger got on at Nostrand Avenue and waited upstairs without reading the signs, they'd be waiting for a while!... |
|
|
| (850287) | |
Re: Nostrand Ave. |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri Oct 30 14:10:52 2009, in response to Re: Nostrand Ave., posted by lrg5784 on Fri Oct 30 14:00:42 2009. It's not a big deal now, since express service runs every day (sans G.O.). Prior to late 1988 there was only rush hour service on the upper level. For the first 12 years the line was open there was NO service on the upper level. |
|
|
| (850293) | |
Re: Nostrand Ave. |
|
|
Posted by MATHA531 on Fri Oct 30 14:15:53 2009, in response to Re: Nostrand Ave., posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri Oct 30 13:24:21 2009. It's really not unique insofar as a last minute change in construction causing awhat seems to be a strange situation.Why is DeKalb Avenue the way it is? Simple...it was originally supposed to be just another local stop along the 4th Avenue subway...what are today the bypass tracks were simply a continuation of the express tracks up (or down) the Fourth Avenue subway....provisions were later added to have the Brighton train from Prospect Park through the Flatbush Avenue tunnel stop there on their way to the Manhattan Bridge but of course no provision was ever put in to have Brighton trains have access to the bypass tracks nor was it really contemplated that Fourth Avenue express trains would stop at DeKalb. Historians am I right. |
|
|
| (850295) | |
Re: Nostrand Ave. |
|
|
Posted by lrg5784 on Fri Oct 30 14:18:39 2009, in response to Re: Nostrand Ave., posted by MATHA531 on Fri Oct 30 14:15:53 2009. But were the bypass tracks always destined to lead to the Manhattan Bridge and the "express" tracks lead to the tunnel? This is where I get confused, because from what I read, the tunnel leads were built later...much later. |
|
|
| (850299) | |
Re: Nostrand Ave. |
|
|
Posted by murray1575 on Fri Oct 30 14:41:43 2009, in response to Re: Nostrand Ave., posted by Edwards! on Fri Oct 30 13:48:00 2009. This isn't the only place with tight clearances. Whitehall St. is narrow until it passes the State St. intersection and the BMT managed to squeeze a three track two island platform station underneath it. However it is much farther below street level than the Fulton St. IND line. BTW this is not unique to NY. A few weeks ago I was shopping in the lower level of the Bay store on Bloor St. in Toronto and I could feel and hear passing trains on the Yonge/University/Spadina line which runs along the west side of the building. Also in the Hockey Hall of Fame's old building at Yonge and Front Sts. the rumble of passing trains can be felt as they make their way to and from their stop at Union Station. |
|
|
| (850303) | |
Re: Small Question About The (E) |
|
|
Posted by Mitch45 on Fri Oct 30 14:45:37 2009, in response to Re: Small Question About The (E), posted by lrg5784 on Fri Oct 30 12:34:38 2009. Making it even more enticing for future generations of railfanners who will debate whether a lower level ever existed and if so, whether it was actually used in revenue service. |
|
|
| (850304) | |
Re: Small Question About The (E) |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri Oct 30 14:46:24 2009, in response to Re: Small Question About The (E), posted by Mitch45 on Fri Oct 30 14:45:37 2009. The internet will provide massive amounts of proof the lower level existed. |
|
|
| (850308) | |
Re: Nostrand Ave. |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri Oct 30 14:56:26 2009, in response to Re: Nostrand Ave., posted by lrg5784 on Fri Oct 30 14:18:39 2009. The tunnel connection opened at approx. the same time as the Brighton line connection from Prospect Park. The 4th Ave and Montague St. tunnel lines were two different projects combined when the NYC Municipal Railway (BMT) was awarded the right to control both lines in the Dual Contracts. |
|
|
| (850310) | |
Re: Nostrand Ave. |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Fri Oct 30 15:00:14 2009, in response to Re: Nostrand Ave., posted by MATHA531 on Fri Oct 30 14:15:53 2009. no.Thr Brighton line did use the bypass..as well as tunnel...before the Dekalb Junction RE-BUILD of the 1950s-60s.. |
|
|
| (850324) | |
Re: Nostrand Ave. |
|
|
Posted by Michael549 on Fri Oct 30 16:24:17 2009, in response to Re: Nostrand Ave., posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri Oct 30 14:10:52 2009. Usually the riders at the station waiting for the trains when the alert is made that a train is coming start walking downstairs for the local trains at late nights. Most observate folks will follow the crowds. Most riders at the station, as well as the station-booth workers will tell strangers that the trains are downstairs. I have seen this plenty of times at night. It is really not a big deal.Often until the very late nights, many riders "hedge their bets" by waiting near the station-booth to hear the annoucement of which train is coming, or folks will peek down the tracks. Mike |
|
|
| (850330) | |
Re: Nostrand Ave. |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Fri Oct 30 16:46:10 2009, in response to Re: Nostrand Ave., posted by Edwards! on Fri Oct 30 15:00:14 2009. I have seen photos of the Dekalb model board and the switches to and from the S/B Brighton bypass track had been removed by the time of the rebuilding. According to retired Trainmaster M. R. Deckinger, access to the Brighton line S/B via the bypass was removed in the late 1930s although the N/B Brighton to bypass remained until the realignment in the late 1950s. I could never understand why an access between the bypass tracks and the Brighton Line was removed since the infrastructure was there for it anyhow. It would have allowed much more flexibility in the event of a service disruption or even allowed for additional regular service patterns. |
|
|
| (850338) | |
Re: Small Question About The (E) |
|
|
Posted by daDouce Man on Fri Oct 30 17:05:11 2009, in response to Re: Small Question About The (E), posted by lrg5784 on Fri Oct 30 09:13:13 2009. I still say it was Hylan's way to prevent the IRT from extending their Flushing Line past Times Square. |
|
|
| (850339) | |
Re: Small Question About The (E) |
|
|
Posted by daDouce Man on Fri Oct 30 17:06:35 2009, in response to Re: Small Question About The (E), posted by lrg5784 on Fri Oct 30 12:34:38 2009. I agree! |
|
|
| (850340) | |
Re: Small Question About The (E) |
|
|
Posted by daDouce Man on Fri Oct 30 17:07:40 2009, in response to Re: Small Question About The (E), posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri Oct 30 14:46:24 2009. Of course some people will want to see the lower level for themselves. Heh! |
|
|
| (850342) | |
Re: Small Question About The (E) |
|
|
Posted by Jackson Park B Train on Fri Oct 30 17:10:40 2009, in response to Re: Small Question About The (E), posted by daDouce Man on Fri Oct 30 17:05:11 2009. ypu might be right, but it was also a convenient platform for extra service. Even if one hates Hylan, we are richer for having the IND. |
|
|
| (850359) | |
Re: Nostrand Ave. |
|
|
Posted by daDouce Man on Fri Oct 30 17:34:35 2009, in response to Re: Nostrand Ave., posted by jabrams on Fri Oct 30 10:52:19 2009. I agree that Nostrand was an after thought.Maybe the builders of the IND allowed this "after thought" to happen so that people could work during the depression. |
|
|
| (850367) | |
Re: Nostrand Ave. |
|
|
Posted by daDouce Man on Fri Oct 30 17:53:45 2009, in response to Re: Nostrand Ave., posted by Edwards! on Fri Oct 30 12:49:55 2009. What route was there along Bedford?The last few weeks I've been asking about that. TunnelRat said there was a BRT Crosstown El planned. But that would have connected to the Franklin Shuttle at Franklin/Fulton. Not Bedford/Fulton. And after checking google, I've never seen an inking of a Bedford Avene subway. Not even at Bedford/Nostrand on the G line. If anyone's curious I have IND Second System maps for 1929 and 1939. Nothing about of a subway line proposed for Bedford Avenue. Just a line going along Lafayette Ave toward Broadway. |
|
|
| (850375) | |
Re: Small Question About The (E) |
|
|
Posted by daDouce Man on Fri Oct 30 18:20:23 2009, in response to Re: Small Question About The (E), posted by Jackson Park B Train on Fri Oct 30 17:10:40 2009. IIRC, Hylan planned and started building the IND with flying junctions and provisions (Can you say "State Of The Art?") to drain riders off the BMT and IRT. If the Second System had been built, there would likely been no BMT and IRT today. In 1929 it seems the idea was to just have the IND run most of NYC subway service. By 1939 City Goverment realised it couldn't completely get rid of the BMT and IRT. |
|
|
| (850388) | |
Re: Nostrand Ave. |
|
|
Posted by N6 Limited on Fri Oct 30 19:06:20 2009, in response to Re: Nostrand Ave., posted by daDouce Man on Fri Oct 30 17:53:45 2009. Are they clear maps? How would I be able to see them? |
|
|
| (850393) | |
Re: Nostrand Ave. |
|
|
Posted by Kew Gardens Teleport on Fri Oct 30 19:19:36 2009, in response to Re: Nostrand Ave., posted by daDouce Man on Fri Oct 30 17:53:45 2009. TunnelRat said there was a BRT Crosstown El planned.Yes, an extension of the Franklin shuttle to QBP. |
|
|
| (850407) | |
Re: Nostrand Ave. |
|
|
Posted by daDouce Man on Fri Oct 30 19:46:33 2009, in response to Re: Nostrand Ave., posted by N6 Limited on Fri Oct 30 19:06:20 2009. I think they're fairly clear.Blow them up a little and you can figure out what line is what. Either we exchange e-mail addies or I post the map's webpages. |
|
|
| (850424) | |
Re: Nostrand Ave. |
|
|
Posted by FYBklyn1959 on Fri Oct 30 20:36:14 2009, in response to Re: Nostrand Ave., posted by Kew Gardens Teleport on Fri Oct 30 19:19:36 2009. That woulda been sweet if that had been built. Besides the extra route (or maybe then the IND wouldn't have built the Crosstown line), such a route would allow cars coming off the 7 a more direct route to CIY than the current dogleg into Manhattan. |
|
|
|
|
Page 1 of 4 |
|
