|
|
| Re: Essex-Delancey Station (894538) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 7 of 10 |
||
|
| (896626) | |
Re: Essex-Delancey Station |
|
|
Posted by G1Ravage on Mon Feb 8 01:19:20 2010, in response to Re: Essex-Delancey Station, posted by Zman179 on Sun Feb 7 09:03:55 2010. Except when NETO is operating ahead of you? |
|
|
| (896656) | |
Re: Essex-Delancey Station |
|
|
Posted by Railman718 on Mon Feb 8 07:18:43 2010, in response to Re: Essex-Delancey Station, posted by G1Ravage on Mon Feb 8 01:19:20 2010. Nah he moves the train hes in front of me every sunday for two trips.... |
|
|
| (896741) | |
Re: Essex-Delancey Station |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Mon Feb 8 14:17:49 2010, in response to Re: Essex-Delancey Station, posted by Wallyhorse on Sun Feb 7 04:55:52 2010. I'm sure that after the change is implemented, the MTA will send out teams of traffic checkers to monitor which passengers get off the J to change for the F and which ones change for the V. The Metro bound counts should probably be easier to do since it would be easier to distinguish between detraining V passengers from passengers coming upstairs from the F at Essex St although in the AM some checkers could be placed at the foot of the staircase on the N/B F Delancey platform to count just those passengers changing for the F. |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (896766) | |
Re: Junius-Livonia transfer |
|
|
Posted by NYRailman on Mon Feb 8 16:01:56 2010, in response to Re: Junius-Livonia transfer, posted by Broadway Lion on Sun Feb 7 11:42:41 2010. This is true, my Great-grandparents used to live about 10 mins. east of this station back in the early 70's. But it was a entirely different place & environment then. I do remember the old Bay-Ridge/LIRR division line that runs thru there though. I don't think a transfer point would do much good either - except to switch from the IRT line to the BMT line. The neighborhood itself needs a serious enema. |
|
|
| (896775) | |
Re: Junius-Livonia transfer |
|
|
Posted by (3) Livonia Ave. Local on Mon Feb 8 16:11:46 2010, in response to Re: Junius-Livonia transfer, posted by Wallyhorse on Sun Feb 7 04:54:14 2010. To be honest, the transfer would be a bit welcome for an easier and faster connection to Broadway Junction and Canarsie without using the buses in the area. But from my own experiences traveling on the line, people will definitely bring up safety of the transfer, and no matter what change comes to the area, it will always be a concern. Then, the buses would be a reason why this wouldn't be built: they're there already and paid for, but the transfer would have to be put into the budget. All of that is not to say it wouldn't be nice, though. And, there is a mezzanine sitting at the eastern end of the Junius St. platform. I'd use it instead of the very slow B20/83 up Pennsylvania Av, and even moreso now that the (L) has very frequent service most of the time. |
|
|
| (896776) | |
Re: Junius-Livonia transfer |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Mon Feb 8 16:13:05 2010, in response to Re: Junius-Livonia transfer, posted by (3) Livonia Ave. Local on Mon Feb 8 16:11:46 2010. I haven't looked lately, but isn't Pennsylvania Av station a little closer to the L Line than Junius St? |
|
|
| (896789) | |
Re: Essex-Delancey Station |
|
|
Posted by Hank Eisenstein on Mon Feb 8 16:51:30 2010, in response to Re: Essex-Delancey Station, posted by 33rd Street on Fri Feb 5 23:55:39 2010. Your entire moronic line of argument is based on how it affects YOU, and only YOU. |
|
|
| (896806) | |
Re: Essex-Delancey Station |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Mon Feb 8 17:27:14 2010, in response to Re: Essex-Delancey Station, posted by Michael549 on Sun Feb 7 11:44:24 2010. There's a huge difference between a person who loses their direct trip from Bay Parkway to Fulton Street and Nassau, or from Metro to same, but quite another when a person selfishly complains about an increased wait time of an average of 2-3 minutes and the inability to get a seat for a few stops.It's one thing when train service changes adding some time to your trip, it's quite another when you're complaining about it no longer being your own personal limousine service. |
|
|
| (896811) | |
Re: Essex-Delancey Station |
|
|
Posted by Newkirk Plaza David on Mon Feb 8 17:33:32 2010, in response to Re: Essex-Delancey Station, posted by Spider-Pig on Mon Feb 8 17:27:14 2010. Unselfishly speaking, I like the elimination of the W as it only creates a bottleneck for R trains at Whitehall. |
|
|
| (896812) | |
Re: Essex-Delancey Station |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Mon Feb 8 17:36:37 2010, in response to Re: Essex-Delancey Station, posted by Edwards! on Fri Feb 5 23:25:46 2010. .while Eastern Division riders WON'T HAVE SERVICE to South Brooklyn anymore, something we've had since the Centre St subway opened...meaning I will lose MY ONE SEAT RIDE.False. Service from the Eastern Division to South Brooklyn only dates back to 1967. Before that, the connection to the Montague Tunnel was used only for Loop service and Bankers' Specials. Before 1931 it wasn't even possible to run service to South Brooklyn from the Eastern Division via the Williamsburg Bridge without a reverse move. The Centre Street Subway opened in 1913. I see your point though, and 43 years is a long time. |
|
|
| (896814) | |
Re: Essex-Delancey Station |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Mon Feb 8 17:41:42 2010, in response to Re: Essex-Delancey Station, posted by Newkirk Plaza David on Sun Feb 7 17:43:39 2010. You are beginning to sound like another Brian.Did he say "Whose leg do you have to hump to get a dry martini around here?" 
|
|
|
| (896821) | |
Re: Junius-Livonia transfer |
|
|
Posted by Osmosis Jones on Mon Feb 8 18:35:23 2010, in response to Re: Junius-Livonia transfer, posted by Broadway Lion on Sun Feb 7 11:42:41 2010. Broadway Junction is in a much more isolated area. |
|
|
| (896826) | |
Re: Essex-Delancey Station |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Mon Feb 8 19:09:38 2010, in response to Re: Essex-Delancey Station, posted by Spider-Pig on Mon Feb 8 17:36:37 2010. nothing false about what I said...Trains from the south ran into Chambers st when the Manhattan Bridge tracks opened. Didn't those SEA BEACH trains come from the SOUTH? Were you even alive in 1967 to ride the rails on your own,Morris? |
|
|
| (896827) | |
Re: Junius-Livonia transfer |
|
|
Posted by Railman718 on Mon Feb 8 19:10:43 2010, in response to Re: Junius-Livonia transfer, posted by NYRailman on Mon Feb 8 16:01:56 2010. There should be only ONE Railman.. |
|
|
| (896828) | |
Re: Essex-Delancey Station |
|
|
Posted by Kriston Lewis on Mon Feb 8 19:10:43 2010, in response to Re: Essex-Delancey Station, posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Sat Feb 6 12:28:07 2010. I don't like that "it's been fine for x years, STFU" argument. It could be used against the merger, hell, pretty much any change. It's cheap and flimsy. |
|
|
| (896852) | |
Re: Essex-Delancey Station |
|
|
Posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Mon Feb 8 20:28:33 2010, in response to Re: Essex-Delancey Station, posted by Kriston Lewis on Mon Feb 8 19:10:43 2010. I stand by what I posted. There is no way that post can be used against combining the M and V train. What I stated is fact. It is a fact that 2nd Avenue was served by just the F train for 34 years. Fact is fact. There is nothing "cheap and flimsy" about facts. They are what they are.I am not saying service at 2nd was fine the way it was before the V train debuted, but no one living near that station from 1967 to 2001 demanded a second 6th Avenue service. The creation of the V train has nothing to do with the 2nd Avenue station and everything to do with running trains through the 53rd and 63rd Street tunnels. It just happens to terminate at 2nd because that is the only place in Manhattan where V trains can be turned without fouling up the B and D trains. |
|
|
| (896860) | |
Re: Essex-Delancey Station |
|
|
Posted by 33rd Street on Mon Feb 8 20:46:49 2010, in response to Re: Essex-Delancey Station, posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Mon Feb 8 20:28:33 2010. You seem to fail to realize that the area around 2nd Avenue has seen a boom since 2002. Besides, I've already proven that ridership has gone up at 2nd Avenue since the inception of the V line in 2001. |
|
|
| (896863) | |
Re: Junius-Livonia transfer |
|
|
Posted by Bjc3914 on Mon Feb 8 20:57:01 2010, in response to Re: Junius-Livonia transfer, posted by randyo on Mon Feb 8 16:13:05 2010. IMO,junius ST is closer to L line...you don't have to walk that far. |
|
|
| (896882) | |
Re: Essex-Delancey Station |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Mon Feb 8 21:27:54 2010, in response to Re: Essex-Delancey Station, posted by 33rd Street on Mon Feb 8 20:46:49 2010. Nobody is disputing that 2nd ave has increased ridership. So does the rest of the system.2nd ave would have to be substantially busier for it to justify the V. Maybe if it had the ridership of West 4th St you would have a point. |
|
|
| (896890) | |
Re: Essex-Delancey Station |
|
|
Posted by Kriston Lewis on Mon Feb 8 21:44:18 2010, in response to Re: Essex-Delancey Station, posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Mon Feb 8 20:28:33 2010. Did you even read my post? I never said that facts were flimsy, the specific argument (I guess delivery) was flimsy. I could say that the current service pattern on Myrtle worked for x years and dismiss the idea of revising anything. |
|
|
| (896897) | |
Re: Essex-Delancey Station |
|
|
Posted by Michael549 on Mon Feb 8 22:17:21 2010, in response to Re: Essex-Delancey Station, posted by Spider-Pig on Mon Feb 8 17:27:14 2010. From a previous message: "There's a huge difference between a person who loses their direct trip from Bay Parkway to Fulton Street and Nassau, or from Metro to same, but quite another when a person selfishly complains about an increased wait time of an average of 2-3 minutes and the inability to get a seat for a few stops.It's one thing when train service changes adding some time to your trip, it's quite another when you're complaining about it no longer being your own personal limousine service." In looking at the whole scope of the MTA's planned changes, service cuts and eliminations - a variety of different people who will be affected by those service cuts, changes and eliminations. Some folks maybe affected more than other folk. This means that some folks will be mildly upset with the changes, and some folk very upset, and other folk very, very upset or angry about the service changes, service cuts or eliminations. All of these folks have a right to their feelings about this situation. After a while I just think it is fruit-less and a waste of time to try to convince someone who has repeatedly expressed the idea that they are angry about how those changes, cuts and service eliminations affects them personally, to try to convince that same person that one of those changes will be a benefit to other people. Some folks are going to be upset or angry about the service cuts, changes and eliminations that the MTA is making, and they have a right to feel that way. It is not selfishness or about being petty to have a reaction to what the MTA is doing. There is no requirement to be happy about any part of the service changes, cuts or eliminations. Again, these are just my thoughts. In my own case, bus service that helps me is going to be cut by a third. A bus line that is useful to me will be diverted a good distance away. For me, this means my chances of getting to the ferry terminal to make a particular boat is reduced since there will be less service. For someone to try and tell me - "well its just a small change there's nothing to it" is a bit dis-respectful. Just like anyone else, I have a right to my thoughts about the situation, and I don't deny that right to others. Again, there is no requirement for anyone to be happy about those changes, cuts and service eliminations. Some folks will find that the changes, cuts and eliminations might not affect their journeys a great deal, while others may have a more difficult trip or be affected in a greater way. In the past various folks have expressed their thoughts about the various changes that have occurred, and even their anger about what they felt affected them. I just feel it is not my place to say to someone, "well you should not be upset about that", and similar statements. It is as if I would be making a judgment about somebody else's situation, when all that I really know about is my own situation. Again, just my thoughts. Mike |
|
|
| (896903) | |
Re: Essex-Delancey Station |
|
|
Posted by 33rd Street on Mon Feb 8 22:28:10 2010, in response to Re: Essex-Delancey Station, posted by R30A on Mon Feb 8 21:27:54 2010. 2nd ave would have to be substantially busier for it to justify the V. Maybe if it had the ridership of West 4th St you would have a point.Why are you comapring West 4th Street to 2nd Avenue? Even you should know why West 4th Street is such a high use station. Some stations have dcreased in ridership in the last eight years. Here is something that will make some people feel in extreme denial. In 2008, 2nd Avenue saw more riders than Myrtle-Wyckoff. 2nd Avenue saw 5,845,342 riders vs. the 5,230,077 riders Myrtle-Wyckoff saw. |
|
|
| (896913) | |
Re: Junius-Livonia transfer |
|
|
Posted by Jsun21 on Mon Feb 8 22:56:32 2010, in response to Re: Junius-Livonia transfer, posted by Osmosis Jones on Mon Feb 8 18:35:23 2010. I live in the area. Every once in a while there's an assault or robbery by getting two people on either end of the bridge. Out of earshot (an old factory and stores that closes at 7pm) and anoher 200 yards to the nearest house help is pretty far away. |
|
|
| (896967) | |
Re: Essex-Delancey Station |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Tue Feb 9 01:22:51 2010, in response to Re: Essex-Delancey Station, posted by Michael549 on Mon Feb 8 22:17:21 2010. you must be a 42/52 rider. |
|
|
| (896976) | |
Re: Essex-Delancey Station |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Tue Feb 9 02:38:11 2010, in response to Re: Essex-Delancey Station, posted by 33rd Street on Mon Feb 8 22:28:10 2010. Again:You are trying to justify keeping the V at 2nd Avenue solely because YOU will be losing YOUR being able to sit on the V as opposed to standing on the F. I'll agree that the area surrounding the 2nd Avenue station has boomed tremendously in recent years, and that has fueled into more passengers at the 2nd Avenue Station. That in and of itself, however, does not justify keeping the V at 2nd Avenue and denying riders on the Broadway-Brooklyn line, ALL of whom who want midtown currently having a two or even a three-seat ride being able to have a one-seat ride, especially if it makes MUCH more effecient use of the two lines that are being combined into one in question. The F train you will be taking will be considerably less crowded than it is now because those who currently take the F train will now simply stay on the V train or will make a same platform transfer to the V at Essex as opposed to going downstairs to get the F train there, especially since the V is one less stop going to midtown. As said before, I have little sympathy because I grew up in the much more densely populated upper east side and only had the 6 train for all of my time there at 77th/Lexington, with that train often just as packed as any F train (and in the 1980s when the system was in much worse shape). |
|
|
| (897021) | |
Re: Essex-Delancey Station |
|
|
Posted by 33rd Street on Tue Feb 9 07:55:31 2010, in response to Re: Essex-Delancey Station, posted by Wallyhorse on Tue Feb 9 02:38:11 2010. Oh lord. Here we go again. You seem to be pissed off that a track coneection that isn't even in your area isn't being used for passenger trains. I see many, many flaws with the M-V combo. I bet West End riders shares my pain because they as well as 4th Avenue local riders lose a one seat ride to FIDi.The part that you don't understand is that the West End line hold a ton of politicial clout. More than Ridgewood and Middle Village. In addition, I mentioned yesterday that 2nd Avenue sees more riders than Myrtle-Wyckoff. The best soulution the MTA could easily implement is have select L and M train BYPASS Myrtle-Wyckoff during rush hours. Lastly, expect 2nd Avenue to see even more usage after the uptown Bleecker Street connector is finished. |
|
|
| (897027) | |
Re: New V train transfers |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Tue Feb 9 09:19:59 2010, in response to Re: Essex-Delancey Station, posted by 33rd Street on Tue Feb 9 07:55:31 2010. And logically, so would the new V train, especially from those on the Broadway-Brooklyn line who currently either have to ride back to Canal Street to make a cumbersome transfer to the 6 or Chambers to transfer to the 4/5/6 there. Those passengers now will have the option of:If on the V train, simply staying on one more stop after Essex to Broadway-Lafayette and switch to the 6 at Bleecker once the uptown transfer is finished (and will be able to do it in reverse as soon as the new V starts along with doing an OOS transfer with an unlimited ride metrocard on the uptown side until the new transfer is finished). If on the J train, making a same platform transfer at Essex to the V and then doing the 6 transfer as noted at Broadway-Lafayette as noted above. |
|
|
| (897028) | |
Re: New V train transfers |
|
|
Posted by South Brooklyn Railway on Tue Feb 9 09:25:18 2010, in response to Re: New V train transfers, posted by Wallyhorse on Tue Feb 9 09:19:59 2010. SO the TA finally listened to you, I guess all those posts DID make a difference. |
|
|
| (897032) | |
Re: Junius-Livonia transfer |
|
|
Posted by Eric B on Tue Feb 9 09:37:35 2010, in response to Re: Junius-Livonia transfer, posted by (3) Livonia Ave. Local on Mon Feb 8 16:11:46 2010. It's funny, because I recently sent in a suggestion of building a new transfer using a simple new bridge along the north side of the Livonia line (paralleling the existing out-of-fare-control bridge along the south side), and it was rejected as having no demand or not being cost effective, or something like that. |
|
|
| (897044) | |
Re: Essex-Delancey Station |
|
|
Posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Tue Feb 9 10:32:42 2010, in response to Re: Essex-Delancey Station, posted by 33rd Street on Mon Feb 8 20:46:49 2010. No I don't. I've been to that area many times since 2002 and I've seen just how much the area has boomed, but that boom started well before '02, thus before the weekdays-only V train started running. |
|
|
| (897330) | |
Re: New V train transfers |
|
|
Posted by 33rd Street on Tue Feb 9 21:47:00 2010, in response to Re: New V train transfers, posted by Wallyhorse on Tue Feb 9 09:19:59 2010. The day the M-V combo is killed, I'll be laughing till next year. |
|
|
| (897331) | |
Re: New V train transfers |
|
|
Posted by 9 local on Tue Feb 9 21:50:13 2010, in response to Re: New V train transfers, posted by 33rd Street on Tue Feb 9 21:47:00 2010. I don't think it can be if the R44s go as has been talked about in other posts. Pitkin/207 will need the V's allocation of R46s as well as the F's if the R44s have to go. Notice how the M/V combo got announced around when the R44s were in for testing. |
|
|
| (897336) | |
Re: New V train transfers |
|
|
Posted by 33rd Street on Tue Feb 9 22:18:26 2010, in response to Re: New V train transfers, posted by 9 local on Tue Feb 9 21:50:13 2010. What does care retirements have anything to do with the M-V combo? Absolutely nothing. |
|
|
| (897338) | |
Re: Essex-Delancey Station |
|
|
Posted by 33rd Street on Tue Feb 9 22:26:24 2010, in response to Re: Essex-Delancey Station, posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Tue Feb 9 10:32:42 2010. No I don't. I've been to that area many times since 2002 and I've seen just how much the area has boomed, but that boom started well before '02, thus before the weekdays-only V train started running.How many buildings were going up in that area prior to 2002? The answer is none. Those Avalon buildings didn't begin construction till 2005-2006. In addition, 1 Avenue B didn't begin construction till early-2006. I've been keeping track on new developments in my area since 2004. If I were you, don't even waste your time on replying back. |
|
|
| (897342) | |
Re: Essex-Delancey Station |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Tue Feb 9 22:34:04 2010, in response to Re: Essex-Delancey Station, posted by 33rd Street on Tue Feb 9 07:55:31 2010. I don't see ANY FLAWS in the M/V plan.You really should grow up. |
|
|
| (897343) | |
Re: Essex-Delancey Station |
|
|
Posted by 33rd Street on Tue Feb 9 22:38:04 2010, in response to Re: Essex-Delancey Station, posted by Edwards! on Tue Feb 9 22:34:04 2010. If you were to open your eyes and think logically, you will see all the flaws with the M-V combo.Me grow up? Hahahahaha I'm laughing. |
|
|
| (897360) | |
Re: Essex-Delancey Station |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Tue Feb 9 23:22:31 2010, in response to Re: Essex-Delancey Station, posted by 33rd Street on Tue Feb 9 22:38:04 2010. It's the other way around.You just don't want to see that because you are losing YOUR ability to be able to sit on the V at 2nd Avenue. Yes, that area has been built up a lot since 2004, but that was going to happen anyway even if the V had NEVER terminated there. |
|
|
| (897368) | |
Re: New V train transfers |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Tue Feb 9 23:43:13 2010, in response to Re: New V train transfers, posted by 33rd Street on Tue Feb 9 22:18:26 2010. Actually it does, since the new V will use R-160s almost exclusively and the excess R-46s from the old V will be needed for the A/C. |
|
|
| (897386) | |
Re: Essex-Delancey Station |
|
|
Posted by 33rd Street on Tue Feb 9 23:57:44 2010, in response to Re: Essex-Delancey Station, posted by Wallyhorse on Tue Feb 9 23:22:31 2010. Have you shown any facts here? The answer would be no. Before anything Ridgewood and Middle Village residents could go to hell if the M-V combo happens.Yet again, the MTA shows that it doesn't give a fuck about the East Village. |
|
|
| (897388) | |
Re: New V train transfers |
|
|
Posted by 33rd Street on Tue Feb 9 23:59:15 2010, in response to Re: New V train transfers, posted by randyo on Tue Feb 9 23:43:13 2010. Care to explain in greater detail? |
|
|
| (897391) | |
Re: New V train transfers |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Wed Feb 10 00:08:32 2010, in response to Re: New V train transfers, posted by 33rd Street on Tue Feb 9 23:59:15 2010. Well, at the present time, the V is almost 100% R-46s. Since R-46s can't be used in the BMT Eastern, the new V route will have to be almost 100% R-160s. Since the E and the F are both predominantly R-160s with only a few R-46s needed to make peak service, the entire fleet allocation of the V's R-46s will be able to be assigned to Pitkin Barn for use on the A and C replacing the R-44s. Some R-32s and 42s will probably be needed to make full service on the A and C and possibly even the new V but the only lines from Jamaica Barn to have R-46s would be the R with a few, as I mentioned possibly needed for the F. |
|
|
| (897393) | |
Re: New V train transfers |
|
|
Posted by 33rd Street on Wed Feb 10 00:12:57 2010, in response to Re: New V train transfers, posted by randyo on Wed Feb 10 00:08:32 2010. I see what you mean but the M-V combo is a mistake. |
|
|
| (897395) | |
Re: New V train transfers |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Wed Feb 10 00:18:52 2010, in response to Re: New V train transfers, posted by 33rd Street on Wed Feb 10 00:12:57 2010. It may or may not be a mistake depending on whom you talk to. I happen to think its a good idea since if it were not for Mayor Hylan's vindictiveness may of the BMT Eastern Division lines would eventually have had connections built to lines going into midtown and even uptown Manhattan anyhow. In this case, however, the loss of a substantial portion of the car fleet, the R-44s, pretty much forces the MTA to make some sort of a line combination to maximize the remaining available car fleet. |
|
|
| (897405) | |
Re: New V train transfers |
|
|
Posted by 33rd Street on Wed Feb 10 00:35:04 2010, in response to Re: New V train transfers, posted by randyo on Wed Feb 10 00:18:52 2010. In all, I wished the Chrystie Street Connection was never built. |
|
|
| (897455) | |
Re: Junius-Livonia transfer |
|
|
Posted by N6 Limited on Wed Feb 10 04:12:22 2010, in response to Re: Junius-Livonia transfer, posted by Eric B on Tue Feb 9 09:37:35 2010. Now they want to worry about being cost effective, lol. All the money they've wasted so far would have built a simple connection to the L train, all they have to do is flank a platform off the north side of the El like you've suggested. |
|
|
| (897458) | |
Re: Junius-Livonia transfer |
|
|
Posted by Osmosis Jones on Wed Feb 10 04:34:35 2010, in response to Re: Junius-Livonia transfer, posted by Jsun21 on Mon Feb 8 22:56:32 2010. You could put fake cameras up and that will likely deter any potential problems. |
|
|
| (897460) | |
Grand Street Station |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Wed Feb 10 05:21:06 2010, in response to Re: New V train transfers, posted by 33rd Street on Wed Feb 10 00:35:04 2010. Without that connection, the Grand Street Station on the B/D would NEVER have been built. That is one of the busiest stations in the system from what I understand, often packed at all times. |
|
|
| (897461) | |
Re: Junius-Livonia transfer |
|
|
Posted by Jsun21 on Wed Feb 10 05:28:07 2010, in response to Re: Junius-Livonia transfer, posted by Osmosis Jones on Wed Feb 10 04:34:35 2010. You'd think that. However, as I was told after I was assaulted in sight of security camera that those tapes aren't looked at unless there's a serious crime. With 'serious crime' meant to imply that someone has to be dead. Besides, unless you have a camera with serious zoom at eye level someone wearing a hat and a hoody would be virtually impossible to identify if attacked at night, etc. |
|
|
| (897462) | |
Re: Junius-Livonia transfer |
|
|
Posted by Jsun21 on Wed Feb 10 05:35:07 2010, in response to Re: Junius-Livonia transfer, posted by Bjc3914 on Mon Feb 8 20:57:01 2010. Junius is closer. That said I have an aversion to taking the bridge to Junius because of their terrible condition. Almost completely awash with pigeon feces, god help you if it's raining...don't fall. |
|
|
| (897533) | |
Re: Junius-Livonia transfer |
|
|
Posted by RIPTA42HopeTunnel on Wed Feb 10 10:25:40 2010, in response to Re: Junius-Livonia transfer, posted by Eric B on Tue Feb 9 09:37:35 2010. It's funny, because I recently sent in a suggestion of building a new transfer using a simple new bridge along the north side of the Livonia line (paralleling the existing out-of-fare-control bridge along the south side), and it was rejected as having no demand or not being cost effective, or something like that.There probably isn't much demand for such a transfer, and any new construction must comply with the ADA (as well as bringing the entire station complex into compliance). |
|
|
|
Page 7 of 10 |
||
