|
|
| Re: New Queens Boulevard-Rockaway Branch (1139360) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 3 of 3 |
||
|
| (1140609) | |
Re: New Queens Boulevard-Rockaway Branch |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sun Feb 19 07:44:14 2012, in response to Re: New Queens Boulevard-Rockaway Branch, posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Sat Feb 18 22:16:07 2012. The LIRR once has a station just east of there on the main line in the 1920's where there is now a pedestrian bridge. |
|
|
| (1140612) | |
Re: Queens Boulevard-Rockaway Line |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Sun Feb 19 08:36:35 2012, in response to Re: Lawmakers: southern Queens commuters need a new railway more than the QueensWay, posted by Joe V on Sat Feb 18 14:26:33 2012. While I agree the (M) would be the ideal line to operate on an QB-Rockaway branch, remember, if this does come back, it likely is going to be a company based in Malaysia (Genting) that is paying for it, and they may very well want such a line to make it easier for those in lower Manhattan and the Financial District to get to the Casino/Convention Center without going through Brooklyn.That company may or may not have people who fully understand the transit system like we do, and that's why as I would do it, a new (W) would be the line that serves such a new branch while the (D) and (R) swap Brooklyn terminals (to prevent yard issues on the (R)) with the (R) also going back to being the main Astoria line (via West End) and the (N) supplementing the (R) 16.5/5 (5:30AM-10:00PM Mon.-Fri.) and supplementing the (Q) on the SAS the rest of the time. I suspect Genting would want any QB-Rockaway branch to serve lower Manhattan if they are paying for it not realizing that may not be the fastest way to Aqueduct. |
|
|
| (1140614) | |
Re: Queens Boulevard-Rockaway Line |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sun Feb 19 09:03:26 2012, in response to Re: Queens Boulevard-Rockaway Line, posted by Wallyhorse on Sun Feb 19 08:36:35 2012. I'd think they soon would be smart enough to know that people readily transfer, and 1 seat ride on a lumbering W train to Whitehall is not people would ride end-to-end - they'd grab an E at Jackson Hts. |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (1140623) | |
Re: Lawmakers: southern Queens commuters need a new railway more than the QueensWay |
|
|
Posted by Q Brightliner Harry on Sun Feb 19 10:14:42 2012, in response to Re: Lawmakers: southern Queens commuters need a new railway more than the QueensWay, posted by Joe V on Sun Feb 19 07:33:13 2012. Don't know, I was not an insider, but my feeling is that the Sea Beach was always favored by the powers that be at Coney Island and downtown. My feeling derives from the fact that that line had fewer riders than the West End, and less than half that of the Brighton, but kept the premier routing. |
|
|
| (1140632) | |
Re: Lawmakers: southern Queens commuters need a new railway more than the QueensWay |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sun Feb 19 11:12:37 2012, in response to Re: Lawmakers: southern Queens commuters need a new railway more than the QueensWay, posted by Q Brightliner Harry on Sun Feb 19 10:14:42 2012. Strange that the West End was relegated to shuttle service on Sundays, (did the T run mid-day or Saturdays ?) yet the N ran full-time, even though it ran from the weaker branch from CI. |
|
|
| (1140641) | |
Re: Lawmakers: southern Queens commuters need a new railway more than the QueensWay |
|
|
Posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Sun Feb 19 12:03:06 2012, in response to Re: Lawmakers: southern Queens commuters need a new railway more than the QueensWay, posted by Joe V on Sun Feb 19 11:12:37 2012. The N became an overnight shuttle in 1980. It stayed that way until May 1987, when it was rerouted to Ditmars/Astoria. Then it went back to 24-hour service and has been that way ever since (except from Sept 2002 to Feb 2004 when it ran weekend shuttle service between Pacific and CI). |
|
|
| (1140644) | |
Re: Lawmakers: southern Queens commuters need a new railway more than the QueensWay |
|
|
Posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Sun Feb 19 12:13:32 2012, in response to Re: Lawmakers: southern Queens commuters need a new railway more than the QueensWay, posted by Edwards! on Sat Feb 18 15:31:11 2012. Then the headache just moves up to 57th Street. Would any significant time really be saved by having the Q skip that one stop?The N should stay on the bridge. There is no need for the N to duplicate the R through the tunnel. The R stations between Canal and DeKalb have significantly lower ridership than the ones above Canal. |
|
|
| (1140647) | |
Re: Lawmakers: southern Queens commuters need a new railway more than the QueensWay |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Sun Feb 19 12:19:48 2012, in response to Re: Lawmakers: southern Queens commuters need a new railway more than the QueensWay, posted by Q Brightliner Harry on Sat Feb 18 23:32:46 2012. NOPE.LION SAYS: BWAY EXP via 63rd Street Tunnel and Bridge Crossings ONLY LION SAYS: BWAY LCL via 60th Street Tunnel and Tunnel Crossings ONLY And if you put your filthy fingers on my interlocking machine, I'll cut them OFF!  |
|
|
| (1140648) | |
Re: Lawmakers: southern Queens commuters need a new railway more than the QueensWay |
|
|
Posted by Elkeeper on Sun Feb 19 12:26:33 2012, in response to Re: Lawmakers: southern Queens commuters need a new railway more than the QueensWay, posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Sun Feb 19 12:13:32 2012. Would you keep the "R" running 24/7, if the "N" uses the bridge? My question is would there be enough ridership on the "R", between Forest Hills and 95/4, if it were a 24/7 operation? |
|
|
| (1140650) | |
Re: Lawmakers: southern Queens commuters need a new railway more than the QueensWay |
|
|
Posted by Elkeeper on Sun Feb 19 12:29:10 2012, in response to Re: Lawmakers: southern Queens commuters need a new railway more than the QueensWay, posted by Broadway Lion on Sun Feb 19 12:19:48 2012. You can take the monks out of New York, but you can't take the New York out of the monks!!! |
|
|
| (1140656) | |
Re: New Queens Boulevard-Rockaway Branch |
|
|
Posted by Elkeeper on Sun Feb 19 12:47:35 2012, in response to Re: New Queens Boulevard-Rockaway Branch, posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Sat Feb 18 22:16:07 2012. You are not going to see any real movement on this until NY legalizesfull casino gambling. Then, and only then, will the pressure be on to do something about service to Aqueduct! |
|
|
| (1140657) | |
Re: Lawmakers: southern Queens commuters need a new railway more than the QueensWay |
|
|
Posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Sun Feb 19 12:50:46 2012, in response to Re: Lawmakers: southern Queens commuters need a new railway more than the QueensWay, posted by Elkeeper on Sun Feb 19 12:26:33 2012. Not talking about late-night service here. The issue is about running the N through the tunnel full-time, that is 24/7. As I stated before, there's no need to do that. There is only a need to run the N through the tunnel during overnight hours when the R shuttles between 36th and 95th.The R used to run 24/7 between Forest Hills and 95th. When the R was rerouted to 71st/Continental in 1987, it kept its 24-hour service. The reason it lost is full-time service in 1990 was due to MTA and City budget issues. The MTA felt it could cause the least amount of pain by cutting late-night R service to 36th/4th because the R only had the four stops below 59th Street entirely to itself. Above 59th, the R shared all of its stops with either the F, G or N trains. Because those other lines had significantly more stops entirely to themselves, the MTA felt they could sufficiently cover overnight service at the stations they shared with the R. Oddly enough, when the R initially lost its late night service in 1990, the N was rerouted back onto the bridge and ran express between 34th/Broadway and Canal except during overnight hours. The N continued to run through the tunnel to replace the R. Unfortunately, that lasted only three months, when City inspectors found that structural damage on the south side of the Manhattan Bridge was much worse than they thought. So the N was back in the tunnel 24/7 where it stayed for 12 more years. |
|
|
| (1140658) | |
Re: Queens Boulevard-Rockaway Line |
|
|
Posted by Elkeeper on Sun Feb 19 12:51:34 2012, in response to Re: Queens Boulevard-Rockaway Line, posted by Joe V on Sun Feb 19 09:03:26 2012. And a crowded "E" at that! |
|
|
| (1140659) | |
Re: Lawmakers: southern Queens commuters need a new railway more than the QueensWay |
|
|
Posted by Elkeeper on Sun Feb 19 12:54:00 2012, in response to Re: Lawmakers: southern Queens commuters need a new railway more than the QueensWay, posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Sun Feb 19 12:50:46 2012. Okay! Do you think that 24/7 service on the "R" could be justified, given today's increased ridership patterns? |
|
|
| (1140668) | |
Re: Queens Boulevard-Rockaway Line |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sun Feb 19 14:01:58 2012, in response to Re: Queens Boulevard-Rockaway Line, posted by Elkeeper on Sun Feb 19 12:51:34 2012. People seem to choose speed over discomfort, including the perception of an express saving a lot of time when it may save little or no time. |
|
|
| (1140677) | |
Re: New Queens Boulevard-Rockaway Branch |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Sun Feb 19 15:18:39 2012, in response to Re: New Queens Boulevard-Rockaway Branch, posted by Elkeeper on Sun Feb 19 12:47:35 2012. Full Casino gambling may come sooner than you think. |
|
|
| (1140686) | |
Re:24/7 R Service/Queens Boulevard-Rockaway Branch |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Sun Feb 19 16:16:55 2012, in response to Re: Lawmakers: southern Queens commuters need a new railway more than the QueensWay, posted by Elkeeper on Sun Feb 19 12:54:00 2012. That would be one of the things I would be doing if we do get the QB-Rockaway connection done, with the (R) also swapping terminals with the (D) in Brooklyn (and moving to the West End with the (D) going to 95th) and going 24/7 to Astoria with the (W) running Whitehall-Rockaway Park and becoming the QB branch from Broadway (with the (G) back to going to 71-Continental all times and extended to 179 Rush Hours) while the (N) also serves Astoria 5:30AM-10:00PM Mon.-Fri. and supplements the (Q) on the SAS other times, which as I would do it minimizes track crossovers. |
|
|
| (1140712) | |
Re: New Queens Boulevard-Rockaway Branch |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Sun Feb 19 17:17:06 2012, in response to Re: New Queens Boulevard-Rockaway Branch, posted by Elkeeper on Sun Feb 19 12:47:35 2012. I don't think it's so much for the casino as it is for the convention center. |
|
|
| (1140714) | |
Re: Lawmakers: southern Queens commuters need a new railway more than the QueensWay |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Sun Feb 19 17:22:42 2012, in response to Re: Lawmakers: southern Queens commuters need a new railway more than the QueensWay, posted by Joe V on Sat Feb 18 17:25:12 2012. You would only be swapping the use of one set of switches for another. If the switches between the Bridge and tunnel tracks S/O Dekalb were used, then the switches at Gold St that separate the Qs from the Bs can be fleeted in and left for 6 Av service only. |
|
|
| (1140715) | |
Re: Queens Boulevard-Rockaway Line |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Sun Feb 19 17:31:11 2012, in response to Re: Queens Boulevard-Rockaway Line, posted by Joe V on Sat Feb 18 17:12:06 2012. Then how do you explain the N/B track configuration? The 42/8 interlocking is one of the few IND junctions that makes sense since it allows both local and express service equally streamlined access to Queens without either service having to use a crossover such as would be the case if for example, the MTA wanted to run either a 6 Av/Fulton or an 8 Av/Culver service. |
|
|
| (1140717) | |
Re: Queens Boulevard-Rockaway Line |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Sun Feb 19 17:33:32 2012, in response to Re: Queens Boulevard-Rockaway Line, posted by Wallyhorse on Sat Feb 18 17:39:25 2012. You are re stating my point since by putting the D on the lcl 24/7 you are eliminating one of the 4 Av express services. |
|
|
| (1140735) | |
Re: Queens Boulevard-Rockaway Line |
|
|
Posted by Avid Reader on Sun Feb 19 18:34:44 2012, in response to Re: Queens Boulevard-Rockaway Line, posted by Joe V on Sun Feb 19 09:03:26 2012. Convert Woodhaven Blvd to an express stop.Less crowding at Roosevelt! |
|
|
| (1140743) | |
Re: Queens Boulevard-Rockaway Line |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sun Feb 19 19:16:29 2012, in response to Re: Queens Boulevard-Rockaway Line, posted by Avid Reader on Sun Feb 19 18:34:44 2012. It was built to be converted. There are trackways in back of the platform walls. |
|
|
| (1140789) | |
Re: Lawmakers: southern Queens commuters need a new railway more than the QueensWay |
|
|
Posted by frilter199 on Sun Feb 19 21:07:51 2012, in response to Lawmakers: southern Queens commuters need a new railway more than the QueensWay, posted by Gold_12TH on Mon Feb 13 21:28:15 2012. Everyone thinks that they need service more than someone else. You can't make all commuters happy |
|
|
| (1140806) | |
Re: Lawmakers: southern Queens commuters need a new railway more than the QueensWay |
|
|
Posted by Q Brightliner Harry on Sun Feb 19 23:38:59 2012, in response to Re: Lawmakers: southern Queens commuters need a new railway more than the QueensWay, posted by Broadway Lion on Sun Feb 19 12:19:48 2012. Very nice Lion! Now don't go roaring again. If I had my way the N would go via tunnel and Broadway local to/from Astoria. |
|
|
| (1140808) | |
Re: Lawmakers: southern Queens commuters need a new railway more than the QueensWay |
|
|
Posted by Q Brightliner Harry on Sun Feb 19 23:40:22 2012, in response to Re: Lawmakers: southern Queens commuters need a new railway more than the QueensWay, posted by Joe V on Sun Feb 19 11:12:37 2012. That further substantiates my suspicions of the favoritism back then. |
|
|
| (1140814) | |
Re: Lawmakers: southern Queens commuters need a new railway more than the QueensWay |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Mon Feb 20 00:52:17 2012, in response to Re: Lawmakers: southern Queens commuters need a new railway more than the QueensWay, posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Sun Feb 19 12:03:06 2012. earlier than that,dude..shuttle service started in the late 70's[76-77 after the extension to 71st street].. |
|
|
| (1140815) | |
Re: Lawmakers: southern Queens commuters need a new railway more than the QueensWay |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Mon Feb 20 00:55:48 2012, in response to Re: Lawmakers: southern Queens commuters need a new railway more than the QueensWay, posted by Q Brightliner Harry on Sun Feb 19 10:14:42 2012. also the SEA BEACH was suppose to be removed from the Broadway line totally after the downtown bridge connection was through routed to the SAS.Perhaps that is why.. |
|
|
| (1140835) | |
Re: Lawmakers: southern Queens commuters need a new railway more than the QueensWay |
|
|
Posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Mon Feb 20 11:38:49 2012, in response to Re: Lawmakers: southern Queens commuters need a new railway more than the QueensWay, posted by Q Brightliner Harry on Sat Feb 18 23:32:46 2012. I wouldn't. The N ran much better in the 2004-2010 period when it ran express in Brooklyn and Manhattan than it currently does. And the current N service pattern is better than the full-time, all-local service pattern it had in the 90s. And if most passengers on both the N and Q are headed to Midtown, why would you inconvenience Midtown-bound N riders who might not want to deal with a serpentine route with six extra stops through downtown Brooklyn and Lower Manhattan? It's not like those six stops between Canal and DeKalb need the N there full-time; the R alone seems to be working just fine. And why would you want to overcrowd (and delay) the Q train with additional Midtown-bound riders jumping off the N at DeKalb? |
|
|
| (1140897) | |
Re: Lawmakers: southern Queens commuters need a new railway more than the QueensWay |
|
|
Posted by Q Brightliner Harry on Tue Feb 21 00:20:17 2012, in response to Re: Lawmakers: southern Queens commuters need a new railway more than the QueensWay, posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Mon Feb 20 11:38:49 2012. My reasoning is simply that the current pattern does not work well. Both the N and Q have 9-10 trains in the rush hour. That's alternating every 3 minutes through Canal St. With one running local, making 4 extra stops in Manhattan and the other express, they meet, more often than not, at 34th St. northbound or approching Canal St. southbound. That means one of them HAS to be delayed to allow the other to proceed. Running the N via tunnel would lessen this problem. |
|
|
| (1140907) | |
Re: Lawmakers: southern Queens commuters need a new railway more than the QueensWay |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Tue Feb 21 02:56:50 2012, in response to Re: Lawmakers: southern Queens commuters need a new railway more than the QueensWay, posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Sun Feb 19 12:13:32 2012. yes..it would move the issue to 57th..a much better holding place in any case..have you ever waited for the R at any of its downtown Brooklyn station..or even along 4th avenue? its a real pain in the ass...and the waits are horrendous.. it worked for years when there was no Bway exp..so it can work now. |
|
|
| (1140915) | |
Re: Broadway Line/QB-Rockaway connection |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Tue Feb 21 07:52:29 2012, in response to Re: Lawmakers: southern Queens commuters need a new railway more than the QueensWay, posted by Q Brightliner Harry on Tue Feb 21 00:20:17 2012. There is a reason if the LIRR Rockaway Branch is connected to Queens Boulevard I have a new (W) line running that route: As part of a revamp of the Broadway line where that and the (R) are 24/7 Broadway locals with the (R) returning to Astoria and swapping terminals with the (D) and via the West End running from Coney Island-Astoria while the (D) runs local from 95th-DeKalb before reverting to its current route (and the (D) and (R) both being 24/7 locals in Brooklyn).The (N) and (Q) would be the Broadway Expresses with the (N) only crossing over to the local track at 57th from 5:30 AM-10:00 PM Monday-Friday when I would have the (N) to Astoria (the rest of the time, the (N) would go with the (Q) on the SAS to bolster SAS service). This assumes both the SAS and a QB-Rockaway connection open around the same time. |
|
|
| (1140916) | |
Re: Lawmakers: southern Queens commuters need a new railway more than the QueensWay |
|
|
Posted by Wado MP73 on Tue Feb 21 08:25:58 2012, in response to Re: Lawmakers: southern Queens commuters need a new railway more than the QueensWay, posted by randyo on Sun Feb 19 17:22:42 2012. But you would then be using not only one but two extra set of switches instead of one.The one diverging the Brighton into tunnel and bridge tracks at Dekalb. The one connecting the Brighton to tunnel track and the Fourth Ave. local to tunnel track. |
|
|
| (1140917) | |
Re: Lawmakers: southern Queens commuters need a new railway more than the QueensWay |
|
|
Posted by Wado MP73 on Tue Feb 21 08:34:00 2012, in response to Re: Lawmakers: southern Queens commuters need a new railway more than the QueensWay, posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Sun Feb 19 12:50:46 2012. Oddly enough, when the R initially lost its late night service in 1990, the N was rerouted back onto the bridge and ran express between 34th/Broadway and Canal except during overnight hours. The N continued to run through the tunnel to replace the R.That was a bad decision. Please do not ever bring back that service pattern with only one local and one express on the Broadway line. It was so unreliable and infrequent that it was when, I started referring to the N & R as the Never and Rare. If you're going to run only two services at both 6tph each there, they both need to be local. |
|
|
| (1140943) | |
Re: Lawmakers: southern Queens commuters need a new railway more than the QueensWay |
|
|
Posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Tue Feb 21 12:51:16 2012, in response to Re: Lawmakers: southern Queens commuters need a new railway more than the QueensWay, posted by Wado MP73 on Tue Feb 21 08:34:00 2012. Running a more frequent R train would have solved that problem. Back in the 90s, the F, 1 and 6 trains had their local trains all to themselves. Why it wasn't done or why it's not being done today is something I would like to know. |
|
|
| (1140945) | |
Re: Lawmakers: southern Queens commuters need a new railway more than the QueensWay |
|
|
Posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Tue Feb 21 13:16:56 2012, in response to Re: Lawmakers: southern Queens commuters need a new railway more than the QueensWay, posted by Edwards! on Tue Feb 21 02:56:50 2012. I wait for the R at City Hall almost every day. Yes, there are times when it takes a long time to come. And there are also times when it comes right away. All subway lines have good and bad days. But the station platform is not dangerously overcrowded.Running the N through Montague was done because the only other option while the south side bridge tracks were closed would have been a split-N service, similar to the split-B and D services that ran from 1986-88 and 2001-04. With the weekday N already in the tunnel, it made things much simpler to run the N that way full time. That doesn't necessarily mean that "it worked." If it did, people wouldn't have constantly referred to the trains as the Never and the Rarely. |
|
|
| (1140971) | |
Re: Lawmakers: southern Queens commuters need a new railway more than the QueensWay |
|
|
Posted by Wado MP73 on Tue Feb 21 15:20:06 2012, in response to Re: Lawmakers: southern Queens commuters need a new railway more than the QueensWay, posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Tue Feb 21 12:51:16 2012. In the 90s, both the daytime F and R too often did not run on schedule and didn't keep equal frequencies between trains. The 1 was a bit better and run more frequently,. The 6 had less trains than the 1 and was even 6tph on weekends. |
|
|
| (1140997) | |
Re: Lawmakers: southern Queens commuters need a new railway more than the QueensWay |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Tue Feb 21 17:03:39 2012, in response to Re: Lawmakers: southern Queens commuters need a new railway more than the QueensWay, posted by Wado MP73 on Tue Feb 21 08:25:58 2012. But you would not be using the switch that separates the Q from the B since that switch would be set for the 6 Av side of the bridge. |
|
|
| (1141073) | |
Re: Lawmakers: southern Queens commuters need a new railway more than the QueensWay |
|
|
Posted by Wado MP73 on Tue Feb 21 23:24:45 2012, in response to Re: Lawmakers: southern Queens commuters need a new railway more than the QueensWay, posted by randyo on Tue Feb 21 17:03:39 2012. I missed that while these two will be added:Brighton- -Dekalb Tunnel (Q) -Dekalb Bridge (B) Brighton- (Q) Fourth Av lcl- (R) -Dekalb Tunnel Not only this one you mentioned: Dekalb Bridge- - Bridge South (Q) - Bridge North (B) but this too will be gone then: Dekalb Bypass- (N) Dekalb Bridge- (Q) -Bridge South I'm not going to mention Brooklyn bound since it has more options. |
|
|
| (1141079) | |
Re: Broadway Line/QB-Rockaway connection |
|
|
Posted by Q Brightliner Harry on Tue Feb 21 23:59:29 2012, in response to Re: Broadway Line/QB-Rockaway connection, posted by Wallyhorse on Tue Feb 21 07:52:29 2012. Unlike yourself, I believe simplicity has priority over complexity.Also, the changes you suggest require considerably more expense. Have you checked fares collected at the various stations involved? Is ridership increasing? Do they justify extra service and the increased expense? I believe also that it is too early to predict what the ridership would be at the new 2nd Av. stations. Initially, it would be best to send only the Q up there, which would provide service every 6 to 10 minutes during "normal" hours. To ensure undelayed service it should have an absolute minimum of merges. To ensure this, the N should go via tunnel to Astoria and be supplemented, as necessary, with Astoria to Whitehall service, call it the W or short-turned N or whatever. If and when renewal of the Rockaway Line becomes likelihood, we'll see what can be proposed. |
|
|
| (1141094) | |
Re: Broadway Line/QB-Rockaway connection |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Wed Feb 22 04:01:19 2012, in response to Re: Broadway Line/QB-Rockaway connection, posted by Q Brightliner Harry on Tue Feb 21 23:59:29 2012. The way I do it seems complicated, but again also assumes the LIRR branch will be done as Genting appears to want it, and if Gov. Cuomo also signs off then any NIMBY opposition would almost certainly get overridden.That said, if that does NOT happen, then I agree on the (Q) and SAS. The other changes are ALL based on the LIRR Rockaway branch being connected to QB and my assumption that Genting will want any connection to that have a one-seat ride to lower Manhattan and the Financial District even if it were better to have the (M) cover that, hence my plan for the (W) to be that line (the rest of the changes mainly have to do with yard issues otherwise). |
|
|
| (1141185) | |
Re: Lawmakers: southern Queens commuters need a new railway more than the QueensWay |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Wed Feb 22 18:14:47 2012, in response to Re: Lawmakers: southern Queens commuters need a new railway more than the QueensWay, posted by Wado MP73 on Tue Feb 21 23:24:45 2012. N via the bypass will still be in place if the Q goes via tunnel. |
|
|
|
Page 3 of 3 |
||
