I am a retired tower operator, having worked on ConRail, and in Grand Central Terminal. Need a copy of NYCTA rules book and air brake instruction book for my son, who will be taking a test soon. Can anyone help out or advise where I could get them?
Thanks.
--Ravgil
Try the Civil Service Bookshop at 212-226-9506.
Try the Civil Service Bookshop at 212-226-9506. They will have the civil service prep manuals for the particular exam. As far as a rulebook, you are on your own to try retired employees but I doubt if your son is taking an open competetive that he will need a rulebook anyway.
I'm in Chicago, and I'm kind of curious on how the third
rail exactly works. From my understanding, a positive current
is sent along the third rail, and the normal track, that the
train rolls on, is where the return current goes right?
If thats true, then you should be safe when walking at track
level as long as you don't touch the metal rail and the third
rail at the same time?
No one has ever been able to answer that specific question for me.
That is true. The third rail is supported on insulators resting on crossties. The third rail also has a protective board supported over it to prevent falling employees. Touching the third rail and a good ground will do nothing more than make you a "conductor" so please don't try it at home.
Not in Chicago. No cover in Chicago.
Basically, you have 600vDC on the third rail, and the running rails are the return to ground.
I'll ask my dad when he gets home....
-Hank
basically if you are properly insulated you could touch the third rail and not get electrocuted. On the other hand if you complete the circuit ie: running rail or wet ground and your TOAST! I wouldn't test the theory!
I have a follow-up question. Because one of the running rails is used as the return circuit for the current, if there were a break in the connection between two adjacent rails of the return circuit, could you get electrocuted by bridging that gap with your feet?
Well first of all there would have to train running in that section for there to be any return current at all. Second both rails would be used to return the current. Thrid, because the current had been used to do work, the cross rail gap potential (if any) will be much smaller than the rail-3rd rail potential. Fourth, a gap in the rail might be moot because (and I'm pretty sure this works with DC) all you really need is a ground. The current flows into the earth (which is considered to have an infinite negitive charge or something) and back at the substation or powerplant the negitive current returns from a rod pounded into the ground. I know that's how it works AC power grid. So I think there would be very little chance of an electric shock in a real world situation.
Mike. I don't think both rails are used for return current in the subway. One of the rails is used for the signal system using insulated joints. I always used to wonder why they had heavy jumpers welded between sections of running rail, and I think it relates to having to carry the return current. I may be wrong, but I'll say it anyway, if there is an open in a live circuit, then the full voltage appears across that gap.
Well technically I think they need to use both rails for signaling. A current travels up one, across and axle, back down to other and indicates the block is occupied, but one rail can be a dedicated track circut rail and it can short into the traction current rail and achieve the same result. Is this true? Is only one rail inslulated at track circut breaks on the NYC subway. On proper railroads and PATCO both rails have inslulated joints. Do they need complex divices to alow traction current to pass, but to keep the track circut energised?
NYCTransit uses single-rail track circuits. This means one rail
is used for both traction and signal (track circuit) current, the
other is just the signal current. You can tell by looking at the
copper bonds across rail joints. The pinky-sized ones are signal,
the thumb-sized bonds are power.
There are two bonds across every joint. If they both break or
go bad, and there is a train in the block, then the 600V traction
current will be looking for a place to return to ground. Generally
what will happen is it will simply arc across the joint and/or
conduct via the joint bars. Also, except at the end of the line,
there are two directions back to a grounded section of power rail
as the power rail is periodically bonded to ground return.
If the section of track is completely open on both sides with
no path for conduction, first the current will try to return via
the signal circuit, which will blow the signal track fuses. Then
the power return rail will be floating at 600 V. If you touch it
casually while grounded, you might get a little zing. There is
a leakage conductance to ground via the spikes and the wooden ties.
Enough of those in parallel is about equal to your body's
conductance so you wouldn't get really jolted.
OTOH, take a single subway car and run it up onto cardboard shims
so it is completely insulated from the running rails. Fun!
No, no. You weld it to the tracks with Thermite. Just mix Aluminum power, iron oxide and apply a stout eletrcical current. You get AL2O3 and molten Iron as a result. Can you say "not going anywhere"?
I like that! Harold, you writing this down?
I heard that some students at MIT did it once. The only problem is getting the AL powder. As soon as AL hits the air it becomes AL2O3 and you need to pure metal AL for the reaction. I'd try putting foil and Iron Oxide in a blender and chopping it up nice and fine. Then keep the mixture relitivly air tight untill you're reday to deploy. The more pure AL you have the easier it will be to start the reaction, but once you get it going there's no stopping it. Ask your local Chemisrty teacher for details.
Not if you plan on using the blender again.
I have directions somewhere for the thermite reaction. If you try hard enough, I am sure you can find some store with aluminum powder. But a blender is not going to give you fine enough powder.
You are correct that aluminum forms an oxide layer, essentially immediately, upon exposure to air. However, this does not really matter in the thermite reaction. The layer is thin enough (prob. not even a micron) that it will be penetrated under the conditions used in the thermite reaction, ie, high temperature. You cannot get this reaction going with a match, or even a torch (I think) - a piece of magnesium is used to light it.
Seriously, don't try this one at home without really doing your homework. If you managed to get it going, you could certainly burn your house down with this...imagine the pool of molten metal melting through the pot you are using, getting onto the table and floor, setting everything on fire...not good. Also, I can tell you from seeing the reaction that it produces a LOT of smoke.
So if you find a high-temperature crucible, Magnesium, iron oxide, and Al powder, have some fun. But do it outside!
The people who do this for real set up a crucible above the joint they will weld with the ingredients in it. The hole in the bottom of the crucible has a copper disc covering it. When the reaction gets going, the molten metal formed melts the copper so the molten metal can drain right into the mold they have formed around the joint. Of course, there is a lot of work that goes into preparing the rails for welding, annealing and shaping the metal after is is formed, etc., but I am not a welder so I can't really say much about that.
That's an urban legend. Some fellow college students & I discussed the same topic in the early 1960's.
I like the idea of the cardboard or a third rail mat under the rails to cover up a homeball incident. Since it is contract time, why not weld Joe Hoffman's doorknob closed with the thermite at 450 PM on a Friday. That would really be fun on Monday.
[Since it is contract time, why not weld Joe Hoffman's doorknob closed with the thermite at 450 PM on a Friday. That would really be fun on Monday.]
You really think he'd still be in his office at 4:50??? Heck, I remember when I worked at a courthouse in Connecticut, there was a standing joke (but true) that the most barren thing in the world was the judges' parking lot after lunch on a Friday. I'm sure it's the same was with TA bosses.
The building is a ghost town on a Friday after 2 or so. But let YOU try and leave 15 minutes early and your ass will be looking at a serious suspension. I hate double standards. I t makes it veryhard toave any respect for these so called superiors.
The building is a ghost town on a Friday after 2 or so. But let YOU try and leave 15 minutes early and your ass will be looking at a serious suspension. I hate double standards. It makes it very hard to have any respect for these so called superiors.
Had that problem once with a car that had sat for too long on rusted track. Had to jam a spike between the wheel and rail. Nice spark when the compressor started!
Is that why our maintainer friends in Jamaica yard replace fuses with copper pipes?
Just an aside to that Paul, And don't tell any delinquent kids this but if you close the curcuit between the 2 running rails of the LIRR at an RR crossing (either by laying a pipe on 'em or clamping booster cables on 'em) the gates will go down!!!!!
Just an aside to that Paul, And
don't tell any delinquent kids this but if
you close the curcuit between the 2 running rails of
the LIRR at an RR crossing (either by laying a pipe
on 'em or clamping booster cables on 'em) the gates
will go
down!!!!!
Just an aside to that Paul, And
don't tell any delinquent kids this but if
you close the curcuit between the 2 running rails of
the LIRR at an RR crossing (either by laying a pipe
on 'em or clamping booster cables on 'em) the gates
will go
down!!!!!
src="http://members.tripod.com/gifs123/page27/railroad.gif">
Only on LIRR?
hey... hey buddy.... your sitting in my seat!!!! MOVE!!
A friend of mine, in the transit business, has received advance copies of the November 15 G.O. for the LIRR. That is when the regular start of DM30AC (dual mode - diesel/third rail) is expected to begin. Please note that I do not have copies of these schedules, so the following information is second hand, and subject to change I'm sure!
At any rate, he says it looks like as of November 15, there is one round-trip from Oyster Bay, one from Speonk, and two from Port Jefferson that go directly from Penn Station.
So while the above isn't very specific, at least we now have an indication of what should be happening. I suggest that we all start looking for the November 15 schedules at our friendly LIRR station in the next week or so, and keep an eye out for the missing "J."
If anyone has additional facts, it would be great to hear!
Conductor told me the same thing when I went Penn-E. Hampton 8 days ago: November 15th.
I offer no facts, only speculation.
Since the East River tunnels are at capacity during the rush hour, I think it will be interesting to see which lines lose service to open up a space for the four dual modes.
I'll place my bet on 1 Long Beach (the 5:20 and 5:23 seem destined to be combined), 1 Far Rock, 1 Ronkonkoma and 1 Huntington. This is loosely based on the service pattern changes when they were replacing the ties between Woodside and Jamaica a few years ago.
Chuck
The weather was probably similar, by some accounts, 81 years ago today for the Malbone wreck.
Let us all remember what occurred 81 years ago today and take a moment of silence for those who died in the wreck.
I wonder if any survivors of Malbone Street are still alive today. As it was a rush-hour train, most of the passengers were adults, something that can be seen in Brian Cudahy's list of the dead. But chances are there were at least some children on board - some estimates say there were over 600 passengers at the time of the crash - and some of them might still be around.
If any were alive today they would have to be 86 or so (or older) to remember anything. Still would be hard to prove unless lists of the injured were recorded and still kept. Although my mom who is 86, was not anywhere near the wreck, she has the early stages of dementia. She remembers some things, doesn't remember others and mixes up the remainder. Therefore finding anyone alive today who survived the wreck and is still completely lucid to remember the event is fairly remote.
Actually, my grandmother's brother was on that train, and survived.
1918 was not a good year for her. She lost her father to the influenza epidemic only 1 month before the accident and had 2 brothers killed in WWI.
How come it took the TA some time before they changed the Q sign from the yelllow diamond to yellow circle then to orange circle? Was it because new roll signs needed to added to the cars????
3TM
79St, Transfer to the M79 on the street level. The next station will be 72St. Transfer to the M72 up on the street level. Stand Clear.....
I don't think the R-68's had the Q in the round background on it's roll signs and the R-68A's were on the D line.
Wayne
The R68 had roll signs designed back in a time when the Q was only a very limited, one way rush hour train.
I have the version of the sign which was installed on the r40/42s. It rolls side to side rather than top to bottom.
I will check when I go back to see what are on that version. I believe the "Q" is in 4 versions: Yellow and orange, circle and diamond.
If one looks closely on the R40s, one can see 2 versions of the orange circle Q: one with the slash going completelythrough the circle of the Q, and the other with the slash not going all the way through. (That one looks strange, IMHO)
I do not know what is on the R68 version, but I do believe the Q is in 2 colors. (Seen when the R68-Q's ran by Roosevelt Island.)
The R68s had the Q in yellow diamond.
The R68As had the Q in orange circle. (A couple of trains were screwed so it was ORANGE circle)
The R40s I'm not sure.
The R40's had the diamond. Brian
R-68, 1st 10 R-68 and older signs: yellow diamond Q
R-68A and newer signs (R-68 replacements, all rebuilds): round Q in both yellow and orange.
There's a thread going on in the Transit newsgroup about fonts in the subway. Generally, they use Helvetica, but I just a while ago posted about the 2 different types of Q (diamond sign on R-68, and round signs on most R-40/42 and replacements: tail is striaght and goes through the side of the letter. R-68 A and some r-40/42, tail is outside the letter only, and curved. I asked which of those was Helvetica, and what the other font was.
The one with the tail protruding from the lower right of the "Q" is probably Helvetica; the one with the tail through the circle is Arial.
Wayne
Where can I get a book(s) on everthing I need to know on the complete history of subway in the NYC? I do mean everything???
3TM
72St, transfer to the M72 on the street level. The next station will be 67St. Final transfer to the Q making express stops via 63St and Bway. Across the platform, the J and Z making express stops. Up on the street level, M66. Stand Clear of the closing doors......
The Transit Museum book shop in Brooklyn and the Grand Central Bookshop have excellent titles on subway history. I must say that there is no one book that has it all. The three best, in my opinion are:
"722 Miles". I forget the author's name but other's on this site will know. This book is the best for the early political history of the building of the subways.
Stan Fischler's "The Subway" has great old photographs and the history from a different angle. The items in the back with ratings of all the lines and the openings of all the routes is a must have.
Brian Cudhay's (I'm sure that is spelled incorrectly)"Under the Sidewalks of New York", is another excellent title.
There are several others out there which may go into better detail on some subjects these books only touch on, and there are better books for photos, such as "Cars of the BMT", etc. Doughery's book on the track maps is great, but the three are the best for an overhall history of the system.
I just remembered, "722 Miles, a History of the Subway", is by Clifton Hood.
Before the Chrystie Street Connection opened in November 1967,
there were four services on the BMT Broadway Brooklyn Line: J, JJ,
KK and M. When the Chrystie Street Connection opened, why was the
Broadway-Brooklyn Local lettered JJ instead of KK? On July 1st, 1968,
the 57th Street-6th Avenue opened, and KK trains ran during the rush
hours to/from 57th Street-6th Avenue via the Chrystie Street Cut,
and the Broadway-Brooklyn JJ local service was replaced by the KK.
Why was the Broadway-Brooklyn Local service only a PM rush hour ser-
vice, but not an AM and PM rush hour service like all the other lines?
Why was the KK not running to/from Canarsie like the old Broadway-
Brooklyn Local use to run? Why was the KK relettered K in late 1972
and cut back to Eastern Parkway only? Why did the K service stopped
running about 1975?
When the Chrystie Street Connection opened, the Jamaica Express
was relettered the QJ. But during the off hours, when it DOES NOT run
to Brighton Beach and Coney Island, why was it still called the QJ,
but not the JJ on the maps? Some trains displayed JJ when it only ran
to Broad Street.
Why was the Myrtle Avenue El MJ service torn down in 1969? They
could have rebuilt the el and returned it to normal service. Why did
they extend the rush hour M service to Broad Street in 1968, when the
KK debuted? When the M line was rerouted off the Brighton Line to the
West End Line in 1986, due to Manhattan Bridge track work, why did it
run express on 4th Avenue? The result was the B, M and N running exp-
ress and the R running local, causing the 4th Avenue express tracks
to be quite congested. Why did the M and N switched routes in 1994,
and had the M run local and the N express? Before it was the N local
and the M express.
Isn't this like the 482nd time you've asked these same questions, James?
But has anyone ever answered them?? (other than kma's great sarcastic answer "why not"
As for routing and letter designation, the only answer I can think of is TA preference. Did anything that the TA ever did make any sense??!! As for tearing down the Myrtle Ave. El, that's been the trend since 1938 in NYC. Get rid of the els! They're a blight on the neighborhood! Can't revitalize an area with an el making noise and darkening the street! Lets replace these dirty, noisy antiquated rapid transit lines with clean, quiet modern buses (deisel --cough, cough!). Like I mentioned in an earlier posting, Chicago and Miami don't have this mindset. Miami's Metrorail, which is a modern concrete el opened in 1983 and goes right through the heart of downtown. Same thing with Chicago's el, although it is much older. I close with my opening statement: Nothing the TA ever did ever made any sense!!!
Well, it made more sense back in 1938 and 1940 when most of the Manhattan els came down. Remember, back then a new subway line was opening up in New York every few years, so when those els came down, especially the Second Ave. el, there probably was the expectation that a subway would replace it within a very few years.
By the time the Myrtle Ave and Third Ave els in the Bronx came down, nobody should have exepcted to see anything but bus service for years to come. Just getting part of the Jamaica el replaced by a subway line in a mere 10 years is a major accomplishment nowadays.
If you look at the map, the IND Crosstown Line S/O Bway sort of parallels the Myrtle and duplicates it. Considering the low ridership the Myrtle had I think they had to do it. And you have to admit, from a non-railfan point of view, Myrtle Av looks a hellofa lot better now. Although I hated to see it go, its the equipment I miss, not the structure itself.
Of course the Japanese were very happy to get one of our torn down Els which we sold to them as scrap. They were so happy they paid us back by giving it to us back---at Pearl Harbor in 1941. Anyone remember?
That would be the 6th Ave. el, the only one torn down before the trade embargo with Japan was instituted. I found it amusing after the Japanese bought Rockefellar Center that their Air Force bombed Hawaii using metal from an American railroad which used to run right by their newly-bought property.
As my father said at the time: "Didn't we win that war?"
I hope you'll be there extolling the vitues of modern els when the people of Astoria pack the public hearing on the N extension to LaGuardia chanting "we don't want it we don't need it."
Yes, many times.
Take it easy. Now the questions are directed to the Eastern Division.
Letter markings on the Eastern Division did not come into being until the Chrystie St. connection opened. The M was formerly #10; MJ was #11 (neither of which ever appeared on the trains themselves); JJ was #14; QJ was #15. The catch was these number markings weren't seen on trains unless they consisted of R-16s or multisectionals.
Why did the JJ run the way it did during rush hours? Because the Broadway-Brooklyn local was initially retained between Phase 1 (11/26/67) and Phase 2 (7/1/68) of the Chrystie St. opening. The old #14 was a rush hour service which ran skip-stop with the 15 along Jamaica Ave in the morning, but only went as far as Crescent St. in the afternoon - or turned off to Atlantic Ave with some trains continuing to Rockaway Parkway. The 14 terminated at Canal St. in Manhattan, as did JJ trains during rush hours. During non-rush hours, JJ trains duplicated the old #15 Jamaica local; during rush hours, they duplicated the 14.
When the QJ made its debut, it was a Mon-Fri, 6:00 AM-8:00 PM operation which ran to Brighton Beach, hence the hybrid Brighton-Jamaica marking. On July 1, 1968, the JJ was dropped, essentially putting an end to the Broadway-Brooklyn local service as it had existed. The Broadway Junction flyover has not seen regular revenue service since then. The KK sort of took over for the JJ as far as skip-stop service along Jamaica Ave. was concerned. The QJ became a 24/7 operation, cutting back to Broad St. during evenings, nights, and weekends. On August 18, 1968, it and the QB swapped Brooklyn terminals with the D, running all the way to Coney Island. As to why it kept the QJ marking during weekends, it may have caused too much confusion - as if there wasn't enough already!
The KK became the K in 1973 and was cut back to Broadway Junction. It was eliminated three years later partly due to budget cuts, and partly because most people got off at Essex St. and changed to an F anyway. IIRC, there were far fewer KK/K trains than F trains.
I heard somewhere that the main reason the KK was eliminated was because the condition of the subway fleet had become so bad that there was never a guarantee that there would be enough working subway cars to meet rush hour demands over the entire system, so certain lines were shortened/eliminated to prevent the system from collapsing totally. I also heard this was why the EE was eliminated around the same time and the N was extended to Forest Hills.
The M was the Myrtle-Chambers Street Express until 1976, when it
replaced the QJ service to Coney Island. I was surprised that some of
the M trains to Coney Island were marked MM. When the M service was
rerouted to the West End-4th Avenue line in 1986, why did the M run
express on 4th Avenue? As a result in September 1990, there were three
express trains from Pacific Street to 36th Street: B, M and N. This
caused some congestion. The M has not returned to the Brighton Line
because it's no longer needed. Riders want local trains directly to
Midtown Manhattan.
When they kept the QJ marking on weekends, why were some trains
marked JJ? I saw a J train in a 1986 picture and it was marked JJ
instead of J. When did the Jamaica El started shortening? How did they
shorten the El to 121st Street by 1985, and re-extended it to the
Archer Avenue Tunnel in 1988? Why is the Archer Avenue Tunnel a deep-
bored tunnel between 121st Street and Sutphin Blvd?
I can't answer all your questions, but the Jamaica Avenue Line was closed between Queens Blvd. and 168th Street in 1977. The structure was torn down between Sutphin Blvd. and 168th Street in 1980. The Queens Blvd. and Kew Gardens Road stations were closed in 1983. That terminated service at 121st Street. The connection to the Archer Avenue subway was opened in 1988. The structure between 121st Street and Sutphin Blvd was torn down in 1991.
As to why they did deep boring, my quess is for two reasons.
1) The lines proximity to the Long Island Rail Road and
2) The J and Z trains go under the Van Wyke Expressway and under the tunnel for the E train. It goes down fairly deep. Too deep for cut and cover.
Couple of corrections about the Jamaica Ave. el:
The 168th st, 160th st. and Supthing Blvd stations were closed in September 77 and demolished almost immediatley. The structure east of Supthin Blvd was gone by 1979.
The Queens Blvd. (the terminal from Sept. 77 on) and the Metropolitian Ave stations were closed in April 85 and demolished in late 90-early 91.
I remember when they raized the Sutphin Blvd to 168th back in 1980. You may be right about the Queens Blvd and Metro closings.
Trust me, it was gone before then. They couldn't
wait to tear it down.
Also at that time All Single Letter Trains, A B D E F etc were Express Services, AA CC,EE GG etc were local services. This change later on but I am not sure what year
1985 was the year all double letters were either shortened (GG to G) or changed (AA to K).
The change to single letters on the IND/BMT took place in 1986.
1985 to be exact.
Also to the old Myrtle-Chambers 10 Line, they were used on the Multis and later the R-16s from 55 on
The R16's that ran on the J line towards the end had either the orange JJ signs and the black QJ signs. They used the JJ signs becaused it was less confusing. The R30 and R42 cars assigned to that line did have the correct signage.
BTW, it wasn't until 1983 that the cars on the J line actually had correct northern terminal signs after the J was cut back to Queens Blvd. The R16's either said 111th St. or 168th St. The R37/30 always said 168th St. Only the odd R42 would have correct signage. This problem also happened when the line was further cut back to 121 st. The R30's said Queens Blvd. and the R16's said 111th St. It wasn't until overhauled R42's appeared in 1987 that 121 st. was actually seen.
You probably saw J trains with R16s which had the multi-colored side signs. There was no J reading, just JJ and QJ. Rather than give riders the impression that the train was going all the way to Stillwell, they prob. stuck with JJ since that never went past Nassau Street.
Just a thought.
11/04/99
The [MM] designation was for a possible 6th Avenue route.
Bill Newkirk
MM was found in color on the R32 bulkhead roll, and the R16 bulkhead and side rolls. It was also on the Eastern Division R7 and R9 cars. Not sure if it was also on the R27/R30 car rolls.
I only saw "MM" on one train - an R7/R9 "M" shuttle which, on December 27, 1969, I rolled all of the side signs to.
Wayne
You mean to tell that a J train from Jamaica can turn onto the Canarsie el??
3TM
28St. The next station will be 23St. Transfer to the X: 23St Crosstown-Myrtle El. On the street level the M23. Stand Clear......
No, I think he meant that the E/B trains on Bway from the Williamsburg Br switched onto the S/B Canarsie Line to Atlantic Av.
In 1932, the first IND Subway line opened. By 1941, all of the
IND Lines were running: A, AA, BB, CC, D, E, F, GG and HH. Why was
the plan was to have ALL Manhattan trains from other boroughs run
express in the other boroughs as well? Because today's F train tracks
from the Rutgers Street Tunnel eventually become the express tracks
to Church Avenue south of Jay Street, if you follow the "Main" route.
Why were the express tracks not used, except from 1968-1975 during the
rush hours, when the F ran express and GG ran local. Today's A and C
lines from the Cranberry Street Tunnel to Jay Street, then Hoyt-
Schermerhorn, eventually become the express tracks to Euclid Avenue.
Why did they run the Manhattan trains local and some express, INSTEAD
OF having an HH train from Court Street to Euclid Avenue local and ALL
Manhattan trains express? In May 1999, why did they have the C run
local and the A express during evenings and weekends as well from
Hoyt-Schemerhorn Streets to Euclid Avenue?
In 1967, when the Chrystie Street Connection opened, the BB was
relettered the B and the B and D ran to the BMT Southern Division.
Why did the B ran local on 6th Avenue from 1968-1985 during off hours?
Why is the B now express on 6th Avenue all times instead? I remember
when I was little, the B used to be local on 6th Avenue during the
non-rush hours. Why did they change this in 1988, when the B and D
resumed normal Manhattan Bridge Service?
In March 1998, why did the B and C trains switched their north-
ern terminals? Both terminals have easy yard access. The B terminating
at 168th Street can go back to the 207th Street Yard and the C ending
at Bedford Park Blvd can easily access the Concourse Yard like it use
to be doing? Why were these routes switched?
Sometime, around 2001, the 63rd Street Connection will open.
Will the E and F trains change or keep their normal routes in Queens?
If there is a V train, where will it terminate in Queens? Will the G
train be cut back to Court Square 24 hours a day, 7 days a week? Will
the G be extended to Church Avenue and the F will run express in
Brooklyn?
Perhaps the simple answer is "ridership patterns and available funding".
--Mark
I guess they thought it would be best that way.
In March 1998, why did the B and C trains switched their northern terminals? Both terminals have easy yard access. The B terminating at 168th Street can go back to the 207th Street Yard and the C ending at Bedford Park Blvd can easily access the Concourse Yard like it use to be doing? Why were these routes switched?
The answer is easy: to simplify the northern terminal of C train.
Since June 1994, C train began to use 168 Street as the northern terminal on weekends. Before terminal switching, here are the terminals for B and C trains:
B train:
(1) 168 Street on rush hours and middays.
(2) 21 Street-Queensbridge on evenings and weekends.
(3) 36 Street/4 Av on nights.
C train:
(1) Bedford Park Blvd on rush hours.
(2) 145 Street on middays and evenings.
(3) 168 Street on weekends.
If you look at these terminals, aren't they too much? Do you want to simplify it? If you do, how do you simplify at least one line? Then you can understand why B and C train switched northern terminals in March 1998.
Chaohwa
Will the E and F trains change or keep their normal routes in Queens?
If there is a V train, where will it terminate in Queens? Will the G
train be cut back to Court Square 24 hours a day, 7 days a week? Will
the G be extended to Church Avenue and the F will run express in
Brooklyn? >
Any answer to this is aguess, pure and simple. The 'Powers That Be' at Jay St haven't let anybody know what will finally happen. But the instant that they do, it will be all over this site.
The reason for weekend express service along Fulton St. is twofold:
1. Because of the Williamsburg Bridge shutdown, passengers needed another way to get to Manhattan. With the anticipated increase in ridership, it was a sensible thing (no!!!!!) to do.
2. Weekend ridership on Fulton St. was on the upswing anyway. Since the express tracks are already there, why not utilize them?
There was an HH shuttle from Hoyt-Schermerhorn to Court St. between 1936 and 1946. It was discontinued due to very low ridership. The Court St. stub was supposed to be eventually connected to the dead end local tracks at WTC, and the 2nd Ave. line would have branched off this connection.
The IND put major emphasis on four-track trunk lines everywhere. The G is the one exception, and several Phase 2 lines would have been two-track as well. The S. 4th St. and Utica Ave. lines were planned as four-track lines. The Fulton St., Queens, and South Brooklyn lines are all four-track.
Yet the Concourse line is 3 tracks. Go figure ...
Not hard to figure. It's in the Bronx.
There was a thread about this some time ago. Supposedly, it was a matter of money vs. time. Bronx residents were given a choice of waiting an additional year if they wanted a four-track line, or having a three-track line built now. Most opted for the latter.
But what was the rush? the Lexington Ave. IRT was just a half block away, and back then it was supplemented with 9th Ave. el service as well.
In 1968, when the KK service debuted, the B ran local whenever
the KK was NOT running. But now even during off hours, why are the B
trains running express between 34th Street and West 4th Street? In
the past, B service was local between 34th Street and West 4th Street.
I remember boarding a B train from 57th Street to West 4th Street on
the weekends, and it was local to West 4th Street.
F trains are frequent enough not to put B trains on 6 Avenue Local during weekends.
Another point to remind: simplify the service of B trains. Don't you think B train service in the 70s is too complicated to understand?
Chaohwa
It's pretty darn complicated now, as the B has FOUR possible northern terminals. Those northern destination signs in the R68A's are going to be broken if that keeps up.
I agree with you. Bedford Park Blvd, 145 Street, 21 Street-Queensbridge, and 36 Street are too much for me. Except for late night West End shuttle, at least B trains are on 6 Avenue Express.
If my memory is right, when Manhattan Bridge was reconstructed in the 80s, B and D trains moved to Broadway line. The northern terminals of B line were ridiculous.
Ditmars Blvd, Queensboro Plaza, 57 Street/7 Av, 168 Street, and 36 Street. Man o' man! Incredible!
Chaohwa
One time they were two B lines, one to 57th Street and the other to 168th Street. The one terminating at 57th Street made local stops, while the one terminating at 168th street made express stops via 6th Avenue.
And this was around 1983. Does anyone remember this arrangement?
At this time I was (see below):
N Broadway Express
This arrangment lasted from the end of K service (76) to the Manhattan Bridge closure of 1986. Half of the B trains went uptown to 168th st. and the other half went to 57th. At rush hours, BOTH B trains ran express from 34-W4. Other times, it went local.
The 168 St trains ran in both directions during the rush hour, as did the 57/6 trains in the non-rush. During the rush things got interesting for the 57 St trains.
AM Rush ntbd Coney Island to 57/6
AM Rush stbd 57/6 to 2 Av then W 4 St then light to layups at 2Av(I think) and Church Av (Culver)
PM Rush ntbd lite from layup to Bway-Lafayette then to 57/6
PM Rush stbd 57/6 to Coney Island
Larry,RedbirdR33
After 1976, car assignments on the 6th Avnue were unique as
follows:
168th Street to Coney Island-R-10's, R-32's, R-42's, some R-16's
and R-27/30's
57th Street and 6th Avenue to Coney Island-R-16's, R-27/30s, some
R-32's and R-42's
When the B made its debut, R-32s provided base service. At least that's all I ever saw on the B back then. They still had their original roller curtains, and these had only BB signs. B overlays were pasted over the BB signs, both on the bulkhead and side route roller curtains. Consequently, the side curtains read, "B-6th Ave. local".
I remember seeing one or two B trains of R-1/9s which, of course, had B signs. The side markings varied; some cars had "B-6th Ave. express" displayed while others had the "BB-6th Ave. local" version. Perhaps the crews didn't crank the roller curtains far enough. Or maybe someone got cute and changed a sign or two. No, not me. I did it once on a BMT standard, but never again.
What are the car assignments now and from what yards?
Why is there no 0 train? Would people think its an oh train and think they're on the IND?
When they named the KK train,did the Grand Wizard complain that the TA stole the name?
Why was the B named the B when there are 23 other letters?
When talking about the IND/BMT should we use the terms B.C. or A.D. (Before Christie or after)
Is it possible to have a 7 car train using Triplexes?
If the wreck never happened would Empire Blvd still be Malbone Street?
When they named the "L" train didn't they think people would confuse it with "el train"
Do Spanish people think "el train" means "the train"?
Your answers:
That's a double negative! Go to English Class, go DIRECTLY to English Class, do not pass GO do not collect $200.
I have no idea what your talking about
Because it's the B, if it wasn't the B, then it wouldn't be the B. Not any train can be the B, only the B can be the B. 9 out 10 use the Bell Atlantic B to B.
I assume A.D. stands for Ano Defferedmaintenanci.
Why would you need to have a train carrying cars on the 7? How would you fit cars on the Triplex? How would you fit the Triplex on the 7? How would you fit the 7 on a purple circle? How would you fit a purple circle on a train? How would you fit a train carrying cars on the 7? Am I having a fit?
The question is if the wreck HAD happened, would Malbone Street be Empire Boulevard?
They weren't people? Who were they? Or were they trying to confuse themselves?
Maybe if they live and work in the valley of the L train. But I thought they weren't people.
If you're referring to a train of 7 Triplex units lashed together, you'd be talking about a long, long train - over 900 feet. Even a standard 660-foot IND platform wouldn't be long enough to acommodate such a train. The longest Triplex trains were four units, and that was the equivalent of an 8-car train of BMT standards. A 7-unit train of Triplexes would equal 14 BMT standards. I suppose it could be done theoretically.
There are 25 additional letters in the English alphabet besides B. Since IND lines favor the northern terminal, and since the B combined the Washington Heights/6th Ave. local with the West End express, that is the most likely reason the letter B was chosen.
I think you got caught by someone trying to have a bit of fun with James's habit of asking repetative questions. Note the lack of an e-mail address, which the real Mr. Li supplies.
I gotta admit I cracked up with his "Do spanish people think el train means the train?" bit.
The predecessor of the B as we know as it is was the BB, Under the IRT it was a RusH Hour Only Local which ran from 34th St/Herald Square to 168th/Wash Hts. When this train ran there was no AA Local, The lower 8th Ave portion was the CC from WTC/Hudson Term to Bedford Pk Blvd. The B now is a combination of the old West End T/TT and the old BB lines with a few minor changes. Now it runs on 6th Ave Rather then Bdwy, and the new change to the Concourse. Basically the trunk lines are the same. If you look not many changes occured on other 8th Ave lines since then except change of terminals. The Q switches back from 6th to Bdwy, C runs more often,
On the contrary, I think Steve was keeping the joke going, especially with the triplexes.
We have just received the powered floor units for the Images Replicas Plastic IRT Subway Car Kits.
The floor is brass as are the trucks. Power is provided by a "Canon" Can motor with a flywheel through a gearbox type drive.
The floor units have been produced for us by the same builder that produced our HO Scale BMT R32/R38 Subway Cars which have recently been received and are now sold out.
The powered floor units are available through our authorized dealers and by direct mail. Retail price is $145.00 per unit (plus tax for New York residents).
MTS Imports, Inc.
Because the leaves are changing colors now, I went to NYC yesterday to take photos on subways with changing leaves as background. I spent yesterday moring on the Brighton line to observe which place has a colorful background. I went to Broad Channel in the afternoon to take photos on A trains.
Here is my question. What station or route can I see changing leaves as the background?
Here are my suggestions:
(1) Brighton line
(2) Dyre Av line
(3) Dyckman street #1 station.
Chaohwa
I would say the Brighton line between Newkirk and Beverley Rd....
3TM
59St-Queensboro Bridge, transfer to the N,R,4,5,6 trains via passageway. The M31,M57,Q32,Q60,Q101 to Queens. Fulton St bound P making local stops. The next local stop will be 50St. Transfer to the M27 and M50 on the street level. Step in Step off and Stand Clear of the closing doors........
Brighton Line at Avenue "H" might work; That creepy weeping willow opposite the upper-level Wilson Avenue platform on the "L" is about ready to burst into a blaze of yellow. New Lots on the "L" has lots of trees around it too.
Wayne
Ah, a Subway Buff I can relate too ... what a pleasent thing to do !
Why not work in a museum, SI Ferry or other tourest spot & bring the family ... maybe they'll get hooked on subways as a fun thing to do.
My daughter took the LIRR & subway to the parade Sunday from Stonybrook ... think I've got her hooked.
Mr t__:^)
I worked the parade. (RDO O/T) How'd she like it? Its one of the crazier parades in NY.
The Halloween Parade in the Village is one of those NYC things that everyone HAS to do at least once in their life !
My daughter & her boy friend went in costome, which is what prpoerly dressed spectators do. They went to Jeckle & Hide for a bite after.
P.S. A friend from the TA was on her way home from a Broadway play and had one of the marchers board her train ... he was dressed as a flasher (NOT the electric type).
Mr t__:^)
I second that. I used to participate in the parade, one of many others who'd put refrigerator boxes together, grafitti them up, get a few friends and go as the A train ..... when it went up Washington Square South, a seat in the Bobst Library at NYU was a great way to watch it on those cold nights ....
It's been a while so I'm not sure if the parade route still goes up Washington Square South .....
--Mark
Did you hear that Fred Sea Beach Man, Brighton is number 1, no mention of the SLOW SEA BEACH
Ask Sea Beach Fred about the Doo-Dah Parade held in Pasadena Ca, now that is a weird parade
Chao Hwa and Bob: Wierd doesn't begin to cover it. It is a montrosity. Every wierdo and his uncle are in it. It started out as a spoof on our Rose Parade which is a big event out here. Some thought that this was an exploitation of ???? Who knows. There were just a bunch of people in the early 70's who got turned off my the Rose Parade and what it stood for. Actually, when I go to the Da-Dah Parade I laugh my pants off and find it entertaining. But it is case for nuts.
But it is case for nuts.
Isn't that the definition of California anyway - the land of fruits and nuts? :-)
Until next time...
Anon_e_mouse
Anon e mouse--You're thinking of the hookworm belt, namely the South, I believe. This is one Californian that will not let an insult to his state pass without rebuttal. We have the best climate, the best agriculture, the best high tech, and we are the most influential and important state in the country. Ask any Presidential candidate? Even our oranges are the best but we don;t grow as many as before because our land is too valuable for that. If you know as much as you think you do you would be aware that Florida oranges have to be sprayed orange because their natural color is yellowish. Not ours. We consider California to be God's country and we know envy and jealousy when we see it. So on things concerning the NYC subway, TV, and sports go wail away. But as for your diatribe against my state--BUZZ OFF.
Hey relax. You also have more earthquakes and mudslides.
-Dave
Remember Fred, when you're out of NY you're out of Town!!!!
The sun is out today here and it's a pleasant 75 degrees with clear weather as far as the eye can see. How's the weather in your neighborhood. Not so good I would say. Lay off California. We're not No. 1 for nothing.
When you're out of New York you're out of town..........
We have a saying out here Jeff. It goes something like this:
"If you're not from California, you aren't worth a damn."
You are from the greatest city in the country, I'll grant you that.
I love the subway system and I'm a proud native New Yorker, but while you reside in the greatest city in the country, I happen to reside in the greatest state in the union.
Then why are more people moving out of California too???
There you go again Brighton Beach Bob: If you had checked it out we now are on the plus side of people moving in from other states because of our booming economy. We will be picking two or three more Congressmen the next reapportionment. California is on the move, and even tough we have our share of reverses, it's always full speed ahead. We are the greatest state and that;s a fact. Get used to it.
Still too crowded, 50 minutes to a hour on the 405 from LAX to the Valley, no decent public transportation. etc. In order to get me to move back to So Calif, you would have to build me a house, and offer me at least $50,000 a year AFTER TAXES
You gotta go through the rest of the state the next time you come back. Forget Bklyn and the Sea Beach. Drive the Taconic State Pkway to Albany, then the Adirondacks Northway between Albany and Canada. Go to Saratoga and Lake George. Take a boat ride on Lake George. See the Finger Lakes. Go to Niagra Falls (Hey Paul, don't start the Slowly I Turn routine), How about Howe Caverns, West Point, Bear Mountain? Also the Catskills. Also the Champlain Bridge over Lake Champlain between NY & Vermont. Even parts of Eastern L.I. are beautiful. I've been all over NY State mostly by motorcycle. Not only is NYC the greatest city in the world but NYS is the most beautiful State in the union, especially now with the fall foliage.
Jeff: Kuddos to you for being such a loyal New Yorker. I was in Cooperstown last summer as well, and drove back via Highway 28 through the mountains. You are right about certain things. The country is beautiful and scenic. However, in a few weeks you're going to be freezing your nooncies off while I bask in warm sunshine. And if I don't want to bask in warm sunshine at our beautiful beaches, I can traverse into the mountains and snow. You talk about beauty. Have you ever seem Yosemite and Sequouia National Parks. Or the fantastic beauty of the central coast? Nothing like it in the whole world. Or the south coast of Laguna, Dana Point, down to San Diego. God's Country. Remember I'm a native New Yorker and I'm not here to denegrate your state, but I'll be damned if I will let anyone do that to my state. Next time I'm in NY, though, I'll take you up on that and inspect some of your scenic spots. Chao.
Both of you guys are right, both states have it s beauty and bad parts. Fred, Northern California so so much prettier the So Calif except for the Beach Areas, remember So Calif is mostly reclaimed desert, go out to the LA Basin and there is really nothing. The Hudson Valley is gorgious, I love taking the train when I visit my brother in No Westchester. Both places have its good and bad. California is just too big though, Fred it is not the way it was when we were younger in the 60s
Both of you guys are right, both states have it s beauty and bad parts.
This is entirely correct. All this dispute over which state is better is absurd. There is good and bad, beauty and ugliness in all 50 states. It is just a personal preference as to what you like and where you want to live. 'Nuff said, I hope.
All in fun, Bob and Fred are friends.
I hope Fred read Subway Steve s long fan trip. The Brighton was impressive, and the Sea Beach was drap, and a lost cousin to the Brighton Line. Yeh, right on
Brighton Bach Bob: You got me again. I was told, however, that there is going to be some real work done on my line to make it up to snuff. I won't hold by breath too long, however. But I'll be a Sea Beach man until the day I die.
Jeff: You are right Bob and I are friends. We are each other's foil but it all in fun. In fact, I hope you are in the same category. I am having a blast on this website because we cover everything, and yet, it seems to be all related to the subway system. Just for the record, I am of the firm belief that a person who denies his roots and heritage isn't worth a damn. I'm a Californian but I was New Yorker for the first 14 years of my life and I always look forward to coming back and visit. It's just that I'm one of those unusual people that is a California booster. Most people here can let criticism run up their sleeves, but I'm not one of them. I truly love California.
But I do miss those crumb buns and the local candy stores of my youth in New York. I also miss the Brooklyn Dodgers and the Coney Island that was something special. I know in this I have a lot of company.
There is beauty all over these United States, but I do think NY State has got a lot of it.
Anyway, I took a drive on Route 28 yesterday (Sunday 11/7), heading west from Kingston. I noticed along the way a restored railroad car sitting at a parking area on the noth side of the road. Are you familiar with this and what the story is behind its being there?
I have never been there, but there is a trolly museum in Kinston, New York., similar to the one at Branford, Connecticut. I believe the museum in Kingston also has some old NYC subway cars it its collection, and that may be what you saw.
No, no, I went there (in part) to check out TMNY, and it was closed for the season. This was about a half-hour west of Kingston - a railroad car, I think a caboose.
Dan, there are a couple of tourist railroads up in that neck of the woods. I don't specifically remember which one that belongs to - Delaware and Ulster Rail Ride or some such, perhaps? - but I've seen it before in my wanderings. You were near Arkville, correct?
Until next time...
Anon_e_mouse
If you were on Rt 28 and the car was north of the road it would be the Catskill Mountain RR at Phoenicia. If the cars were south of the road it would be the Delaware and Ulster at Arkville.
Larry,RedbirdR33
Thanks. It was Phoenicia. But I think the car was marked Delaware and Ulster, or some very similar name. There was a single-track rail line (yes, the Catskill Mtn. RR) alongside the road, but I think this car was permanently mounted where I saw it, at this parking area, and therefore could not have been on the main track, perhaps on a siding?
I didn't see it until I was passing it and therefore I couldn't stop and take a closer look. (OK, I guess I could have turned around and gone back, but I didn't.)
Dan: That was the Catskill Mountain RR. The caboose serves as a gift shop during the season, nearby theres another restored caboose used by the local chamber of commerce.
Larry,RedbirdR33
City Riots, Brush Fires,
How long does it take get repsonse as to whether or not an applicant is called in to take the exam.
You'll get a card in the mail telling you the time and location of the test.You'll probably have to bring the card with you for admission.
you'll have to bring the card to the test sight or you won't be admitted to the test.
DCWAS will send it to you at the last minute. Obstensibly to keep applicants from misplacing their cards. You should get it a week or two before hand.
Fred, why don t you go as a Triplex Sea Beach to Coney island Train, the un-scenic way to go
Bob: What was this in reference to? I forgot.
There's a link on every page to the message it was in response to. Unless, of course, it's an original message.
DOO DAH PARADE ON COLORADO BLVBD< GO AS THE SEA BEACH EXPRESS
Why Don't a bunch of us SubTalkers adopt a subway car at a museum. Those of us who live a long way from NYC could donate cash to a dedicated fund at the museum which hosts "our" car and local residents could volunteer their efforts to restore, preserve and eventually house the car. We could call our little group SubTalk: Friends of the R-XX (fill in the contract #)
Sounds like an excelent idea. I'm sure someone here can put you in touch with Mike Hanna at Coney Island. If those he has aren't your favorites then consider one of the fine museums in the area. All can surely put the money to good use. Todd, Erick, Bob & I can think of a few subway cars that would benifit from some hard cash. I added Bob Diamond in case PCCs are your thing.
BTW, I and a few Subtalker friends will be doing some track work this Saturday & Sunday at Shoreline.
Mr t__:^)
Hey come on up! We just got 600 volts for shop testing cars at TMNY. 6398 is all ok. The trolley wire project is humming along nicely as well. We had few trees down on the line and as any other museum, we are always in need of people to help out.
Excellent idea. Now who wants to help iniate your plan?
-Stef
I should say "initiate". Sorry for the typo.
-Stef
Also how about the MTA getting companies to adopt a train or a station like they do in areas across the country, to pay for the cleanup and maintance of a area, it is tax deductible, and that way the MTA could use the money for building new rail lines, etc
Also how about the MTA getting companies to adopt a train or a station like they do in areas across the country, to pay for the cleanup and maintance of a area, it is tax deductible, and that way the MTA could use the money for building new rail lines, etc I mean like adopt a Highway Program, they even have it in Hawaii
I write this post in remembrance of the 97 who lost their lives when the Brighton Beach Local-Express ran out of control into the Malbone Street Tunnnel almost exactly 81 years to the minute from the time I post this. Please hope our railfan trips do not end with such a terrible occurence. Instead of reading the next post, pause, and remeber the 97 who died 81 years ago.
(Something should have been placed in their honor on the new Franklin Shuttle).
I write this post in remembrance of the 97 who lost their lives when the Brighton Beach Local-Express ran out of control into the Malbone Street Tunnnel almost exactly 81 years to the minute from the time I post this. Please hope our railfan trips do not end with such a terrible occurence. Instead of reading the next post, pause, and remeber the 97 who died 81 years ago.
(Something should have been placed in their honor on the new Franklin Shuttle).
97 died when the crash ocurred. Another 5 died in the hospital bringing the total to 102. I agree that a plaque should be placed on the shuttle in the victims' honor. Except for railfans, very few people around NYC know about the Malbone St. wreck. The plaque should be placed at Prospect Park because that station is closest to where the disaster occurred. Fact is, very few people have even heard of Malbone St.
[97 died when the crash ocurred. Another 5 died in the hospital bringing the total to 102.]
There's some debate about the actual death toll. 97 and 102 seem to be the most common claims. Brian Cudahy, in his new book _The Malbone Street Wreck_, makes a fairly convincing case for a death toll of 93, but leaves open the possibility that it could have been somewhat higher.
I can't seem to find a consistent agreement about what John Hyla actualy had done to him that caused him to hate the BRT either.
It is arguable that Hylan originally developed an antipathy to the Brooklyn system when he was fired while a locomotive engineer. This incident really did happen (Hylan refers to it is his biography).
I think that the event as the sole source of Hylan's anti-transit attitudes is improbable. He was a natural-born demagogue and has William Randolph Hearst's choice for Mayor.
You can learn a little more from my review of Clifton Hood's 722 Miles at rapidtransit.net. You can learn much more by reading of the book.
According to the "Malbone Street Wreck" Hylan didn't care for the IRT either.
Hylan didn't care for privately owned transit. Neither did Hearst. They were a perfect match.
Hylan did seem to have a particular eagerness vis-a-vis the BRT. Whether his earlier experience contributed to that (or to his anti transit company attitudes in general) is a matter of reasonable speculation.
Hylan spent years getting to the position of locomotive engineer. Even though you could say he was fired not far in advance of resigning (he was already working on his legal career) it would hardly be unique for such an incident to color his thinking, whether or not it rose to the level of a "grudge."
A mad lawyer with a grudge. As scary as a disguntled postal worker.
Malbone Street was one of the first things I learned about the subway. After IND, BMT and IRT of course.
The Malbone Street wreck sent the BRT into receivership, and
it was eventually reorganized as the BMT. In addition, Malbone
Street was renamed Empire Boulevard.
[The Malbone Street wreck sent the BRT into receivership, and
it was eventually reorganized as the BMT. In addition, Malbone
Street was renamed Empire Boulevard.]
Not true as to the receivership issue. The BRT was in bad shape even before the wreck, which had no significant affect on its finances.
There's a small stretch of road, east of the crash site, that's still called Malbone Street.
Right Peter. That small stretch of Malbone Street is across from the 71st. Precinct just off New York Ave. I think alot of the cops use as a lot to park their personal cars since Malbone only runs one block there and is rather narrow -- more like a lane or alley than a full street.
SubDude
Fact is, very few people have even heard of Malbone St.
And I think this is by design. So many people were horrified by the crash that the street was renamed Empire Blvd. A generation or two goes by, and soon the memory of a Malbone St (and the 1918 wreck) fades by the general population ....
--Mark
Fact is, very few people have even heard of Malbone St.
And I think this is by design. So many people were horrified by the crash that the street was renamed Empire Blvd. A generation or two goes by, and soon the memory of a Malbone St (and the 1918 wreck) fades by the general population ....
--Mark
You're right! That's why, even though a memorial plaque should be on the Shuttle for the victims of the Malbone St. wreck, it will never be. It would cause paranoia among the regular (non-railfan) riders and tourists. Isn't it amazing that this is not the case when it comes to the Titanic disaster?!
Hylan Was fired from the BRT as a operator
I'm glad some people in sub-talk have hearts and sympathy. I thought all the postings knocking the poor grandmother who got hit by the train in Bethpage last week was very insensitive. It seemed like everyone thought she deserved it.
The difference between the two incidents, other than the number of deaths is that the Bethpage incident was the result of one woman's stupidity and lack of common sense that led to her own downfall. In the Malbone incident, these same qualities of a person, actually multiple people if you look at all the causes, led to the downfall of 97 others and not themselves. The people who died in the Malbone wreck did nothing to cause it and didn't deserve it. The LIRR grade crossing incident was the opposite.
At least the lady in Bethpage didn't cross a picket line.
Let me tell you it's nothing but pure rail dust over the years...
... but the tracks are still there and so is some of the overhead wiring hardware .....
--Mark
I saw some of the overhead hardware when we rode through Essex St. on Oct. 27th. Didn't see any tracks beneath all the dirt on the floor, but they're still there.
Simon and I were there to-day, it's the same as it ever was, except now it is lit with compact flourescents rather than old bulbs. You can see a bit more what's inside of it, which isn't much. A red mesh is between it and the northbound tracks. Looks like some work materials have been left in there as well.
Wayne
I think there are some good pictures of it in the book Brooklyn Trolleys, they even had a PCC in it on a fan trip.
I think it took place in New York City, and the high school there was near some el...does this particular el still exist?
Nick
Yes, the opening credits for "Welcome Back Kotter" featured (I think) the West End Lines' El structure going past -- here's a guess -- New Utrecht High School??
The show's plot was based on the series' star, comedian Gabe Kaplan, whose high school years were spent at Erasmus Hall on Flatbush Ave. (3 cheers for my ol' alma mater! :-).
SubDude
Yes, the West End line is featured, with R-32s and R-42s in various shots, along with a shot under the el structure along 86th St at the end of the opening titles.
John Travolta mentions the subway in one episode, where he has his own apartment. He refers to a "Flatbush Express" coming through, whereupon a rumble is heard, and the scene cuts to the same R-32 footage used in the titles.
I wonder if anyone ever counted the number of times Barbarino said his mother was a saint.
It was the West End, as it turned off 86th St on to New Utricht Ave, The School shown is New Utricht HS. The show was shot actually in Hollywood Ca, and I attended a few broadcast. Before the show, they had a get togetjher warm up with the cast, with a question and answer period. I once commented to Gabe Kaplan(Who is now currently of all things for a Brooklyn Boy, a DJ on a Country and Western Station in LA)How come the call it the Flatbush Express, when the train is the West End, and doesn t go near Flatbush, why don t they call it the Bensonhurst or Coney Island Exp? He said he will mention it to his writers. He though nobody would notice. Also do you folks remember FAME, they use to mention various High Schools and Subway Lines in the script and got most of them right. Like to a Football Game at Madison. Take the D to Kings Highway and walk 9 short blocks
Thanks, Bob. The info about FAME is interesting considering how often Hollyweird screws up subway locals/routes.
SubDude
As if on cue, as we've returned to the 1989 employment peak the scarcity of commercial space and housing, and the resulting soaring prices in Manhattan, are driving people and businesses out of the city and region. We're going to hit the wall. Then, as now, the City would like private businesses to consider regional commercial centers in the outer boroughs (rather than the suburbs) as an alternative to Manhattan. And the largest such center is Downtown Brooklyn, which is the size of Downtown Seattle and the 14 largest central business district in the U.S.
I have some questions about the area, and nearby Fulton Ferry, back at the peak of prosperity.
What kind of development did you have south of Fulton Street and north of Atlantic, now an area of vacant lots, old small buildings in poor condition, and government offices in dreadful condition?
How far under the adjacent vacant lots does the Schemerhorn Street subway go? I'm told that much of the area was cleared when the subway was built, and the presence of the subway makes commercial redevelopment impossible. What is the problem?
Good point, Larry. I am not an expert on urban planning issues, but I would hazard a guess that the vacant lots and buildings could certainly be rehabilited provided someone finds that there is a viable reason to do so. Alot of Schermerhorn from Jay Street east to Flatbush is predominently parking lot space for downtown workers and shoppers. The buildings are mostly Human Resources Administration or various auxiliary court buildings serving the Judicial system in an overflow capacity.
I do agree that Downtown Brooklyn is a vast untapped resource that could well sustain itself against Manhattan's formidable financial base (I have always said that of all the five boroughs that could theoretically secede and become an independent city, it would be Brooklyn).
South of Fulton and north of Atlantic (at least east of Flatbush Ave.) was/is a mix of apartment houses and smaller, quaint brownstones. However, the northside of Atlantic running through Bed-Stuy, and Prospect Heights is primarily industrial and rather grungy looking. As Atlantic crosses Flatbush it becomes more of an odd mix of Arabic food shops and "old-town" thirft and antique stores. Occasionally, you will also come across one of those trendy "yuppie" coffee bars on the western (Downtown) end of Atantic Ave.
Fulton east of Flatbush goes through Bedford-Stuyvesant where alot of the shops will cater to the neighborhood, so there will be tons of bodegas, Jamacian Beef pattie shops, religious artifact stores and those all-too-common 99 cent shops. On the other side of Flatbush is the Fulton Mall which goes through to Brooklyn Bridge Ave. (formerly Adams Street). Currently it is restricted to Commercial vehicles and buses only, so that pedestrians can make use of the open-air design of the Mall (Philly has a similar setup in it's downtown area). Unfortunately, with the exception of Macy's and one or two other stores, Fulton Mall has too many trashy gold Jewelry stores and cheesy electronics shops to suit my tastes.
[As Atlantic crosses Flatbush it becomes more of an odd mix of Arabic food shops and "old-town" thirft and antique stores. Occasionally, you will also come across one of those trendy "yuppie" coffee bars on the
western (Downtown) end of Atantic Ave.]
And if my geography's not too off, the *old* LIRR tunnel to the waterfront is located under that section of Atlantic Avenue.
It seems as if the city's made no attempts to promote those antiques shops as a tourist attraction. As far as I can tell, most of them seem quite reasonably priced and have a wide selection. Unlike their (far more expensive) counterparts in Manhattan's antiques district, most if not the Atlantic Avenue stores are happy to sell retail, not just to architects and designers. Promoting Atlantic Avenue as a tourist spot would be a nice economic boost for Brooklyn and the rest of the boroughs. It would show Mr. and Mrs. Middle America that yes, there's a lot more to the city than just Manhattan.
Also, in your comparison of Fulton Mall to a similar setup in Phila (I assume Chestnut St), the comparison won't be for long. Phila is almost finished tearing up the Chestnut St Transitway. The first segment of it (east of Broad St) is slated to re-open as a regular traffic street (albeit with a curbside eastbound bus-only lane and no right turns) by Thanksgiving, with the other piece (west of Broad) to be completed in Spring 2000. Market St east of City Hall has a similar arrangement but it's 2-way and right turns are permitted, so the transit lane is only semi-exclusive.
SEPTA is also seriously exploring a downtown historic trolley loop which would put tracks in the bus lane on Chestnut east of 12th St.
Whether this will come to pass, who knows, but it's interesting to see that SEPTA is at least studying the idea.
With the relatively minor exceptions of MetroTech and the Teleport, NYC has never been able to draw employers into the 'outer' boroughs. Firms are now heading to Jersey City which is enjoying another building boom. Accessability from the suburbs appears to be an important factor in relocations. MetroTech is a few subway stops away from the LIRR, and many NJ residents work at the Teleport because of it's relatively easy access to NJ. There just isn't a lot of corporate interest in locations outside of Manhattan. It's the labor pool issue and a lot of other things.
I think people mis-interpreted this thread. I know what IS in Downtown Brooklyn south of Fulton Street. I'm wondering what WAS there back when, before buildings were torn down for the Schemerhorn St subway and a bunch of crummy office buildings were built to hold social service agencies. And, I'm wondering how far under the parking lots the Schemerhorn St subway passes, and how hard it is to build on top of it.
The Brooklyn Library should have some books on the subject. I remember as a child along Fulton Street there were a lot of stores, and some Movie Theaters that went back to Vaudville Days(Pardon the spelling) There weas A & S and other stores. On Flatbush Ave Extension was the Brooklyn Paramount Theater, which at one time was the largest theater in the city outside of Manhatten. Also remember to 1998, New York City only consisted of Manhatten. The other boros were seperate cities and towns in each of the counties. Then came consolidation. Brooklyn at the time was the 3rd largest city in the country, and did not comprise all of the boro as it is now. I stated before a good book is the Neighborhoods of Brooklyn, and it is on sdale and B & N on 5th Ave near 50th St
I don't recall where I came across it, but I heard somewhere that the depth of the foundation of a building has to be in proportion to its height, with one level below ground for every 10 floors above ground. If the subway is a great deal wider than the street, or runs squarely under the lot, it would prevent or, at the very least, complicate the construction of a proper foundation for a tall building.
(One level underground for every 10 above). We're probably only talking about 15-20 story buildings here. Couldn't you just sink more pillars between the tracks? You could stage contruction on the local tracks, because they are not used except to access the transit museum.
A more pressing problem would be the inability to build a parking garage, especially since surface parking would be lost. But presumably you could put one where the subway ain't.
The question then becomes what the pillars are sitting on. You might have room to fit pillars between the tracks but still have to remove the tracks to dig holes for the footings, pour the footings, replace the destroyed part of the roadbed, and re-lay the tracks.
Or, look at it another way. If you recall the NY Central elevated freight line that goes down the Westside from Penn Station to around 14th Street, parts of it used to go right through buildings. What you may be suggesting might require the same sort of arrangement, except several stories under ground. If I were looking for a spot to build a building, I would have to REALLY want just that spot to put up with the extra difficulties I would face from having a subway run through where I had to build my basement.
When they built the World Trade Center, they built it around the PATH tubes while the trains were still in service. I've read of a couple of other examples, but they dealt more with freight roads, rather than transit. It would become an issue of using the same methods to support the subway while they placed footings for the structure above as they used to support the then-existing structures while they built the subway. Again, it can be done, but it takes a long time, and is really expensive.
I understand that Herald Square was the hardest part of the IND to build because they had to support not only the BMT Broadway Line but also reposition the end of the H&M (now PATH) and build a new station for it while weaving the 6th Ave. station in and amongst all this.
As I understand it, they just moved the H&M station a "few" feet South along its previously existing tracks. No great trick. I think the better trick was building the express tracks underneath the H&M from around 9th Street to 32nd St. That seems to me much harder than supporting only a few blocks of BMT.
In any event, they only put it there because they REALLY, REALLY, REALLY wanted it there and not somewhere else.
Those buildings with the New York Central going through them were a special case.
1. I belive few or none of the buildings per-dated the line and
2. Quite a point was made that, though these tracks appear to go through the building structures, they are totally isolated from the structures themselves, to avoid vibration problems.
I believe it does
This was discussed recently. There is no unused station in that spot nor is there a station on Hillside Ave. abd 188th st., as so many seem to believe.
OK, trivia time. Although the 188St Station doesn't exist there IS a station on Hillside Av East of 179 St. For 1 ATTABOY, what station is it??
Ya got me. Unless it's some sort of enterance for TA employees on the tracks east of 179th, I'm totally baffled.
The LIRR station at East Williston on the Oyster Bay Branch.
That's right!!!!
Eugenius D. Train gets the "ATTABOY"
The LIRR station at East Williston on the Oyster Bay Branch. You said station, not SUBWAY station.
Sorry about the typo. Putkin probably exists in Philly or some other city. By the way I sure it exists.
All you transit professionals out there, I was wondering how dangerous an energised 3rd rail is? I mean if you have to work in the yards or tunnels around an energized 3rd how much attention do you have to give to not being zapped? After a while do you just mindlessly step over them or look down and watch your feel clear it? What type a attire will protect you from a 3rd if you happen to make contact, how much protection do those over-rail boards give and how sturdy are they? If you do complete a circut with a 3rd rail will you be killed or will you just get really, really, really hurt? Finally what is safer, top contact or under contact and which one would you like to see used?
The reason for all the questions is that 3rd rails have always freaked me out and for me its always a wonder to see transit professionals paying them no special heed as they work nearby.
Working on or around a live 3rd Rail and you are not paying attention you may not have a second chance in life. Rubber mats afford some protection along with rubber gloves and leather gantlets. If you forget and make a mistake it may be your last. 3rd rail maintainers
do work on live rail all the time disconnecting LIVE cables to do power operations. A good pair of rubber sole shoes, a rubber mat in good condition (no holes), rubber gloves and gantlets and knowing what he or she is doing will get them to see another day. Some workers call that rail a sleeping monster and you don't want to wake it up.
On a ride on the SEPTA Rt 100 the rail car had to stop because kids were crossing the tracks. I watched them walk across the 2 tracks and mindlessly stepping over both 3rd rails. There is no fence along much of the Rt. 100. However the little safety cover is an L shapped metal thing that covers most of the rail. I also have an old pic of the crew of a West Jersey and Seashore MU car posing in front of their train shortly after operations started. The motorman is standing astride a 3rd rail that lacks any cover what so ever. Talk about stupid.
The Norristown (100) line is amazing to me - it's got a 3rd rail, all
right, but the right of way is totally unguarded. No fences near
roads, etc.
And you've gotta laugh at the operation of that thing. It seems that
almost every time I'm riding it, the operator overshoots stations
and has to radio in to back up. (How many times can you do that in
the subway before you no longer have to worry about where to hang
your handles??)
I once saw a kid cross the two express tracks of the BSS at Erie Station. I did not see the whole thing (I looked up, and there he was in the middle of 2 tracks) I think he may have stepped onto the protective covering to get back onto the platform, since the 3rd rails are on the platform side, not in the middle.
By the way, it took place on a Friday afternoon. I would not be surprised if Friday afternoons are the biggest safety hazard of the week, worse even than the middle of the night.
How dangerous? The average main line track, I'm told, is fused at something in the order of 275,000 Amperes. At 600 WVDC that's about 165 million watts. Your average 27" color TV is less than 100 watts. To put it another way, if you doused yourself with water and then touched the 3rd rain and running rail simultaneously, you wouldn't even be a blip on the power control board.
Wow, 275,000 Amp service. I'd love that in my house. I could finally power that death ray I've been building.
To be serious, isn't each 3rd rail section fused seperately?
The term AC comes up a lot in NYC commuter rail: ACMU's, DM30AC, FL-9AC, MP-15AC, P32AC-DM, etc. When I hear AC I normally think of an engine with AC traction motors or some Diesel is normaly straight DC, but in this case is AC/DC. I know the P32's use AC and I am guessing that the new DM30's are AC, but why then are the old NYC 3rd rail DC EMU's called ACMU's? I am also guessing what the MP-15AC's have DC motors and AC current supply, but do those rebuilt FL-9's have AC traction motor's? Any clarifacation would help.
PS: Why do they have all these AC motored locomotives when they are getting 600V DC right from the tap. To me it seems like unnecessary expense and power conversion. I mean for this type of passenger operation DC should be just as good.
/* The term AC comes up a lot in NYC commuter rail: ACMU's, DM30AC, FL-9AC, MP-15AC, P32AC-DM, etc. When I hear AC I normally
think of an engine with AC traction motors or some Diesel is normaly straight DC, but in this case is AC/DC. I know the P32's use AC and I
am guessing that the new DM30's are AC, but why then are the old NYC 3rd rail DC EMU's called ACMU's? I am also guessing what the
MP-15AC's have DC motors and AC current supply, but do those rebuilt FL-9's have AC traction motor's? Any clarifacation would help.
*/
Well, the AC in ACMU stands for "air conditioning".
The MP-15s have AC alternators, a diode rectifier assembly, and DC motors. The DE/DM 30, P-32, and some rebuilt FL-9s also have AC motors.
/*PS: Why do they have all these AC motored locomotives when they are getting 600V DC right from the tap. To me it seems like unnecessary
expense and power conversion. I mean for this type of passenger operation DC should be just as good. */
It's really a better way to go (on paper). Alternators are less maintenance intensive then generators, And AC motors have no brushes, so they can't flash over, and they're more rugged. and more snow/weather resistant. There's little or no efficientcy loss with modern inverters, and there's a side benifit - MUCH better control over the motors. Which means better acceleration, less wheelslip.
As modern electronics get better / cheaper, you're going to see more of a trend towards AC traction. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the R-68s are the last DC traction subway cars ever built for NY. the old DC traction system is a great one - it's proven itself with 100 years of service. But today's AC systems are probbably already a cut above - and the technology is developing much faster too.
HURRAY!!!! SUBTALK IS FINALLY BACK ON LINE!!!!
I thought I was going to have to stay on the porn sites all day!!!
Relax dude, occasionally the internet is fickle.
-Dave
Did Subtalk go down a second time, about noon? I couldn't get in at that time, just like this morning. It must be the rain.
Why is the server so slow? Whether you're on SubTalk or just browsing photos, I've been noticing that the nycsubway.org server has been very sluggish. Its not my ISP, as any other sites I go to move along just fine.
> Why is the server so slow? Whether you're on SubTalk or just
> browsing photos, I've been noticing that the nycsubway.org server
> has been very sluggish.
We've been through this before. Think of it this way:
Big Commercial Site = Lots of Powerful Servers Funded by Advertising and Premium Content.
Little Hobby Site = Little Castoff Server Funded by Donations and My Pocket.
You get what you pay for. If you want to help, perhaps your employer is getting rid of some Sparc 20-class machines. Scoop one up for the site!
-Dave
Or better yet, a VAX. They may be big, they may dim the lights when you reboot, they may not be the fastest.
But *NOTHING* stops a VAX!
Dave, nycsubway.org is not a little hobby site anymore. It has grown into something huge and there's a tremendous amount of traffic on this site. It has become the mainstay for railfans -- not just in NY, but all over the North American continent, and maybe even the world! Also, railfans aren't the only people who are drawn to the site. People researching anything to do with rapid transit, for whatever reason are also drawn here. As for budget limitations, I fully understand that. I'm no Mr. Moneybags myself. Maybe what should be done is to split the site into 2 separate domains on 2 separate servers (nycsubway.org and nycsubway2.org), but have everything linked together. Right now, the server seems to be overtaxed. If it becomes more so, it will soon spend more time down, than up.
He already split the Subtalk and Bustalk sites away. That MUST have sped it up to some degree.
He already split the Subtalk and Bustalk sites away. That MUST have sped it up to some degree.
I'm talking about the entire nycsubway.org site. It is huge. SubTalk and BusTalk are but 2 small corners of the site. People are not only posting on Sub & Bus Talk, there is plenty of traffic everywhere else. There are loads of nice photos to look at, as well as lots of good factual text information.
Maybe move the pics to another server
Maybe move the pics to another server
Yes, some of them, anyway. David is always adding something new to the site. I'm all for it. He should NEVER stop doing that, but the larger this site becomes, and the more traffic, the slower things are going to get until the ULTIMATE crash! This site is the most extensive site on rapid transit in the world. That is something that David should be proud of. Keep expanding it, but also do something to alleviate the "traffic jams".
Please stop adding that large gif to your posts. It makes it even slower trying to read messages (and the people on slow connections will also be pissed)
-Hank
That large gif, as you call it is less than 5 KB. It would take only 4 seconds to download at 14.4 KBaud/sec. What do you do when viewing photos on this site that are 100KB? If David tells me its a problem, I'll quit using it.
Due to the complaint about a 5KB gif that I was using in my posts, I've decided to reduce the size of my BMT LINES gif to half. It is now 2.13 KB
Don't you know, people are gonna complain no matter what one does!!!
Soap Box Mode On
We had this "problem" when everyone "learned" how to post the line logos.
IMHO, this is a message board, when I'm reading it from home over crappy 60 yrold wireing in the building anything but text slows the page gen. From Logos, to flashing RR crossing signs. I keep quite so as not to start a flame but it does get annoying at times at home.
Soap Box Mode Off
(Now work it's at T3....)
Come on guys, quit the bickering crap. We're all in this together and Dave is doing a hell of a job for this website. The traffic is heavy because there are so many enthusiasts on board. I'm sure adjustments can and will be made down the road. By the way, I was so busy yesterday that I never got a chance to get on line. It turned out I didn't miss much. For once my timing was good.
Doors closing---Next stop 62nd Street and New Utrecht Avenue, transfer to the Sea Beach line.
Also, you only have to download the gif ONCE. Then it stays in your cache.
Also, you only have to download the gif ONCE. Then it stays in your cache.
That's right. If anyone has a problem downloading a 5K gif, a computer upgrade is long overdue. Time to get rid of that old 386. It's probably not Y2K compliant, anyway.
I don't even have a computer, I have WebTV and I get your BMT Lines gif instantly. I say keep it.
Does WebTV store images and pages for quick loading?
I know I'll be lynched for proposing this, but if funding is a problem, and traffic on the site is high, simple ad banners could provide the neccessary funding for maintenance and expansion.
I know I'll be lynched for proposing this, but if funding is a problem, and traffic on the site is high, simple ad banners could provide the neccessary funding for maintenance and expansion
I totally agree, but Dave is very adamant about not having advertising on his site.
Also, BBs historically have extremely low clickthrough rates, since users come to them for the content and tend to ignore banners. Hence, agencies and experienced banner purchasers shy away from placing banners on BBs unless they can pay based on clickthrough -- which would yield a lot less $$$.
Whats a BB?
Whats a BB?
SubTalk is a BB (bulletin board)
What about the main site? BTW, I don't care for pop-ups, ad frames, watermarks and the like. Basically the crap you would find on the free web servers with efficient upload tools (that disqualifies Crosswinds).
What about the main site? BTW, I don't care for pop-ups, ad frames, watermarks and the like. Basically the crap you would find on the free web servers with efficient upload tools (that disqualifies Crosswinds).
I think what was meant by ad banners was just a simple animated ad banner toward the top of the page, not a whole bunch of razzle-dazzle like Joe the Con Man's Friendly Used Car Lot. Lord knows we have too much of that crap on the Web already. Just simple banner ads, kind of what you would see on a site that participates in the Link Exchange. Also, I agree that it would be a waste on SubTalk -- just around the main site. One banner ad per page. With all the traffic on this site, many businesses would be willing to pay good money for a banner ad on this site. BTW, nothing pisses me off more than graphic ads constantly changing and loading on a site. That would probably chase me away forever.
I'm glad you have such grandiose plans for the site, -- when you've arranged for some donors let me know.
This isn't a little Geocities personal home web page. If you think it is as simple as opening another account at a free web space provider you're not seeing the whole picture. (You also don't really understand how the domain name service works but that's left for the webmasters and sys admins who need to know.) It takes several gig of storage and transfers anywhere from 30-50 gig a month. Commercial web site providers charge $1000 and up a month for this sort of service. Pennies for a corporation but not for what I still maintain is a hobbyist web site.
There are three ways to fund a web site.
A) Donations - nice in theory but few and far between in reality. You yourself would like to see a faster site but admit you can't afford a donation.
B) Commercial Advertising - there's none on this site and won't ever be.
C) Premium Content - there's none on this site and won't ever be. If all of a sudden you had to pay to post on SubTalk, how many people would leave it behind for some other site with free discussion groups (like Yahoo, which is funded via "B"). No offense to all the good people of SubTalk but I doubt I'd have many paying customers. Certainly not enough to afford a couple of thousand dollars of system upgrades.
So, we're back to "A". The discussion of this web site's finances really isn't appropriate unless you have some means to improve the situation. What you'd like to see or think we should have is irrelevant without the funding.
-Dave
Some people try...
-Hank :)
I was forced to converse with my wife. She knows very little about trains.
To save your time:
CIvil Service Book Store does NOT have these. Theyw ere supposed to get them in a week ago and still no books.
Barnes and noble.com was special order for the one and out of print for the combination wirth tower and train operator.
Amazon.com weas no better.
Borders.com came through-- in stock yet and a cheaper price!
(search for the test title to find any civil service exam book)
Larry, please contact me for an important message via my e-mail address.
Thanks.
SubDude
Yo Dude, if you can't say it publicly amongst a bunch of subway fans, I'm not sure I want to hear it, especially from someone I don't know.
Larry, if you were paying attention -- reading posts from earlier in the week -- you would have realized that it was Doug aka BMTman (Doug Diamond) whom you had met at the Willy B. closure excursion.
Just wanted to know if you were interested in the doing the Bay Ridge Walking Tour in a couple of weeks?
Feel free to contact me at my e-mail address for more info.
SudDude (Doug)
SubDude: My apologies; I think I got something confused here because I thought that Doug said he was changing his name to Subdude. However, I usually go on sub talk late at night when my brain has already gone to sleep. I'd like to go on that walk but my work schedule won't permit it.
Best Wishes,Larry,RedbirdR33
Thanks.
No problem. This trip is something that could feasibly be done again either in the Spring or this time next year.
SubDude
Larry and Doug: Please disregard my previous post.
Larry,RedbirdR33
I know this is a dumb question but what is that fog or haze in subway stations and tunnels?
When do you see it? It may be dust from the tunnels themselves, or it could be mist, or smoke even. Be more specific.
I might suggest that if one of the diesel work trains has just been through the area, that the diesel exhaust would still be wafting around for some subsequent time.
No it's not from one of the work trains, I think it's just dust from the tunnels. I always wondered why the tunnel smell was so strong at 59th street IRT lower level for the 4 and 5 trains, as well as the tunnel fog.
I do like the smell there though. Also nice waiting on the N/R at 59th and Lex while an westbound is coming in from the tubes, a nice strong breeze of tunnel air!
I think it's tunnel dust, because when I come back from railfanning all day on the subways I wipe my nose and this dust appears of the tissue. I gotta admit though I'm hooked on tunnel dust! LOL!
John writes:
>I think it's tunnel dust, because when I come back from railfanning
>all day on the subways I wipe my nose and this dust appears of the
>issue. I gotta admit though I'm hooked on tunnel dust! LOL!
Hmm... Just what color was this "dust" that you found in your Kleenex after blowing your nose? white powder? makes me wonder...
On a more serious note, I noticed the smell inside the tunnels as well, and it seems to be similar to that in many other subway systems. I'm wondering if there's some sort of carbon plates/brushes used with the 3rd rail or 3rd rail shoe/assembly. I'm thinking that maybe it's dust from the carbon brushes as the trains move along the rail. I'm probably wrong because I still am not real sure on the design of the 3rd rail.
The color of the dust on that tissue was grey, not white. This smell is in Penn station on that platforms, although there's no "tunnel dust" there.
It seems to be present around electric trains and in tunnels, you could be right about the 3rd rail brushes and carbon, but that may explain the smell but the dust?
It's probably just that the tunnels in the NYC subway system are old and there's a lot of dust, perhaps it's from construction, or the tunnels and structures wearing off particles into the air.
There's something about that particular spot on the IRT/Lex express level that is unique though to other parts of the subway system because it is so strong.
I see it in all the subway stations (except elevated), especially within Manhattan. It's usually the thickest in the IRT Lexington line lower level, north of 42nd street, especially in the 59th street lower level. Also a strong "tunnel" smell there as well.
Does anyone remember the fog that used to permeate IND stations when the R-1/9's ran? There was also a certain smell that came along with the fog.
If the line is close to the surface like the IRT 1/2/3 at 79th street sunlight enters the area over the express tracks and illuminates the dust in the air (like a beam of light from a flashlight will let you see dust)
The thickest "tunnel fog" is usually in the deeper stations, and is illuminated by the flourescent subway station lights.
When I took the 7X to Manhattan Monday morning, at about 9:30am, I noticed a long back up of Flushing bound trains almost to Woodside.
What happened to cause such long delays? There must've been at least 10 trains waiting, some at stations with doors open, others in between stations, waiting for signals to clear.
There was a train at Vernon-Jackson with problems.
11/02/99
I remember back in the 60's that Air raid sirens were mounted on street light poles. They used to go off at 12 noon. I don't recall if there were air raid drills because of the Cuban missle crisis and impending "Cold War".
I DO remember that some subway elevated stations had them mounted on the roofs. Are they still around or are they all gone? If gone when were they fazed out and removed.
Bill Newkirk
They are still out in Nassau and Suffolk for volunteer firemen and they are quite loud!!! Many still go off at 12 noon. Most are on firehouse roofs but there are still many pole mounted ones. Theres one very loud one at the Glen Head RR Station at the crossing. Another one is at the entrance to the Meadowbrook from Glen Cove Road by Jericho Tnpk.
Firehouses used to also have very loud air-horns but most have been discontinued. I think they were donated to the LIRR for their bi-level locomotives!!
>>>>Firehouses used to also have very loud air-horns but most have been discontinued. I think they were donated to the LIRR for their bi-level
locomotives!! <<<''
There is an ear splitting one in Port Washington, where I work It's loud because it has to call volunteer firemen for miles around.
"There is an ear splitting one in Port Washington, where I work. It's loud because it has to call volunteer firemen for miles around."
Volunteer firefighters in the suburbs of the largest city in the country? And not even a particularly distant suburb at that! I can't think of any volunteer fire departments in metropolitan Chicago, although there are some, in poorer suburbs, that are so underfunded that they might FEEL like volunteer firefighters. (^:
For some of us kids of the late 40's and 50's, there is an interesting site conelrad.com that focuses in on the whole civil defense system of the 50's. You were supposed to turn to 630 or 1230 on the AM dial to receive instructions when you heard air raid sirens. If you have memories of the paranoia of the 50's, check out that site. I don't mean to start a whole thing here.
Volunteer FD's are the norm on Long Island. Also, I believe that the area around the Broad Channel station on the A (just to keep our topic ever-so-tangentially involved) is served by a volunteer FD rather than FDNY.
Chuck
The Broad Channel VFD is not officially recognized by the FDNY.
-HAnk
Staten Island has _2_ VFDs, and they're the only ones in the city that are dispatched by FDNY, and have similar authority to an FDNY Engine company.
-Hank
In Smithtown, they still have the "12:00 whistle" as the horn is known, blowing from a pole next to the the firehouse. It too is used to summon volunteer firemen. Years ago there used to be a train that departed Smithtown for Port Jeff around noon. There were a couple of close calls because the loud whistle drowned out (or was so alleged) the horn on the train as it crossed Landing Avenue just east of the station.
Not many volunteer fire departments that I know of in Chicagoland, but we do have a large number of civil defense sirens, particularly in the suburbs. There are two reasons for this:
1) Being in the Midwest, we're often prone to severe storms and tornadoes during the summer. The sirens sound when a tornado warning is issued, as a signal for people to head to their basements.
2) Chicago has a number of nuclear power plants in the outer suburbs which provide power to the city and give ComEd a handy excuse to extort us on our electric bills. The sirens are to sound in the event of a nuclear accident, as a signal for people to evacuate a 10-mile radius of the plant.
If we're lucky, ComEd won't have a nuclear accident during a severe thunderstorm. :-)
-- David
Chicago, IL
www.NthWard.com
Oh, goodness, don't start me up on Fire Horns! I lived in Elmont as a child, we had a single horn about 1 1/2 miles away (on the central alarm bureau building on School Road).
The winners in that category belong to:
Garden City Park F.D.'s Denton Avenue firehouse, north of Hillside. This has GOT TO BE the WORST sounding fire horn EVER. For years it made a croaking sound; in early 1987 they changed its reed and made it sound like a dying cow.
Floral Park's gallery of three air horns and a gas ship's horn, each one different and extremely loud. The one near Bellerose station (Atlantic & Larch) had a dying goose sound and was a mere 25 feet from a newly-built high ranch.
Franklin Square had a terrible-sounding horn on its Sobo Avenue fire house, it was less than thirty feet from somebody's house. They added a 'tweeter' to it in the 70's and it rotated as it sounded.
Valley Stream had four air horns, each one more irritating than the next.
New Hyde Park's blood-curdling South 5th Street horn had to be one of the eeriest sounds I have ever heard. This thing went off 24/7.
Where I now live, Babylon Village still sounds its Ship's Horn when there is a fire or emergency. It's loud, but not irritating. After all, it IS a ship's horn.
Wayne
How about Uniondale? The horn went off simultaneous with the sirens and was very loud. And I heard that it usually went off on Sundays, not for fires, but to get the guys together with their wives thinking it was a fire. BTW, I'm not too proud to admit I've taken many a detour to avoid being too close to them.
If one had to be picked as the best (which isn't saying much 'cause I hated all) it had to be Hicksville. An awful lot of very short blasts. And now that most L.I. villages are getting rid of the fire horns, along comes the bi-level locomotives!!!
Hicksville's fire horn (actually, two air horns set at different pitches pointing in opposite directions) is pretty ugly-sounding. I heard it on several occasions from the golf course at Cantiague Park.
I don't recall hearing Uniondale's (but I remember seeing it - a cluster of short air horns, with flared bells, like the older LIRR locomotives). What I DO remember is Hempstead's, up until, say, about 1972. They had air horns located all over town. One was on the old firehouse in Fulton Street at Cooper. Another was at the training field on Milburn at Weir Street. Another was in the bell tower of the old wooden firehouse on Linden Avenue (a TERRIBLE sound) and the worst-sounding one of all was set on a pole at a pumping station on Yale Street east of Clinton Road. They changed its location by mounting it on the nearby water tower, but didn't change its sound. Once back in the 60's we were on our way home from Roosevelt Field and were stopped at the light at Clinton and Yale when this thing went off not 100 yards away. I nearly jumped out of my skin! Hempstead did away with the last of the big air horns (Weir Street) by 1978. They had a little tweeter on a fire house near the old bus terminal, less than a foot long.
Wayne
In Baltimore, the AIR RAID SIRENS !!! all sound at exactly 1:00 PM every Monday. As a test. When I was a teenager (TOO long ago) we all used to say that the Ruskies would bomb Baltimore at 1:00 because nobody would pay any attention to them. During the Cuban Missle Crisis we were all convinced that the Ruskies were going to start WWIII and we were all going to die.
Remember "Duck and Cover"? We practiced it in Elementary School. (Duck & Cover under your desk.)
The Teen Age spin was "Put your head between your legs and kiss your a** goodbye."
11/07/99
I remember those "duck and covers" at PS-152 in Brooklyn. As soon as the sirens sounded , we were all under our desks but really understood why. This was about the time those FALLOUT SHELTER signs appeared above entrances to apartment house basements. Never understood what "fallout" was.
Bill Newkirk
Yes we did "duck-and-cover" drills in elementary school, up until about fourth grade. We also had drills where we covered up our heads in the basement hall (lot of good THAT would have done! - the building would have fallen right on us) and we also had "convoy drills" where we would line up in the yard grouped by the geographic location of our homes. Not too sure what that was all about, some kind of disaster preparation, no doubt.
Baltimore still has the yellow square trumpet air raid sirens, which rotate as they sound, correct? These can be set for two sounds. One is a steady note, the other is a warbling note, like that of a European police siren, but not as shrill (sounds notes F-sharp and A). Deer Park here on Long Island also has one of these (in addition to Mineola and Copiague), sounding a steady note. Mineola warbles, Copaigue has two - one that warbles, one that has a steady note.
Wayne
If Air Raid Drills bring back memories from the 50's, check out a site I read about in the Thursday Times about a month ago. conelrad.com It focuses on all this stuff--- duck and cover-- tv shows that related to the paranoia--- the Conelrad emergency broadcast system. It's really an interesting and well executed site.
I don't know if any of you have ever heard Robert Klein's routine on Civil Defense. It goes back probably to the 60's or 70's. I have it on a record album. He recalls that we were given dog tags, and told not too subtly (spelling?) that these were to be used in the event of a nuclear holocaust to identify us in case we were burnt beyond recognition. I remember wearing one of those dog
tags around my neck as a kid.
There were also a couple of movies made using clips from the civil defense films from the 50's which also captured those days.
Maybe its a type of phobia but I usually try to avoid spots where I know there is one. One that looks really loud is the one at the c/o Lakeville Rd & Jericho Tnpk. I never heard it but its a bunch of air horns mounted atop a pole. I just looks like a spot you wouldn't want to be next to when it went off!!
One that really scared me once was the one on Gardiners Av just S/O Hemp Tnpk at the firehouse.
By the way, to keep it transit related, there is a weird looking contraction on a pole at the RR crossing at the Glen Head Station. Is that a fire horn or siren? My dentist is in the office bldg opposite the station but I've never heard any horn or siren there, however I will never be there at 12 noon!!!
What you saw in New Hyde Park is a SIREN, not a horn. There are three of them in New Hyde Park: the one you mentioned, one near the high school (Leonard Boulevard at Evergreen) and one on Hillside Avenue at Kalda Avenue (just east of the Hillside Plaza shopping center). These sirens have twelve "horns" which act as loudspeakers. They come in six-horn and eight-horn varieties. These things are LOUD - well over 100DB at 100 feet.
I believe the thing you saw in Glen Head is a type of siren as well.
Floral Park's Main fire house is one short block from the LIRR station. I was startled on numerous occasions by the fire horn there.
Up until 1972, it was a cluster of small trumpets, sounding a dissonant baritone note. Then they installed a Ship's Horn in May of that year. This gave way in 1978 to a hideous sounding tapered-cone air horn, painted blood red and packing a 107db wallop. They finally discontinued its use sometime in the early 1990's, replacing it with a siren. FP has since stopped all use of its fire horns.
Wayne
While we're at it maybe you know, you seem to be an expert on the subject. A block south of the Main Street RR crossing in Mineola (the crossing with the tower) opposite the Davenport Press Restaurant there seems to be a siren on a pole, however I never heard a siren over there and I always use Mineola Station. I've even taken railfan videos with my 3 yr old son at that crossing. Do you know, is that a discontinued siren??
By the way, as an aside, I've lived in East Meadow for most of my 46 years and thought I knew all the fire horn and siren sounds in the surrounding areas. One day from my house I heard a siren blare for about 5 minutes that I didn't recognize the sound. I thought maybe they changed the siren of a nearby E.M. firehouse. The next day I read in the paper there was a jailbreak at the Nassau Co. Jail in East Meadow. Although I never found out for sure, I assume it was a siren at the jail used only for jail emergencies. I never heard it again.
Ah, yes, MINEOLA - they have one of the most unusual-sounding sirens I've ever heard. First, a square-trumpet rotating air raid siren begins sounding a warbling note. Then a double-barreled air horn goes off every seven seconds or so. Then a chorus of hatbox-shaped sirens (located at various places around the town) go off as well. The one you mention used to be a little can-shaped yellow siren with a round top. Then they changed it to one of the hatbox ones. I would think it goes off whenever there's a fire or when the other ones sound off.
There were five other hatbox sirens at various points around town. Rockville Centre had a number of these as well, as did Bellerose Terrace and Floral Park also had one.
The NC Jail siren is also a square-trumpet rotating siren. Look up on the roof of the main building and you will see it.
Wayne
Just this morning I was waiting for the 6:42 at Medford station when the horn went off at the nearby fire house. "Loud" is not the word for it - the sound is enough to raise the dead!
[One day from my house I heard a siren blare for about 5 minutes that I didn't recognize the sound. I thought maybe they changed the siren of a nearby E.M. firehouse. The next day I read in the paper there was a jailbreak at the Nassau Co. Jail in East Meadow. Although I never found out for sure, I assume it was a siren at the jail used only for jail emergencies.]
The prison in Cheshire, Connecticut issued special beepers to people living within a couple miles of the facility in order to warn them of any breakouts. Doing so was a way of overcoming neighborhood opposition to an expansion plan.
We still have a very loud air horn here in Sea Cliff, it actually sounds like a loud fog horn. It's quite a spooky sound if you've heard it.
Glen Cove also has two types of air horns, one a low moan, the other a more modern sounding and even louder.
I remember the air raid drills in public school in the 60's. They used 5 bells for an air raid drill, as opposed to the standard 3 bells for fire drills. At the sound of 5 bells, we would all crawl under our desks until the drill was over.
>>>>I remember back in the 60's that Air raid sirens were mounted on street light poles. They used to go off at 12 noon. I don't recall if there
were air raid drills because of the Cuban missle crisis and impending "Cold War".
I DO remember that some subway elevated stations had them mounted on the roofs. Are they still around or are they all gone? If gone
when were they fazed out and removed. <<<
This sounds like a job for...
www.forgotten-ny.com
If anyone runs across an extant air raid siren on a lamppost, let me know!
As I posted earlier, there's on at Sutter on the "L". I think I saw one up in the Bronx too, but I forgot where.
Washington DC and suburbs, up until the mid-1980s, used to have absolutely hideous-looking and sounding air-raid sirens. These looked like square trumpets, painted yellow, and rotated as they sounded. There was one on Edmunds School roof, 9th & "D" N.E, a block and a half from Grandmother's house. One night at 10:30 it went off and scared the living daylights out of me. COPIAGUE and MINEOLA still have these trumpet-style sirens. EAST FARMINGDALE used to have them, and they were discontinued around 1990.
Wayne
San Francisco still blows its Civil Defense sirens every Tuesday at 12:Noon from telephone-pole top, multiple megaphones around the City. Many of them are on public school property, some are located along indvidual utility poles along streets (this would include one painted a stealthy black at the NE corner of Geary and Powell in Union Square) (most of the horns are painted yellow) and some are located on private and public buildings. Because of the constant threat of earthquakes, the City plans to keep this system running forerver and also plans to keep its fire alarm box system up and running into the next millenium. After the 1989 Earthquake, the Fire Alarm Box and Police Call box system unlike the Pac Bell Telephone system worked without any serious problems.
Technically, the 'cold war' was never impending, it was a constant. Remembering my history lessons, it was basically all about how each side kept building bigger missles, threatening each other with them. It 'started' shortly after the end of WWII (with the Berlin Airlift being recognized as the 'initial point', the Cuban Missile Crisis as it's Apex (or defining point, if you will) and the fall of the Berlin Wall the end.
-Hank
How well I remember these! In my area (upper east side Man.)they were grey approx 2-3feet tall most mounted on lamposts. Each day at noon they would sound for approx 10 seconds it also seemed that they were rotated-different ones sounding each day. I last recall hearing them in late 1972.
Equally spooky my elemetary school was equipped with a telco bell in the main office each morning around 9 it would ring. Asingle long ring was a test a series of 3 short rings meant trouble you were supposed to turn on the central P.A. system`s radio on and await instructions.
This went on into the early 70`s and i still recall everybody stopping work for a moment and waiting for it to stop.
AS for the sirens they were removed when all the street lamps were replaced in spring 1973, at least around here
However a monthago I noticed an identical siren on an N train station in Astoria possibly Broadway look on the southbound side it`s on the roof.
Boy, what memories!
Anybody know where I can get one of those classic yellow "Fallout Shelter" signs. They still adorn hundreds of apartment buildings!
11/03/99
"Anybody know where I can get one of those classic yellow "Fallout Shelter" sign? They still adorn hundreds of apartment buildings1"
Other than conning the building Super to part with it,you may try a city flea market. There's a bunch in the area of 6th Ave and 24th St.(Manhattan). MY friend picked one up a few years ago,I saw one a few months back.They operate on weekends,Sunday the better day.
Bill Newkirk
There is a two-tier 36" siren with a thin base still on the roof of the Sutter Avenue station (northbound platform shed) on the "L" line.
I guess they forgot it was there.
They had several kinds of sirens, mounted on lamp-posts or telephone poles:
1) Two-tier 48" siren with fat base (i.e. Madison Ave & E.89th (mounted on a Bishop's Crook with a cuplight), 1st Avenue & E.47th, Ocean Ave & Dorchester Road, Linden Blvd & Pine St.)
These were the loudest, my guess at least 100db, maybe more.
2) Two-tier 36" siren with thin base (i.e. Wall & Nassau Street, Ocean Ave & Avenue "N"). These were loud too, but less so than 1), probably around 90db.
3) Three-tier 30" siren (most often found on Staten Island). These were about 90-95db.
There were also mushroom-top sirens with a tube through the top, like they used to have on the Claremont Parkway 3rd Avenue El station.
On top of some schools, there were center rotating drum sirens with a horn speaker on either side.
Wayne
ah relics of the cold war. I was just looking at an old certifciate of mine testiying that I have sucessfully completed a US civil defense course as an air raid shelter technician. After our survey, our data was analyzed and if the building was deemed suitable a capacity was calculated and a black and yellow air raid shelter sign was placed on the building. In a recent thread on subtalk someone was looking to buy one of those old signs.
I know the idea of extending the 7 not only to Javits but then under the Hudson to NJ has been mentioned in various blue-sky proposals. The RPA may also have suggested it. A few Qs:
(1) What terminal? I'd assume Meadowlands, which could serve as a gigantic park-and-ride.
(2) Could it also stop at the Secaucus Transfer? NJ Transit is talking about a route from the old West Shore Line through the Meadowlands Sports Complex to the Secaucus Transfer ... perhaps the 7 could use that (yet to be created) ROW?
(3) How much of a rise is there between a tunnel under the Hudson and land-level in the Meadowlands? Enough to require a massive tunnel thru NJ land as well as under the river? (And I bet it's solid rock too, those cliffs wouldn't be there otherwise .... )
Thoughts from our resident visionaries?
It will never happen. I doubt it will ever get to the Javits Center. Forget about New Jersey.
I have to think this was covered on SubTalk before I got here, but can anyone explain WHY ON EARTH the two types of MetroCard -- dollar-value and time-limited -- are identical in design?
If I have them both in my wallet, there's no way I'm aware of to tell them apart. Does this seem as dumb to anyone else as it does to me?
Swipe it throught one of the Metro Card readers at the station and it will either give you a dollar amount or an expiration date. That is the only way to tell them apart visually.
I know: That's my point. It seems a particularly dumb way to do it. Why not make them visually distinct? Is there any reason NOT to?
Perhaps so we will end up taking the wrong card and have to pay an additional fare. That happened to me a few weeks ago on the bus. I had a 7 day card and in the morning of the 7th day, I grabbed the wrong card. I ended up taking a cash value card with zero. I had two other cards in my wallet, also with zero.
The bus driver let me on anyway becuase she knew I was going to the subway (This was the Q-74 which terminates at the Union Turnpike Station), but there I bought another Metro Card. So do to my own carlessness, I lost the last days usage of my 7 day card and had to pay again. This has to be part of their motivation behind the cards being identical.
I imagined that one reason they were the same was to discourage thieves for looking out for someone using a specially marked monthly pass and ripping the person off because it was worth more. With them all looking alike, you couldn't tell the real valuable ones from a card that is worth only a couple of rides.
I guess also in terms of dispensing them, having just 1 type makes bookkeeping simpler, or in the case of the Metrocard Vending Machines, having 1 card makes the mechanism easier.
These are both off the top of my head reasons.
The second one is correct. Also remember that the machine inside the booth is an MVM too. It's a machine that vends Metrocards. The cards are all empty inside. They are encoded on exit. Now what is stupid, is that the TA doesn't let you refill unlimited ride cards and keep pay-per-ride value on them. An MRM will let you do this, perhaps it will only be allowed then to get people to actually use those machines.
It's also cheeper. Only one kind of card to make. Of course, the adverts and specials kinda make it moot. On the other hand, You don't want the clerk to screw up and give you the wrong card. 2 ways to handle this; one, when you get the card, mark one of them (I used to put a 'U' on the back of my unlimited when I carried a pay card as well), or modify the dispensing equipment to print 'x-day unlimited' on the card. Of course, that's just one more thing that can break, and cause further problems. Bottom line? Be smart, and know which of your cards is which at all times.
-Hank
Clerks (station attendants?) and MVMs carry one type of card stock, which can be encoded as either value-based or time-based metrocards. Making them visually distinct would require using two different sets of stock, which they apparently wanted to avoid.
It is possible that, in the future, cards will be able to carry both time-based unlimited rides and additional value simultaneously. The reduced-fare metrocards already do this; if it is possible for one type of card, it should be possible for all types.
I was recently in New York and bought a 7-day metrocard. During the course of the first day I was reading the back and saw that it expired October 31, 2000. Since it was written 10/31/00 and I was in NY in October, I figured that was the date seven days later. Then I started to count. (I arrived on October 21.) Then I saw the year "00". Of course it was slightly smudged so I thought it could be "99". Anyway, my question is, why is that date, a year from now, printed on the card when the real expiry date is not? Being new at this, I didn't know at first that there were other machines which could read the card and give me that information.
You have ONE YEAR (approximately) to use a MetroCard. The date on the back is the "finish using this card by" date.AN unlimited card starts with the first swipe. Lets say the back say expires 10/31/00. You can start using it anyday until 10/24/2000 and it weill be good until 10/31/00. While we cannot trade or refill unlmited cards, expired regular cards can be traded in for a new card at the booth (or machines) up to one year after the expiration date- in this case 10/30/2001 after which any value/time left is lost forever.
So does that mean that one can tell the difference by looking at the back for an expiry date?
In one word--- no! the date is on all cards when we get them in the booth. Blank (Zero Value) cards come in packages of 100 cards and they all have a serial number, a batch number, and an expiration date.
The information on the back is not done by us. When a customer asks us for a card we enter the information on our computer keyboard/ When then insert a BLANK card into the computer. The card is pulled into the computer and pops back up ready to be given to the customer--either money(regular pay-per-ride) or Unlimited (7 or 30 day)
To add just a bit of detail ... the cards come from the mfg. useless in the system. A TA office needs to initialize them, then a Station Agent (or a MVM machine) can either put value or time on them. This same TA office also makes up cards with value or time, e.g. I buy them that way for re-sale from my bus company (I do the buying but not the selling).
Mr t__:^)
They are identical because it simplifies life in the booth. ALso- at some point **in the future** a card *might* have both time and money (like reduced fare MetroCards do now). Why dont you take a pen and mark an unlmited card with a big U and the regular with a $.
Every person working in the booth must count the MetroCards-- we already have to count and store prewrapped cards plus blank cards. having one kind of blank cards reduces errors.
Another tip for easier MC use: I put a post-it with remaining value on the MC. For unlimited I put it in a different MC Holder. I also bought a MC/Token holder AND I keep a MC with one ride just in case I have a problem.
The fact that folks have to get this involved in the mechanics of MC use STINKS, blame it on the MTA suits, who don't use the system, but decide what is best for us.
Mr t__:^)
Once again, I think the one card fits all system was deffered due to complexity, and perhaps they might want people to have a reason to use the new MRM.
Subway Buff is right on!
I carry a small felt pen with me to mark the MetroCard, as she suggests.
For those interested:
the brand is "Sanford",
the pen type is "Sharpie",
it is only slightly bigger than a standard Bic,
the ink is **permanent** on the plastic, just like a large MagicMarker(tm).
They say it is non-toxic, too. What a relief! LOL.
Works for me.
11/05/99
You can use a ball point pen to write on the strip where the expiration date appears on the left. Just use the empty space on the right.
Bill Newkirk
In one of David's posts, he said that the maintenance of the site comes out of his pocket. I don't understand much of the hardware and software involved in running this site or any site. The issue of people making donations was raised. It was stated that it would cost thousands to upgrade the hardware running the site. But I'm curious about what it costs to maintain the site as is. I'd be willing to contribute a modest amount regularly to help defray the expenses of running the site. I don't think it's fair that one person has to eat all the expenses, especially if it runs into a lot of money. ( Besides, it's only fair when I consider the money I'm saving being here and not having to be in psychotherapy ).
Secondly, in the past I think I remember Dave saying that sometimes the site just goes down for no disceernable reason. Do you know what caused the disruption today? I don't remember posting anything particularly stupid earlier that might have caused a dysfunction.
> How is SubTalk Maintained & Financed
If you're in a position to do something about this, please contact me offline. I don't feel it needs to be public knowledge any more than I've already stated in prior messages. If you can't assist, quite frankly, it's none of your business.
> and why was it down?
The server running SubTalk is connected to the internet with a Bell Atlantic ADSL connection. The mere fact that the ISP being used is the phone company should explain that outages happen and they aren't quick about fixing them. Residential ADSL is a "de-regulated" service and the phone company does not need to provide a Service Level Agreement. If it goes out, they don't need to provide a reason or a time frame for it to be fixed. I'd estimate there is an ADSL outage of more than an hour approximately once a month. These usually happen during the night but occasionally during the daytime. That being said, *all* ISP's suffer occasional connectivity failures. The main server (www.nycsubway.org), while a lot slower, is on a much more reliable connection located at an ISP that I have a "deal" with (deeply discounted colocation service in return for money and system adminstration assistance).
I had a weird dream last night. It all started with me entering my old home station, Utica Ave IRT. As I was descending down the stairs, two #2 trains were leaving AT THE SAME TIME!!!!! After I looked in the tunnel I saw lights turn around the bend. I ran all the way to the front so that I can get the railfan window. I thought that it was a #3 train but it wasnt. It wasnt even R62a, R29, R62, or a R33 or a R36. It was a SLANT R40!!!!!! There was no end sign. It was actually bypassing the station when it all of a sudden the train came to a complete halt. It seemed that there was some mechanincal problem and the passengers had to come off. After the slant R40 left, a R62 #4 train came in. The passengers got on and the train proceeded to Kingston Av. As we got into Kingston, the station was brand new. I mean brand new tile and everything!!!! It also had designs on the wall. The station looked real nice. Then I woke up. These are actual accounts in my dream. Anybody had anything similar to what I experince?????
3TM
50St. Transfer to the M27 and M50 on the street level. The next station will be 42St-UN. Transfer to the S,4,5,6,7 trains via passageway. The M42 and M104 on the street level. 42St will be next. Stand Clear of the closing doors............
Two of the same trains leaving at the same time is no fantasy or dream. Last night I was on an E that ran express down the local track from Queens Plaza to Jamaica. At Roosevelt Ave., we were on the local and another E was on the express track. Both trains left at the same time!
I know I seen it before... When I was in high school, the 4 from NL would come in at Utica, meanwhile the 4 originating at Utica was late because of passengers at the Utica Ave end trying to board the train. The dispatcher would say "Lock it up, Lock it up". Meanwhile the 4 on the local track opened and closed it doors. The next thing I know we were leaving at the same time. I could imagine the look of the faces at Kingston and Nostrand...........
3TM
23St. Transfer to X, 23St Crosstown-Myrtle Ave El. The M23 up on the street level. The next station will be 14St. Transfer to the L and the M14 upper level. Stand Clear...............
The same thing happened with the A to Far Rockaway and the A to Lefferts Blvd. And it wasn't a dream either.
At 42nd Street, I boarded the A (R44) (on the local track) to Lefferts Blvd. The next thing I notice, a Far Rockaway A (R38) arrives on the express track.
The conductor in our train yell out "This is a A express to Lefferts Blvd - A Express, A Express, A Express Please Stand Clear The Closing Doors.
And, as the Lefferts Blvd tried to leave the Far Rockaway A, the A to Far Rockaway was desperately trying to close it doors so it won't be left behind.
We left at the same time.
Both of us arrived at the 34th Street Station at the same time.
Then, the Lefferts Blvd A announce that it was going to make express stops. I was amazed since the A on the express track was going to pass stations too. So I prepare to watch this fantastic race.
After hearing the announcement, we finally left the station. We end up leaving the station slightly before the Far Rockaway - but I could see it (Far Rockaway) beside us.
As we were heading towards 23rd Street, I can tell the motorman was in for the race because the train seem to be speeding rapidly. But, we were no match for a R38.
Then we got to 23rd Street. For some reason the train slowed down slightly to warn C/E passengers to step back. I could see the passengers wondering what was going on as they could see the R 38 passing us.
Then we got to 14th Street. Of course, the R38 arrive a little before us.
When the doors of our train open, I could hear the conductor on the R38 yelling fratically, "This is a A Express TO Far Rockaway, change for the A to Lefferts Blvd against the wall (he left out the word express) - This is an A express, stand clear the closing doors!"
The A to Far Rockaway then tried to leave us, but luckly, a confused passenger was holding the doors. We end up leaving the 14th Street station around the same time.
Again, the race was on. Both trains were going unusually fast. However, the R44 could not match the speed of the R38. But, unlike the C/E (which goes around the turns slowly), we must have got up to 50 miles per hour before we came to a stop.
We arrived a short time later.
At West Fourth Street, both the A to Far Rockaway and Lefferts Blvd was at it again. But this time, more vivid.
"This is an A express to Far Rockaway - A train to Far Rockaway - A train to Far Rockaway, Lefferts Blvd against the Wall."
Out of fustration (I believe), the Lefferts Blvd conductor had to get into the action. This is an A express to Lefferts Blvd, A Express to Lefferts Blvd, A to Far Rockaway on the center track.
Then, the A to Far Rockaway attempted to close it doors. We also tried to do the same. But like I said before, some confused passenger was holding the doors; preventing us from leaving.
Fortunately, we finally left the West Fourth Street station.
As we were leaving the station, for some reason the A to Far Rockaway disappeared. All of a suden, an F (46) to Coney Island pop up beside us. I became really excited because I was figuring where the F came from. I never knew the F shared the same tracks as the 8th Avenue lines. Then, I notice the F (46) disappearing. And guess what? The A that left the West 4th Street station was on a hill passing us.
One wonders why this occured, but I was really excited about this new discovery.
The A to Far Rockaway dust us as we pass the Spring Street station. And when we got to the Canal Street Station. The R38 doors was already open.
Again, the A's 38 conductor yelled out: This is an A express to Far Rockaway" and at the same time, the A to Leffert yelled out (on top of his lungs: This is an A express to Lefferts Blvd. Change for the A to Far Rockaway (leaving out the Express part).
Then, the A to Far Rockaway attempted to close it doors. We responded.
I say to myself, I know they are not going to leave this station at the same time!!!
Just as we were both about to exceed to the Chambers Street Station, I think the Dispatcher told the two A's to open the doors.
The Dispatcher then instructed the A to Far Rockaway to leave the station first.
I got a chance to get a glimpse of both of the conductors. The A to Far Rockaway conductor was laughing infractically saying, "This is a A express to Far Rockaway with an A to Lefferts against the wall.
Just like Affirmed and Aladar!!!
11/03/99
3Train#2119Mike,
I read your posting and did a double take when I saw your name! I thought this post was by heypaul!!
I had a dream about The (N) returning to the Broadway Express and south side Manhattan Bridge tracks!........WAIT!...that's a fantasy!
Bill Newkirk
Speaking of dreams, fantasies, and actual sitings of two A's riding the rails together, I've been wondering if there was an occasion at DeKalb Ave when the Broadway side of the Bridge was open, when a Sea Beach got stuck on the Bridge for a while, with another one right behind it, causing them to send later Sea Beach trains through the tunnel. Then when the blockage was cleared--- the 1st Sea Beach comes into DeKalb-- then the tunnel Sea Beach comes into DeKalb on the local track -- and finally the 2nd Sea Beach from the bridge comes through on the bypass track---- thus having 3 Sea Beach trains in DeKalb at the same time.
Then to complete the moment forever in the minds of railfans, somehow the 3 trains would crash into each other slightly south of DeKalb--- so that all service would be completely blocked.
Is the fantasy map still in the works????
3TM
42St-UN. Transfer to the S,4,5,6,7 lines via a passageway. The M42 and M104 on the street level. Connection to the MNRR and LIRR at GCT. This is a Fulton St bound P making local stops via 2Av. The next local stop will be 34St. Transfer to the J and Z across the platform making express stops. The M16 and M34 up on the street level. Stand Clear of the closing doors please.......
RIP #34: Walter Payton. Rush for the big yards in the big sky!!!!!!
Funny you should ask...
My "fantasy map" for Chicago's L is now online in GIF format. I hope to have the downtown section and a map legend completed eventually.
Check it out at http://www.NthWard.com/images/master_plan.GIF and let me know what you think.
Be forewarned that the file size is about 454 KB... It will take a while to load.
-- David
Chicago, IL
www.NthWard.com
The map looks very good. However, it could use a bit more color on the background. That grey is too stark.
I have been advised that because of design problems the closing of the Transit Museum for refurbishing is being delayed until after the first of the year.
Do you know exactly what they are planning to do with it? Perhaps lengthening the platforms to accomodate a host of newly retired cars in the near future?
Basically what's happening here, is the Transit Museum will close for renovation of their electrical system, that is new wiring for their lighting, as is installation of air conditioning on the mezzanine level. The new wiring does not imply a turn to florescent lights, which would make Court St look decidedly inauthentic.
-Stef
To add to Stef's post:
Fire standpipe system, ADA restrooms. There will also be "behind the scenes" enhancements.
SOURCE: Clarence with Museum at a recent tour
Subway Buff, there is already a new set of restrooms for the handicapped at the present time. What more could they do with the restrooms?
Also, in addition to enhancements, if I hear correctly, the gates over the tracks will be replaced with a new set. I believe the gates are being replaced in conjunction with the air conditioning upstairs. The new gates will be needed to keep the air in.
-Stef
I wonder what they will do when the station runs out of room to display all the museum cars. With the imminent retirement of the redbirds, that's at least 4 more cars that will need to go on display. Unless they select one car class to represent all redbirds (I sure hope not!)
It's ALREADY out of room to display the retired msueum cars. Some sit at Coney Island shops.
I'd love to see the lower level of 9th Ave/39th St become a museum annex for additional car storage. There's room for 30 60-foot cars on its three tracks.
--Mark
Perhaps that would be an appropriate locaton for the BMT cars, like the standard and Triplex.
Sicne we've mentioned this before, has the museum ever considered it?
The lower level of the BMT CIty Hall station would be even better for a Museum. 3 operating tracks with 2 island platforms. The only disadvantage to this is there is no mezzanine (as in typical IND construction) so exhibits would be limited to what will fit on the platforms. Also how would they create separate entrances (to distinguish N/R passengers from Museum visitors (Yeah, well Rudy would never go for that one).
I wonder what they will do when the station runs out of room to display all the museum cars. With the imminent retirement of the redbirds, that's at least 4 more cars that will need to go on display. Unless they select one car class to represent all redbirds (I sure hope not!)
If they did put "Redbirds" in the Transit Museum, they wouldn't all be red. The R-26/28's would be dark green (almost black), like the R-27/30. The 29/33 would be red. An R-36 in blue/grey 1964 World's Fair colors is already in the museum. In the Transit Museum, they display the equipment in original colors (most of the time).
They don't have the room to put anymore cars in the Museum right now. If a redbird was to be placed in the Museum, you'd have to kick something in the Museum out the door, which is something that will not happen.
The R33 single already qualifies as a modern car at the Transit Museum. I honestly don't see any other redbirds coming in. A couple of redbirds will probably be preserved, no doubt and will probably sit down at Coney Island.
-Stef
Does anyone know if they are going to consider lengthing the platform (if this is even feasible) to accommodate more older equipment for the museum collection?
Thanks, SubDude
I don't think you can since the platform would block the crossover and transit facilities in the end going towards the Rockaways, while facing what would have been the Manhattan Bound end is not even property of the Transit Museum (beyond the bumping block). Do you think the people would object having the Transit Museum extend itself on their property towards the riverfront? I hear the NIMBY chant coming...
-Stef
Interesting thought ... I understand that under the 2nd IND plan, the Court Street stub was supposed to connect to the WTC stub (new tunnel?).
Did or does the TA own any property for ROWs that were proposed but never built? If the property W of Court Street is privately owned, then obviously not for that case. Perhaps they just came in w/eminent domain when they actually planned to build?
In fact ... do they OWN it at all, or just have an easement for underneath it? For instance, the entire east side of 6th Ave in Manhattan between Greenwich Ave and Houston was obviously torn down to build the W. 4th station -- but there are now post-1940 buildings on the entire thing. Does the TA own this property and sell long-term land leases? Or did they take ownership then sell? Anyone know?
I'm not sure about the ROW's but I believe that one of the buildings on the South Side of Schermerhorn west of Court Street is not a residential brownstone but just a facade for an ventilation tube or something for the Transit System. If it is on the south side that would cause the address to be an even number. Since the numbering starts at Clinton Street to the west the number is between 2 and 50.
Anybody know anything??????
Once while riding on the F Manhattan Bound, past the point where the A/C branch off, I though I saw a space and people with people working in to the side of the trackway. Yesterday, a co-worker found the same thing. Is there an excavated tunnel area adjacent to the tracks approaching York St. If so, what is it used for, and what was it built for?
I know that there's a brownstone on Joralemon St that is supposed to be a ventillation system. Perhaps you are referring to that...
-Stef
You maybe right. Next time I'm down there I'll check it out. It maybe at Bus Fest 2000, which is held in that area
There were actually 3 proposals for the Fulton St Subway Access to Manhattan:
1) The Court St Stub would have been connected with the now infamous 2nd Av Subway. Proposals for the subway go back to the 50s and beyond, and I believe that there was money to build the subway. Robert Wagner could have done it, but Robert Moses interfered.
2) As you mentioned, connect the Fulton St Local Tracks with the local tracks at WTC for IND access to the financial district.
3) There were proposals supposedly to connect the Fulton St Line with the BMT at Whitehall St.
As for property issues, I sincerely doubt that the TA owned the rights to what would have been the private ROW for the routes to be constructed. There was only planning. Those plans were never executed. If for argument sake the property was owned by the city, there would be no problem in building a right of way. If the property is in the hands of private owners, well, you would have to take the property out of their hands.
-Stef
Since I know some of you just can't sleep at night without knowing why SubTalk was down, tonight (11/2/99) from approx 7:30-11:30 my neighborhood was the victim of a blackout caused by a freak storm. This can be verified with the local electric provider PSE&G if you feel that my explanations in the matter haven't been sufficient. :)
-Dave
Can anyone explain the unusual route this train takes? Whenever I ride it the train always pulls onto the middle track and it sits there to allow a J train to pass in front of it. This seems to only happen with this particular train.
Also, is The Bowery being served 24/7 by the J a permanent service change?
er, forgot to mention that the middle track at Essex St. is the one I'm referring to.
you don't mention what station your particular M train waits at from my recollection the M would stop and stay at Broadway-Myrtle to make a connection with a J so passengers wishing to transfer to a Metropolitan Avenue bound M train.
AS for PM Rush Hour service the Express J would stop at Bway-Myrtle middle track connection again with a Local M train to Metropolitan Ave.
Essex St., as I stated in a response when I realized my error.
I'm familiar with the waiting patterns at Myrtle/Bway.
The M is early.
What happened monday at around 4:00. I was on an E out of WTC. When we got to Canal St., we went express. The whole time we were either equal with or just behind the train that had left just before us (Imagine the surprise when an E train pulled in on the express track next to an E on the local track). We got to 42nd St and had to hold for the E in front of us then switched back to the queensbound track. I can't figure out why we did this since we didn't change places in the line up. There was a diversion on 6th Avenue that sent F trains up the E from West Fourth (an "incident" at 34th) but that didn't seem to explain it since if the F was at least two train lengths behind our position had we been on the E. I noticed that a C pulled up after the E left 42nd (I got off there). And that all trains (A, C and E) were crawling through 42nd. So my question is why would a train be sent express when it didn't change the headway and actually seemed to delay it.
Mike
I don't know what happened at 34th on the F - I went down monday and there was a train stopped about halfway in the station. Half of a door panel on each car I could see was open and they appeared to have evacuated this way. The lights were off in the train. Most of the platform was closed off by the police. I had to go up to 42nd and get a 7. Yesterday and today were only slightly better, with long waits for packed trains that somehow were constantly delayed by congestion up ahead... I don't know where it came from, because no trains had passed in a while. There's what looks like sawdust on the uptown F tracks at 34th street where the front of the train was but I still haven't heard any indication of what the problem was. Does anyone know?
I know a person was struck by that F train, but I don't have any info regarding suicide, accident, etc.
There was a 12-9 at 34 st on the F. He apparently jumped at the south end of the N/B plat. No chance of survival when you do it right. The saw dust that was seen latter was used to absorb the body fluids. All the F were put up 8th ave from W4st. The switches are out N/B at Jay st. At W4st 6th Av trains can only be put on A1 track(local) N/B. So some N/B E were put on the express to releve congestion on the local. The C's would at least have a fighting chance to get uptown. You can't put to many C's on the Exp. it's the only train that serves 50st for 8th ave service. If the switches were working at Jay st, all the F's that would have been rerouted there could have been put on the Exp.(A4 track) at Canal St.
What should have been done, but was not, would have been to ABD (abandon) a few intervals out of Stillwell on the F. This incident lasted right thru the rush hour. They should have known down there that the F's would have no place to go! I don't run the railroad, I just observe and report it. I hope I answered your question.
ABD on the F. Are you kidding? It's rare to ABD intervals on the F. I was going southbound when it happened. I got caught with Queens bound passengers along 6 Ave with the reroutes.They were going to W4 st for F service via 8 ave. A few F trains were sent via crosstown also. The person apparently jumped off the platform at the conductors position since the saw dust was in that area.
I forgot about Crosstown on the G. After it was over, when we found out how many they sent Crosstown, it was a very low number.
Does anybody know the origin of the naming and coloring scheme for the different subway lines? I would be really interested in knowing, since there seems to be very little sense in it though I'm told there's method to the madness.
The names are easy: they're either blandly descriptive: Washington Heights Line, Lexington Avenue Line, etc., or reflect history: Culver Line (for Andrew Culver, its founder), Sea Beach Line (for the New York & Sea Beach RR), Brighton Beach Line (both Beach and Line named by its founders).
I don't think there's any grand scheme to the coloring. Originally, there were no colors at all, then some map makers began to use colors to distinguish between the different operating companies. For example, Hagstrom used yellow for the BMT, blue for the IRT, red for the IND. Elevated lines of any company were a skinny black line.
When the TA decided to start coloring in the late '60s, they didn't use today's scheme. Each individual line had its own color. some colors were used on more than one line, but they managed to see that no individual station had more than one line with a particular color. This was accomplished by having lots of different colors. For example, IIRC, the A train was DARK blue, the E train was LIGHT blue. None of this mattered much, because noone paid much attention to the colors anyway.
The current coloring, using main lines to determine color, is much more sensible. However, I don't think anyone who's spent more than a week in NYC would refer to a line by its color as is done in other cities.
The color is based on Avenue in Midtown Manhattan:
Blue.........8th ave
Red..........7th ave
Orange.......6th ave
Yellow.......Broadway
Black........Shuttles (usually)
Green........Lexington Avenue
That leaves Crosstown lines:
Purple.......Flushing/Corona(7)
Lt Green.....IND Crosstown (G)
Gray.........14th Street/Canarsie
When a line continues its color is not changed meaning an orange train sign in Queens denotes that in Manhattan it will be on 6th Ave (assuming no G.O.)
Franklin is Black and Rockaway park is Blue
don't forget brown - Nassau
subfan
One interesting thing was that the current colors were adapted from the 1967-78 map. The alone lines (L, G, 7) got to keep their colors, and the others got the colors of the principal express (Broadway N, 8 Ave A, 6 Ave D, 7 Ave 2). The JFK Express got light blue because they wanted it separate, but it was still mostly alongside the A. The 4 was also Red like the 2, and there was also some conflict with the J, so they just gave them new colors. I came up with the crazy idea that of the two remaining colors, the Lex got green because green is one of the 7 main colors of the electromagnetic spectrum, the only one not taken by another line, and the Lex is more important than Nassau. The shuttles got black because they're not really part of a line, and black is not really a color. There are only two other lines for which I figured out why their colors are so. The Flushing probably because of the World's Fair or something and The G because that's the color of the tile band in all of it's alone stations. That's just my theory. This of course assumes that there is any logic to it all.
Next they are going to change the names of the lines to the colors they use on the map, Red Line Green Line etc like Boston, Chic, LA etc just to confuse use more
Next they are going to change the names of the lines to the colors they use on the map, Red Line Green Line etc like Boston, Chic, LA etc just to confuse use more.
Not enough colors exist for this purpose. We have too many lines for that.
What they can do is use the map colors and names the lines after that, but you are right they never will do that, can you Imagine Times Square change form the Fuscia local across the platform, This is the Burgandy line to 241st White Plains Road
The letters and number make some sense.
IND: Notice that until 1997, the IND lines were in order from west to east of it's northern terminal, two lines were at each terminal, three in Queens. The lower the letter, the further west the line is. For example, you have E, F and G. The E is the lowest and therefore goes to 8 Avenue, the westernmost line. The F is next and goes on step east to 6 and the next one G goes even further east to B-Q Crosstown. The southern terminal was assigned based on how convenient it is to run what train there. The IND trains running on BMT lines work that way too.
IRT: Similar to IND, 1, 2, 3 on the West, 4, 5, 6 on the east and 7 even further east! The terminals are set up the same way, except that the 3 is physically west of the 2. But then the 2 is east of 4, so does it matter? South is assigned the same way as IND. The 9 was chosen because there were only two other single digits left and I guess the TA didn't want to go to doubles before exhausting all the singles. I don't know if the fact that the 3 Ave El was 8 matters in their decision.
BMT: I never understood this as well. The Eastern Division was assigned letters J-M, where it makes sense that the J goes via Jamaica and the M via Myrtle. The Z was assigned because it was available. The N-T went to the Southern Division (T was West End), which the Culver was no longer a part of (it was part of the IND D train, the one that goes via Brighton today) although I can't figure out why certain letters went where.
What is the "L" on the Canarsie line supposed to mean. I have seen old pictures when it was refered to as the #16. When I was in high school and it was the LL, I assumed it stood for "Lousey Line".
When it was the BMT the 14th Street Carnasie Line was Route number 16, after 1967/68 Consolidation to letters it was changed to LL since it was a local. In 1986 the double letters were elimated and it was changed to L, it is still the same line, as I stated sometime soon they will name the lines for colors, This is the Red Line change for the yellow, orange green blus and purple lines to who knows where, doors closing
J-M were used for the Eastern Division. J & M are obvious, the K was paired with the J as they follow one another. So the L remains.
11/03/99
1)Last Saturday I noticed the new MVM's a the BMT City Hall station. The standard screen is a bright blue and yellow. Now at the IRT Penn Station (1,2,3,9) MVM's one or two screens are a faded blue and yellow. Are these monitor screens prematurly aging?
2)When you refill a card (add more value) the MVM accepts your card and returns it to when you add more value or cancel transaction. Is there a case,possibly a security thing,when a Metrocard (stolen etc) is retained by the MVM and not returned?
IN yesterdays Daily News Queens section there was an article about new MVM's on the Queens IND subway and new ones to appear in the future. The article mentioned that MVM's will be going outside the "system" and appear in supermarkets,deli's etc. Also the article mentioned and increase in HEET's,those "high wheel" turnstiles in thre future.The old ones were nicknamed the "Iron maidens" and were notoriously token eaters. What will we call the new HEET's,the "Stainless steel maidens"?
Bill Newkirk
"2)When you refill a card (add more value) the MVM accepts your card and returns it to when you add more value or cancel transaction. Is there a case,possibly a security thing,when a Metrocard (stolen etc) is retained by the MVM and not returned?"
I don't think the MVMs are "on-line", but I'll let one of our Station Agent friends confirm this. If they were they could keep a stolen MC. The system has a "negitive list", was called black list but that was politically incorrect. It takes about 24 hours for every turnstile and bus in the system to learn of a negitive listed card. If you can prove to the refund office that it was YOUR card they can find out how much time/money was left on it when it got listed. Mail & Rides therefore have a easy time getting a refund.
Mr t__:^)
They are on-line in a sense that if there is a problem an error message will appear on the screen of our computer in the booth.
Negative listed cards: For turnstiles the display will show "SEE AGENT". I will check the card in my computer which will show that it is a negative listed card.
While not sure, I believe the MVM will probably reject the transaction and ask them to see the agent.
**opinions expressed aree my own and not those of MTA or NYCT***
That makes since, otherwise you could steal a card & move the money to another MC. I wonder if the system is smart enough to see someone doing this just before the card makes it to the negitive list ? It wouldn't be able to stop the transaction, but could negitive list the new card shortly thereafter.
Mr t__:^)
Since there's a thread on MVMs started, I noticed today that there are MVMs at Canal Street BMT, I didn't notice them last Monday. When where they installed (in case someone knows)?
I just read that the MTA is beginning its move to 2 Broadway, but that the building will be occupied no so much by the MTA itself (which I had thought) as by 4,000 employees from the operating agencies.
Who from the Transit Authority is moving to 2 Broadway? What buildings in Downtown Brooklyn are they moving out of? This is something I'd like to know for my job, so anyone who knows the real story please let me know.
There is an article about the MTA's move into 2 Broadway in today's NY Times, page B6, or here on their registration-required web site.
It's a Commercial Real Estate article, so mentions of the move from an MTA standpoint are pretty minimal and vague. It says 2 B'way will become an "operational center" for NYCT and B&T; people will be moved from "leased space" in Manhattan and Brooklyn, and from Randalls Island.
It seems to me that the TA's move into 2 Broadway is the sort of thing that could be bad for the city's economy. Toward the middle of the _Times_ column, it was mentioned that Goldman Sachs also had sought after 2 Broadway, presumably for expansion of their existing operations. With the building now unavailable, Goldman Sachs will have to look elsewhere - quite possibly outside the city, as most other city buildings would cost more than 2 Broadway.
The TA's move into the building will do little or nothing for the economy or the real estate market. I don't believe that they have any plans to add to their staff as a result of the move. Workers will relocate from other sites in the city; while some of them will come from 10 Columbus Circle, which will (well, might) be demolished, other buildings will be left vacant.
In fact, an article in the Sunday Times a few weeks ago talked about Goldman Sachs negotiating to buy some currently vacant waterfront land in Jersey City.
I know of some folks that moved from 130 Livingston. It's now part of MDC, Manhattan Data Center ... if exchange 465 is at 2 Broadway.
Mr t__:^)
I wonder if they are emptying 130 Livingston because their lease is up? If it's a long term lease, perhaps they'll move their head office there, and tear down the transit building at 370 Jay. Its UGLY, and a hotel builder would take the site in a second.
New York's problem is that there is not enough space ANYWHERE right now. The only thing available is the UPPER floors of buildings outside Manhattan that are over 50 years old, and have not been maintained, or very small storefronts in poor neighborhoods.
That is odd about 130 Livingston. It is a relatively new building in the Downtown Brooklyn Skyline.
I believe most MetroCard-related operations are based there. Also NYCT personnel operations (internal newsletter, various other publications) are directed from 130 Livingston.
I would assume that the older building, 370 Jay (a famous institution in it's own right), would be the likely candidate to be vacated in favor of 2 Broadway. It should be interesting to see exactly WHAT divisions of MTA end up in lower Manhattan.
As usual....SubDude
Thats what I heard ten years ago when the TA was leasing it from Citibank. I heard the lease was terminated when Citibank found out of the model boards in Control Center, therefore making it a "permanent" arrangement. It was one possible reason for moving into the new Livingston building. By the way talking of the arrogance of the NYCTA, did anyone notice the MTA logo on a flag at the top of the building a few years ago standing next to Betsy Ross's version? It really reinforces the notion I have that there is a Berlin Wall separating them from the rest of New York and that they operate like a diplomat over a midtown parking space. The MTA flag on public property symbolizes the foreign policies they hide behind when it comes to dealing with our local government.
A New Rail Control Center is being built on West 53rd Street. That location will have a model board fo the entire system and be state of the art.
The TA never leased 370 Jay Street from Citibank. The building has always been owned by the City of New York. Citibank leased space on the first floor, but has been gone for many years, and nobody ever moved into the former bank space.
David
[Thats what I heard ten years ago when the TA was leasing it from Citibank. I heard the lease was terminated when Citibank found out of the model boards in Control Center, therefore making it a "permanent" arrangement. It was one possible reason for moving into the new Livingston building. By the way talking of the arrogance of the NYCTA, did anyone notice the MTA logo on a flag at the top of the building a few years ago standing next to Betsy Ross's version? It really reinforces the notion I have that there is a Berlin Wall separating them from the rest of New York and that they operate like a diplomat over a midtown parking space. The MTA flag on public property symbolizes the foreign policies they hide behind when it comes to dealing with our local government.]
[... 370 Jay Street ... building has always been owned by the City of New York. Citibank leased space on the first floor, but has been gone for many years, and nobody ever moved into the former bank space.]
I've been in a TA "training" facility on the ground floor ????
P.S. to Larry ... MCD is at 34th & 10th Ave not 2 Broadway. I think it where the mainframes call home.
Mr t__:^)
I had spoke to my dad about this. He was tellin me something about going to CI. He really does not want to travel into the city. He prefers to stay in his home borough. BROOKLYN!!!!!!!!!!
3TM
14St. Transfer to the L on the upper level. The M14 on the street level. The next station will be 9St. Transfer to the M8. Stand Clear.......
Congratulations on getting rid of the Republicans -- even if that means you got stuck with the Democrats. Sometimes switching to the other bums gets you a few improvements, at least in the short run.
Can wait for 2001, and NYC term limits.
I spoke with several Republicans who live in Nassau who said they were voting Democratic this time. I believe the vote is due to voter anger, not a new trend. Nassau County has been mismanaged for decades.
Republicans usually champion themselves as tax cutters. First, over the summer, they put in a real estate transfer tax, then only last week, they raised property taxes. This for one of the highest taxed counties in the nation!. Those guys must have been on druges if they thought they could raise property taxes a week before the election and get away with it.
Mabey these Democrats will want to extend some of the Queens subways into Nassau County to ease up congestion on the highways. (Now that is a real fantasy!!)
[Congratulations on getting rid of the Republicans -- even if that means you got stuck with the Democrats. Sometimes switching to the other bums gets you a few improvements, at least in the short run.]
Under the Republican regime, Nassau County has managed to pull off the impossible - run huge deficits despite having a strong economy and staggeringly high tax rates. Anyone who complains that NYC is mismanaged ought to look east over the county line.
As far as transit is concerned, it'll be interesting to see what the new county legislature does with the proposed Nassau Hub light rail. Although Thomas Gulotta (the Republican county supervisor, who wasn't up for re-election this year) had spoken out in favor of the plan, it wasn't his pet project or anything like that. My guess is that the light rail plan might get more serious attention if the Democrats can get the county's finances in order.
Although they didn't say so, I think Nassau's problems go deeper than waste and patronage, which go back a long way. So the Democrats will have more difficulty dealing with the problem than they think. Nassau's problems are:
1) A growing elderly population. Many of those who moved out in the 1950s and 1960s are aging, and once they hit the nursing home/home care age, that means Medicaid. Although the local contribution for the elderly is just 10 percent, I'll bet that expenditure is soaring. Medicaid is a county expenditure in Nassau. NYC's elderly population is falling, as the old people who were left behind by suburbanization are left out.
2) And, I'll bet there are lots of moderate income workers living in illegal second units in Nassau. Those working in the malls don't get health insurance, and this adds to the Medicaid burden.
3) Loss of the business tax base. The one thing that makes NYC's tax burden tolerable is that much of it is carried by businesses in Manhattan south of 96th Street (there are so many incentive programs outside that area that you can practically do business there tax free). In Nassau, the defense industry pulled out, and the value of commercial property plunged, in the 1989-1993 period. NYC was hit too -- its property taxes fell by 33 percent relative to income -- but in Nassau property taxes are the whole thing.
Which brings us to the Nassau Hub. As I mentioned in a prior post, Manhattan, the #1 place in the region, is filling again. But the outer boroughs are losing out to the NJ Waterfront in capturing the close in spillover, and Long Island is losing out to Stamford and central NJ in the rest. In Nassau there is no there, there. If the county could create a major, tax paying Downtown it would be far ahead, but squabbling municipalities might spoil the plan.
When was the last Republican Administration on any level, Fed, State, County or Municipal, do anything for Mass Transit, and where?
Outside of Mayor LaGuardia purchasing the IRT and BMT to merge witht he city owned IND, nothing.
(When have Republicans help mass transit?) They are all in favor of investment in mass transit, outside of older cities where poor and dark skinned people live. You go on the tours of other cities and you find loads of investment in new transit lines, everywhere else. Our job is to pay for it. Our representatives secure money for their friends in health care in exchange.
[(When have Republicans help mass transit?) They are all in favor of investment in mass transit, outside of older cities where poor and dark skinned people live. You go on the tours of other cities and you find loads of investment in new transit lines, everywhere else. Our job is to pay for it.]
Poor and dark skinned people do live outside the older cities and often use transit where they live. I do not expect that ridership on the newer, Sunbelt transit systems - the ones Republicans favor - is 100% Caucasian. Have you heard the "joke" about what MARTA stands for?
To the extent that Republicans dislike New York and some other older cities, it's because these places (especially NYC, of course) give them very few votes. Race is not the direct issue.
Yeah, when I lived in Nassau we used to call the County Exec Thomas Goulotta. No surprise.
SubDude
If I have to choose between the 2 evils (democrats and republicans), then I'd much rather have repbulicans.
Reguardless of who's in charge, Nassau County is still screwed.
It's always healthier -- politically -- for an even balance between Dems and Repubs.
The City, after decades of just Dems in charge -- with Guiliani -- has gotten some Republican representation. Whether we like the Mayor, or not, still having the City's "minority" political party in the Mayoral Administration is healthy for a change.
SubDude
While I don't like one party to ave too much power, I'd rather see republicans than democrats almost everywhere. Republicans like to let people screw up their lives, while democrats prefer doing it themselves.
Doug, that's a great observation.
People think Giuliani is something completely different, but there is a long tradition in NYC of letting the machine run things for a couple of decades, then when it screws up, they elect a reformer, usually under a "fusion" banner.
The reformer almost never lasts more than 2 terms before people get fed up with him for the very reasons he was elected in the first place--he's usually an honest but stubborn moralist.
Then people reembrace the same-old, same-old until the City gets itself in big trouble.
Again.
Giuliani should have tried to groom a successor. He tried an end run around the city charter to stop Green from going to City Hall if he wins the senatorial, but was stopped from doing it. Now we'll be stuck with Green at Gracie if it's Senator Rudy. There seem to be no viable Republicans for the '01 mayoral race but there are a couple (just a couple) decent Dems. Hevesi maybe? Lord help us if it's, say, Green vs Sharpton. I'll move to Hoboken.
The reality is if that had the measure passed, there would have to be an election and Green or some other Democrat would have won it anyway. New York gets a republican mayor once every fifty years (LaGuardia was the last one). Rudy can't groom anyone to suceed him because there is no one out there to groom.
The Democrats made a lot of noise about this issue, but as usual it was all spin. A year from now, no one will remebember this vote when we are choosing our next senator.
My own prediction, neither Hillary or Rudy will end up running. Both of them are making a lot of noise, but neither will run. Right now they are both having lots of fun playing there little games, but neither is a serious candidate.
NYC gets a Republican more like every quarter-century. You forgot Lindsay.
NYC Republicans are not usually Republicans in a national sense. My family was involved in local NYC politics a lot, and my cousin Sy Halpern was a Republican Queens congressman. He explained to me that an NYC Republican is really an anti-Tammany Democrat.
Of course Tammany passed on as an effective Democratic organization four decades ago, but the principle still fits.
A counterpoint is that out in the 'burbs disgruntled Republicans sometimes run, and win, as Democrats. Carolyn McCarthy is one of the better known examples.
Lindsay was not a real Republican. He was originally a Democrat and switched in 1965 when he ran for mayor. The Republicans hated him so much that they denied him the nomination in 1969 and nominated Mario Propachino instead. Lindsay switched back to the Democratic party in 1972 when he made his presidental run, which destroyed his already tarnished image and ruined his career.
No, Lindsay always ran as a Republican, including four successful congressional runs in the "Silk Stocking" district of Manhattan. He ran as a Republican with Liberal party support in the 1965 Mayoral race. In 1969, he lost the Republican nomination, IIRC, to John Marchi of Staten Island. Procacino was a Democrat and ran as such. Lindsay ran on the Liberal line only and won in a three-way split, essentially on a platform that NYC didn't burn down while Newark and other cities did.
His political career was pretty much in shambles by the time of his switch to the Democratic Party, where he thought he'd fit in. When he didn't run for renomination in 1973 his popularity had a bit of a renaissance.
Lindsay was an attractive and intelligent man and the first person I ever met who taught me what "charisma" meant, but like some other "golden boys," he was too full of himself and the rightness of his opinions.
As to his being a "real" Republican, my point in my earlier posting was that politicians who run on the GOP line in NYC are often not "real" Republicans, in the national sense.
[re John Lindsay]
[When he didn't run for renomination in 1973 his popularity had a bit of a renaissance.]
If he had run, and won, in 1973, would we be able to ride the Second Avenue subway today? Or would there have been a Lindsay Shuffle?
I don't know if the line would be there but I would estimate that most of the elevated lines would have collapsed by now.
If [Lindsay] had run, and won, in 1973, would we be able to ride the Second Avenue subway today? Or would there have been a Lindsay Shuffle?
Lindsay's last words should have been Aprés moi, le deluge. Not only wouldn't we have had the 2nd Avenue subway, the City probably couldn't have avoided bankruptcy.
[Lindsay's last words should have been Aprés moi, le deluge. Not only wouldn't we have had the 2nd Avenue subway, the City probably couldn't have avoided bankruptcy.]
Hmmm. Guess I'll have to stop blaming Dishonest Abe for the Slaughter on Second Avenue :-)
(Now as far as municipal bankruptcy is concerned, I'll stand by my previous statement that it would have been an excellent development in the long run - and, had it occurred, the Second Avenue subway might be open today).
The only good thing Lindsay brought to New York were the cool looking slant R-40 cars. Yeah, I know their large gaps weren't safe, but we DID get a change of pace from the overly boxy cars that were prevalant at that time.
SubDude
IIRC, Lindsay also specified that, henceforth, the city would only buy air-conditioned buses.
I'd say there would have been a shuffle. The City's finiancial condition was in a shambles by the dawn of the 1970s and even with all the smoke and mirrors it was evident that public $$ to keep things going was in short supply. The when the 75 crunch hit, it hit with a bang.
[If he had run, and won, in 1973, would we be able to ride the Second Avenue subway today?]
On Transit Transit last night is a quick shot of Rockefeller & Lindsey doing the first shoveling for the 2nd Ave Stubway.
Rockfeller and Lindsay....
What were they shoveling?
They were swinging a pick & shoveling the first dirt for the 2nd Ave Stubway (a cast of hundreds were watching).
Mr t__:^)
I think Paul meant they were shoveling something else...
When Lindsey was mayor he and the budget experts helped introduce the "370-day year" which allowed revenues from the next fiscal year to be counted as part of the current one for budget purposes. Since he was the comptroller at the time Beame didn't call Lindsey on it, so when the bill came due, like a game of musical chairs, he was the one caught with no safe place to land.
BTW -- The House Republicans in Congress floated a similar "lets add a few days of next year onto this year" plan in their recent budget talks, as a way of avoiding dipping into the Social Security surplus. It's nice to know some people have learned so much from the past 25 years.
(Congress tried a similar trick)
There must be some type of "how to" manual for fiscally irresponsible Republicans somewhere. Which leads us to the MTA. They claim that improvements like the 2nd Avenue Subway and LIRR to GCT will be finished in the next 5 year plan. In reality, there will be no such plan, because the MTA will be so deep in debt. After 2005, the MTA will be borrowing to pay off bonds, and will be unable to maintain, let alone finish improve, the system.
They did it last time, and I thought it was because there was a recession on, and no other money to spend. What can you say about this?
Lindsey's policies drove the city into bankruptcy. I don't know of any mayor in recent memory that really helped transit. Most of the transit money and power comes from the state of New York. I don't think I will ever live to see the 2nd Ave subway or the LIRR east side access. The MTA;s record on building new lines is unblemished by success. Since they were created in 1965 they built a 1 mile el relocation in Queens (Archer Ave) and the 63rd street tunnel which doesn't connect with anything on the Queens side.
At the risk of heresy, I've thought about it, and I think city residents would be better off in the capital plan doesn't happen. If it does pass, the MTA will go even deeper in debt, and the LIRR to GCT will get built, but everything in the city will just get "studied." The city will be putting up money for this, but not the state and suburban counties.
If the MTA plan doesn't pass, the MTA will have to live year to year with pay-as-you go money from a variety of sources. The city has demanded that its share go for the N to LaGuardia, so that will get built. The state will contribute nothing as will the suburbs, so they will get nothing but their share of pay-as-you go money. The R30, R38 and R40 may have to hang on a little longer, as will some of the RTS, but that's OK. No deal is better than a bad deal in the long run.
Same thing with the Port Authority. They'll still have money for the airports, because those make money, and they can't use the Passenger Facility Charge collected in NYC for spending in NJ.
Some say half a loaf is better than none. I say I'm sick of paying for a whole loaf and having someone else get a loaf and a half. Better to tread water until a fair deal is on the table. Many things will have to change to get to that point. I'm afraid Silver is angling to get paid, then sell us out again.
An interesting point of view Larry. I'm going to have to think about it some more before agreeing or disagreeing. Wonder what Peter will have to say about it ?
Mr t__:^)
on the Queens side.>
That's not fair. The Queens Connector will open for revenue service in 2001. Granted it has taken *25* or so years for that to happen, but this is a bad example of an otherwise fair point.
2001 Is a long way away and that line is not open yet. However, I hope you are right and it does open.
Unfortunatly for East side commuters, that's about as far as construction got before NYC's financial pyramid collapsed.
Lindsay's popularity declined when the bills came due. Who is the most powerful politician in NYC today? John Lindsay. NYC still spends far more than the average local government debt service (on debts run up by Lindsay), pensions (granted by Lindsay), and the health and social services industries (the base of the "reform" Democrats that Lindsay rode to power). It spends less on schools, infrastructure, parks, and cultural affairs. And its taxes are still high. The decisions John Lindsay made have been railed against, but not unmade. And there is still no 2nd Avenue subway. Politicians drive.
Right, Paul. Lindsay is what I like to call one of those politicos that was shaped from the "Rockefeller Republican" mold.
BTW, isn't a "Rockefeller Republican" a term used to describe NYC-based GOP members?
SubDude
BTW, isn't a "Rockefeller Republican" a term used to describe NYC-based GOP members?
Hmmm...
Quite a few liberal NYC Republicans predated Rockefeller's governorship.
I would say a Rockfeller Republican today represents a fairly liberal, internationalist (his brother was foudner of the Trilateral Commission)--I would call Bush Sr. a "Rockefeller Republican."
Perhaps Bill Bratton should give it a try. It would be funny having a mayor of NYC with a Boston accent.
If Bill Bratton ran, he would be more hated than Giuliani in no time flat.
He's every bit as charming as Giuliani is, but what does he know of governance, other than police work.
As a Republican I can vouch for the fact that my party has the ability to shoot from the lip and sometimes screw things up. Big mouth Gingrich was a good example of that. However, give the Democrats carte blanche without Republicans able to curb their tax and spend habits, and WATCH OUT!!! You better keep a strong and sturdy hand on your wallet because it could disappear.
(What does Bill Bratton know of government, other than police work). Perhaps he knows how to delegate, unlike you know who, so perhaps something other than police work would get done.
[ Perhaps Bratton can delegate ]
Maybe. But my sense of Bratton is someone who not only cannot delegate, but thinks he knows more than the boss.
And as to his ego, when Bratton left, The Times allowed that he had been largely responsible for a drop in crime, but now that he was gone, crime would level off, in not increase.
Crime's continued to decline.
There are some things that the top man should not delegate, if he knows what he's doing. Dinkins delegated everything.
True. And to add to that: I've heard that Bratton's ego is almost as substantial as Giuliani's. That's why they were always "locking horns" on both policy and publicity issues. Their personalities were too similar for them to work together.
Just a tad, SubDude
Forget Bratton.
City Council Speaker Peter Vallone has shown he can work with all communities in NYC and he has a good background in municipal government.
Don't forget, he was the only member of the City Council who had the backbone to stand up to Giuliani's bullying tactics.
I'd give him my vote tomorrow if I could.
Just a bit......SubDude
Vallone? I'm afraid he'll lead Archie Bunker's last theft: everyone in the White Welfare crowd gets paid, then moves out, just like in the 1950s and 1960s. Lets just say I haven't seen any evidence that he is interested in the long run.
Still, he scares me less than Mark Green. And none of them have to worry what I think, because I can't vote in a primary.
I'm a Republican but the yada yada that Joe Mondella and local guys were trying to hand us, plus that tax increase they tryed to slip through was just too much for me. If Joe had helped Tom Gulotta solve the problem years ago (when he first tryed to do something about it) Nassau wouldn't be in the shape it's in. I think the Republicans got what they deserved, maybe they won't be so complacent about SERVING the public in this county.
Nassau Hub ... I don't think it has a chance in hell. It would be a lot of money for a stand alone system. I think there's a lot of room for improving the bus service before there's enough volume to justify a new LRV system.
Mr t__:^)
re Nassau Hub light rail ... as pro-transit as I am, I just can't figure out what purpose the system would serve. More specifically, try as I will, I simply can't determine who its target population would be. Which leads to the possibility that it would be _no one_.
If the Nassau County pols are really interested in spending megabucks on transit (yeah right), let them add a third or ideally fourth track to the LIRR mainline.
If they want to concentrate commercial development in that area, they could at least put an LIRR spur in the middle of it, so workers from NYC could get there. The problem is that anywhere you build anything in Nassau, it will create a traffic problem, because everyone drives. So you either don't build anything, and don't get any business taxes, or you build anyway with transit, live with the traffic, but give people a transit option if they are smart enough to take it.
[If they want to concentrate commercial development in that area (Nassau Hub), they could at least put an LIRR spur in the middle of it, so workers from NYC could get there.]
With only two tracks on the LIRR mainline, expanding reverse-commuter service is all but impossible. Adding a spur line wouldn't make much difference. Now, if the idea is to make transportation easier for NYC residents who work outside the standard 9-5 workday, such as people working at Roosevelt Field, the spur line idea would make more sense. In other words, there's no capacity for increasing reverse-commuter service, but off-peak service is a different matter.
Reactivating the Garden City Secondary would be a relatively inexpensive start.
Although I couldn't care less about the Nassau Hub (I live near there & don't want it "in my backyard" it is not impossible if you use the Hempstead Line and the tracks that lead to Roosevelt Field. The tracks are in use to the yard alongside Stewart Avenue (The Circus Train uses it) and there are still tracks crossing Stewart towards Roosevelt Field and Roosevelt Raceway. I don't know what shape they're in, I remember freight trains going through there years ago.
Is Suffolk County as crowded and congested as Nassau. When I moved from New York in 1954, Nassau County was suburbs with a lot of open space, and Suffolk was country, and lots of trees and forests and abundant space. How is it today? I haven't been to Suffolk County since 1953.
Suffolk County is suburban as far east as Farmingville and Patchoge. It has more people than Nassau, but is not as wealthy. The rich on the east end want to secede and set up a new county, Peconic, so they don't have to pay taxes for the growing low-income minority population in the centers of the old towns. They give environmental excuses.
[Suffolk County is suburban as far east as Farmingville and Patchoge. It has more people than Nassau, but is not as wealthy. The rich on the east end want to secede and set up a new county, Peconic, so they don't have to pay taxes for the growing low-income minority population in the centers of the old towns. They give environmental excuses.]
A few comments on Suffolk County. Farmingville is no longer the eastern border of the suburban zone. I live one town east in Medford, which is getting quite heavily developed even though there still are some open areas. Along the North Shore, suburban development has spread at least as far east as Shoreham and Wading River, and just south of that into Middle Island. There also are patches of suburban-style development farther east, most notably in Manorville, Mastic-Shirley and Riverhead, although these are largely outside the commuter zone (but maybe not, all these people driving to Ronkonkoma station have to be coming from somewhere ...) I'm not counting the Hamptons as suburbs even though that's just what many parts of them closely resemble.
Comparing the relative wealth of Nassau and Suffolk is a bit complicated. My suspicion is that there's a mean vs. median distinction involved. Nassau has a substantial number of truly stinking filthy rich people, far more than Suffolk, which boosts its mean income. If you compared medians, however, I suspect there wouldn't be much of a difference. Both counties have their shares of the poor, who in Suffolk's case at least tend to be concentrated in a few relatively small locations (North Amityville, Wyandanch, Huntington Station, North Bellport, Central Islip, a few others). One thing worth noting is that Suffolk seems to be getting the lion's share of Long Island's commercial and industrial development. It has some major concentrations of jobs - the Melville office parks, the Hauppauge Industrial Park, the growing commercial/industrial area around MacArthur Airport - which seem to be bigger than anything in Nassau.
Finally, I haven't heard much lately about the "Peconic County" movement. Most of the typical county resident's tax burden goes to the support of the local schools, so it's unlikely that many people on the East End would be concerned about supporting the poor elsewhere in the county.
Nassau (where I live, in East Meadow) is probably like Queens was when you left. There are alot of office bldgs. Meadowbrook Hospital in East Meadow is now the Nassau County Medical Center at 19 floors. You can see it from the Empire State Bldg.
Suffolk, on the other hand, (except for the Hamptons) is one big trailor park.
JUST KIDDING!!
Jeff
I think Long Island made a bad choice. It added lanes to the LIE and Grand Central, at huge expense, instead of tracks on the LIRR. Politicians drive.
A good start would be getting routes like the N27 to run on evenings and Sundays, since alot of the traffic in the area comes from areas served by this route.
It would be nice to see Nassau county have a subway system though, not just the HUB line but others too, because it's getting too crowded here and we need adequate mass transit. I know NIMBY's freak when they hear the word subway, but maybe by the time it gets built we can turn them all to stone.
"This is a Long Beach bound Shore line train, next stop will be Roosevelt Field, please stand clear of the closing doors."
A couple of the problems are the frequency of the buses & when they end service for the day, e.g.
Last year my daughter wanted to take the N15 from Mineola LIRR vs. Stonybrook to Jamaica, then reverse to get East. Her boy friend tryed this a couple of times too (he was comming from Glen Cove). Neither could get on the bus because it was full. Second example, my other daughter was willing to take N16 to Nassau Community College, but for a night student the last bus leaves just before class gets out.
Mr t__:^)
Brooklyn and Queens are part of Long Island, yet nobody seems to know that. As a result, we must SECEDE from Long Island. This will be achieved by a canal along the border, if necessary to make the canal easier to build, there would be some land transfer. Nassau and Suffolk would stay Long Island. NYC would get ROYAL ISLAND.
Someone once wrote a satirical column in Newsday a while back that proposed that they should cut L.I. off from the Queens border and turn it around. Then Montauk & Orient Pt would be attached to NYC. Great Neck, Elmont, Valley Stream, & the 5 Towns would then be on the East End. The Hamptons would be a short commute for the rich. There would be a big lake at the city line between both forks. Suffolk would rapidly build up. The ferries to Connecticut would run either from Captree or Atlantic Beach. Ocean Pkway (the one on L.I., not Bklyn) would run along the scenic L.I. Sound. The Montauk Lighthouse would become a really big tourist attraction since it would be at the Queens Line by Little Neck. The major problem would be the Belmont Stakes. Who would want to travel that far to see it?
(Brooklyn and Queens should secede from Long Island).
A little irony here: in the late 1950s, the Catholic Church established the Diocese of Rockville Center, breaking Nassau and Suffolk off from the Diocese of Brooklyn, which still includes Queens. There were just too many Catholics on Long Island, so they felt they had to divide it up somehow.
As a result, the Diocese of Brooklyn and Queens is THE POOREST in the United States. A Diocese operates a little like a state government, with common resources redistributed to poor parishes and poor Catholic Schools. But in the Diocese of Brooklyn and Queens, there aren't that many rich parishes left to redistribute from. Meanwhile, the Diocese of Rockville Center is one of the richest in the country.
No such division in the Diocese of New York. Westchester, Rockland, Putnam, Staten Island and Manhattan parishes must still support all those poor parishes in the Bronx.
Who cut that deal anyway?
Larry, someone I know who's very involved with Catholic Charities had told me the same thing many years ago. It blew my mind, since I always thought the the Diocese of New York INCLUDED all the five boroughs (Like a numb-skull, as a youngster, I assumed the Church ran things like City government -- all boroughs being inclusive -- wrong!).
SubDude
P.S.: one of the biggest land owners in New York is the Catholic Church! (So don't be fooled when they say they're hurting for cash!)
(One of the biggest landowners in NYC is the Catholic Church).
Yeah, but while I'm sure the NY Diocese could get a lot for St Pats, the land owned by the Diocese of Brooklyn and Queens isn't worth much. Its a liability, not an asset, because it costs money to maintain, yet you can't close a local Parish without a fight. For example, there are too many parishes in Park Slope, but whose do you close? Closing a parish means political war.
Since the established churches won't sell, new groups have to build their own buildings, which they usually do in residential neighborhoods. This is a big land use issue, with race, class, ethnic tension, and worst of all parking involved.
Speaking of Catholic Charities of B&Q, after my wife and I had a house and enough in the bank, we figured we ought to start doing our social duty, and sent Catholic Charities a check. It absolutely blew them away. They neither solicited or received hardly any donations from anyone! All the money comes from government contracts. So they've tapped into the social service money machine as well.
[This is a big land use issue, with race, class, ethnic tension, and worst of all parking involved.]
Heh heh, only in New York is parking a hotter issue than race or ethnicity :-)
I just printed out the Metrolink journals and I am for the idea? I think that this idea would be better than the MTA 2Av subway plan. The only flaw I see in this thing would be NIMBYism. Especially in Queens and probably in Bklyn. What do you think are the pros and cons of MetroLink?
3TM
34St. Transfer to the J and Z across the platform making express stops. The M16 and M34 up on the street level. Fulton St bound P making local stops. The next local stop will be 28St. Step in and Stand clear of the closing doors please..........
My favorite plan is RUE4the subway. That's the one I had in my sig. Now my pet project is ROYAL ISLAND. Maybe the RIRR would be better serviced, and the RIE would have less traffic. The East River east of Randalls Island could become the Royal Island Sound. And what would achieve this? The Long Royal Canal.
i'd like an explanation of the difference between Fanning the brake handle to Lapping.. I prefer to use small maneuvers of the brake handle which i feel give a smoother more comforable stop ...
Fanning is a rapid sequence of full-apply/full-release motions. It will use up air rapidly and cause jerky stops. The method you mentioned (small maneuvers) is what we teach at Seashore on self-lapping brakes. Of course on "straight air" it's a bit more complicated, as you must lap the brakes manually.
By the way, "fanning" the brakes is just as bad when driving an air brake equipped motor vehicle. When I was a school bus instructor, we showed our students how the air reservoir depletes rapidly when the brakes are fanned; the "lollipop" comes down, the buzzer sounds, and eventually, the emergency brakes apply at 60 lbs. Passengers tend to be thrown about too - also not a good thing!
/*By the way, "fanning" the brakes is just as bad when driving an air brake equipped motor vehicle. When I was a school bus instructor, we
showed our students how the air reservoir depletes rapidly when the brakes are fanned; the "lollipop" comes down, the buzzer sounds, and
eventually, the emergency brakes apply at 60 lbs. Passengers tend to be thrown about too - also not a good thing! */
So *that's* what those little red lollypop things are for!!! I always wondered but never was able to find out....
I have not seen a lolly pop warning flag on a bus in 25 years Thanks for the memories. I had forgoten about them.
Do they still use them in your states?
The "lollipops" are officially called "wig-wags."
Even new school buses have them. I still visit my friends at Pierce Coach Line in Roslyn every now and then to see/drive the new equipment.
I didn't know that school busses even had brakes. The next time you see a noisy group of kids on the subway (NO, don't look for me in one, I won't be there) just think about what they could be riding in instead.
Those are still on the newer buses. I see them but cant get close enough to read the fine print on the handle. What do they do anyway?
They seem to be connected to the ceiling.
Tough world we live in when there are people fanning the brakes but fortunately in the railroads, you are given a practical. In NJT, I would have had an Amtrak road foreman with a cup of coffee on the console filled 1/8 inch below the rim of the cup. You were required to make smooth and accurate station stops without spilling the coffee. The NYCTA school car TSSs state they don't appreciate those who fan the brakes but since the training is so cheaply shortened, I'd bet money that the TSSs are drinking the coffee before they put the cup on the console, that is if they would do a test like that at all. One of the worst "fan fan man" I know has over 15 years as a T/O. The TA just doesn't give a damn if you crawl to the ten car marker because of the 5 minute lateness window involved in making the train look on time.
A Motor Instructor informed the reason for so many brake problems is due to fanning the brakes causing faster wear of the apply/release magnets which she attests to since it was one her bads habits while pounding the road... NO names will be mentioned please please...
Is there anyone who posts on SubTalk planning on going to the big Railroadiana Show in Gaithersburg this coming weekend?
I didn't know about it, but I now live in Bethesda, MD - I'll try to make it there.
Wayne
It's on Sunday, November 7th, and will be held at the Montgomery County Fairgrounds starting at 9AM. I think the admission is $6.00.
Per PATH's Director:
they are planning on submitting a ****proposal**** for new cars which will result in the PA-1 to PA-3 cars being retired and the PA-4 (the 800 series Numbers) being overhauled to A/C propulsion. They are not sure of seating arrangements and they might have CCTV. NO PLANS YET! so dont ask, Please!!
They (PA-5) will have 3 sets of doors and will pretty much resemble the PA-4 due to clearance profile issues. (A PATH car will run on the IRT but IRT cars can***not*** run on PATH due to truck and profile issues. In fact, when PATH runs Sperry Rail Cars they can only use a speicifc car-some others have gotten stuck in the tunnels. PATH cars also have a different truck arrangement
I'm wondering what the maximum possible length of the Third Avenue El trains was ... It is the opinion of one of our distinguished
list posters that the usual length was five cars... However when
I rode the El from Manhattan to the Bronx, I seem to remember
that some trains were longer than five cars...
Does anyone have a copy of the fairly recent book on the Third
El handy? If so, would he/she take a look at the pix, and see
if there were any trains longer than five cars?
At any rate, no matter how long the trains were, I enjoyed
riding them in the summer in both Manhattan and the Bronx, versus the Manhattan part of the Lexington Ave. subway....
Best wishes to all...
Morton Belcher
All of the stations in the Bronx were equipped to handle trains that were 5 IRT length (51ft) cars long. I doubt the older Manhattan part could handle trains of any greater length.
In Lawrence Stelter's book "By The El", most pictures that show a complete train, seem to be five car trains. There is one picture on page 63 that shows a downtown local that appears to be six cars.
The Q-types, which ran on the 3rd Ave. El from about 1950 until the Manhattan portion was abandoned in 1955, we permanently coupled into sets of 3 cars, so I would guess that they ran as 6-car trains.
One thing to remember, the original El cars (gate cars, MUDC and Q-types) were 48' long, the subway cars (composites, Lo-Vs, R12s, etc.) were 51' long.
-- Ed Sachs
I also checked in the book By The El, and there are 2 places where I could distinguish 6 cars. That book is a very warm book of the el and the streets below.
I also checked a video I have of the last days of the 3rd Ave. L, in which I counted 7 cars on a train that was heading into the city. Most of trains shown had 5 cars or 3 cars. That video, about 5-10 minutes in length is also a very warm account of the el's final days.
I can remember as a kid, the Bronx Park spur of the Third Avenue EL, the EL consisted of five car mixed bag of ancient Low V's and five car trains of R-12 trains.
I don't think there were ever any 5 car trains of R-types on that line, just 4 car trains. I think the R types may have been too heavy for the older sections.
Funny I heard stories of the R12 cars having their dynamic brake disabled for the el. There were a couple of very early numbered such as 5714 for scrap about ten years ago at Coney Island that I found the #5 fuses holders removed from the service panels. The welding car R12s scrapped in '92 that were used for derailments also had the #5 fuses and fuse holders removed. I know because of a fatality, the TWU fought for a rule change mandating an inboard conductor's position, but the TA wrote the bulletin so only when equipment is mixed. Therefore in the IRT, the R12/14 cars ended up on the head end in most cases because they were part of a barn's overall fleet but since the R10s stayed together to make up almost the entire barn's fleet, they never mixed them.
The 3 Avenue Thru-Exp ran with 7 Composites and a few Gates.
The 3 Avenue Lcl-Exp ran with 7 MUDC and a few Composites.
The 3 Avenue Local ran with 4 or 5 MUDC and 3 MUDC during owl.
This was circa 1938.
Larry,RedbirdR33
Lets say for discussion sake, a new commuter railroad system is being built. Now what are the advantages of a 3rd rail system verses a Catenary system. I mean in the areas of maintenace, building the system, and what type of rolling stock can be used.
Also why doesn't MN (on the New Haven line) run Catenary all the way down to GCT?
If a new system were being built? If it had to be electric, it'd be catenary, though I can't think of a commuter system in the US that's electrifying besides Caltrain.
MN used to go right to the junction of the Harlem line with the overhead, but cut it back so that if a train goofs the switchover, it won't tie up traffic. And the wires below mount Vernon were really bad too I think. I doubt they could run overhead in all the way due to clearances in GCT. Given the complexity of the M-2, which probbly translates to high costs to maintain, plus lower reliability, I'd sassume if they COULD do it, they would have already.
#rd rail might be a bit less to keep going, and maybe to install, but you lose out becauser you need substations everywhere - the LIRR has them every mile or so. Metro-North's New Haven line has one every 10 miles. That's an amazing cost savings. Also, overhead allows you nice high voltages, which means punchy equipment, though it's slightly heavier. And it's more standard, for what it's worth.
Here's something to ponder - what if the LIRR was done on the PRR's standard 11kv system? Would they get GG-1s? P-5s? Would the entire system get wired? Would we have Silverliners? Catenary only M-2s? Would it still be 25hz, or would they have changed over to 60hz?
In short, how do you think the system would be different? The same?
Oooo that sounds like a homework assignment....
Catenary usually works out cheaper and is now the standard for all new UK electrificaion projects except where exisitng systems are extended. Having said that extesions and replacements are being fitted with an alloy conductor rail which I believe cuts down the need for so many sub stations.
Simon
Swindon UK
Restricting access to the ROW is also a consideration
In subway or rappid transit service areas it is easier to keep people and critter off the ROW. In suburban service it is not so easy.
I expect that is why Chicago has not converted all of the yellow line to allow interchange of equipment on all lines.
I hope the yelow lives on though because it is the only North Shore Canteary still up and running
Restricting access to the ROW is also a consideration
In subway or rappid transit service areas it is easier to keep people and critters off the ROW. In suburban service it is not so easy.
I expect that is why Chicago has not converted all of the yellow line to allow interchange of equipment on all lines.
I hope the yelow lives on though because it is the only North Shore Canteary still up and running
Clearance problems prevent the extension of catenary not only into GCT and the Park Ave. tunnel but also at a number of overpasses in the Bronx. A New Haven train with its pantograph up would not fit through Fordham station, for example.
If this is a poll, I'll vote for third rail. At night, in the winter, with a light coating of sleet on the third rail, the electrical displays that a moving train produces are not soon forgotten.
Realistically, though, I believe that higher speeds are possible with catenary, so I suppose that choice would prevail.
Would it be worth gradually shifting the LIRR, and the Hudson and Harlem lines, to catenary so they could interchange, as the RPA would like? How much would that cost, relative to the usual maintenance and replacement of third rails over time? Posters imply catenary is fairly inexpensive to install, and a reduction in power stations would reduce operating costs.
Why are more power stations needed for 3rd rail? Are they that much less efficent than overheads?
With DC its not the power stations you need, its the substations. The main reason you need many many substations is because DC can not be transformed. A higher voltage electrical current looses less to resistance as it travels so it travels further and more juce gets to where you need it. Also with higher voltages you can get away with useing a thinner conducting conduit which further decreases resistance. Because DC can not be transformed it can not be transmitted at high voltages. A GG-1 took in 11,000 Volts of AC and transformed it to about 340 for the motors. With a DC locomotive it is WYTIWYG (T=touch) and the DC can't be much over 3000 Volts because the motors with go "ZAP-HISS-SMOKE!!!" However 3rd rail DC was used because 1) even with all the substations it was still cheaper than overhead catenary and 2) DC electronics are simpler and before rectifiers you needed straight DC.
Just out of interest, to my knowledge 3rd rail is associated with DC, and overhead with DC or AC. Has anyone ever experimented or implemented 3rd rail with AC?
It's always DC. I believe there's an actual reason why it can't work (safely) on AC. I read in a book somewhere that the highest voltage ever used on third rail was about 2,500 volts, which was used for about 1 year on some interurban system out west. It was NOT sucessful, and had large problems with arcing, corrosion, zapping things/people, and more. 600 - 800 volts seems to be the popular range, though Bart uses 1000, and supposedly, a few european systems use 1,500.
I may be in need of a physics lesson here, if so, please be patient.
As I understand it, in order to move a train, you either need a high voltage or a high current electricity supply. High voltage supplies are more likely to jump across gaps, and so are ruled out for 3rd rail. Hence, a 3rd rail supply has to be low voltage/high current. This means that frequent substations are needed, and a thick conductor rail, otherwise you either get unworkable voltage drop, or you melt the conductor rail. HOWEVER, I seem to recall that for any given current/voltage, the heating/voltage drop for AC is less problematic than for DC. Also (again for unfathomable technical reasons) Europe seems to have decided that AC motors are good, DC motors are bad, so that DC supplied trains are often fitted with inverters and AC motors these days.
So, here is my next question: would a low voltage AC 3rd rail supply be possible in theory, if so, could it be made to be in any way superior to low voltage 3rd rail DC?
They don't do AC in Europe, do they? I thought they are still in DC land. All my friends accross the ocean keep commenting on how "novel" and "radical" modern AC traction is.
"AC" traction, and the means of transmission are 2 totally unrelated things. AC traction is induction motors and inverters. That's new stuff.
You can have DC traction on an AC powered system(As the E-33/44/50/60, AEM-7, Silverliners, M-2s, etc have). You can have AC traction on an AC system, or you can have DC on DC, or DC on AC. AC traction is new, AC *transmission* is old (1908 - New Haven RR).
BTW - the TGV can run at 25kv 50hz AC, 3kv DC, 1.5kv DC, 750v DC, and 15kv 16 2/3 hz. Though not all trains support all those modes.
I was refering to AC traction.
I was fascinated with the plethora of items concerning old TV shows which permeated this site the past few days, and I was wondering if any of you out there are old enough or know some people in their late 50's or early 60's who remember the great radio days of the late l940's when radio was king and TV hadn't made its appearance except in a few homes. What does this have to do with the subway? Well, all of you know I'm the Sea Beach Man, but only when we were going someplace. On Sunday evenings when we had to go home I wasn't so particular. I just wanted to get home as fast as I could, and if the Brighton Express or the West End was faster or more convenient so be it. Why?
Because on Sunday evenings I had to hear Sam Spade, private detective, starring Howard Duff. That was my all time favorite show and I must have loved it more than the subway because I gave up the Sea Beach for Sam Spade.
I used Wildroot Cream Oil, because Sam Spade did, and it sponsored his show.
But your name's not Charlie.
Rim Shot!:>)
Karl B. So did I. Maybe you remember the jingle.
Oh, you better get Wild Root Cream Oil Charlie
It keep your hair in trim.
It is non-alcoholic Charlie
It's made with soothing Lanolin
You better get Wild Root Cream Oil Charlie
Start using it today
And you'll have a hard time Charlie
Keeping all those gals away.
Get Wildroot right away.
HOW ABOUT THAT?
I can't believe that you remembered every word of that jingle!!!
Hey Karl: You ought to see my memory of baseball games 50-55 years ago. Uncanny. However, I could be looking at one of my students and just plain forget their names. Wierd. But I'm a strange bird, and my pleasant memories I wouldn't give up for all the money anyone could give me. Sam Spade was my favorite radio show, and as I said I would even ride the West End and Brighton Beach instead of my beloved Sea Beach if it would get home in time for Sunday night's Sam Spade.
Were you in New York the day that WWII ended? I was out in Brooklyn and the whole borough went wild. The celebrations when our beloved Dodgers won the pennant did not hold a candle to the day the war ended. The motormen on the el trains were even sounding their whistles. My dad was convinced that they would get in trouble for doing that. My memory of fifty years ago is much better than of what happened five or ten years ago. They say it has something to do with old age.
My personal favorite radio show was The Lone Ranger, and yes, I bought Cheerios too, since it was the show's sponsor. I can remember when they spelled it Cheerioats!
I remember some soaps, but I can t remember their names, Jack Benny followed by Phil Harris and Alice Faye, Amos and Andy(played by white people) Gunsmoke, some will come back to me if people remind me. We got our first TV For my 6th birthday at ZIM on 86th St near Bay Parkway, a 10 inche Admiral with radio and record player
TV did not arrive at our house until 1952 in the form of a 17 inch Admiral table model. Admiral must have sold a lot of TVs in those days. I'll bet yours was a lot earlier.
We got ours in February, 1950. They were televising UN Meetings then. Boy was that boring. The Soviet Ambassador was Jacob Malik. I despised him from day one.
When we got ours in 1952, WPIX, Channel 11 had a show at 5:30 every night called Six Gun Playhouse. They showed old westerns starring guys like Bob Steele, Ken Maynard, Hoot Gibson and Ray "Crash" Corrigan. I always wanted to eat dinner by the TV which made my Mom very unhappy!
I remember that now. Thanks for jogging my memory. Bob Steele never wore a neckerchief, I rememeber that, too. By the way, for a long time my nickname was Crash. Many of my friends called me that, though I haven't been known by that nickname in 30 years.
Bob Steele had a lifetime career in the westerns. He went from playing the hero in the 1930's to the most despicable of bad guys in the 1950's and 60's. I always confused "Crash" Corrigan with Allan "Rocky" Lane, and that is strange, because the only thing they had in common was that they both wore two guns.
6 Gun Playhouse, oh yea I remember that, Ken Maynard had a brother named Bob Maynard who also made movies. I got to know Ken quite well in the late 50s in North Hollywood, his son and I played Baseball together for 2 years in High School and Sandlot(Jeff)
Try Search for Tomorrow and Love of Life. Do they sound familiar? Besides Sam Spade, the other radio shows I loved were Time for Buelah, Inspector Hartstone of the Death Squad, and the FBI In Peace and War.
Hartstone was on Tuesdays, FBI on Thursdays, and Buelah on Wednesdays.
The FBI was sponsored by Lava Soap.
Nothing gets hands cleaner and faster than Lava Soap, that's L A V A.
LAVA LAVA
DUN DUN DUN DUN DUNT DA DUN
DUNT DA DON DUN DA DUN DUN DA DEN
DUM DUM DUM DUM DEM DA DEM.
Boy I miss Harry and Burt Piel (Bob and Ray)
"You certainly have a flair for the dramatic, Burt".
Karl: Believe it or not, my favorite cowboy was the Lone Ranger. Not Roy Rogers, or Hopalong Cassady or Gene Autry, but Clayton Moore's Lone Ranger. I even wore a mask when we played Cowboys and Indians. As far as WW II ending, I remember when Truman announced Japan's agreement to surrender on August 14 (15th in Japan) We celebrated with parties, picnics and foot races. What I remember was that I was the 2nd fastest kid my age on the block. A Mulatto boy named Forrest was the fastest. He was a nice kid and didn't have a father. A lot of rumors were floating around about his family background but to us he was our friend. He always beat me in races, EXCEPT on that day. For some reason I beat him three straight times that day. I only beat him twice again later and he must have beaten me 50 times.
Did you know that Clayton Moore was in a whole bunch of those 12 Chapter Serials that we used to go to the movies to see on saturday afternoons. Most of the time he was a bad guy, either head bad guy or the number 2 bad guy. I think he got to play a good guy in only one or two serials. It sure made his career when he landed the Lone Ranger part in the TV series.
Did you know that most of those old serials are now available on videotape in two cassette sets? They are complete with all the chapters and the cliffhanger at the end of each chapter, and they are fairly reasonably priced too!
Karl: Like Rocket Man and something of the Moon. Moore played a heavy in all of those. What I liked about Clayton Moore was that to me he bore a resemblance to Duke Snider, though Snider was a little younger.Snider was my hero on the Dodgers from 1949 on. Would you know if they still have available "Pirates of the High Seas"? (1951).That was my all time favorite serial. It starred Buster Crabbe. I remember Chapter One was called Mystery Mission, and the final chapter called Diamonds from the Sea. I would love to purchase that if it is available.
Clayton Moore made "Radar Men from the Moon" after he quit the Lone Ranger in a salary dispute. He soon went back to being The Lone Ranger and never strayed again. In "Radar Men" he got to play 2nd bad guy to Roy Barcroft who was the King of the Bad Guys. It was one of my favorite serials, and I have a copy of it.
I don't know "Pirates of the High Seas" and as a result suspect that maybe it is one of those that was never available on videotape.
Karl B. So did I. Maybe you remember the jingle.
Oh, you better get Wild Root Cream Oil Charlie
It keep's your hair in trim.
It is non-alcoholic Charlie
It's made with soothing Lanolin
You better get Wild Root Cream Oil Charlie
Start using it today
And you'll have a hard time Charlie
Keeping all those gals away.
Get Wildroot right away.
HOW ABOUT THAT?
Last Friday I went to BWI Rail Station to take a photo of a newly-painted AEM7.
The photo is here. The painting scheme is called the Acela livery.
I talked to an engineer and he said the look was awful. Hopefully it would be better if Acela logos were installed.
Chaohwa
TOO PLAIN!
My AEM-7's are done no justice in that getup. A little blue would make it nicer.
They have some cars done in Acela colors- there is a touch of light blue with the Acela logo. Down at the bottom is a thin red sripe.
Actually the cars are very futuristic. I like the light-blue color.
As for the thin red stripe, it is reflective.
Chaohwa
I'm not sure I'd call that a scheme. It looks like they cheaped out with grey painted aluminum (sorta like PATH's treatments of the PA1-2 series which used to be metallic looking light blue painted aluminum).
-Dave
11/04/00
Looks like the paint job wasn't finished or was inspired by the early CSX "stealth" pain scheme.
Bill Newkirk
Last Night around 7:30 PM a Northbound No.2 Train was stuck outside Bronx Park East because of a down Tree. Then that stoped No.2 Service along the White Plains Road from E 180 TO E 241 St. Then Control Rerouted the No.2 Trains to Dyre Ave. Well at about 8PM the 17:00 Flatbush to Dyre was leaving Gun Hill Road when tree fell in front of his train. Luckly the Train Operator Stopped in time. Around 9 PM there was limited No.2 and No.5 service to E 241 and Dyre Ave.
Did Anyone get stuck in this?
I was listening to this over my scanner. The TSSs were sent running to restore service. If I recall correctly, 18:05 out of Flatbush was stopped by a tree at Gun Hill.
Things got cleaned up pretty quickly, and TSSs checked the Dyre Line north and southbound to make sure things were clear.
-Stef
Furthermore, at least one northbound #2 from Flatbush was turned at 149th St and 3rd Av at Jackson Av Middle.
-Stef
11/04/99
Although this is a rarity , all you need is one incident and the line grinds to a halt. I noticed when observing out the front railfan windows on the Brighton and Sea Beach lines that trees overhanging the R.O.W. are potential service stoppers on very windy days. The TA could adapt existing flat cars with a cherry picker attachment so tree pruning can be simplified. And much like the trucks that landscapers use to grind branches , a similar car could also be adapted for wood chipping and storage of wood chips. You need not build one from the ground costing big bucks , but also one such specialty consist would be needed to cover the NYCTA.
Bill Newkirk
I was just on ADTranz's site and saw something interesting about the proposed diesel light rail system for South Jersey.
Here is a picture of the proposed cars. They were awarded to design the entire system.
Sounds great, right?
BTW, I saw no mention of the M-4's anywhere on the site, yet some older metro cars were shown. Did SEPTA refuse?
Were you really serious about sounding great? This line will run through our township here in Delran. I am all for the light rail but I can't wait to see how it is going to be sharing trackage with freight trains. The deal is light rail has the tracks till 10:00PM then the freights get there chance from 10:00PM till 6:AM. Sounds pretty neat don't you think? Not to mention the ADtranz nightmare.
GREAT IDEA! Finally some creative sharing of rail lines as in Europe. Hopefully the FRA aka Rail Obstruction Administration doesn't put a hamper on this.
Been there, done that. The MTA in Baltimore has been sharing the Central Light Rail Line with freight trains at night. Trains show up after Midnight, when the LRV's have gone beddy-bye. The trains are CSX, former ConRail, and haul stone from the quarries at Cockeysville to Sparrows Point. The trains are usually 2 GP-38's (MU'ed through a 20 car stone train) and 20 or so stone jennies.
On many mornings the stone train leaves Cockeysville at 5:45 AM. The First LRV leaves Hunt Valley at 5:15 AM. So, the stone train just gets mixed right into the early AM peak, right along with the LRV's.
It really shakes up the early commuters when, at Cold Spring station, the stone train roars through doing about 40, followed 5 minutes later by the southbound LRV.
Amazingly, neither train or LRV is ever delayed, and the stone train gets off the CLRL at 28th Street.
Oh, yes, they also do it in San Diego.
Oh yay! Another 3 year late delivery.
Humph, commuter rail is the way to go. I can get a light rail experiance riding a bus. This whole Camden-Trenton thing is one big Boondogle anyway. Oooo, that Trenton-Camden commuter corridor sure is busy. Why don't they create a line where people might actually use it like Glassboro-Camden or Pemberton-Camden? I mean if you want to see the definition of "railroad town" just look anywhere along those 2 corridors. One town built right after another all along the railroad. Add in the fact that commuting from those areas is an absolute nightmare makes you wonder why the lines haven't been built already. How could anybody be against rail lines on those two routes. PTACO doubled property values along its line. The Camden-Trenton line is a poor compromise that is doomed to failure. If I had a billion dollars I'd build a 3rd rail electrified line from Glassboro to Camden, run it with rebuilt FL-9's and ACMU's cast off from Met-N and then build a tunnel under the Delaware just north of Woodbury so some trains could run through Greenwitch Yard, past a Sports Complex station (no more waiting on the Walt Whitman) and connect with Amtrak at ARSENAL for a trip into 30th Station.
I've always wanted to see some type of rail tunnel between SJ and Philly, particularly somwhere in South Philly(like along Washington Avenue).
A PATCO extension or trans-Delaware River light rail line could boost rail ridership.
BTW, what would you think of an extension of PATCO in Philadelphia to, say, U of P area or 30th Street?
Hee - that's kinda what they said back in the (20's?) when the whole
system was drawn up.
How about this one: PATCO would be extended from 16th Street under Locust until 22nd, and turn north there. It would go under 22nd Street to Pennsylvania Avenue, and utilize the abandoned ROW that is now fresh fields etc. It would turn north under 29th Street, and follow an underground or elevated ROW until it reaches the Chestnut Hill lines, and follow them until the end. As far as I am concerned, commuter rail is inadequate, and they should by Light, if not heavy rail.
11/06/99
This is my opinion on the NJT South Jersey LRT. It seems as geniune as a $4.00 bill! This country is currently undergoing "Light Rail fever" , a renaissance of the reborn "trolley'. I feel that the South Jersey project has flaws and seems to be a "rush job". The plan doesn't have the determination of the HBLR system in North Jersey. Starting March of 2000 this will be reality, When will the South Jersey line become reality if ever??
Bill Newkirk
NJT can't make up its mind in South Jersey but it wants to make a political statement that it hasn't forgotten SJ with all the work and money it plans to spend in N(orth)J. NJT's buses don't fill in rush hours, even the once-popular express and limited runs, so I'm not sure how the Camden-Trenton light rail line will fare when the once heavily-travelled Routes 409/419 bus routes are having no trouble doing the job. SJ really needs more PATCO extensions but they will be too expensive, and PATCO doesn't seem interested.
Agreed. The next time NJT cries for federal subsidies, I'll remind them about how they wasted money on this corridor
I remember watching on cable television a while back about a movie where two young punks held hostage a group of subway riders in a subway car.The movie takes place in the 1960,s.In fact the subway car in use was a 1939 World's Fair Low V subway train.The movie also had shots of the train as it went through the Woodlawn line at night.Can someone tell me the name of this movie? Or does anyone on the board remember the movie?
The movie was "The Incident". It was filmed in 1967, I believe. I have yet to see it at any video store, though someone else on this board did mention it was able to be special ordered somehow.
It's available thru the Subway Bibliography.
-dave
Please don't all jump at me at once. I know a railfan should know this, the answer is probably very obvious,BUT, at 46 yrs old I don't remember trolleys, (other than the trackless ones with rubber wheels that they still had in Bklyn when I was a toddler) so here goes:
How did trolleys switch tracks? I remember when there were alot of tracks left in the city but I don't remember seeing switches. Did the motorman get off and throw a switch, or was there a type of steering wheel? Don't laugh, I honestly don't know.
P.S. I was going to ask that at Branford but forgot.
The SARGE-my homepage
my trainbuff page
my OUTRAGEOUS COLOR QUIZ
Trolleys switch tracks using switches (or turnouts, to be technical). Where mainline railroad switches have two moveable points, in paved streets there is typically only one point. Where two routes diverge, the point may be electrically powered. Whether the point is thrown or not depends on if the motorman entered the switch with "power on" or "power off". Where the switch is not powered, the motorman is obliged to leave his post and manually throw the switch with his handy switch iron, a cast iron device that moves the point. You didn't ask, but a device in the trolley wire (a pan?) guides the trolley pole in the required direction.
In Philadelphia, electric switches on the line poles on the streets
were fairly common.
Some systems now use radio controlers mounted in the cars. If the switch needs to be activated the operator stops hits the button and the switch operates. ( like a garage door opener) In the tail of the car is an anteanea to return it to normal.
Didn't the PCC have a switch on the console for something like this?
Many PCC cars do have this feature. What the button does, is momentarily allow a very high current pulse through the trolley wire system, which triggers the turnout throw solenoid on the track.
Actually, the Track Switch on a PCC operates a relay that sends 600 volts through a roughly 4000 ohm resistor through the pole to ground. This creates a current draw roughly equal to what a standard car draws with one point of power and the brakes applied sightly. The electric switch relay (in the box on the pole)is set to ignore the current draw of Air Compressors and MG sets (on PCC cars).
PCC's have the TSW (Track) switch because the operator cannot know exactly how much power is being drawn by the car. The TSW switch allows SAFE operation of electric switches.
Incendently, the electric switch is usually set up so that "pulling power" throws the point to the diverging route, "drifting" throws the point to the normal (i.e. straight) route.
To keep the point set to the same route, the motorman/operator must perform the same action as if setting it himself.
The device is called a frog, just like the central portion of a RR turnout.
Until next time...
Anon_e_mouse
Just came across an combination LIRR & Prospect Park and Coney Island Railroad ticket. "Coney Island to Long Island City"
The following description is from the person I bought it from:
EARLY Long Island Railroad Ticket # 21423. "In consideration of reduced rates this ticket is good only during the Excursion Season of the year which issued for One Continuous Passge. No stop-over allowed." Never been punched, but it was torn in 1/2 and was taped together. Overall condition poor. 2-3/4" x 1-7/16th.
I'm not interested in selling this item but I would be interested in trading it for any item from the Brooklyn, Flatbush & Coney Island Rwy; the Brooklyn & Brighton Beach Railroad; the Coney Island Elevated Railway; or the Sea View Railroad. If interested contact me and I'll provide you with a picture of the item.
Got off the front car of a southbound #1 at Penn this evening, descended a flight of steps to go to the LIRR and saw frosted over large windows revealing what may be remains of the car drop-off area from the old station. does anyone have any details?? the ceilings inside resemble the tiles in the Oyster Bar at GCT. Small sightings like this makes me wish I was 20 years older and got to see the original.
Thanks for any info.
There's an article in a recent issue of Preservation, the magazine of the National Trust for Historic Preservation, about plans to re-create the old Penn Station using the old post office building designed by the same architects. Excellent article if you're able to get your hands on it.
-- David
Chicago, IL
www.NthWard.com
It's not "recreating" the old station at all, but building a new station inside a totally different structure (albeit one designed by the same architects). The proposal is clearly NOT the old Penn Station, but a mix of very modern (huge shell-like glass & metal canopy thing behind the classic building) laid over and around the original Farley Post Office, which I think is now a NYC landmark (in reaction to the demolition of Penn Sta. itself).
There are various websites w/pix of the model, including one that was referenced on this site awhile back. Can't find it right now.
It's not "recreating" the old station at all, but building a new station inside a totally different structure (albeit one designed by the same architects).
Kinda sorta...
As I understand it, the Farley Post Office has a number of design elements that are very similar to the old Penn Station. Also, a significant part of the project is tracking down actual remnants of the old Penn Station itself, restoring them, and incorporating them into the new design. This was the main focus of the article in Preservation.
Regardless of the semantics, it looks to be a very impressive project. Hell, if they can pull this off, maybe someday we will be able to re-create Louis Sullivan's Chicago Stock Exchange Building. The demolition of that masterpiece stands as Chicago's counterpart to Penn Station in the sad saga of wiping out architectural treasures for the sake of some banal new project.
-- David
Chicago, IL
www.NthWard.com
I'm sure the new Penn Station will be completed just in time for AMTRAK service to be terminated. After all, profitable or not, you don't think the GOP is going to let the Northeast have a railroad if their states don't have one, do you?
Actually, without knowing exact details, I gather this is why Amtrak usually gets funded year after year, albeit at lower levels than requested: Because there are JUST enough routes to Republican regions that constituent pressure from those regions to keep Amtrak sways their senators' votes. I believe there are a couple of Amtrak routings that have NO viable justification other than that their senators are key to funding renewals.
That said, of course, there is the mandate to be self-supporting that the system isn't going to be able to escape. Unless Congress changes its mind. Stranger things have happened. If the US of A has high-speed trains as good as those of Europe and Japan, perception may change -- I think most Americans' view of Amtrak now is a slightly nicer (but more money-losing) version of Greyhound, for old people & poor people. Maybe, just maybe, Acela will make it fashionable.
Which is also why I think wasting X hundred million on Penn is a bad idea. 5 years from now, Amtrak will likely not be around - though maybe the NEC will become Acela corporation. I don't know. Guilford wants (wanted?) to buy it outright, but I suspect they see it for freight value as opposed to passenger. How the NEC gets divided up, what happens of the electrification, passnger service, etc, will be very much up in the air. It's the only part of the system where amtrak comes close to making money (AFAIK). I've also heard amtrak wants to get into the freight business themselfs - which is legally a grey area.
After 2002, does Amtrak still have running rights over freight routes? Or can the owners of those routes refuse to let Amtrak run over them?
In any case, I don't see amtrak surviving very long. I don't see Acela making any major difference. I think people in this country, particularly Acela's intended audiance (lets face it - they're not aiming it toward soccer moms), know the difference between a faster NEC and the real thing. Sure ridership will go up. How much, and how much it STAYS up, it subject to debate. And it doesn't help anything besides the DC -> NY -> Boston run.
Speaking of which, has Bombardier, etc, made an announcement about when Acela service will be able to start? They were supposed to this week I thought...
I also don't like the new Penn plan. The good idea would be to DEMOLISH Madison Square Garbage as it deserves to be (build Madison Square Garden in the space over the yards on Eleventh). Then build a true homage to the original. The designers of Madison Square Garbage are to be incarcerated in a maximum security prison for the rest of their days.
We import over 50% of our oil, we can't reduce our pollution levels because we are so dependent on the automobile. We won't ratify the global warming treaty, we keep buying big gas guzzling cars. So what is our leaders response? Shut down Amtrak, the last vestige of intercity surface public transit in the US, don't build any more nuclear power plants, and reduce taxes on gasoline and cars and raise transit fares. We are more dependent on foreign oil today than during the energy crisis of the 1970's. The automobile has won!
Most Amtrak trains use what to power them? Uranium? Beer?
Most Amtrak trains use what to power them? Uranium? Beer?
Doggie Doo
A large percentage of Amtrak trains are electrically powered. Electricity can be generated using US coal, nuclear power, or solar for that matter. Where oil is used the trains get more passenger-miles/ gallon then SUV's
No, the only electric trains Amtrak has are on the NEC. Off the NEC, it's all diesel.
Amtrak's had 20 years to improve service. My NY to Hartford train is good 20+ minutes slower today then back then, and there's no sign it's going to get any faster. Amtrak runs hopelessly useless routes. amtrak run long distance trains. They have a LOVE for long distance trains, and conrinue to run them, even though that style of service is on the decline EVERYWHERE else in the world. They run a SLOW service. It's mostly diesel. Sure amtrak runs on a shoestring budget - they've yet to give a reason to give them any money.
Amtrak does not work. It's is a failure.
On top of that - it will SLOW any future progress in intercity rail. Why? Because ANY proposal that comes up will have a powerful argument against it, namely, look what happned with Amtrak. The only way that'll change is if you can convince congress and the american public that intercity rail and Amtrak are not mutually exclusive. Good luck. The FRA / Dot / Amtrak wasting money on useless projects like turbine locomotives (They don't work, they WON'T work) isn't helping.
The Automobile didn't win. It's just that Amtrak isn't good enough to get people out of their cars. Americans aren't dumb, they're not tied to their cars like everyone thinks (look at the recent sucess of light rail in portland, and the growth of commuter rail in California of all places). They just take the most painless route between A and B.
"There's something about a train that's magic" just isn't working.
It's time to try something else.
As for nuclear power? Last poll I heard of sad something like 70% of the population was for it.
Just not in THEIR backyard.
Amtrak a failure? C'mon! Not as big a success as it might be, because there isn't enough money for new equipment, but hardly a failure. The last several times I've travelled Amtrak - not just on the Corridor, mind you - there were ZERO empty seats for most of my journey, and one nominally reserved-seat-only Corridor train had standees from Baltimore to Newark.
Someone else, in another part of this thread, also made the statement that Amtrak cost 2-3 times what the bus charged. That's untrue. Amtrak's fare from Richmond to Newark is $12 LESS than the bus, unless you pick a Florida service train, in which case it's $1 more. Other routes are similar - Amtrak ranges from 15% cheaper to 10% more for basic coach accomodations on non-premium trains. Metroliner service is substantially more than a bus, as are sleeper accomodations, but that's comparing apples to oranges. And Amtrak offers by far the best ride of the two.
Until next time...
Anon_e_mouse
[Amtrak runs hopelessly useless routes. amtrak run long distance trains. They have a LOVE for long distance trains, and conrinue to run them, even though that style of service is on the decline EVERYWHERE
else in the world.]
Remember that many Congressmen insist that Amtrak run trains through their districts.
"I think most Americans' view of Amtrak now is a slightly nicer (but more money-losing) version of Greyhound, for old people & poor people. Maybe, just maybe, Acela will make it fashionable."
Well considering that Amtrak is 2 to 3 times more expensive than Greyhound for the same routes . . . I'd say that perception about being for poor people is wrong.
As for Acela, I hope the staggering amount of money they are pouring into advertising does something for ridership.
Yes, you stumbled over one of the pieces of old Penn that was never "renovated."
There are a few places within the Bus Terminal that Penn Station is today that you can find the old Penn Station. In the Amtrak wating area the floor was scuffed that you could see the old glass brick tiles from the orgianl station. I don't know if upon this last rebuild (a.k.a. patch job) it is still there or not.
The floor has been covered with a new layer.
Until next time...
Anon_e_mouse
Just posted yesterday...some of the old Penn Station that's still around.
http://www.forgotten-ny.com/STREET%20SCENES/Penn%20Station/penn.html
Hey, maybe some train buffs who also happen to be lawyers can answer this one. I've visually impaired, and as far as I know, when a new structure is built or updated, it MUST be wheelchair accessible. The rebuilt Franklin Avenue Shuttle has all stations wheelchair accessible accept Botanic Gardens. Prospect Park wasn't changed at all, so I can see how they got away with it there. But I don't get Botanic. Isn't this a LAW?
Train Buff Headquarters
Botanic Gardens can be considered a remodeled older station, not a new station. Therefore, it is exempt from ADA regulations. Park Place is a completely new structure and therefore is subject to the ADA.
Prospect Park was not rebuilt because it was rebuilt a few years back when all the Brighton Line stations were redone. Also Prosepect park was a remodel so is still excempt from ADA being built many moons ago originaly.
I'm not saying that the premise that Prospect Park is exempt from ADA because it was rebuilt and not a new station, but...
The station is scheduled to go under contract to get ADA accessibility (probably elevators) in 2000.
David
[Prospect Park was not rebuilt because it was rebuilt a few years back when all the Brighton Line stations were redone. Also Prosepect park was a remodel so is still excempt from ADA being built many moons ago originaly.]
Should have engaged brain before letting fingers fly:
I'm not saying that the premise that Prospect Park is exempt from ADA because it was rebuilt and not a new station IS CORRECT OR INCORRECT, but...
The station is scheduled to go under contract to get ADA accessibility (probably elevators) in 2000.
David
Then it would be the only station on the Brighton that would be ADA compliant. Even when they just finished Sheepshead Bay, the did not get rid of the step up into the station from the street.
A fix on the road to ADA but just like my work with 150 Coal fired boilers (exempt from the 70's clean air act) NYCTA Subway is exempt from the ADA unless new construction (and some funded mod's like Prospect Park 2000).
Caught this monthly show on Channel 80 at 8 PM last night.
This month's theme is "Franklin Ave. Shuttle",
- also sub-feature is Capital Spending project with lots of yada yada by Virgial Conway, Larry Reuter, plus a US Senator (that new guy who now likes the Grand Central Access project) & the Brooklyn Boro Pres.
- also some shots of the existing 2nd Ave Stubway
- also the Metro-North Croton-Harmon open house ... looked for the camera to catch some of our Subtalk friends but didn't recongize anyone. Looks like it was a good event, sorry I missed it !
Mr t__:^)
Now I have to watch it tonight on Brooklyn Cablevison 6pm Chn 69...
See if I'm on TV!!!, thanks Thurston
If they really planned to build the "Stubway," I wouldn't mind them showing it. But the truth is they plan to do more studies -- $500 million worth -- then allegedly spend a little on construction, if there is nothing else to do with the money. This is a political game and payoff for consultants, not an investment.
Larry, You will get a big laugh watching the piece on the 2nd Ave Stubway. If you didn't know better you would think that they were actually going to build something their in the near future.
Mr t__:^)
Is this still on public TV for those of us who are cable-deprived?
--Mark
On LI it's on a public access station, #80, every Wednesday at 8 PM. I don't know if 13, 21 or other public stations carry it.
I've found the 1/2 show interesting enough that I would recomend that you expend some effort to try and see it.
P.S. It's is usually a little more interesting, from a subway buff standpoint, then November is.
Mr t__:^)
Hey Mr. T, can you get Transit Transit to play in Boston Boston?
I personally check out Transit Transit on ch. 25 in Manhattan, WNYE, 3:30pm Saturdays. ch. 25 is also carried by Time-Warner cable as, you guessed it, ch 25.
It's not carried by any cable company, any more than channel 2 or channel 5 is carried.
Maybe by the time you read this they'll have updated the highlights page.
You can, however, find the airdates here.
--Mike
How long is the program, I want to set my VCR.
It's half an hour, but the same episode runs all month. Catch it again next week.
--Mike.
Well, folks, it looks as if the southeast corridor light rail line will become reality. Both it and the I-25 expansion referendum were approved by voters on Tuesday. Naturally, Governor Owens is tickled pink; he is a staunch supporter of both. The whole idea was to kill two birds (no, not Redbirds) with one stone and do both projects at once. By widening 19 miles of I-25 all at once, from Broadway to Lincoln Ave. in Douglas County, it will take 7 years instead of 15. There is no doubt it's desperately needed. I-25 through Denver was built in 1958, and has essentially been unchanged since then while the Denver Tech Center has sprung up along the southeast corridor, creating gridlock during rush hours.
Meanwhile, the southwest extension is moving along. Catenary has been strung through the open cut in downtown Littleton. As far as I can tell, there is still no trackwork on the swapover/flyover bridge north of Bellview Ave., but it is in place along the rest of the line. Towers for the catenary have not yet been put in along the central portion of the line. Platforms for three of the five stations are in place.
They should have a referendum on a dedicated tax/toll/fare hike to fund the 2nd Avenue Subway in NY. Oopps, we did that already.
We did? Huh? Am I missing something here?
In the 1950s, a bond was issued to pay for the 2nd Avenue subway, and taxes were used to pay off the bonds. But the subway was not built. The money was used "to rebuild the existing system." But that just means that other money that SHOULD HAVE BEEN used to rebuild the existing system was spent elsewhere.
I wouldn't be surprised if NYC residents might accept a dedicated 0.25% increase in sales tax devoted exclusively to MTA operations, or (since it'd be NYC residents only) bus & subway operations within the MTA.
This is how BART was funded in the SF Bay Area starting in the early Sixties, and I know the residents of Santa Clara County, which voted down the tax, regretted it once the system opened.
I generally don't like the idea of raising taxes, but I think a dedicated tax for NYC buses & subways might appeal to NYC residents. Of course, you'd probably end up having to restrict its use to intra-NYC applications -- so no 7 train to the Meadowlands. Maybe linking SIRT to the WTC stub would appeal .
Excuse me but, BART originally was to be funded from the bond issue. It was only after they had gone thru the first $790 and were nowhere near ready to open that the sales tax was added. Very like the 1968 2nd ave bond fiasco the inflation that was allowed in the seventies ate up the monies without giving us our promised subways.
How come you have to have a referendum and a tax increase to build transit but you could just go out a build a road withou thaving a vote. Sure does seem unfair!
I heard an item on the radio this AM & now have a copy of an article in the DailyNews by reporter Mike Claffey.
Apparently the police have been mailing "alleged" criminals MetroCards. They have Michael J. Fox/Spin City on the back (collectors note ref. #37 from Sept. 1997) but are encoded as Student free cards. This means a special yellow light comes on when they are swiped. The police then grab them using "extreme caution" ... yuck !
The only positive thing I see from all this is that less mommys & daddys will be using junior's student card. I'll be looking at our daily activity to see if any detectable change occurs.
Mr t__:^)
I'd have to say that this ranks as one of the stupidest ideas in history.
There is a potential reduction in adults using student Metrocards due to the potential increased penalty -- the death penalty instead of a small fine.
Yep. If anything, it smacks of civil rights infractions not to mention strong ethical questions.
I'd like to know what rocket scientist at the NYPD thought that one up.
SubDude
Civil rights issues probably won't be significant. Police departments around the country often have run "sting" operations to catch criminals with outstanding warrants ("Congratulations! You have just won a pair of courtside Knicks tickets. Please stop in at One Police Plaza to claim your prize.")
What I'm concerned about is the fact that police may end up confronting dangerous fugitives at subway turnstiles. Crowded places like that are the worst imaginable for potentially violent confrontations.
Or what about mature-looking students who legitimately use student MCs? It's not impossible to imagine one of them getting Diallo'ed by a frightened cop.
Why do so many unfortunate people's names end up becoming verbs?
verbizing :) is a great English tradition.
What about chopping down the 2nd. Ave. el and replacing it with....um....nothing. On the stupidity scale, I'd say that ranks up there with using student fare cards to "catch" murderers. I mean, if you know the address of the fugitive that your sending this free Metrocard to, why not just send a squad car and pick the %$#@& person up.
Thank you Chris R.
Yeah, if they already have the address of whatever lowlife they're looking for, why do they need this "sting" operation using MetroCards? Sounds like just because the technology is there.....you know the rest.
It smacks of unethical behavior to catch criminals (even the worst kind), since this type of entrapment could be used against anyone. Oh, well, just venting alittle....
As always,
SudDude
I hate this thing on so many different levels. It's a waste of money, it puts riders at risk should a violent confrontation become necessary at a crowded turnstile, it smacks of "Big Brotherism" by using computers to track the location of people without their knowledge and finally because any real student who would trip this system off might be sharing a grave next to Mr. Diallo should some cop get a tad too "nervous".
Because they don't have enough evidence for an arrest warrant.
Al Capone killed large numbers of people. He was jailed for tax evasion.
I'm still trying to figure out how the government was able to justify the assertion that Capone had to pay taxes on monies made from a criminal enterprise. Perhaps if we tax muggers, bank robbers and con-artists we might be able to balance the budget.
The federal tax laws, and the state tax laws of those states where I have lived, all explicitly state that income from illegal activities is taxable income and must be reported. The State of North Carolina also had tax stamps at one time that were required to be affixed to each ounce or fraction thereof of marijuana, each gram of heroin or cocaine, and each package (one stamp per tablet) of other substances such as LSD. When they busted someone for drug dealing they could then also bust them for tax evasion and lock them up longer. Having non-tax-paid substances became a felony, so even though marijuana possession was a misdemeanor per se, the tax evasion part made it hard time. (If your dealer actually paid the tax, however [yeah, right] then you were only slapped on the wrist for weed.)
The stamps are collector's items now. There are only two known usages that have made it into private hands (the stamps were pasted on the official documents filed with the courts after a dealer was arrested, convicted, and forced to pay up, and somehow the records were shipped out for scrap after being microfilmed rather than being shredded). Some unused copied have also made it out. The stamps are no longer being used, but the law is still on the books.
Until next time...
Anon_e_mouse
"Because they don't have enough evidence for an arrest warrant."
Sorry if this sounds like a stupid question.
If they don't have the evidence to arrest them at home, how can they arrest them at a turnstile?
Is there a different set of rules in play?
They'd arrest them for misusing a student Metrocard, not for what they actually did. But I'm definitely wrong, because that sort of infraction doesn't warrant jailing.
Oh, I see what you mean. Wouldn't an arrest for misuse of a metrocard be entrapment, then, because the police mailed the suspect the unmarked student card and implied that it was legal for them to use it?
I am glad they never put this plan into action--it looks like a bad idea on several accounts.
I don't know if it is. I'm not very familiar with these laws.
Neither am I. :-) It seems fishey, though...
Our city police may be oppressive, but we would never do something like that with Countycards.
Because at a time, manpower, and cost standpoint it would take a long time and be expensive to go out and catch every one. Most aren't home all day. But to have people come to you, thats another story.
I definitely think the marking of the cards so that it would set off a student yellow light was ill considered. They should have been more direct in the identification of the felons. It should have been something like the proximity alarms that you find on cars or houses that emit a verbal alert. If a murderer tries to use the card, then from the speaker system in the bus or subway should come the following message: MURDERER ... MURDERER ... MURDERER ... MURDERER ...
heypaul, your idea has some merit. Contact the MTA and perhaps you can get a lucrative contract to install the system.
SubDude
In the movie "Sea of Love" there is a scene where the NYPD runs such a sting. However, in the movie they invite frlons with outstanding warrants to a breakfast with the Yankees. They bag their quota, of course and even let one guy go.
It seems to me that stings like this one are creative and work because criminals, as a group, are stupid and greedy. I think the public's outrage over this proposed sting is misplaced. Seems to me that these criminals are riding the trains anyway, with or without the free metrocards. The only difference is the police might be able to spot them. I think the original plan called for using the metrocard to gather intelligence on their travel patterns so they could be caught, eventually. Unfortunately the plan got fouled up and publicized.
[It seems to me that stings like this one are creative and work because criminals, as a group, are stupid and greedy.]
You are quite right about the stupid part. I recall reading not long ago that state prison inmates on a nationwide level have a mean I.Q. score of 85. That's one full standard deviation below the 100 average, which (if I remember my statistics correctly) puts one in the bottom 16%. And even the 85 score is a little misleading. Prison inmates cannot go too far below that level, as then they'd be classified as mentally retarded and would be in sheltered environments, while there must be at least some high-I.Q. inmates pulling up the average. As a result, the typical inmate is probably in the upper 70's to low 80's ... in other words, as dumb as a sack of flour.
Of course -- since the sample was prison inmates -- that only means that those criminals who get caught are dumber than the norm.
My contention is that by using the MetroCard as a tracking device, basically anyone -- law abiding citizens -- could be accidentally arrested or worse during one of these stings.
That system is ripe for abuses either accidentally or intentionaly.
What's wrong with old fashioned police work?
SubDude
Between Metrocards and E-Z Pass, the government could track your every move. Am I alone in being scared to death of giving the government that kind of power?
I'm afraid the government will track my library card usage and find out the kind of stuff I read. I'M SCARED!!!
Ah, but then so is your "Blockbuster Video Card" or your "Shoprite Price Plus" Card. Even your credit cards or EZPass. They all give certain information that some companies pay big bucks for. They tell about what type of movies you watch, places you travel and even what type of food you eat. Invasion of privacy???? In a big way, my friend. The downside of the technological age.
Also the "cookies" file in your browser. If you are set up to accept cookies (like all of us using SubTalk are) then not only can a site leave a record of its presence in your cookies file, it has the capability of reading the entire cookies file and (I think) the history file. Some sites also have figured out how to grab your address book and add all your friends' addresses to their spam generators (this isn't permitted under the guidelines for cookie usage but, I'm told, often occurs, especially with Canadian sites).
Until next time...
Anon_e_mouse
I agree that these fugitive-sting operations are *generally* a good idea. The cops are using the last known address (from driver's license, arrest report, etc.), so it's not the case (as some people said) that they **know** where these people live. And it's a much better use of limited manpower to have half (or a third, or a fourth) of them come to you than to send a patrol car to each one's address to capture them.
Capturing suspected criminals using tricks or lies is NOT NOT NOT "entrapment" (for the people here who said it was). Entrapment is making someone commit a crime that they otherwise would have had no intention to commit. If a female cop stands on a streetcorner in a tiny skirt and see-through bra, and a man walks up to her and offers $100 for sex, that's a 'trap' in the common sense of the word but it's not entrapment. The person had formed on their own the intent to pick up a hooker; the cop didn't give him the idea.
Not that this particular sting is a good idea. The problem with this free student Metrocard idea (as others have pointed out) is that:
1) a subway station is a crappy place to be capturing criminals. The typical fugitive sting is done under controlled conditions where each suspect is brought one at a time into a room to be arrested and then led away by another exit. No place for the suspect to run, take a hostage, etc.
2) there are people illegally using student Metrocards who aren't wanted criminals, and people who legitimately use student cards but look older than they are.
Though I'm not a cop, I am disgusted by the people in this thread who blithely assume that all cops are trigger happy and will immediately shoot someone in a public place because they think they might be a suspect. 39 shots and Diallo aside (how did Diallo get mentioned in this context anyhow? We're talking about cops overreacting and misperceiving the presence of danger, not a group of sickos who happened to be cops blatantly assaulting someone who wasn't presenting even the potential of a threat), most cops, even in the worst neighborhoods, never fire their gun except on the range. And a cop who shot at a suspect in a place where bystanders can get in the way just because he was fleeing would be fired ASAP. I'm certainly not going to say that there aren't rogue cops. But to presume that all cops are Barney Fifes just itching to shoot someone is an insult to people who risk their lives in public service every day.
Sorry. I'll get off my soapbox now. (^:
John --
Regarding your two concerns, I think the public has jumped to quite a conclusion regarding this program. Has anyone said (in an official capacity) that this program would be used to take violent criminals into custody? Or is it for non-violent offenders who simply can't be captured at a home address? If we're talking about taking deadbeat dads, parking fine scofflaws and other non-violent offenders here I would say it's probably much safer to take them into custody in the subway rather than when they're in their own home.
In terms of people illegally using the student metrocards or legitimate older-looking students, the turnstiles and bus fareboxes have been blinking a certain light when a student card is swiped since the introduction of Metrocards. Officers monitoring for fare evasion are now able to watch not just for turnstile jumpers but also for card fraud.
The bottom line is, if the police have done a reasonable job of identifying which wanted criminals are not likely to become violent and sent the cards only to them, I think it's a great program. Until I see somewhere that they're sending these cards to murderers and rapists I'll trust the NYPD to do their job.
Chuck
Chuck
[The bottom line is, if the police have done a reasonable job of identifying which wanted criminals are not likely to become
violent and sent the cards only to them, I think it's a great program. Until I see somewhere that they're sending these cards to
murderers and rapists I'll trust the NYPD to do their job.]
As originally conceived, the plan did indeed call for cards to be sent to violent criminals including murderers. Not that it matters anymore, as the plan's been kiboshed.
E-Z Pass has something like that. If you report your car stolen & you have E-Z Pass you report it to them and if the car goes through the toll an alarm sounds (I think) and the gate doesn't go up. However it doesn't really work. The only time a car thief will usually use a bridge or tunnel is on the initial getaway and 99% of the time it hasn't been reported to them by then. I don't think joyriders will use it or even know what it is. Probably the only people it catches are people who recovered their cars and cancelled the police alarm but NOT the E-Z Pass alarm. That would be embarrassing (and dangerous) but I'm sure it happens ALL the time!!
Thurston, on a collectable level, does this mean that the Michael J. MC's will be in circulation again?
Yes, BUT I don't want one !
They must have had a few left from the production of 500,000. Why couldn't they have been more creative about it, e.g. "Fun Fass", Single Ride Ticket, ABC Fidel Castro ? Just kidding.
Seriously, I hope someone told the cops that a legitimate card is light green vs. Gold w/graphics AND sometimes the yellow light comes on by mistake ! I have one that comes up "Student" & know of someone who got grabbed last year because the yellow light came on in error.
Mr t__:^)
Actor Danny Glover is peeved over the cabby situation. However, alot of it has less to do with race (in most cases) and more to do with cabbies who resent going to the outer boroughs (or north Manhattan) because in most cases they return without a pick-up fare. Unfortunately, for Mr. Glover it will be hard to prove actual racial discrimination in cases like this. But the cabby situation DOES need to be addressed.
SubDude
Sorry, SubDude, but I don't agree. As a conservative-looking white guy, I can get a cab to take me to Harlem. Take me, darken my skin, and I can't. I have 18 years' worth of sporadic experience getting cabs for black coworkers, one of the saddest and most humiliating tasks I can think of as a NYC resident.
If your point is that cabbies want to stay in Manhattan below 96th Street, sure. That's true. But that's not what their job description says. It says they have to stop for ANYONE who hails them, and take that person ANYWHERE in the 5 boros (beyond is negotiable, I think).
They'll stop for me 'cause I'm white, perhaps on the assumption that I want to go in that range (largely correct, I have to say). They will NOT stop for my black counterpart, perhaps on the assumption that he wants to go outside that range (sometimes correct, sometimes not). That's the point. In my book, that's called racism.
The point is that the driver that Mr. Glover charged is also black. Is that racism or is it a matter of economics? The fact is the majority of cab drivers interviewed by the local media gave the same 4 reasons for not picking up black patrons.
1) More likely to be robbed or assaulted.
2) Less likely to tip or will not tip as well.
3) More likely to go to a less desirable destination where getting a fare back to midtown is not likely.
4) More argumentative
These are not my words but the words of cabbies, black, white hispanic or asian. Seems to me that this is a matter of economics and self preservation that motivates the cabbies. That does not make it racism, however. You can't assume an entire race will fit into one of the above 4 catagories by virtue of their color.
BTW: A few years ago, David Dinkins also filed a complaint because a cabbie also passed him up along with Mrs. Dinkins. Of course the cabbie said he knew Dinkins was a lousy tipper.
What's this story?
It's better to e-mail me the answer since I don't want to start another off-topic thread.
Oh gee, what a shock. A black man can't get a cab to Harlem. Let's all repeat after me: Duh.
While I think this is a deplorable situation, I don't think it's overtly racist. I chalk it up to the human instinct of self preservation. Driving a cab is one of the most dangerous jobs in the city, and the odds are that if your going to get robbed, the perpetrator will most likely not be white. Sad but true. Can you blame the drivers?
I can agree that it's self-preservation and not necessarily racism to refuse to take a fare to, or pick up a fare in, bad neighborhoods, even if that means not serving areas that are predominantly non-white. But how about a black person, NOT shabbily dressed or dressed in "gangsta" clothes, hailing a cab in midtown so he can get to an appointment downtown? No bad neighborhoods involved, nor a response to the clues derived from how one dresses, but strictly a reaction to the skin color of the person, and that IS racism, even if it's not motivated by hatred. I seriously doubt that Danny Glover was headed to a crappy neighborhood, or dressed like a bum, when cabbies passed him by.
Check out how Glover was dressed as he tried to get a cab. He looked like bum.
Unfortunatley, even if he was wearing a designer suit he'd probaby get passed by a lot of cabs. Drivers don't even want to bother assesing the risk.
[I can agree that it's self-preservation and not necessarily racism to refuse to take a fare to, or pick up a fare in, bad neighborhoods, even if that means not serving areas that are predominantly
non-white. But how about a black person, NOT shabbily dressed or dressed in "gangsta" clothes, hailing a cab in midtown so he can get to an appointment downtown? No bad neighborhoods involved, nor a response to the clues derived from how one dresses, but strictly a reaction to the skin color of the person, and that IS racism, even if it's not motivated by hatred.]
In most of the reported incidents in which taxis have refused to stop for black men, the taxis have driven right past, with the drivers pretending not to see them. There have been far fewer incidents in which the drivers have stopped, but then refused the fares when the passengers have asked to go to bad areas. In other words, the drivers (the great majority of whom are non-white themselves) actually are scared off by the sight of black men, rather than refusing to go to certain neighborhoods.
There's also a gender issue involved. Black women seldom complain of difficulty in getting taxis. It's basically black men who are bypassed.
The bottom line to all this is: Racial discrimination under ANY pretext is against the laws of this country as well as New York State. People like the creeps at the New York Post (and the equally odious Washington Times) push "rational discrimination" as protection for cabbies. The problem is, if you allow cabbies to discriminate, then other businesses will want the same - then we're back to Jim Crow. Pit bull/Rottweiler owners must constantly beg, "Punish the deed, not the breed"...the same should apply to people of color.
Should people also be allowed to discriminate against adolescent white males, based on the behavior of SOME of them at rock concerts and in Columbine? Think about it.
Ah but we are holding Cabbies to a different standard than other employees. For example, a letter carrier does not have to deliver mail to an address where they perceive that their safety would be compromised. Keep in mind that MOST cabbies in NYC are not white and any perceived racism is minority vs minority.
Look at it this way. A cabbie pays over $125 per day to drive a cab for 12 hours. If he's taken to an area where the likelihood of getting another fare coming back is nil, it becomes a matter of pure economics. We've all got to stop painting with that broad racism brush and start to look at things more objectively. Anyone can cry wolf but sooner or later no one will listen.
[Look at it this way. A cabbie pays over $125 per day to drive a cab for 12 hours. If he's taken to an area where the likelihood of getting another fare coming back is nil, it becomes a matter of pure economics.]
One solution would be to allow surcharges for trips to areas where return fares are unlikely. That's already done, in a modest way, with the $10 surcharge for Newark Airport. This would be an imperfect solution, of course, as people going to outlying areas would have to pay more. It also might be difficult to determine just where these "no-return-fare" areas are located. But at least the drivers would get a better deal, and people who want to go to these areas would have an easier time getting cabs.
Charging minority people a surgharge because they live in 'undesirable' areas is in itself discriminatory. It would be as unjust as if the TA charged an extra 50 cents for subway rides north of 96th St. because of the increased vandalism.
I think the answers are far too complex for us but I'd start in two areas.
First, integrity tests for cab drivers. Have them hailed by inspectors who are black or hispanic. If the driver passes them by or refuses to take them to 'one of those neighborhoods', he should immediately be suspended.
Second, is far more sensative but I'd have the TLC open forums between drivers and riders and make participation for drivers mandatory (perhaps by lottery). Here drivers could explain what behaviors (other than criminal) they find so negative (and drivers have expressed a host of issues from argumentative customers to poor tippers) and riders could explain the range of emotions they feel when they are refused service based solely on the color of their skin.
It may not mean 'undisirable' areas in the true sense, but a surcharge for cabbies to go to the outer boroughs (which usually means no return fare) is discriminatory to ALL people who live in places other than Manhattan or neighborhoods that border LaGuardia or JFK airports.
BTW, in a similar situation, the Brooklyn Borough President threatened to file a lawsuit against the VILLAGE VOICE for similar discriminatory practices. The act: the VILLAGE VOICE was being offered for FREE, but ONLY in Manhattan. For nearly two years all readers of the VOICE in other areas of the city had to fork over the $1/$1.50 for the paper. I don't think the lawsuit was ever filed, but under the threat of other boroughs following suit, the VOICE gave in and is now available for FREE in all areas of the city.
SubDude
I don't see that outer-borough taxi surcharges would necessarily be disriminatory. Simple economics are at play - trips outside Manhattan often are money-losers due to the lack of return fares.
I don't see that outer-borough taxi surcharges would necessarily be disriminatory.
They would be. Taxis are licensed and required to operate in the entire city, not just Manhattan. They're already paid for mileage charges when they travel to the boroughs.
[[I don't see that outer-borough taxi surcharges would necessarily be disriminatory.]
[They would be. Taxis are licensed and required to operate in the entire city, not just Manhattan. They're already paid for mileage charges when they travel to the boroughs.]
Just the fact that the taxis are licensed to operate in the entire city does not necessarily mean that a "one-city-one-fare" policy is mandatory. If we are to believe the drivers, trips outside of Manhattan are money-losers given the lack of return fares. Mileage charges do not change this situation. Under these circumstances, adding surcharges for these trips would be sensible from an economic standpoint - no one wants to make the drivers lose money.
Taxis are paid by mileage. There is no "one city, one fare" when it comes to taxis.
Sure cabbies want to operate where it's most profitable. Doesn't everyone? But they're granted a benefit by the City which protects their status--no new medallions have been issued since c.1938.
Let the City double the number of medallions and those outer borough fares might not seem so unappetizing to the cabbies.
[Taxis are paid by mileage. There is no "one city, one fare" when it comes to taxis.
Sure cabbies want to operate where it's most profitable. Doesn't everyone? But they're granted a benefit by the City which protects their status--no new medallions have been issued since c.1938.
Let the City double the number of medallions and those outer borough fares might not seem so unappetizing to the cabbies.]
Any big increase in the number of medallions would be met with an enormous hue and cry by all the owners who had paid high scarcity-based prices for theirs. And this being the good old USA, the lawsuits would follow in short order.
At any rate, getting back to the fare issue, it might well be that the mileage-based fares are insufficient on long outer-borough trips. If a driver's 12-hour shift includes a 90-minute fareless return trip from Rosedale or Douglaston, he's quite possibly going to lose money for the day. No one requires retailers to sell merchandise for less than cost. Prohibiting outer-borough surcharges indeed could have just that effect.
Paul, I have not driven a Yellow Cab since the 70s. I was robbed twice in one night and decided it wasn't worth it. I'm not sure about the details but I believe that you may be wrong on two points. I believe there is a one fare policy on airport rides. I also think that there were some new medallions issued a year or two ago.
Steve, Robbery is a different issue from not wanting to go somewhere because you can't get a return fare. Cab medallions are so high because the City set up an artificial monopoly by freezing the number of medallions to those issued in 1938.
I disputed Peter on a rhetorical point. On this forum especially, One City One Fare describes the City policy of charging you $1.50 (or less) to go one bus stop, or the same $1.50 to go from Tottenville to Van Cortlandt Park. That's hardly the case with taxis.
IIRC, the "new" medallions do not raise the total number. They were issued to replace medallions revoked over the course of 60 years and never reissued.
Actually there are thousands more cabs now than in '38. Just not yellow medallion. In the 50's & 60's there were hundreds of yellow cabs in the outer boroughs. I remember yellow cab lines at cab stands at Bklyn and Queens subway stations as a regular thing. Even at the Ferry terminal in St George, S.I. Now all you see are car services, and the yellow cabs are basically in Manhattan below 96St or the airports. I hacked in the '70s to pay for college. That was during the transition. People would pass me up for a car service alot thinking they were cheaper.
Pit bull/Rottweiler owners must constantly beg, "Punish the deed, not the breed"...the same should apply to people of color.
I think that's an inappropriate comparison.
Actually, it's perfectly appropriate. There are people who want to ban all pit bulls and Rotties because some of the dogs have brutally attacked humans...this isn't too far removed from those who would discriminate against all black or Latino men because of the actions of a small number of them.
Seeking information about IRT#9 such as when and why it was added to the 1,2,3, line and any other relevant data or facts. Thanx.
Go to the Subway FAQ and you will read the answers.
Chaohwa
The short answer is it's a "Skip Stop" addition to #1, vs. partial express that used to run on third track of Broadway line. There was also a #1 that was turned at 137th Street. After you're read FAQ, what of interest can be found between 137th & 145th ?
Mr t__:^)
I always thought it would be nice to run the 9 to 137th during middays and/or weekends.
Does ridership warrant it?
--I always thought it would be nice to run the 9 to 137th during middays and/or weekends.
Does ridership warrant it? --
I don't think so -- the headways through midtown seem pretty reasonable during those times, and there's enough ridership above 137th (at least as far up as Dyckman) to warrant not turning every other train at 137.
Chuck
One of the problems is the amount of folks that get on at Van Cortland Park (242nd) and either go downtown (past 96th) or get off at 116th. If 116th had island platforms, i.e access to middle track, they might be able to make us of that middle track again. The northbound also empties at 116th.
Mr t__:^)
When it first was concieved, the 9 ran from 7am until 9pm weekdays.
-Hank
I remember when I first saw "9" trains in the summer of 89. All I said was "huh"?
The Rt 9 Broadway-7th Avenue Local began operating on Monday, August 21,1989 utilizing the #9 route designation previously assigned to Dyre Avenue Line trains from 1948 to 1965.
The #9 ran Monday through Friday from about 6am to 7pm between 242 Street-Broadway and South Ferry duplicating the route of the #1 train.
#9 trains operated "Skip-Stop Express Service" between 242 Street in The Bronx and 137 Street in Manhattan bypassing 238 Street in The Bronx, and 215 Street,Dyckman Street and 157 Street in Manhattan.
Effective September 4,1994 midday #9 service was discontinued and #1 trains made all stops. #9 now runs approximately from 6am to 9am and 4pm to 7pm.
The #9 has always been identified by a white #9 in a red circle.
Larry,RedbirdR33
Can anyone assist me,,please ,in obtaining a complete up to date listing
Thanks
Steve
FDNY84
Which car class do you need? E-mail me......Mark
Did you get my letter
Steve (thank you )
Fire Dept of NYC
rode on the "N" train back from work tonight, 4 cars were R68(#2864-#2868) while the lastr 4 were R68A(#5161-#5164). never saw that before, is this normal occurance or a fluke?
I don't know but there they go again messing around with the Sea Beach. How many other trains to they mongolize with different cars?
I didn't see any of this when I was in New York this summer.
The R-68 and 68A are similar enough for mixing. If they weren't built by different companies, then they wouldn't even have the extra A class. BMT Standards were built by different companies. Would you complain when these were mixed?
And so were the R1-9 built by different companies, and the lo volts
Remember, R-40M's 4450-99 and R-42's 4924-49 always ran mixed when
they were in E and F service. Also, all R-40M's ran mixed with
R-42's 4696-4807 in D service.
Remember, R-40M's 4450-99 and R-42's 4924-49 always ran mixed when
they were in E and F service. Also, all R-40M's ran mixed with
R-42's 4696-4807 in D service.
Remember during the late '60s and early '70s when everything was mixed? You could find R-27/30's, R-32's, R-38's, and R-42's all on one train. I remember this particularly on the B, D, N and QJ. Although this was a phenomenon on B division in the late '60s and early '70s, It was always the norm on the A division. You could always see R-12/14's, R-15's, R-17's, R-21/22's, R-26/28's and R-29/33's running on one train.
And during the Willy B closing this year, there were reports of 32/42/slant 40 mixes on the N and Q, harking back those 30 years! Wish I had seen that. (was too young then; not on the southern div. enough, now)
R40M and R42 are still running as mixed consists in the Eastern Division. In fact, there's one Mixed Odd Couple: R42 #4665 mated to R40M #4460, widow and widower from the Williamburg Bridge crash of 1995.
Wayne
I think you have the R-68 car numbers off - the way you have it, it would be a nine-car consist of 75-foot cars (you have five R-68's listed).
subfan
I assume he probably meant #2864 to #2867 for the R-68, as the order began with #2500, and since it is now linked into fours, the lowest number in the R68s being linked is exactly divisible by four (with the obvious exception of the Franklin 2916-2924 nine-car portion).
#2868 is with the #2869-71-70 consist, so therefore, he means #2864-65-67-66.
The R68A #5161 to #5164 is correct, but would be seen in operation as #5164-63-61-62 as the order started with #5001, and hence highest number is divisible by four, as they have been linked in the same manner the R68's were linked.
The B train was a child born of the Chrstie Street Connection which after Opening Day and Unification was,arguably the most important event in the history of the subway system.
The B train was to be a merger of the IND BB Wash.Hts.-6th Av Lcl and the BMT #3 (or T)Broadway-West End Express. The BB ran M-F rush hours only between 168 St and 34 St-6 Av while the T ran M-F extended rush hours between Astoria and Coney Island with short turns at Queensboro Plaza and Bay Parkway. On Saturdays it ran between 57 St-7 Av and Coney from 6am to 8pm.
About the only consistant feature of the B has been its operation on the BMT between Dekalb Av and Coney Is. It has never really found a home on the IND.
The B began running on Monday,November 27,1967 from COney Island to 168 Street during rush hours and West 4 St at other times. It only ran Mon-Sat from 6am to 8pm and did not run on Sunday. This was possible since in those early post-Chrystie St days the B had a helpmate on the West End Line. It was the old BMT TT West End Shuttle which ran between 36 St-4 Av and Coney Island whenever the B wasn't running. This continued until July,1968 when 57 St-6 Av opened and the B began 24/7 operation;to 168 St during the rush,to 57/6 at all other times.
This happy state of affairs lasted until 1976 when the K was discontinued and the B now had to serve 57 St during the rush as well and this lead to the complicated schedule I described in a previous post.
This state of affairs lasted until about 1988 when 168 St became the northern terminal from about 6am to 10pm on weekdays.Later this was shortened to 145 St at certain times and still more recently Bedford Park Blvd on the Concourse.
None of this addresses the numerous Manhattan Bridge reroutes which split the B into an all IND route like the old B and and all BMT route similar to the old T. The first Manny B closing lasted a few days, but the railfans had so much fun with the reroutes that the next one lasted three weeks, after that it was out for months at a time.
So now the B wanders about the IND in search of a home visiting three terminals(Bedford Park,145 St and 21 St-QB) in a day. Only the midnight shuttle between 36 St and Coney seems to be secure.
Larry,RedbirdR33
Shucks they should have done that to the unscenic Sea Beach instead. At Least on the West End Branch of the El you could look out and see things. Do you hear me Fred? Brighton Most Scenic Line for fall foliage, Sea Beach, walls
Hey, on part of the line you have a wonderful, unobstructed view of rusting freight trains parked on the Bay Ridge LIRR.
It's better than the darn wall.
The B should be a BMT Broadway express from Coney Island to
Queensbridge, the Q should remain as is on 6th Avenue, and the K
will be restored to full-time and will operate on 6th Avenue from
Jamaica to Bedford Park Boulevard or 145th Street, J will be
eliminated, M will run full-time to Broad Street, and Z rush-hou
service will be retained and extended to Bay Parkway.
You can't run a potential "K" train on Central Pk. West as the connection only connects into the 6th Ave. local tracks. It would require a delay inducing switch at W4th or 34th St.
I wonder if the K can switch from local to express tracks (northbound) before 42nd St/6th Ave or express to local after 42nd St/6th Ave (southbound). If so, that can be one option.
Nick
it can switch north of Bway-Lafayette, north of W4th and north of 34th. All of which are undesireable, especially during rush hours.
The B should remain on6th ASve, you have the N and R on Bdwy from the 4th Ave Line inb Bklyn, The Q should run on Bdwy, so on the Brighton you will have a choice of a 6th Ave Train and a Broadway Train, even though Bdwy and 6th Ave are never more then 2 blocks apart from each other in Midtown. In a earlier statement, if and when the bridge opens there should be a QT and QB Lines at least on weekdays,
I'd like to add this "ode to the B Train" to the "West End Line" history in the line-by-line section on its next revision .....
--Mark
Mark: I didn't really go into to much detail in my posting about the B train. I could provide more detailed infomation if you need it. But please feel free to use it in whatever way you see fit.It would be nice to see an analysis or overview of the route developement as oppossed to a bare bones service guide. (Which is also useful).
Please e-mail me if I can be of any assistance.
Larry (RedbirdR33@hotmail.com)
Maybe you could do a little bit for each subway line. Your the most knowledgeable person I know who posts here.
Does anyone have a follow-up information regarding the strike of MTA workers on New Year's Eve? Did they renegotiate the contract? Shall we be "walking" into the 21st Century?
Striking by TWU members is against the law. No work stoppage can be tolerated, even if the contract isn't finalized.
Please find a legal, less costly and less crippling method of labor negotiations.
Dear Chris,
Any strike is illegal. And in today's highly mobile economy and overpopulated city, the word crippling is an understatement. I am against strike. What I am looking for is an information so I can sleep better, because, unfortunately like majority of New Yorkers, I don't have a G.. d... car to get me around. And it's a pretty long walk from Coney Island to Manhattan.
Thank you.
Only strikes by professions deemed a "necessity" are illegal according to NY's Taylor Law. That includes cops, firefighters, ssanitation workers and transit workers.
I remember the strike of '80. I was 8 and my father had to move into a hotel close to his office so he could work. I didn't see him for a week. Each passing day I'd look out my window, hoping to see or hear the J train running again, knowing that my father wouldn't be home until it did. I don't want to see that happen again.
The 1966 strike crippled thd City much more than the 1980 strike did. At least people managed to get to and from work (even if it took 2-3 hours one way). I managed to get to work in 1980. I was a kid during the 1966 strike. Nothing moved.
Was there ANY train service during the 80 strike? The J line was completely shut down.
Not on the subway. Did the ATU also strike? Or did some bus lines still run?
No rapid transit service, no city buses. I don't remember whether Triboro Coach, Steinway Transit, Green lines and Queens Transit ran or not. My guess is that they didn't.
It is amazing reading your responses. Thanks for the insight, guys. Of course, I was too young and too far away to remember any of this.
The City "industry" is almost in its entirety dependent on the subway system. That's why my concern. It is not fair of them to threaten with strike (meaning TWU), but just "imagine the possibilities"...
Of course, the world wouldn't end, but it wouldn't be all that nice either.
Thanks again.
I think that you have to look at the potential of a strike in several different ways because it is a complex issue.
First - The Taylor Law.
The fact that there is a law prohibiting strikes by municipal workers does not make it fair to prohibit the right to strike. Strikes have been an important part of the labor movement in this country and a key factor in our success. You must consider the possibility that the law may be unjust.
Second - The Issues.
Because of the Taylor Law, and because of the specter of binding arbitration, the MTA can fail to bargain in good faith with the TWU. Of course, this too is against the law but it is one thing to be against the law and another to prove it. You must consider the possibility that the Rank & File is worthy of a raise based on the improvements in the system.
Finally - The TWU
When I was a TWU member, I was suspicious of them. When I was an SSSA member, I saw how fast that organization sold it's principles when it allowed me to withdraw from membership as long as the TA ccontinued to reimburse them for the revenue lost by my dues not being paid. Prior to that, they went to court to keep my title from being made non-represented. Clearly, the unions have agendas and self interest and those may at times come in direct conflict with what is best for the members.
In considering all of the above, while I do not think that there will be a strike, I do think that on some level, there would be a moral justification for one. Would I strike if I were in a union now? I don't honestly know. I feel that the politicians have prostituted the Taylor Law. They are using it as a weapon to back up unfair labor practices rather than a tool to prevent illegal job actions. Perhaps it is time that this law were tested, in the courts or in the streets?
The fact is, the MTA is not a business. You can't strike against the MTA (the board of the MTA consists of people who drive in from the suburbs). You can only strike against the people. If the TA were a business, it would have gone broke in the early 1960s.
Second, the MTA is, more or less, a monopoly for commutation to Manhhattan. Yes, some can drive in, but it is physically impossible for all to drive in. Imagine that Con Ed and its unions turned of the elecrtricity for the city, and vowed to keep it off until both electric rates were increased 100 times? You wouldn't think that was fair.
Third, MTA workers are paid more than the rest of us, on average, period.
So while I agree that TA workers are entitled to a substantial raise, I do not believe the TWU has a right to strike. It should simply take its case to the people, and to the streets, and not sign a contract until one is on offing that is fair.
Please, this has NOTHING to do with money. It's about being treated with respect.
I and many others would accept 0% for the life of the contract if we simply got back all the little things we have given up when the TA claimed it was broke.
HERE HERE agree with you 1000% respect and some givebacks returned from previous negotiations. MTA in all is arrogance thinks it can bully the rank and file and all it can say in return is your lucky to have a job. Who are the ones moving the trains and buses? who are the ones emptying the trash, cleaning stations and the people giving customers metrocards and tokens? MTA pats itself on the back and makes no mention of the people who do their jobs and do a damn good job at that. If everyone feels we make too much money then take a god damn test or mail your resume' after all WE"RE HIRING! If your a lawyer yes we'll hire you accountant computer specialist college grad with a pulse and hopefully not burnt oout from all the partying while at away at school.. We re after all an Equal Opportunity Employer! so if your tired of yoour low paying job and lousy benefits suck it up go into the light and WORK FOR THE MTA GOING YOUR WAY! I guess getting burned on Wall STREET is a bitch but with all the wealth in MANHATTAN alone most of these people residing in the big apple ride the subway right? after all spending 3500 a month for a 1 bdroom apt opps thats just your share of the rent right? your not earning a motormans salary right? or sending the rugrats to private school tuition 12-20,000 a year or more not many of us here in NYCTA can afford that..
Hey Im looking to graduate next month!!!!!!!!! Im looking for a job at TA soon:):)
3TM
Brooklyn Bridge. The next and fianl stop will be Fulton St/South Street Seaport. Stand Clear..........
[The fact is, the MTA is not a business. You can't strike against the MTA (the board of the MTA consists of people who drive in from the suburbs). You can only strike against the people. If the TA were a business, it would have gone broke in the early 1960s.]
Exactly. A strike against, say, General Motors can be effective because the company is likely to lose money. But each day that the subways and commuter trains don't run means *less* of a loss for the taxpayers.
BUT it puts tremendous pressure on the decision makers!
Articulated well, my friend.
Steve, it's nice to see a cool head on this issue. While I don't necessarily agree with all your statements, I'm not directly enough affected by the situation to feel it my business to comment. There's been way too much flamage on this topic already and I hope that those perpetrating such will read your post and realize that this issue can be discussed in a calm and rational manner.
Until next time...
Anon_e_mouse
I have to agree in Steve's second point where the TA does use the Taylor Law as a shield to avoid bargaining in good faith as required by PERB and other agencies. The SSSA is currently in court because the TA contract proposals were not only worse the second time around but the union was willing to accept it. Their dissident faction took the TA and the union to court for misrepresentation and the judge has ordered them to go to mediation. No one should have to go to a judge to get a raise but without fair monitering and representation, we would have no choice. It is clearly obvious that at this time, the NYCTA will pull all their plugs claiming big money for Second Avenue and new cars and buses will have to raise the fare. Do you want us not to go out on strike. I promise each and every one of you out there that if you just write a letter to Pataki blasting him for turning down our 20 year pension or supporting each and every working class blue collar New Yorker so we can have pension reform or a little bonus for the work we do we wouldn't have do do what we are about to do. Something simple as going out every Nov 2 and cast your votes to those who support the AFL-CIO may help. Why didn't you complain when Lawrence Reuter got $75,000 to relocate from his home in Virginia plus a signing bonus AND a vested pension worth over $100,000 in as little as three years at YOUR expense? Check out the site below and see how the taxpayers support white collar crime while we live in a SH**house
http://www.osc.state.ny.us/divisions/pubauth/page420.htm
20 year pension? I fully expect to have to work until I'm 75. I'd be interested in what exactly are the "givebacks people object to. I can only speak to the general difference between public and private sector workers.
1) Public sector workers earn less in cash for the same work.
2) Public sector workers can get away with doing less work: other public sector workers have to make it up.
3) Public sector workers get more generous pensions, and get to retire far earlier, but only if they stay for many years. Those who change jobs are screwed -- pension slavery.
4) Public sector workers work fewer days (more sick days taken, vacation, holidays), and fewer hours, and fewer years due to short pensions.
5) Attempts to cut back the more generous benefits always apply to those hired since 1980. Those around before the fiscal crisis made out like bandits.
The LIRR only went as far as Jamaica.
This LIRR struck for the first day only. After that you could get from Penn Station into Queens. The PATH did not strike and I remember they ran special non stop trains from World Trade Center to 33rd Street. The ride took about 45 minutes, but it was a lot cheaper than a cab ride.
r u a retard?
In as much as Wanting to strike and your vehement opposition and wishing people could be hired off the streets and given a crash course in operating a subway train all you have to do look back to is November 1 1918 Malbone street wreck... this individual was from another title no less hired directly off the street given a few instructions and WHAM killed what was it 98 people....
Or to quote Walter Mathau in "The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3",
"Someone down there knows how to drive a subway train. You don't pick that up watching Sesame Street"
Sorry pal. Just going to the TA and saying "please, can we have back our cost of living, improved medical benefits and more personel to shorten our workload" won't cut it so we have one major alternative. To take money out of the management's pockets as public humiliation seems to affect them. Three ways to do it are to
1) STRIKE, a very likely alternative at this stage
2) A rulebook slowdown invloving major delays to service through BIEs
3) A sitdown strike where union members actually provide subway service but refuse to collect fares by keeping gates open and jamming turnstyles
Maybe a non union person can go and ask his/her boss for a raise and might get it but 3000 T/Os will not get it by asking. That is why we have collective bargaining but in this administration, union leaders will not fight for us and management will not realize that WE, the working members of the NYCTA are the reason that you are enjoying safe, efficient and reliable subway and bus service. We are going to get a piece of the pie at ALL costs, even if it means we have to flex some muscles.
Shop Man, can you contact me at the above address? I am doing a story about this, and would like to talk to you. Workers seem to be the last people we think about in the great scheme of things. Also, anyone intereseted is welcome to write too. Tks.
First of all, who do you work for. I protest the Daily News because to their opinion, I may be functionally illiterate and can't pass an exam. Therefore, I will attempt to read another paper. If you do work for the Daily News, please remind them when they were on strike on 1994, the TWU supported them on the picket lines and handed out flyers at Grand Central. Tell them how they have lost their ability to see through the flies to get to the pile of crap that lies. A reporter defaming union members would get ONLY the management's side of the story but the "investigative reporter" at NYDN printed the lies only and didn't even call the union for their side. Maybe we should call Arnold Diaz and run a Shame on You article for the New York Daily News Hall of Shame. Say, is it true that hundreds of readers won the scratch and match game on 11/5 but were told it was a misprint? Talk about a strike? No comment here. BIE BIE. Ooooops, I meant Bye Bye.
As far as Daily News goes, I agree with you. And no, I don't work for them, nor do I plan to. I believe in independence of opinion and thought. Unfortunately, this is lately only found in few oasis, Mine is the college I attend. Hope this helps.
Hadn't thought of a "sitdown strike" -- not collecting fares. That one doesn't hurt the riders at all. It may or may not count as a strike under the Taylor Law. And it could go on for some time. On the other hand, if the workers are not getting paid, the TA may be better off without the fares.
On thing that may be worth considering -- a riders' class action suit against the MTA and TWU, on the grounds that they used their monopoly power to cheat the customer. We could demand that everyone in the MTA -- suits and T/Os alike -- work without pay and without collecting fares for a few days to make it up to us -- over and above any Taylor Law. We could also get compensation for any pay or vacation days lost due to absence at work. Can you sue the monopoly provider of a necessity for failing to provide a service?
However, it's still illegal, as it's assisting people in the theft of service. But as long as trains run uninterrupted I could, as a commuter, tolerate this. If they strike I'll be the first person jump for joy as Rudy and Pataki crush the union.
I don't think you'd be able to get very far asserting that the MTA was a monopoly. They have plenty of competition from cars, walking, dollar vans and the like.
On the other hand, I don't know if anyone ever thought about how unions may violate anti-trust provisions throught their control and rationing of labor.
Chuck
That's an interesting interpretation. I've always associated "closed" shops as the labor equivelant of monopolies.
(Labor monopolies).
Let's just say that if my union (DC37) wasn't a monopoly, lots of people would be looking to be represented by someone else. Talk about a ripoff!
Hey I'll take the sitdown option. Anything that delays/impedes a persons commute will not be tolerated. A strike will be financially stupid (you'd lose 2 days pay for everyday on strike), but it will also piss off commuters.
Don't do it. It's illegal, stupid, and counter-producive.
I'd have to say that the idea of a sitdown strike will workout to be much more financially damaging to the transit worker than the two-for-one penalty. I'm sure that theft of services and aiding in the theft of services is going to be cause for termination under any union contract -- active or prospective. I don't think I'd hire anyone who told me they lost their last job because they opened up the fare gates to let people ride for free.
I'd suggest that the union needs to be extremely careful about a decision to strike. This is 1999, and the overwhelming majority of US industry is no longer unionized. The public doesn't buy into the "oppressed worker" philosophy anymore. Ask any American Airlines pilot about the reaction they got when they returned to work earlier this year after their "sick-out".
The perception of transit workers is that they are rather well-paid (but not necessarily overpaid) for their skills. I doubt very much there will be much public sypmathy for them if they strike.
In addition, the union needs to consider that many of the jobs are easily replacable. Station agents and bus drivers come to mind immediately, but it isn't hard to picture a scenario under which the union could be crushed entirely through defections and an intensive 6 week training program for new motormen and conductors. Remember that the MTA already made train operator a position open to the public and there was a sizeable response.
I totally agree. The union is in a no-win situation. Let an arbitrator decide who gets what for the next contract and be done with it.
I, as a subway fan and prospective future TA employee, have absolutly no tolerance for those who participate in an illegal work stoppage. The majority of New Yorkers will not support them, as they need subways to get around. I can't believe TWU officials would even consider it.
"prospective future TA employee"
Your opininon WILL change after you have been chewed up
and spit out by labor relations!
For all of you NON employees who seem to feel so qualified
to comment: a strike by TWU members wouldn't be so much as
trying to achieve a goal as it would be about getting
even. Surveying the membership, the vast majority support
a strike. Most for the simple reason of taking venegence
on the senior management team. It's a forgone conclusion
that as Pataki and Guiliani "crush" the union Chris, they
will also demand Reuter's and Hofmann's heads. For that
alone many of us would glady give up a few days pay.
As non employees none of you have any idea of the level of hostility TA management engenders. Matter of fact, although I DO NOT condone this, it's only a matter of time before some poor transit worker goes crazy with a gun at 130 Livingson St.
That said, there's no way the city could survive a strike long enough to replace us. Although Herbie Lambert and Nat Ford like to think so.
Those two rocket scientists have actually come up with a
contingency plan. They believe that using supervision and probationary employees, a sunday schedule could be provided. Keep dreaming. SSSA members are working
right now without a contract. Do those arrogant asses
actually think the SSSA members won't join in with us?
We have been advising all TWU members for some time now to take a pension loan equal to two weeks pay. So we are
prepared.
After taking it in the ass for years now, it's
time for payback.
Be afraid. Be very afraid.
I'm not saying I don't sympathize. But don't strike. I hope I don't offend transit workers by saying this, but your grievences aren't that important as compared to the smooth operation of the city's mass transit system. Take your case to a binding arbitrator and hope for the best.
Chris, do you know how the arbitrator works? He reads the letter of a rule, contract or bulletin and applies it to an individual case. The contract language is tilted to the TA as there are many instances where the union "may" have one right but management "shall" have another. You DAMN better change your opinion that our grievances aren't important because they also affect the safety of you, your family and neighbors. If I file a grievance that cab time is excessive, you will pay if I lose as you may ride a J train that might crash into another on a bridge. If your railroad clerk isn't allowed lunch or a toilet break, you pay by standing in longer lines at the booth. Without some leeway in Labor Relations, your trip will be hell and I will see to it personally that on my lines, hell will be given out for free with every purchase of the metrocard.
We've been through this before. The TA (like the post office, another bastian of workplace job) is a rule-based organizations. The TWU encourages workers to do the MINIMUM amount of work they can get away with, according to the strict language of the contract. And Management responds with the MINIMUM level of consideration they can get away with (no you can't go to the bathroom), according to the strict language of the contract. It's the only option they have.
Note that 20 years ago, in the "good old days" lots of TA employees were drunk on the job, or failed to show up. I remember waiting hours trying to get home one Christmas, because lots of bus drivers weren't there so the routes did not run. I was on crutches, and had to go to the bathroom, at the time. I bought a car soon after, and the TA had gotten its last off-peak dollar from me.
I believe the TWU position is that it has done a good job, cleaned up its act, and given back to the system, and it deserve thanks and rewards in exchange. If management won't give it to, you should have paid for the advertizing campaign "we accepted givebacks and worked harder when the system is in trouble, productivity is up 90 percent (true based on ridership and employment figures), so don't we deserve a reward?" As it is, a strike will send its own message --- SCREW ALL OF YOU.
As I said, I expect a strike, but of no more than three days, hopefully over the weekend of Dec. 17-20, perhaps with continuing bad service on Monday.
As a cop my biggest complaint with the PBA is no b-lls!! I admire a union that has the ba-ls to say F__K the Taylor Law. Lets face it, striking is the only leverage a union has. Arbitration?? The city has city arbitrators, paid by the city. When the PBA tried get the law changed to use state arbitrators (P.E.R.B.) the city took us to court and won, saying PERB violates home rule. My sympathies will definitely lie with the transit workers during a strike.
If big brother knows he has the Taylor Law on his side, then what is the incentive for him to bargain fairly vs. any union in this city? Yes, the word "fairly" is a subjective one, and the definition will vary in accordance to which side of the fence one is on. Any NYC union must go on strike if necessary out of principle. This way, the city will know that any union will not be intimidated by the Taylor Law. I would hate to see this TWU strike talk go on SubTalk for the next 6 weeks! Both sides have to talk tough. The union is elected and paid by it's members and management has to be on the side of the public. It is the nature of the beast! Mark my words: we will all go to bed on 12/14 with prospects of a settlement looking bleak, and wake up 12/15 with either a settlement or extension. Guys: don't get too hung up about a possible strike. Willie will never allow a strike, because if it happens, he loses his due checkoff and the last thing his cronies want to do is to go out to the work locations asking for dues money! Wildcat strike? No way, the workers are not united. The TA has suceeded in the philosophy of "Divide & Conquor." From this point on, I will not address this topic since I will be biased since I and my fellow transit workers on this board have a financial interest in this! I am confident of the outcome: TWU members will feels screwed and the public will think they got too much! Just like when the landlords and tenants have their haggling every couple of years!
"I would hate to see this TWU strike talk go on SubTalk for the next 6 weeks!"
I agree with that AND am also very pleased that the discussion so far hasn't ended up in a rock throwing contest (as it has been several times before). A little bit of understanding will be helpful for the "customers" and "management" that read the posts here. But there is a point where it's enough alrerady.
Mr t__:^)
Listen to this man he's trying to tell you that management either doesn't understand the mood of the membership right now OR thinks they have the power to beat them up & get what ever they want. If either of these positions is true then the union needs to wake them up. If that means a strike then maybe some heads will roll at the MTA/TA. The Labor Relations suit will be shot in public if things go wrong, but maybe the politations will want someone else's head.
On the other hand maybe Mr-46 is just ONE angry man ..... we'll see.
Mr t__:^)
Trust me Mr.T__:^), read from Harold, Alex, Anthony, Brian, Bill, and the thousands of us in transit. My facts are right on,(I research them first) and the opinions I expess are shared by the majority of us. But yeah, I am one ANGRY MAN.
I too believe your assesment of management's current stand, they are either holding out no matter what because they know something we don't, or they're incredibly misinformed. Those layers of insulating mid-level managers?
This is why I won't hazzard a guess as to the outcome. Also I don't trust Willie James and his team. But hey, I'll get my turn.
Chris R. Your HATRED of the working CLASS is obvious. And don't give me any of that Joe Mc Carthy "What are you some kind of commie" line that those of your ilk are so good at spitting out at people who you disagree with. FACT: COMMUNIST CHINA maintains its brutalitaritan grip on it's people because Multinational Corporations love the way the "worker's cadres" enforce management perogative, Caning anyone? that is the reality of free trade. The only diffrence between the hated dictatorship of the cold war era and the "Most favored" trade partner of today is the fact that the bloody handed dictators of today allow international fatcats to bring their profits out. Businessmen, for the most part, absent matrix regulation and a 75% tax bracket are a pathetic cancer on the human race. BTW, solve the health care mess by having doctors form their own mutual health insurance company and starve out the insurance bean counters.
How can I hate myself? I just refuse to blindly follow the "hate the rich" attitude many of our politicians use to cover their own inadequacies.
As a prospective future employee of the NYCTA you should be worried of what you'll inherit if we don't strike longer time to reach top pay currently 3 years proposal 5 years to reach top pay. few sick days with pay is another one. health benefits slashed and more co pays. Harrasment for use of sick leave and god forbid if you're injured on the job and go on workers compensation need i say more everything looks plush and comfortable from the outside just wait till your employed by TA and you find it isn't what you ASSUME it to be. Plenty of people get hired and plenty more quit ... I have no qualms about doing my job and receive a decent salary and benefits and get treated decently but we have to FIGHT to improve or have more rights taken away a managements discretion...
Glad to know you think so many of these union jobs are easily replaceable. Not only do you lose the people on the front lines - TO, CR, BO and SA, but all the support people you never see - MoW, Third Rail Power, RCI, CED etc. Who will train all these people - the supervisors? What happens during the training time - hope nothing breaks down? And while I don't know training times for other titles, the standard traing time for CR is 5 weeks, TO is 70 days in the IRT, 99 days in the BMT/IND, and even at that length, the problem ratio is pretty high. No way in hell would I ever ride a train operated by someone with 30 days of training as you suggest.
Unfortunately ANY type of job action other than striking CAN be legally considered breaking the Taylor Law. That is why whenever there is a summons slowdown in the Police Dept. you NEVER hear anything about it by ANY PBA offical.
Jeff, I have been wondering when the NYPD started hiring people with college credits, did those new POs have a more active role in their union? Did more cops with the degree participate in ticket writing slowdowns and attend PBA meetings than without? I have a glimmer of hope that these open competetive Train Operators will read both sides of the coin as they work for the NYCTA and I also hope that this new initiative will backfire in the face of the NYCTA. Or maybe the TA has that figured out and will only call those who worked at McDonalds for 5 years.
No, actually the rank & file are much less labor oriented now than ever. Remember cops by nature are usually very conservative which is also anti-labor. Also cops work a lot of strike details and sometimes get a negative view of picketers. Although cops are generally anti-city and anti-Rudy they are usually very apathetic when it comes to job actions and slowdowns. They are very afraid of the Taylor Law. It is very hard to get any type of action going. Even though I am a big labor sypathizer, I should be glad about it as I am now technically a part of management since my promotion. One good thing is the supervisor's unions, the SBA (sergeants) and the LBA (lieutenants) are working closely with the PBA in contract negotiations and are on the same side. They know they are getting screwed just as much as the cops and in unity there's strength. Is that happening with the other city unions?
Actually the other punicipal unions have been conferencing with TWU because their contracts all come up in the next year. SEIU, DC37, UFT, etc.
If we do poorly, then the pattern bargaining that the city tries to impose on all of us will cause a domino reaction.
What would happen if after negotiations stalled, a rash of low speed derailments or other "accidents" broke out all over the system. After all you can't be responsible for the action of a bunch of punk teens ::wink wink:: who run around the tunnels and jam spikes in the rail joints ::wink wink:: or short out the 3rd rail ::wink wink:: or damage the signaling system ::wink wink:: or leave dead, rotting fish all over the tunnels ::wink wink wink::, now can you?
I imagine that eventually someone would either spill the beans as to who these ::wink wink:: punk teens were or they'd just be caught in the act. Then those ::punk teens:: should be charged with various property crimes up to perhaps even attempted murder if they intentionally derailed a train.
wink wink.
I would hate to think that any mentally compentant person would suggest such a thing. Deliberately derail a moving subway train? The average subway train with 1,600 customers weighs over 1 million Lbs. at 6 MPH the force generated is over 9 million ft/lbs. Let that hit a few support columns and you could have a street cave in on top of a train. If that's the state of your mental process, one of us is in the wrong venue.....
You'd do it on non revenue trains, in a controled maner at key points that yould completely tie up the system. I was just sugesting an alterante way the workers could show the TA who's in charge. Hey, that's what they did in the old days. If the employer was unfair, the workers would burn the factory down.
And, of course, when the workers burned down the factory, the owner just pulled up stakes for somewhere else. The Luddites, having destroyed their livelyhood, starved.
If the owner could even afford to rebuild anywhere. Workers must organize so they can use legal process to achieve their objectives. but FAIRNESS,is the watchword so all classes can prosper.
No factory, no job Be politically active Rebuild the three legged stool of prosperity Big Government, Big Labor, Big Business. Violence is the way of the fool.
Hahahahah, Mike, I've been in this business a long time. What controls a train is the tracks. Once the train comes off the tracks it is out of control. There are no controlled derailments. The path and amount of damage are unpredictable. What about the train operator. Do you warn him first? Or is he just a sacraficial lamb? Any such act would be an act of total irresponsibility.
BTW: Do you have any idea what the criminal penalty for sabotage is? I'm quite sure our resident attorney form Chicago can give you an idea. My suggestion is back to the drawing board
Fighters for Justice know that Violent crimes (IMMORALITY) destroy ALL standing ANYONE has against injustice. Anyone who sabotages a public transit vehicle deserves JAIL FOREVER OTOH, non violent civil disobedience :~)
What the hell are you smoking?
-Hank
whatever he's beens smoking make sure no one else gets into it!
Hey!! All I'm saying is that when the law gives management all the power you need to resort to "other means" to achieve fairness. If the TA is screwing you then you screw the TA. I admit that my first statment was rather unrealisitc. I had meant it as a little tounge in cheek, but I guess I should have labeled it as such. However if the workers aren't willing to band together and take what action they can against the TA then they deserve what they get. If they employees as a whole did whatever they could to hinder train service the TA would eventually get the point and give in. Show the TA that it gets what it pays for.
So, if your union leadership won't fight for you...aren't you to blame for electing them in the first place?
NO ONE has the right to take the law into their own hands. When you accepted a job with the TA, you knew fully well that one of the things you were giving up was a right to strike, because it is illegal.
If there is actually a strike, I only hope Rudy and company have the balls to pursue in courts the strongest possible sanctions against the union for violating the law.
I bet you wouldn't have the balls to say that to the thousands of teamsters members who elected to have the Manhattan District Attorney's office investigate their election fraud practices and union misrepresentation. Carey was eventually replaced by James Hoffa Junior in the first of indictments against corrupt union leaders. Now as for your assumption that when something is illegal, people will be nice and not break the law or even worse, lawmakers won't look the other way. OJ Simpson broke the law, taxpayers of Boston broke the law by dumping their tea but more importantly if 6000 trains and buses aren't running because of lawbreakers, what are YOU going to do about it. Every vote counts. Bill Clinton got re-elected because of the "silent majority", those who might have suspected Vincent Foster was murdered, those who suspected that Bill broke the laws with Whitewater, those who suspected that Hillary was involved as well but he went on to a second term because YOU didn't vote. When they violated the law, Janet Reno looked the other way because the American Citizens not only did NOT demand his head, they put him in office a second time even after Paula Jones. I see it now that more New Yorkers complain about parking tickets than they do about subway service, that is only if they will get a ticket for drinking an open cup of coffee on the train. Face it, there are those down here who want a riot but you can't blame the union, blame the subway workers, your neighbors, your friends as THEY will be the ones to ratify a strike, not the union. By the way, I'd be very happy to pay back the two day fine for the days I intend not to come in to work. I can't wait to hand my check to Guiliani as I look into his eyes and see his Senate run go up in flames with city voters.
It is only unfortunate that any striking city transit workers cannot be treated in the same manner that the striking Air Traffic Controllers were by President Reagan.
The 2 day fine is laughable...the law should be strengthened so that the penalty for illegal strikes is a real deterrent...if the fine were a week's pay for each day of an illegal strike, that MIGHT do something.
The attitude you seem to have...that there are a lot of you, so you should be able to disregard the law...is disgusting. Is this what you want to teach your children--that you can disregard the law when you think it is right to do so?
As I said before, it is only unfortunate that any strikers will not get the penalty they so richly deserve, the loss of their jobs. Perhaps the certainty of waiting on an unemployment line would make you and your kind behave like something more than a bunch of dirty rabble.
If Guiliani tried to get Senate support by demanding Taylor Law penalties of one week for every day off the job, he wouldn't get the AFL-CIO to give him one damn vote. The Labor movement may be a minority today but the politicians still beg for their votes.
So what if there are so many of us willing to break a law? This country was based on making AND breaking laws. Where would we be today without the Boston Tea Party? Huh? I think the real problem with this country is there are too many lawyers making decisions for you and me and they are also making $$$ in the process. If I choose to break the law, let me lie in my bed and leave it at that because even if there was a 5 day penalty, I'd still shut down as much service as I can.
Like I said before...it is thugs like you who make a mockery of our laws that are our problem. You have a problem with Fuhrer Rudy...vote his ass out of office...but to break the law just because you arent getting what you want is wrong.
Like I said before, unfortunately the subway is a critical item for NYC...or you should all get the same treatment the air traffic controllers did from President Reagan. If you strike in violation of the law, it is what you deserve...maybe if you knew that youd be feeding your families on unemployment checks youd be a little less ready to behave like unwashed rabble.
I remember the Air Traffic controllers being offered their jobs a year or two after the strike so maybe they weren't wrong after all, eh? Our blight in the TA has nothing to do with Rudy because the MTA is a state agency. Rudy's power ended with the school passes and the Transit Police Department. Hahaha. George hasn't bothered with us because he was hired because of the upstate voters. The real thugs are the ones who write the laws in the first place. Why is it legal for airline and railroad personel to go on strike. Because it is us, workers at the NYCTA who are discriminated against. Maybe it is wrong to break a law to go on strike in the subway but look at the negative press Guiliani gets and all the publicity Al Sharpton gets when he breaks the law. Why doesn't the city of NY issue parking tickets to those who double park in front of a church on Sunday morning? Hundreds of them are breaking the law. By the way please save some of your money for a horse and carriage on December 15th so your "rabble" can ride to work with you.
My most profound disrespect
The Thug
The difference is you KNEW, when you took your job, that it would be illegal for you to strike. Having known this in advance, if you didnt like it, you shouldnt have taken a job there.
If youre looking for sympathy, wrong place, bub. Whatever you get you richly deserve
I guess i got my answer you are a moron....
Yes, I will get the pleasure of watching the TA brass sweating out their visit to the governor's office worrying about their jobs. Ill GLADLY pay a penalty but MTA brass and board members are appointed so they will not F*** us because they can LOSE their jobs. And bureaucrats like you will have to take alternate means of transportation so if you think it is ok for us to get screwed by the MTA, we will have no choice but to screw you. By the way, what makes you think that the MTA won't lockout the members on day one, like they did in 1980? You may not have a choice in the matter one way or another and YOU will have to live with it, not just me.
My vow not to talk about this didn't last too long. Somebody needs an attitude adjustment and it is not me! You are a very hostile man who is anti transit worker. With the Taylor Law on managements side, I see no incentive for the TA/MTA to bargain fairly. There is a principle involved here: that management, with this law on their side, cannot bully the union around. Individuals do not go on strike as you suggest, they have to follow the will of the union leadership. Do you make a 6 figure salary? I don't and never will, but you talk like a tough guy who does with the servants in the house and chauffeur driven limo. My car is 10 years old. And you think transit workers are rich!
Sorry, pal. When I took this job, no where in any of the paper that TA gave me did it say I couldn't strike. It's only now that they saw fit to let everybody know.
Unwashed rabble? Spoken like a true thug. The ones who wear a suit and tie, and call themselves the filthiest name of all: management.
We are not calling you names, so please cease calling us them, before Dave deletes the whole thread. Let's keep this a forum of ideas and opinion. Let's not let it degenerate into incivility.
With that said:
Break the law because you aren't getting what you want?
HEY DUDE! EVER HEAR OF MOHATMAS GHANDI OR MARTIN LUTHER KING JR?
The true gall, of comparing yourselves to Gandhi, and to Martin Luther King Jr., both of whom fought true and incredible injustice, is not to be believed.
You have other options available to you. You can turn out your members to protest. You can use the media and the exposure it grants. But when you accepted a job with the TA, you knew in advance that one of the rights you gave up was the right to strike for redress of grievances.
You and your compatriots are quick enough to call "management" to account for any failure on its part to abide by the rules of law in dealing with you. Why should you not be held to the same standard?
Barry, check this out: www.osc.state.ny.us/divisions/pubauth/page262.html
Too many chiefs making above $100,000 a year. All hourly employees, myself as a train operator make less than 1/2 of that. That is why we need to strike if we don't get a good contract. Some of us can't survive on base salary. TA don't need all those managers making the big $$$. Hourly needs it more!
Barry, check this out: www.osc.state.ny.us/divisions/pubauth/page262.html
Too many chiefs making above $100,000 a year. All hourly employees, myself as a train operator make less than 1/2 of that. That is why we need to strike if we don't get a good contract. Some of us can't survive on base salary. TA don't need all those managers making the big $$$. Hourly needs it more! Brian
Don't obviscate. I'm not comparing ourselves to Ghandi and
King. I pointed out YOUR faux pas by claiming that just
because we believe a law is unjust doesn't mean we have
the right to break it.
Your right that we do have other options. The plan is to
exersise them all, and use a strike only as a last resort.
Read my latest post on negotiation updates, to see why
this last option is unfortunately becoming an
inevitability.
And we never gave up the RIGHT to strike, we merely accept
that there would be PENALTIES for doing so. We are NOT
slaves, and NO agency any where could ever compel us to
work against our will.
Remember: Larry Reuter may run the Authority, BUT WE RUN
THE TRAINS!
Mr Plopkin are we starting this again. HOW DARES YOU!!!! As Bob Grant would say in my case, GET OFF MY TRAAAIN!!!! You have not answered my question as to how we "knew" in advance that we gave up a right. We never gave up that right, the lawmakers shoved it down our throats in a discriminatory fashion, one that singles out subway and public service workers in NYC but not the Federal workers like LIRR, Metro North and Amtrak.
On a lighter note, I will take your advice to use the media and protesting workers. I invite you to join me in front of MTA headquarters on Dec. 15 on the picket line with my comrades and, using the media's camera crews, utilize the exposure it grants. Nobody would have voted for the Taylor Law back in 1966 and nobody hired is forced to know before swearing themselves in. It is a law but a law soon to be broken. Next time you blames the TWU for failing to bargain in good faith with management, look at a copy of our conract.
Sincerely,
Your favorite Thug from the TWU
let me put this mildly, you are a moron or aleast appear to be one.
without the municipal employees vote and there is a huge chunk of us in the city not employed by NYCTA who also get shafted by the taylor law politicians would be crapping in their chairs without our VOTE. See if we don't receive a share of the wealth the city has received that every major union represented employee doesn't strike all at once.
I don't remember people crying this way during major league baseball strike and people came flying back to the ball parks.
Thanks Anthony, I second your remark. Mr Plopkin takes a limo to work and doesn't want to hear reality that every democrat and republican makes phone calls to the AFL-CIO looking for Labor support during an election. Did every Bostonian get arrested during the Boston Tea Party and for not paying taxes? What would happen if Guiliani writes a new law mandating public bathrooms closed during off hours and 50,000 New Yorkers use the streets at the same time? Would you not break the law Mr Plopkin? Would 50,000 New Yorkers be sent to Rikers all at once? The Taylor is an act of discrimination as railroad and airline workers have a federally protected right to strike. Congress can ONLY impose a cooling off period to which after they can RESUME striking. Why can Amtrak go but not us? We can go on strike, even if we are violating a court order and if in this case the AFL-CIO supports us by Teamster slowdowns and shutdowns in other unions, how can we not have the Taylor Law overturned. Then we wouldn't be breaking the law, would we? By the way Barry, I'll be on the picket line at 43rd and Madison in front of the MTA building. Please see me so we can shoot the S**T.
I agree
I agree
Yes, I definitely agree! People like Jefferson, Franklin, Adams and Hancock should all be executed for breaking the law by dumping tea in Boston Harbor, firing at Redcoat officers and undermining the power and sovereignty of his Royal Majesty King George III by declaring independence.
I don't know about the gripes that the TA employees have against the TA executives, but a crime is no crime if it's committed against injustice.
"Treason is an excuse invented by the victors for hanging the losers."
Benjamin Franklin
Just like "fair" and "justice" are in the eyes of the beholder. Good quote Dan.
Thanks, I'll add that to my list of "Quotes that I Use When I Talk About Things."
How bout "What goes around comes around" or "Do on to others what others have done on to you"? I think those apply here too.
What Reagan did to the air traffic controllers was despicable!!! I actually liked him before that but was completely against him afterward!!! And believe it or not, he was once the president of the Screen Actor's Guild, a union.
By the way, I consider to this day ANY air traffic controller a SCAB
hmm I wonder if Reagan was competent enough to make the decision to do a mass firing of those Air Traffic COntrollers?
Oh, I'm sure glad you work for such a wonderful employer.
You seem to have so little empathy for those of us who
work for Satan.
Let me ask you: if a majorty of the citizenrey violate a
law, doesn't that make the law moot? isin't it America
where the majority rules? The speed limit is a joke on the
highways of NYC. 50? Who does 50 when there's no traffic?
That Grand Central is like the Indy 500! So according to
your strict interpretation of the law, all those drivers
are guilty. (please let's not start a thread on the speed
limit) I submit that the public at large has a right to
determine it's own destiny. The TWU membership as a
microcosm therefore shoud share that right. Binding
arbitration? Taylor Law? Those are for a fair and just
world. The world IS NOT fair. And justice is for those who
dare demand it.
Before you sit in judgement of us and call us selfish,
look in the mirror. You're whining about a day or two of
inconvienience. We have to live with this for 25 years or
more.
"but you knew that before you took the job"
Yeah we did. So now we are demanding a contract that allows us to be treated with respect, and protects us from abuse.
Because there is a condition that exists somewhere, in your opinion we have to live with it, because we knew it was there when we arrived. With that attitude, nothing would ever get done.
The pioneers would never have gotten west, those mountans are too rugged. But they knew that before they got there.
The troops at Normandy had a terrible time, so many were killed. But they should have expected that.
Better yet! When the Founding Fathers threw all that tea into Boston harbor: they should have known that King George was gonna be pissed!
Just because there's a law doesn't make it just!
Get off your high horse, and make a trip on my train, or flag the tracks, or clean resistor grids, change brake shoes, drive a bus down 5th Av. trouble shoot signals or swing a hammer on the Williamsburg bridge BEFORE you dare judge me and my bothers and sisters.
Better yet Mr Plopkin, please check out one of our signal division member's website at www.newyorkcitytransit.com and see how up close and personal your attitude can be found in NYC transit managers. See how innocent workers are framed so bigshots of your caliber can keep their jobs while the government looks the other way. Read about the 135 St A line derailment of 1997 where the TA forced a foreman to lie under oath to scapegoat a signal maintainer not originally blamed in the wreck. The IG didn't care either of the fact that the TA has no oversight for its bloated managerial workforce while at the same time we have to pick up their slack. By the way I thank you for your compliment of a "thug" as many times, the only way for me to avenge an unnecessary dismissal or write up is to act like one and follow ALL rules and encourage others to follow the same so when you wonder why some trains have lost their speed, it may not be because of field shunting, it may be that there is a little "thug" in everybody. Therefore I will continue posting as "The Thug" to remind you that with freedom of expression there are always two sides to a story and neither one should be silenced. Happy Holidays from The Thug.
I though that there was an agreement that the 'Satan' referrences would stop. I hate to see excellent points overlooked because people are turned off by that refference.
There's a lot to be learned by those of us who don't work for the TA. We don't know what's happening on the inside, only the information provided by our friends here on SubTalk gives us a general picture. Who knows? Maybe when we've worked for many years as T/Os and C/Rs, we'll have the same attitude as those who were dissatisfied with the practices of the TA. The bottom line is we won't know what our friends here have experienced until we, the regular railfans, have experienced those injustices. There has to be a reason for all this dissatisfaction. When there's a problem, it needs to be corrected! Arbitration is most appropriate to settle a dispute.
In summary, my friends out here have every right to strike. They are no different than the employees at say the Daily News and the old NYNEX telephone company. Years ago they striked, and who says TA employees can't? We have no right to say who can or who can't strike. I'll be honest and hope it doesn't come to that. I don't want to be inconvenienced by the strike, but a strike has a purpose and that is to seek justice for those who were wronged in some way.
I hope we can back to business of exchanging information in a friendly and objective manner, as there has already been enough tension. Let's not add to it anymore.
-Stef
Excuse me Stef...they dont have a right to strike because there is a NYS law, the Taylor Law, that says they cannot. They knew of this law when they took their jobs.
True, true. But there's a lot of dissatisfaction with how the TA's being run, and those unhappy with the current situation would like to do something about it. A law is a law, but men sometimes do things that the rest of us don't necessarily have to agree with. The worst thing that could happen is those out on strike will get docked pay. But they might have a purpose.... If you're unhappy about something wouldn't you want somebody to listen to your grievances?
-Stef
Let me correct one perception that you have. There is a lot of dissatisfaction with the way certain divisions of the TA are run. It seems that there is far more dissatisfaction in RTO than in some other operating divisions. Within the Division of Car Equipment there are some shops with extremely high morale while others are zero. I think that a lot has to do with the way local management handles the directives from "The High Command". Lack of morale is usually due to poor local management.
I hope that upper management can work to make things better.
-Stef
Steve my friend you are 100% categorecly (sic) CORRECT!
Has any one here besides me ever read the one minute manager? Apparently no one at 370 Jay St. has!
That was the book back in the 80s about George Steinbrenner and Billy Martin, right?
[There's a lot to be learned by those of us who don't work for the TA. We don't know what's happening on the inside, only the information provided by our friends here on SubTalk gives us a general picture. Who knows? Maybe when we've worked for many years as T/Os and C/Rs, we'll have the same attitude as those who were dissatisfied with the practices of the TA. The bottom line is we won't know what our friends here have experienced until we, the regular railfans, have experienced those injustices. There has to be a reason for all this dissatisfaction.]
Job dissatisfaction is hardly unique to the TA. Workers have been complaining about their bosses ever since Eegrunk hired Ougaalk to assist in the woolly mammoth hunt. What does seem to be a bit unusual is the extent of the animosity. In part, that's something more or less inevitable within the public sector, but at least in some ways it reflects poorly on TA management.
It's not job dissatisfaction. Most of us love the job. We hate the people who run the place.
When your employer will lie and falsify evidence, in order to suspend, or suspend you for long periods of time for VERY minor infractions or will deny you days off for special events known well in advance, or force you to come in to work on your day off, YOUR day off! Under threats of 30 day suspenson, what else do you have but an engederment of hostility?
This is but a small sample of the crap TA does to us.
Once again I will state: although we know the TA is sitting on a pile of cash,
OUR GRIEVANCES HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH MONEY!
I have mixed feelings regarding a strike. I certainly agree that the workers have some valid grieviances, but most workers do. I appreciate the job that the transit workers do and I realize that this city would come to grinding halt without their valuable service.
However, many of us in the private sector can't understand why they would want to strike. Sure, no one is going to get rich working for the TA, (and a agree, there are too many high paid managers who don't do anything and should be removed), but the workers do get paid fairly well for what they do. A good salary may be hard to live on by New York City standards, but I would be that the avarage salary of a transit worker is higher than many of the passangers who ride the subway.
On top of that, the workers have an excellent medical plan, a pension plan and good vacation policy. Most of us in the private scector don't have great medical plans and much fewer days off. If we are lucky we get a 401(k) plan (which is only our own money.) A real pension plan, what is that?
Also, the transit workers, since they are unionized, have job security and a place to go if they have a problem. The only place I have to go is to find another job, and I have also been told to hit the road over my career.
It would be best for everyone involved for the workers not to strike. They should still negotiate for the best settlement they can get, but a strike would burn too many bridges, (I meant that figuratively.)
Well, let's wait and see. Hopefully, a settlement can be reached, and a strike could be avoided only if each side is willing to listen to the other.
-Stef
its not simply about pay other factors include disciplinary practices, contract language in many respects needs clarification, benefits and working conditions. Crew facility and restroom conditions are deplorable.
The excellent medical plan ends up costing me more for my family than the plan at my wife's job, which she has to pay for - as a result, I'm covered by her plan. The pension plan - more of an enforced savings program for later on. I pay into it because I have no choice. The TA pays nothing. I have no control as to how it gets invested. Again, I would rather have my wife's 401(k) with the company's matching contribution. I will grant you the good vacation, if you don't mind waiting 10 to 12 years to get off when the kids are out of school. But even now, the TA wants to cut into our vacation.
Vacation? It takes 15 years of service to get to the full vacation available. It takes 4 years to get the full wage.
And when the turnover is factored in not a great deal of people nowadays get to full rate! Conductors in their second year bring home about $375 a week. Is that a lot?
I'm not complaining. I think the pay is fine as it stands. But please don't think we are getting over. Job security? Not with today's labor relations staff! All of us go to work every day living with a sword of Damocles over our heads, some in actual fear for their livelyhood.
But that's what management wanted.
Shop Man, I salute you. It's nice to know that Anthony, Harold, John and I have yet another friend here at SubTalk.
Let us all have a moment of silence and a five minute period of trains holding switching as we reach for the gold. No I don't desire a nice raise or medical benefits. I desire Joe Hoffman and Lawrence Reuter dressed in maids costumes cleaning my house on their hands and knees. I'd like to see Nat Ford at Hoboken Station filling in for the shoeshine guys. For once in my life, the thought of unemployment sounds fabulous.
Contract negotiations are in progress. However, right now I believe that the TWU (and Management) is just posturing for the media and membership right now. As the deadline approaches it will get heated and serious. Then you will hear the word 'STRIKE' thrown around. The fact is that a strike by the TWU would be a violation of The Taylor Law. The teeth of the Taylor Law is that any public employee covered by the law, who strikes, will be penalized 2 days pay for every day on strike. That's quite an incentive not to strike. A 5 day strike will result in 10 days of lost pay. If the TWU won a 4% raise for the first year, the taylor Law penalties would equal the raise. What is more likely is that the TWU and TA will submit to binding arbitration. After all, neither side really cares. The TWU will raise their dues no matter what and the TA & the parent MTA have no profit motive. If the salaries go up, the monies will be found either at the fare box or through increased subsidies. It's all for show...
I think it's good time for the TWU as neither George Pataki nor Rudy Giuliani wants the national attention of a transit strike. If the union makes realistic demands & gets most of what it wants there'll be no strike. If the suits in labor relations don't understand the big picture then there'll be a strike.
In the business world unions & strikes are becomming more important because the captians of industry are more and more short-sighted, i.e. how much money can EYE squeze out of this business for MYSELF before the stockholders catch me at it & I have to jump out of my ivory tower in my golden parachute.
My wife & I disagree about unions. She thinks they are just a way for her staff to find ways to get away with stuff. I've told her it is realy because the management there has no balls not because the union is too strong. People with mind sets like her's also haven't taken a lesson from history ... i.e. what management attitude toward it's works brought about unions in the first place ? Second thing to think about ... how has it happend that the rich have gotten so much richer then the rest of us in the past few years ?
Mr t__:^)
I heard an interesting fact the other day.
If you bought 1,000 shares of AOL 1n 1992 it cost you about $11,500.00. Today, if you held it, due to numerous stock splits you'd have 128,000 shares worth roughly $7.2 million. That's why the rich (and lucky) keep getting richer.
Keeping with the theme, both debt and savings eventually work like snowballs going downhill, and having one and not the other is why so many people are worse off today. The difference between saving up for each car and earning interest (because you transit exclusively when you are young) and borrowing for each car and paying interest, over the course of a lifetime, is huge. Same with the size of your downpayment. Forget credit card debt.
Lots of the poor who are getting poorer no longer know how to cook a meal from scratch -- they live on processed and fast food. Lots of middle income households "living paycheck to paycheck" are too high and mighty to use mass transit, or even carpool. And lots of those who cannot afford decent housing are unwilling to live outside Manhattan. Having done all three throughout my life, I don't find myself getting poorer. I never had all the stuff people feel entitled to to begin with, and don't miss it.
Yes, but these things kind of sneak up on you. Think back to the days when ONE bread winner could support a family, now two HAVE to work just to keep your head above water. It's been a very long time since I was able to BUY a new car, i.e. WHY do so many lease ? Why do your kids HAVE to move out of the city/state to have any kind of decent existance ? Those CDs that you have, do you realy think you're making any money on them, i.e. they're just barely keeping pace with the cost of living increases.
So, Larry do you still think that you're keeping pace ? I don't !
Mr t__:^)
I hate to tell you, but he reason you need 2 paychecks to support an average household is because the quality of life the average American expects these days costs a hell of a lot more than it did in the Leave it to Beaver days.
Your wife can stay home if:
You throw away your computer, VCR, cable box and the other electrical appliances that have been deemed a "necessity" over the past 20+ years
You don't send your kids to college. Most famailies didnt.
Stop going to fast food resturaunts. That's an expensive luxury that didn't exist much back in the day.
So you see, life got more expensive, you didn't get poorer.
Absolutely! Well said. Dear Abby, of all places, had a letter that I'll never forget that contrasted the 60-year-old writer's early married life (franks and beans for 3 years to save the down payment on a house) with that of her yuppie daughter (3-day "mental health" trips to Bermuda, new car every 2 years, etc.) who never seems to have any money.
The downside of the current Internet IPO madness is that Americans seem to believe in "hitting it big", i.e. the legitimate version of Lotto. In the '70s and '80s it wsa real estate (you were supposed to be able to make 10%/year ABOVE the inflation rate), now it's stock IPOs. There'll always be something.
It's all about SAVINGS. Either you can attempt to increase $$$ coming in, or decrease $$$ going out. As a nation, we seem to place far more faith in the former than the latter.
You've got it right. I've got a lot of data on this, any all physical mearsures of well being are way, way up. The social measures -- are kids growing up with their two parents -- are not, but that's not the result of economic trends, but personal choices. I've got a little spreadsheet I whip out at Thanksgiving, comparing the "Good Old Days" to the "Recent Bad Years." Its a hoot. And when the share of the population with a TV goes from 50 percent to 99 percent, you can't say the gains are concentrated at the top.
Two salaries? My Dad worked 60 hours per week and my Mon stayed home. And my wife and I work 60-70 hours per week, but sharing the work and home load. We have a lot more money than my parents did -- they never went to restaurants, and I didn't fly on an airplane until I was in college. And, my Dad was a college graduate -- in 1960 there were far more management and professional jobs than college graduates, while the reverse is true today.
I think part of what has happened is that the articulate are having to work a little harder, and have a little less job security, than in the past. They didn't mind laying off all the factory workers in the 1970s and 1980s, so they shouldn't complain when economic change results in them getting fired. The difference -- today you can get another job. Remember the 1970s as they really were!
My mother quit her job when she became pregnant with me. We lived on my father's salary throughout most of my childhood. We had 1 TV, no car, lived in an apartment where I had to share a room with my brother and never, never spent as lavishly as parents do today (designer clothes for a 9 year old? Give me a break).
My mother didn't resume working until my brother was 14 and both he and I were old enough to take care of ourselves. Having my mother home was a godsend. We may have been a poorer family financially, but my brother and I grew up to be happy, healthy adults with no major problems. So the next time I hear someone whine about being forced to have both parents work as an excuse for why little Johnny robbed the convienence store I just roll my eyes and thank god I grew up in the kind of family that I did with.
Having my mother at home and my father work so much was not a blessing. Mom pretty much lost her fastball, and was overwhelmed being home with three kids, no car, all the time. Dad left for work before I woke up and returned after I was asleep. So I like our deal better, especially since we have a two-legged stool -- if one of us loses a job, the other still has one. But everyone I know has at least one parent working part time, or at home, if not both. Some have one parent at home. As I said, its a matter of being willing to live in Brooklyn, ride mass transit, and not be extravagant otherwise.
My father in law was laying it on, how when he was a kid a guy could work behind the counter in a store and earn enough to raise a family by himself, and even sock away a few bucks. Oh, yeah, I said, what kind of car did he drive? No car. How big was his house? A one bedroom apartment in Flatbush. Where did he vacation? Day trips to Coney Island, or perhaps shared cottage for a week in Rockaway. There are hoards of immigrants living like that in NYC today, and liking it just fine.
Very good post Larry.
Thanks.
SudDude
[My father in law was laying it on, how when he was a kid a guy could work behind the counter in a store and earn enough to raise a family by himself, and even sock away a few bucks. Oh, yeah, I said, what kind of car did he drive? No car. How big was his house? A one bedroom apartment in Flatbush. Where did he vacation? Day trips to Coney Island, or perhaps shared cottage for a week in Rockaway.]
People want more today. Let's convert those old living standards to modern ones:
No car ----> Ford Expedition for husband, Jeep Cherokee for wife. Plus his 'n' hers Jet Skis.
Apartment in Flatlands ----> 3,000 square-foot house in top suburb.
Day trips/cottage ----> 1 week in Cancun, 1 week skiing in Aspen, 2 weeks in Europe.
Chris, I could definately identify with that. When I was growing up, I also had 1 TV, 1 bathroom, shared a bedroom with my older brother, had my mother home while my father worked 9-5 and no car. We didn't have any A/C either. And you want to know something, we were content with what we had. Today, both my wife and I work and we need help from our parents to make ends meet. I'm poorer than I was when I was growing up. The problem is that we are being bombarded with easy credit. Buy it now, pay for it later. Along with that mentality there comes consumer debt. Is there anyone that posts here that doesn't carry balances on their credit cards? If there is, speak your piece. You're indeed rare! Hey, man, give me the good ol' days when one income was enough, credit wasn't shoved down your throat, and prices were much more affordable.
I don't. Nor do I make car payments, although I own four licensed vehicles, three of which were purchased used. The only debt I have is my New Jersey house. I also don't have any savings to speak of, what with my younger daughter in college at the moment (and my older son taking a year off but still costing me lots of money). When we were younger we did carry too much debt, but we realized early on that it was foolish to do so, paid off the balances as quickly as we could, and resolved never to do it again. Once, when I was unemployed for a year and we had run through my severance and our savings, we ended up with some credit card debt again, but as soon as I had another job we stopped running up debt and when I got a good job we paid it off.
I agree, the temptation of easy credit is great, and it's offered far too freely. Our younger son (age 14) receives at least two offers a month for credit cards, no credit check required, with credit limits of $500 - $3000. Some of them know how old he is, from the text of their ads. He puts the offers straight into the recycle bin, and I hope he will always be that responsible. But many aren't. Our son-in-law (before he married our older daughter) had managed to get himself deeply in debt and ultimately declared bankruptcy. When we were growing up that was an unheard-of situation, only entered into by desparate people who were forever regarded as social outcasts. Now it's an easy thing to do that apparently carries almost no penalty (how many times have you heard the car dealers advertise "bad credit, slow credit, no credit, no problem"?) and is actively encouraged by many. When my younger daughter attended a Law School forum for prospective law students, several of the other prospective students (from the undergraduate school where the forum was held, not from my daughter's college) were discussing the advice given them by their advisor: borrow to the hilt to get through school, then declare bankruptcy six months after graduation. Instantly debt-free, and the government gets stuck with the $200K or so bill. The kids thought it was an excellent idea. Why shouldn't they take advantage of it? Everyone else does. Fortunately, my daughter has a sense of ethics that these students obviously lack.
Until next time...
Anon_e_mouse
DON'T, DON'T,DON'T just throw away credit card offers SHRED THEM CAREFULLY. If I had a cat, It could get a credit card :~)
We do. Our paper recycle bin is really one of those $29.95 shredders from Staples or Office Max (can't remember which). The guys at the recycling center hate us for it because the shreddings blow around when they empty the can.
Until next time...
Anon_e_mouse
Thanks for sharing this with us. My hat is off to you for being able to turn things around and be debt-free. One thing that I found shocking was that a 14 year old could get credit card offers. Only after I was 30, and after paying off a 4-year car loan that my father co-signed for was I able to get a card. Now, I have several. I curse the day that I accepted the first offer. It's one big legalized racket, and the little guy, the consumer always loses.
Keep in mind that these offers are from the likes of MBNA and the other Delaware-based credit card banks. On the flip side of the coin, I have a 17-year-old daughter who is a senior in college already (four years younger than most of her classmates). Will any of the credit unions or banks where my wife and I do business issue her a card? No, not even with my co-signature (although they will issue me a separate account so she can be an "authorized user" and that I simply would not use). Reputable institutions do have age guidelines. Unfortunately, in her case, I'd like her to have an established credit record in her own name prior to going to law school next fall, and since she won't turn 18 until July that won't be possible unless we deal with a credit card bank. We've decided that isn't worth it, especially since your credit record is based not only on your payment history but on the source of your credit (a credit card from your credit union is usually even better than one from a top-notch bank, which in turn is better than one from MBNA or other such, etc.).
Until next time...
Anon_e_mouse
Then a check card is a good idea, you won't have to carry cash and you will never be in debt. I have a credit card which is really that of my mother and there's an additional card with my name on it. I rarely use it. A CC is the only way to buy things online, and it's easier to use the card than carrying cash more than $100. I always get parents' permission for these, and they usually come out of my "allowance" (which BTW, I created myself, I used to get money on demand, but I feel that I ended up spending it too fast). The point with credit cards is that you have to know when to stop, before it reaches the point that you're buying with money you won't have when the bill comes.
The point with credit cards is that you have to know when to stop, before it reaches the point that you're buying with money you won't have when the bill comes.
That's easy when you're single and still living with your parents. When you have a family to support, you wind up taking cash advances just to pay bills. Unexpected and costly car repairs, unexpected and costly medical bills (insurance doesn't cover everything, and in your 40's or 50's, you're not as invincible as you were in your teens and 20's-health begins to fail, like hypertention, back problems, etc.), and other expenses involved in staying afloat, like rent, electric, gas, food, medicine, clothes, etc. When you run short of money, you have to do something to keep from winding up in the street. People also live off their credit cards when they're out of work. I've been there. The big problem is that society has become dependent on credit. That's exactly where the financial institutions (Citibank is an example) want you to be. The financial institutions are the ones that keep getting richer, at our expense. All that crap about SUV's and European vacations-I haven't been away on a vacation since 1993 and I own 2 cars, one 9 years old, the other 10. Not everyone who overextends on credit has all this stuff.
Sounds much like our situation - we lived off the credit cards for a while after severance and savings ran out (I was laid off in September 1994, remained totally out of work for 10 months and was seriously underemployed for the next six). Fortunately we didn't have any balances when it all started. And, like you, the last real vacation we took was in the summer of '93, when my former employer said "use it or lose it" and I had 10 weeks in the bank. Since then the only overnight trips we've taken have been to see our grandchildren in Nevada - one trip each year for both my wife and I - and for such things as parents' weekend at our younger daughter's college. And I haven't quite decided what to call my upcoming road trip with Margaret as she looks at law schools - nine days in a minivan, six law schools, 3500 miles - doesn't sound like a vacation to me, even if it is a change of scenery. (But Minneapolis and Chicago in December? Give me a break!)
Until next time...
Anon_e_mouse
Everyone understands that you can get in the hole if you're sick, unemployed, or if you have your own business and run into trouble. That's why we have bankrupcy laws that help people get out from under.
What's different today, and a little bit sick, is the way people with none of those problems get themselves in the hole. My brother worked for a sub-prime lender, and he routinely saw people with incomes over $100,000 on the brink of bankrupcy, just from getting caught up in the American consumer thing. (He now works for a mutual fund company, having moved to the "forces of good" from the "forces of evil." Evil paid better).
The bastards hook 'em young. Years ago, you lived with your parents until you got married or saved up a chunk in the bank. This way, when the car broke down, you didn't have to borrow to fix it. Today, you have people who leave college in debt to the credit card companies! When I was in college, only a couple of seniors had cars. Today, in the suburbs, 16 year olds get cars. Young people want to fit in and measure up, so they get pulled along. After living on all their income and them some, they end up hurting when kids and other obligations arise. They feel bad, but its too late.
You're really bucking the culture here if you live below your means and put money in the bank. Advertizers spend billions telling you that if you don't have this or that, you are a loser. And those at the bottom get sucked in worse than the rest -- the ghetto and the Hamptons are the only place where people still pay more for brand names. People want to be in the middle class, and I resent the "upsizing" of what that means. AC? Cell phone? Cable? SUV? What next! The only extra expense to come along that we have judged well worth it is the PC and internet.
I think that a A/C is also well worth it. Central A/C should be considered a luxury. But bedrooms and the dining or living room can be air conditioned.
I agree, A/C is definately worth it, especially in North Carolina. But even in New Jersey it makes life a lot more comfortable. Our North Carolina house is cooled by one huge window unit and a couple of ceiling fans (it has a very open layout so that's possible), while our New Jersey house, being almost 250 years old, sprouts five window units of various sizes, as appropriate to their place in the house.
Until next time...
Anon_e_mouse
Being from the north and of an environmental bent, we try to avoid the A/C. Now, I'll admit last summer tested us, but we've got ceiling fans over every bed and never lost a night's sleep, despite all those days over 100. If we had A/C, we wouldn't have gone outside the entire summer. People say Florida is hot, but our trip to Disney World was a piece of cake.
A/C is worth it on the subway, where you're packed together. The heat isn't. I usually feel like I'm gonna faint.
I'm glad you can handle it - I could when I was younger, but not now! The part that gets to me is the humidity, not the heat - I've been out in the Arizona desert when it was past 100° but the humidity was so low I didn't mind it too much (on the other hand, I only got out of the van long enough to take a dozen pictures of a BNSF track gang at work).
Until next time...
Anon_e_mouse
Don't get me started on Urban Assault Vehicles! A teenager driving her Mom's Navigator took out the fire hydrant up the street from us about 2 AM today. Nobody hurt, but the entire neighborhood was awake for an hour or so. As it happens, the Navigator's owner works in my organization - she drives eight miles to the office at speeds not exceeding 45 MPH, by herself of course, and complains about her gas mileage. I suppose this incident will be her excuse to trade it for the Excursion she wants.
On a related note, our local fire chief lives around the corner and his in-laws are diagonally across the street from us. He drives a new Suburban (paid for by my tax dollars). But at least it's not the Range Rover they furnish the Chief of Police in an adjacent township. (And no, it's not a confiscated one either, they bought it brand new at the chief's request.)
Until next time...
Anon_e_mouse
"But at least it's not the Range Rover they furnish the Chief of Police in an adjacent township."
That reminds me of something I saw once when I was up on (Chicago's) North Shore on business (via the Metra UP-North, of course) and I saw a Range Rover or some sort of SUV in the markings of the local police department. This had to be in either Winnetka or Glencoe, and both suburbs have been developed for a century now and all the roads are paved. There's no need for a police department in a town with all its roads paved to use SUVs as patrol cars!
[That reminds me of something I saw once when I was up on (Chicago's) North Shore on business (via the Metra UP-North, of course) and I saw a Range Rover or some sort of SUV in the markings of the local police department. This had to be in either Winnetka or Glencoe, and both suburbs have been developed for a century now and all the roads are paved. There's no need for a police department in a town with all its roads paved to use SUVs as patrol cars!]
But what about snowstorms?
If there's a legitimate need for 4WD there are a lot of less expensive choices than a Range Rover. Ford, Jeep, and Chevy/GM all produce mid-to-large size 4WD vehicles that are less than half the cost of a Range Rover, and the Ford and Jeep models also have twice the reliability (Chevy/GM announced a major recall today on 4WD components, according to the radio this evening, otherwise I would probably have put them in the same category).
Until next time...
Anon_e_mouse
Also, now that GM no longer makes rear-wheel-drive passenger cars, they're trying to push sport-utes (usually GMC Yukons) to the Police Depts. that refuse to accept front-wheel drive cars for reasons (real or perceived) of durability, complexity and/or commonality w/the rest of their fleets. That's why many previously all-GM police forces now find themselves driving Ford Crown Vics -- the only full-size RWD sedan left.
That all said, a Range Rover does seem a little excessive. But I'd believe it in Winnetka.
[That reminds me of something I saw once when I was up on (Chicago's) North Shore on business (via the Metra UP-North, of course) and I saw a Range Rover or some sort of SUV in the markings of the local police department.]
The thought just occurred to me - it might have been a drug forfeiture.
[how many times have you heard the car dealers advertise "bad credit, slow credit, no credit, no problem"?]
I have heard that those ads are scams. People who end up buying from those places get ripped off royally. In a typical deal, the dealer buys a car for $5,000 and sells it for $10,000, with the buyer putting down $3,000 and borrowing the rest at an extremely high interest rate. Payments have to be made weekly, and the vehicle will be repossessed in short order if payment is late. Not to mention the fact that the car is likely to be a piece of junk.
Some of those bad-credit ads say "all applications accepted." That means that anyone can come in and fill out an application. Of course, it might very well be rejected, but the ad didn't say "approved," did it?
They are. One of my son-in-law's relatives is in the car business and specializes in such deals, albeit mostly with new cars. The gimmick is to purchase the car at full retail, 20% or more down, high interest (15.9% on up - in Nevada the usury ceiling is 33%), seven year payments on most cars. Repossessions aren't as high as you might think, but from what he's told me they still run around 15% after one year and 20% total. Most of these loans don't actually last more than three years because the person's financial situation has usually improved enough to refinance at a more reasonable rate and/or to enable them to trade the vehicle and obtain more conventional financing on their next one. The GM, Mazda, and Kia credit arms actually underwrite a good number of these loans, and it wouldn't surprise me if other manufacturers' credit arms do the same. (How many people would even buy a Kia otherwise?)
Until next time...
Anon_e_mouse
[re "guaranteed auto credit" rip-offs]
[They are [rip-offs]. One of my son-in-law's relatives is in the car business and specializes in such deals, albeit mostly with new cars. The gimmick is to purchase the car at full retail, 20% or more down, high interest (15.9% on up - in Nevada the usury ceiling is 33%), seven year payments on most cars. Repossessions aren't as high as you might think, but from what he's told me they still run around
15% after one year and 20% total.]
It sounds to me like buyers go for those deals as much out of greed as out of necessity. Most of them probably would be far better off with used cars. But no, they probably just *have* to have something bright and shiny and new, and therefore end up paying through the nose. An outgrowth of this country's car culture, I'd say.
A 20% repossession rate is horrifying, no matter how you slice and dice it. But I suspect the dealers are still making plenty of money on these scams.
Oh, they are! According to my son-in-law's cousin they are their most profitable deals. Most salesmen, on the other hand, aren't interested in dealing with someone like me - I pay cash, so they don't have the opportunity to hide any profit in their paperwork fees plus they don't get a kickback from the finance company. And, since it's a cash sale and not a lease or a dealer-financed vehicle, there's no fine print requiring me to come back to the dealer for service.
Until next time...
Anon_e_mouse
Talk about ridiculous credit offers, just today I got an offer saying that I had been pre-approved for a $100,000 home equity loan. It was addressed to me and me alone. Which is rather amusing in that the house is (and always has been) in my wife's name.
Talk about ridiculous credit offers, just today I got an offer saying that I had been pre-approved for a $100,000 home equity loan. It was addressed to me and me alone. Which is rather amusing in that the house is (and always has been) in my wife's name.
I get those stupid offers all the time from the banks that I have my credit cards with. They want you to take out a debt consolidation loan. That way, if you default, your house gets taken away. If you don't go for the debt consolidation loan and default on your credit cards (bankruptcy), then the creditors are SOL. As for these home equity (debt consolidation) loans, all it takes to start getting offers is having a considerable size debt. They usually don't even know whether you're a home owner or not. The credit reporting agencies report to all your creditors how much you owe.
I get them too, and the only debt I have is my mortgage. For that matter, one came in our older son's name, and he lives with us and until recently had never been employed! Maybe it's because they know he needs a warehouse for all his trains...
Until next time...
Anon_e_mouse
[When my younger daughter attended a Law School forum for prospective law students, several of the other prospective students (from the undergraduate school where the forum was held, not from my daughter's college) were discussing the advice given them by their advisor: borrow to the hilt to get through school, then declare bankruptcy six months after graduation. Instantly debt-free, and the government gets stuck with the $200K or so bill.]
In addition to its dubious morality, that advice is quite wrong. Student loans aren't dischargeable in bankruptcy.
Are you sure? I believe you are right as far as loans directly from the government are concerned (Stafford, Perkins, and possibly some others) but I don't think that covers government-insured private loans, which make up over 80% of student borrowing today (and essentially all grad school borrowing, since the Stafford and Perkins limits have usually been exhausted by that time).
Until next time...
Anon_e_mouse
[re bankruptcy dischargeability of student loans]
[Are you sure? I believe you are right as far as loans directly from the government are concerned (Stafford, Perkins, and possibly some others) but I don't think that covers government-insured private loans, which make up over 80% of student borrowing today (and essentially all grad school borrowing, since the Stafford and Perkins limits have usually been exhausted by that time).]
I'm reasonably sure but not quite 100% sure :-) I'll check when I get into work on Monday.
As long as we've gotten far afield from transit, I've got something to say about student loans. While they've obviously enabled many people to get higher educations, I strongly suspect they've also enabled colleges to boost their tutiton charges to astronomical levels, far beyond general inflation.
As long as we've gotten far afield from transit, I've got something to say about student loans. While they've obviously enabled many people to get higher educations, I strongly suspect they've also enabled colleges to boost their tutiton charges to astronomical levels, far beyond general inflation.
Is that any different from health insurance and the cost of medical care? It's like a cat chasing its tail. As one cost goes up, the other goes up to match it. How high is high.
Yeah, the "non-profit" health care and higher education systems are the biggest ripoffs out there. I got a facts and figures piece from my former college, and did the math. Profs teach an average of 2.2 classes per term (four to six hours per class, 15 weeks per term, two terms). But at least they teach. They barely account for half of those on the staff. And the staff only accounts for 55 percent of the budget (I can only hope non-wage benefits are counted in the other 45 percent: otherwise where does it go)?
This is the Democratic end of our dual ripoff system.
Our parents supported us on one check because they didn't spend any money on: TVs; VCRs; Camcorders; Air conditioning; Computers; Cell phones; Maids; Day care; Personnal trainers; Cars; HiFi's; Pet psychologists and a plethora of other recent toys. Any family that would be willing to live as our parents did could get by on one paycheck. Probably even better.
Compare today's poor to yesterday's poor and another fact becomes evident: the poor are also getting richer. Seems pretty fair all around doesn't it? Unless of course you want the rich to get poorer.
We seem to live in an age where the conventional thing to do is hate those who have more than us, because they must have achieved their wealth dishonestly. (Why else would the government be going after Bill Gates and Microsoft). In 1993 when Clinton raised taxes, it only directly affected people in the top bracket, most people cheered it because they felt it was time that those "rich people" paid in what they deserve.
Taxation in its truest sense is the redistribution of wealth. Obviously, in a free society, when the government is offering everyone services, the people should pay according to their ability.
However, when someone in the 15% bracket feels that someone in the 39.6% bracket isn't paying his fair share of taxes, then we have a real problem. It is these types of attitudes that keep the 39.6% people in thier luxury cars and off mass transit. Without their support, we will never get the type of mass transportation network an international city like New York needs and deserves.
No, it's because the smarter person saw the potential in AOL and bought the stock. Barring lotteries and inheritances, most "rich" people are rich becuase of talent, hard work and intelligence.
[most "rich" people are rich becuase of talent, hard work and
intelligence.]
I think we've just been insulted ? You didn't realy mean it the way it sounds do you ?
I feel that the captains of industry have a different mind set today then the previous generation. They don't run a company for the future, they don't merge because it's good for business ... it's all about MONEY for THEM. Case in point, the guy at the top of Disney who is a Billionare, what is he going to do with that amount of money ? What about "The Donald". It's just too much money. They don't seem to ever have enough.
This is a little different that the McCartney's, i.e. Paul & his late wife. Bill Gates seems to want to spend some of his. Wang at Computer Associates is anotherone who is spreading around some of his money, but there is far too few in this group today.
There was another part of this thread that said we need these guys to be willing to spend money on mass transit for the rest of us. I can't relate to that. I thought is was the politations that needed to want to do grand things with mass transit as one of them.
Mr t__:^)
You've got a serious case of "class envy". It's not immoral to make a TON of money, as long as you don't break the $#@& law.
"... it's all about MONEY for THEM" And why do any of the rest of us go to work? Why shouldn't captains of industry be allowed the same drives that motivate us to get out of bed and do a hard days work? Especially when the desire for money on the part of job creators allows the rest of us to have jobs which create MONEY for US.
Maybe I've got "class envy", maybe it's my generation, maybe it's my work experience ...
- My first job in Hartford was for a couple of firms that linked up to sell insurance in the US. It didn't work out ... we all ended up in the street.
- My third job was in Boston, for the gov. They decided to downsize & offered me a job in NYC.
- My next job was for Pan Am ... after 15 years you know what happened, but you probaly don't know about the carpet bagers that came in at the end just to get rich while letting the company die.
I don't mind folks making lots of money, but when it's more then a few millions a year I think it's a little excessive. Why do they need to make so much & what are they going to do with it. This too I could accept if it wasn't for the inconsiderate & selfish way this generation of captins deals with their companies & workers. What I'm saying is that if you're running a multi billion dollar business that employees thousands of folks and are being paid hansomly for you hard work ... you have the obligation to keep that company in business. Part of you're effort should be toward that goal. I get the feeling that too many of these captins have very short range selfish goals.
I will say that I've read all of the thoughtful comments posted to this thread and don't take serious exception to them.
Mr t__:^)
Your forgetting to subtract %20 for Capital Gains Tax. After all stock is not excahngeable for goods and services, only dollars are are, so one needs to sell the stock. REMEMBER THIS FACT THE NEXT TIME SOME GOLDEN TOUNGED REPUBLICAN IS PROMICING CAP GAINS TAX CUT. GUESS WHAT, THEY AREN'T TALKING TO YOU!!!!!! Why should Mr. Big AOL Investor be able to buy another house on Long Island when he can be forced to "donate" some of his "hard earned" income to help out the TA (among other things) improve services and to help his servants get to and from work more easily.
Yup. Class envy. An acute case, I'm afraid.
(Class Envy) I'm all in favor of taxing the rich. But we're doing it already. If we could close those loopholes back up, we'd be doing in more. Those not benefitting from loopholes are paying their share. Everyone should stop complaining.
Yes, it fine the way it is so let's not change anything. I mean that.
Not to go off on a very off-topic Republican tangent here, but the richest 1% of the population pays 30% of all taxes collected by the federal government.
I'd say that's fair.
But they have 90% of the assets Gimme an I, Gimme an R, Gimme an S What does it spell? IRS!!! Go team, GO!!!
"Why should Mr. Big AOL Investor be able to buy another house on Long Island when he can be forced to "donate" some of his "hard earned" income to help..."
Maybe because we prefer freedom to Soviet style slavery.
A transit strike will rally people around Guliani and Pataki and could benefit their future campaigns when either of them crushes the TWU and forces them back to work. Remember what Koch did in 80? Think of what Guliani will do to them.
Just got to work allready.
What? Jail us? What do you actually think Il Duce is going
to do?
If we walk for just ONE DAY, say Dec 31st, the damage is
already done. And then the Taylor law penalties will have
been well spent.
We are 33,000 members. We have families, and we vote. We
have the support of all the other municipal unions, as
their contracts all follow ours. John Sweeney of the
AFL-CIO is backing us 100%. So don't be so self assured.
We are all aware of the famous Taylor law. most of us are
prepared. And all of us know that nothing worthwhile is
ever achieved painlessly. The leadership of this local is
prepared to fight for the justice we deserve. And it is
NOT about money. It's about the treatment we reccieve by
management. Kids who work for minimum wage at McDonalds
get treated better. So while it's true we will be
subjecting the public to a terrible cost, the price we
will bear is not insignifigant. And most of us have little
sympathy for a public that holds us in as much contempt as
management does.
You know, as bad as you say it is working for the MTA, there are thousands of people who would gladly take your place. Antagonizing the riding public by going on a strike which cannot possibly achieve any of your goals is not a smart thing. What will a 1-day strike accomplish? It will cost the TWU members a whole day's pay, and in the end, it's not gonna make management cave-in.
But it will get some of those hubris laden slave drivers on the 13th floor fired. As far as most of us are concerened, with a corrupt (read: bought and paid for) union and indifferent public, this is our only chance at justice.
This is not solely my opinion. It is held by the vast majority of transit workers. In the end nothing will change. And we all know it. So when we walk, it will be for the pure satisfaction of doing so.
I don't hear to much grumbling about the bloated amount of management at Jay st/Livingston Plaza it seems the headcount downtown appears be growing in exponential numbers. You might agree that some numb skull crunching numbers and others much a inflated salary and perks but do nothing to move a train or provide customer service. RTO alone must have a high number of upper managament along with TSS's stumbling all over each other so I'm afraid to see what other departments have lurking in their closests. I guess along with hiring Conductors and promoting Train Operators and TSS' that JAY STREET/Livingston Plaza also got filled too..
(Too many Bureaucrats at Jay St).
When I was there, the TA was 80 line personnel, which is pretty damn good, though that might have changed. You want to get management back? Propose privitizing staff functions such as payroll and accounting. Lots of businesses do.
....and Chapel St. and 1250 Bway, and W53'rd etc.
When David Gunn took over there were around 300 non
represented managerial employees on staff. There are
currently well over 3000! For God's sake! There are only
around 3000 Conductors!
In RTO alone there are at least 3 superintendents for EACH
line. Each yard gets a few as well. The IRT has an ACTO,
as do the IND and BMT each, and the control center does
too. They all answer to the head idiot, the CTO, who
answers to the Chief of Service Delivery,(talk about a
meaningless job! What do we pay a VP-Subways for?) who
answers to the V.P of Subways who answers the President.
There are District General Superintedents in all the
divisions. I believe there are 9. And they all have
deputies. AND staffs. Do the math.
There are Transit Management Analysts, Associate Transit
Management Analysts, Transit Management Analyst Trainees,
Technical Support Aides, Directors, Assistant Directors,
General Superintendents, Assistant General Superintedents,
Superintendents, Deputy Superintendents, CTO, ACTO, I
could go on and on. And this is ONLY RTO! Figure in all
the other departments too!
AND NONE OF THEM MOVE A TRAIN OR FIX A TRAIN OR DISPATCH A
TRAIN! AND ALMOST NONE MAKE LESS THAN $50,000 PER
YEAR!!!!!!!!
I think I heard a pin drop. Im going to Labor Relations Monday to see if there are any BPs on the payroll as hearing officers. A far cry from 3 zone trainmasters, 1 desk superintendant,1 chief motor instructor and 1 motor instructor per line. Did I mention an RCI in command center? What year are we in now?
All these managers do not move or repair trains. But remember, back in the 1970s and early 1980s when they weren't there NO ONE bothered to move and repair trains. Lets face it, the TWU goldbricked the system to death in the 1965 to 1980 period. Without someone yelling at them, people weren't doing their job. Everyone knows it, and everyone remembers it. So beginning with Gunn, the TA hired hundreds of people to yell at people to do their job. It's a waste, but it worked. Things have changed, but the perception of TWU attitudes has not.
In the private sector, all those layers of management were stripped out, because they made the workers accountable for doing the work. That's the next frontier of productivity at the TA. If the union and its members took more responsibility for showing up when not sick and working all out, the TA could cut those layers back by attrition, and pass the savings on to the workers.
I have the preception that the TA bus & subway divisions to a pritty good job of providing service to the public. I would love to be able to say that the "privates" do it better/cheeper/more efficiently ... maybe we do in some areas, maybe they in others ... I can think of an example or two, but that's not what this thread is about.
This said, I DO feel that the MTA/TA is top heavy. Maybe they need a certain number of guys with wips on the line, but they seem to have far too many guys & gails in the back room !
Mr t__:^)
Lets put it this way, to say MTA and its subsidaries are top management heavy is a MAJOR UNDERSTATMENT. NYCTA alone has offices peppered around town chock full of people doing god knows what but not producing much to provide service. TRANSIT TRANSIT this proganda ridden hulk of crap is truly a waste of taxpayer money.
[TRANSIT TRANSIT this proganda ridden hulk of crap is truly a waste of taxpayer money.]
It WOULD be enlightening to learn just how much it cost to produce, but that said I find a number of interesting items in each 1/2 hour, e.g. November: the Croton-Harmon open house piece showed me just how much effort was spent by M-N to make it a nice event (they just didn't open the doors); shots of existing 2nd Ave Stubway pieces(I had no idea what condition they were in). Does it cost too much to get this, well when you have 30,000 employees how much is that per employee ?
Morale is very important ... the lower it is the more time & money you have to spend on wips. As I think Steve said at 207th morale is high, so management can spend more time being NICE to the staff.
Mr t__:^)
I find Transit Transit informative also but is it produced internally along with other associated costs or or outside firm. dosn't the MTA spend a fortune on PR as it stands? no less to run a half hour program.
(Doesn't the TA spend enough on PR)
Look at it this way, is there any private consumer business with the TA's revenue that spends less on advertizements? Don't you have to fight all those car commercials, which portray auto use as the symbol of financial success/sexual prowess and transit as the province of losers somehow?
Then again, TA PR is lame. As I said, it had a good plan in the last blizzard, but the Mayor didn't announce it on the radio and neither did anyone else.
DUDE! What are you talking about?
In RTO, I can't speak for other departments, you either
move the train or you don't. There's no inbetween. How do
you goldbrick that kind of job? I'll be honest, there were
alot of jobs in the past that didn't have a lot of work.
But believe me, management has squeezed all of them out.
There are no more yard jobs that do one move and you go
home. NO ONE get's an early quit anymore. The days of one
tripers are gone. No today, they have runs with built in
overtime, so that three crews now do the work of what four
used to. They call that productivity. I call it
overworking the crews. So much for serious about safety.
And because of the very nature of the job, we happen to
require more sick days and personal days than the average
worker in a factory or office.
Here's why: As a train service employee, you need to use
the bathroom, let's say you have a case of the runs. Do
you delay thousands while you stop the train, go to the
booth and ask the clerk for the lavatory key? Or should
you stay home?
In another enviornment like an office or store or garage,
etc, the restroom is just steps away and you can do your
business, and return to work. Here you can't.
Or maybe because as a construction flagger, or a vacation
relief motorman, or an extra list tower operator, you have
various days off. Do you have any idea how difficult it is
to schedule a doctors appointment, or to see your
daughters dance recital, when you don't know earlier than
Friday what your days off are for next week?
So we need those personal days and sick days, it's the
nature of doing business. If TA thinks we're robots, then
they are in for a rude awakening.
In RTO those extra layers of management have absolutely
nothing to do with supervising train crews. It's about
insulating top level management from blame and
accountability.
Yes there are more motor instructors now than before, but they don't tell you to work when you are being lazy. Once again, the nature of the job. The train either has a crew or it doesn't. There's no inbetween. This was something the Fed told them to do to make sure the crews are operating according to rules and that there are no intoxicated ones either. A legacy of Robert Ray.
The system ran fine when there was an onsite dispatcher
who made the decisions, not some micromanaging transitcrat in control two steps removed. Graffiti and car reliability are different subjects, but in operations, the mid 1980's
were probably TA's last hurrah.
(Operations better in the mid-1980s).
Give yourself some credit. I rode the trains then. Aside from the speed declines, things are better today. On the goldbricking, I agree that there is less of it, and a substantial raise is justified as a result. But the TWU hasn't taken its case to the public, and a strike will send a very different message.
You'd have been better off with the media campaign. I'll bet that if you do strike and the public gets mad (which it will), there will be a big media campaign to blame the workers. The News, the Post and the Times are not run by people who are sympathetic to people who work with their hands. You'll be blamed, not Pataki, no question, and Pataki doesn't care too much about people who ride the trains anyway.
With the focus on the upcoming Senate race, supposedly between Rudy and Hillary, look for any transit strike to become more campaign fodder for that election, including the inevitable polling to see if a hard line (the mayor, of course) or an agressively pro-union stance (Mrs. C) will help attract more voters than it loses.
The Post and Daily News have both written they will not support a strike. Media campaign or not (I voted for it) a selfish and indifferent public would never have supported us anyway.
When you say things are better, I'm sure you mean like a reduction in fires, derailments, delays due to equipment failure, etc.
That's not what I meant.
Those things have made tremendous improvements. What I meant was employee work programs, the availabiity of extra list employees to cover jobs open due to illness. Time spent in the cab and break time after a trip. A time when management was willing to discuss issues, and not bully the employees. A time when the senior leadership in RTO were Motormen and Conductors themseves at one time, as opposed to today where corporate head hunters are hired and lawyers make operational decisions.
Gunn deserves a vote of credit for bringing the system back from the brink of self destruction. But he also created the current climate where the employee is a slave to the system, and unreasonable treament is the norm.
So when I refer to the good old days when RTO had it's finest hour, I mean then.
Like I said, there are lots of TWU workers who have a screw the riders mentality. Riders, by the way, who generally earn less than they do.
And Pataki doesn't care about the riders either. The rest of the city and state hate those of us who toil to pay their bills. Pataki wants to privitize just about anything, and Giuliani wants private vans. They'll never get it without a strike.
So there will be a strike, and it will last until it begins to hurt the people who matter. In the end, the damage will be passed on to the riders in the form of service cuts and higher fares.
As for abuse of workers by managers, compare management pay with the private sector. Let's just say you're not getting the cream of the crop.
Here in Baltimore, transit cannot strike. In 1970, when the MTA was preparing to take over the Baltimore Transit Company, the Maryland General Assembly mandated Binding Arbitration in the event of a contract dispute. The BTC had suffered 3 strikes in 5 years, each lasting 6 weeks or more.
Binding Arbitration is both a savior and a curse. Baltimore has been free of transit strikes for 29 years.
However, in that 29 years the contract has gone to Binding Arbitration 5 times. In four of the 5 the arbitrator awarded a figure HIGHER than the Union had requested, and (of course) more than the Administration was prepared to pay.
The other pain in the farebox is the GA's 50% Farebox Recovery. The MTA must get at least 50% of the operating expenses through the farebox. If the system figure goes below 50, the fare go up. Our last increase was to $1.35 per ride in 1996. We suspect the fare will go to $1.50 sometime next year.
Mandated Binding Arbitration isn't a magic bullet, because it gives both parties an excuse to harden their positions instead of being forced to talk to each other. Neither wants a strike because:
- Mngt. doesn't want a strike because then all the politicians get involved in their business.
- The union doesn't want a strike because members loose too much if it goes on for more then a day or two.
=======================================
Sometimes the union wants too much, so mngt. has to call their bluff.
Sometimes the union needs to get management's attention with a strike.
If a strike seems likely both will try to get the politicans & public on THEIR side. Management has already started with their "what surplus" and "we'll need to raise the fare soon" yada yada.
Mr t__:^)
There has been a lot of talk about a strike, whether it is legal, whether it is justified, etc. How about a prediction?
Here's mine: a brief strike (no more than three days) followed by arbitration, and a fair contract that should have been agreed to in the first place.
1) Pakaki and Willie both need to look tough for their constituents: Willie for the transit workers who felt ripped off (or at least unappreciated for the sacfices they made last time); Pataki for Upstate, suburban, and business interests who resent any and all tax dollars going to the TA. Compromise WITHOUT a strike makes 'em look weak.
2) Both the union and the city can afford a short strike. The other city unions have promised to help out because a TA pact may set a pattern. It shouldn't, since other agencies have not had the achieivements of the TWU, but "me to" is the way unions think. A three day strike is no more disruptive than a blizzard or hurricane, especially if two days are on the weekend.
3) After a few days, however, the public will be enraged and looking for revenge, something neither Willie or Pataki can be sure will be steered the way they want it to. Large scale privitization, or a surge of anti-Republican sentiment are possible. Also, the lost pay will start to sting, exceeding any help other unions agree to provide. If Giuliani wants to, he can respond by locking out other city unions and refusing to pay (ME among others) since they can't show up.
So they'll agree to a court ordered arbitration.
I basically agree with your prediction, except I think the stike might be a couple of days longer, say a total of five days. A three-day strike, with two of those days on a weekend, wouldn't be sufficiently disruptive to create the essential we-mean-business atmosphere on each side - as you noted, it wouldn't be any worse than a bad snowstorm. Three working days without transit would be enough to make this a serious action and affect the public. So I'll predict a five-day strike followed by arbitration and a liveable contract.
You need to remember what happens to the best laid plans of mice & men, i.e. both groups I'm sure are brainstorming about what they want to get out of the contract and how far they're willing to go. Once the men go out things can really get out of control.
Management has to offer the union enough for Willie & company to go to the men(and women) with it.
The union may (once their out) want to hold out for much more then they would have originally setteled for, i.e. the members will know what it's costing them in their wallets and ain't going to go back for some rule changes and another day off. If the other unions realy support the strike it'll encourage them to break the bank.
The TWU/IAM/Teamsters at the airports know how to shut down an airline, i.e. no more fuel, no more groceries, picketers at the other airlines, so their works turn around and go home, etc.
If a strike happens all the politicians will be involved, each trying to make a name for him/herself. You got it, Hillery could make Rudy & George realy look bad, even if all she does is second guess them.
Mr t__:^)
So what's the prediction, Thurston?
As I said, I expect a strike, but a short one, three days tops. Just enough to look good to your hotheads, but (hopefully) not to cause the rest of us to seek revenge. Three days tops, perhaps one or two, perhaps with a weekend involved.
To predict the length of a strike I would need more information on the issues and the price tag for each. Teamster Local 732 went into the final hours with the same mind set as stated here, i.e. negotiate hard up to the end ... if you have a couple of important issues left maybe it will take a short strike to get management's attention that you realy want them ... keep in mind how much money the other side can realisticly be expected to have available ... if you end up far apart on a lot of stuff, maybe you'll have to save some of them for next time (It'll cost the membership & local too much in a long strike to get all this stuff) ... if you know management has more to give but they keep saying this is our final offer & are trying to tell you what the members want, then bring it to them so they can vote it DOWN ... look out for the politicans pulling the rug out from under you (remind them that your members vote).
You also have to look out for the "international" union telling you what's important ... to THEM. If it ends up a long strike you're going to need to borrow some cash from them, so you have to listen.
On the management side if your a proffesional vs. a policital apointee then you know all this and can use it to YOUR advantage.
At this point I think it might end up a longer strike. I see the MTA trying to pull the same game as the Nassau Republicans, i.e. "what surplus" ... we need some give backs ... you guys & gails are already very well paid & if we give you a big raise everybody else will want it, so the politicans won't give us the money. Our pockets are empty, how about a holiday or some work rule changes. The union replys NUTS, we're going to strike ! Management replies, you can't it's illegal. The union replies, just watch us !
Mr t__:^)
Hmmm. Thurston's prediction seems to be that
1) either Willie and Virgil will keep a lid on things and settle without a strike, or
2) things will blow up and it will be a disaster, with reprisals all around.
But Willie and Virgil are not their own masters. I think that politically Willie won't be able to give up anything without at least a short strike to make the members fell the pain. And Virgil won't be able to give up anything without a strike to make Pataki feel the pain. Then they'll use a court/arbitration to cover a deal. Hence, my prediction of a short strike.
A little humour here. In the Blizzard, Pataki gave refunds to commuter rail riders with monthly tickets. You don't suppose he'd do the same for TA riders with monthly passes in the event of a strike, do you? HA HA.
Another point -- about making money. The subway is now covering its operating costs, so the TA loses in a strike. The subway also has the potential to increase productivity, as Metrocard reduces the need for station staff and automatic signals reduce the need for signal operators, and perhaps conductors. Higher productivity allows higher pay per hour. Moreover, the operation of the subway system requires specialized skills. Finally, the economy relies on the subway. Hence subway workers are in a position to make demands.
The bus system loses lots of money, so a strike saves the TA money. It is a student and senior transporation system, except for a few bus to subway links, and is not critical to the economy. Since there are plenty of diesel mechanics and truck drivers out there, the bus system could easily be privatized. There is little room to increase productivity without increasing off-peak passengers, and no way to do that as long as the buses crawl through congested streets barely faster than walking.
So the bus drivers have a lot more to fear from a strike.
[Another point -- about making money. The subway is now covering its operating costs]
SERIOUSLY? I'm astounded (albeit delighted). I'm surprised this hasn't been covered in the press (OK, the NY Times) unless I missed it. Surely this is big news -- even the London Underground was, I think, only at something like 85% after massive fare increases?
But your point about privatizing the buses (student + senior transport only) is well taken. To me, one of the saddest failures of nerve by the folks who run NYC has been the complete inability to keep the roads clear in bus lanes. I've noticed a VERY definite change in taxi behavior in the last 6 months -- they now stop for lights better than other cars -- so it is possible to change driver behavior. But will we ever see a campaign against blocking bus lanes similar to the "Don't Block the Box" campaign? I'm skeptical.
[Another point -- about making money. The subway is now covering its operating costs]
SERIOUSLY? I'm astounded (albeit delighted). I'm surprised this hasn't been covered in the press (OK, the NY Times) unless I missed it. Surely this is big news -- even the London Underground was, I think, only at something like 85% after massive fare increases?
I think you're misinformed. AIUI, the London Underground is required *by law* to cover its operating AND CAPITAL costs from the farebox.
Also AIUI, it does manage to cover its operating costs from the farebox, but essentially no capital expenditures are possible, so the system is falling apart.
This information is from two friends of mine (Bronx natives, BTW) who live in London. Corrections welcome.
-- Tim
[But Willie and Virgil are not their own masters. I think that politically Willie won't be able to give up anything without at least a short strike to make the members fell the pain. And Virgil
won't be able to give up anything without a strike to make Pataki feel the pain. Then they'll use a court/arbitration to cover a deal. Hence, my prediction of a short strike.]
True, Willie for his own vs. TWU reasons may NEED a strike. And George probally has Virgil on a short leash, so it'll take a strike to convince Grorge to put a few more dollars in the pot.
[The bus system loses lots of money, so a strike saves the TA money. It is a student and senior transporation system, except for a few bus to subway links, and is not critical to the economy.]
Sometimes I don't know where you come up with your facts. At this depot we carry 100,000 a day, I would guess that not all are students or Seniors (as a matter of fact I KNOW it's a small percent !). We have a few routes that pay for themselves, however in total they don't. "Not critical to the economy" ... come on Larry. Maybe what you ment was that many duplicate rail service, but not all, AND the subways couldn't handle all those bus riders !
Mr t__:^)
It is interesting to note that with all the hoopla (at the time) surrounding the Chrystie Street Subway and the combining of the BMT and IND Routes into a single system how short a time some of them actually were in use.
Shortest of all was the NX which lasted from 11/27/67 to 4/12/68.
Next was the RJ. It ran from 11/27/67 to 6/28/68.
Then the JJ and TT by a few days more, 11/26/67 to 6/30/68.
MJ was next,11/26/67 to 10/4/69.
QJ lasted from 11/27/67 to 12/30/72.
And after that the EE from 11/27/67 to 8/27/76.
Then of course there were the two Chrystie Street Phase 3 Douplegangers, the KK and K.
The KK ran from 7/1/68 to 12/29/72.
The K ran from 1/2/73 to 8/27/76.
Compare this to the IND A and E which is still in use after 66 years.
The D and F now at 59. IRT routes 1 thru 7 all of which date from 1948. (Note I am referring only to the route designations,not the actual services themselves.)
Some of the service patterns after the connection was opened in '67 made absolutley no sense:
1. Why would people use the NX when the lack of signals on the Sea Beach express tracks limited service to such an extent that any quicker ride was negated by limited service?
2. Using the QJ as the Brighton local. The Nassau St. line forced the majority of passangers to have to transfer if they wanted to get to midtown, which was most of them. And why extend the QJ past Broad St., and not the M? The old QJ must have been one of the LONGEST runs of any route on the whole system, save for the Far Rockaway A. Thankfully the TA wised up and switched tothe M in '73
3. Why on God's earth would anyone from Jamaica use the KK via the Jamaica Ave. and Broadway els to access the Sixth Ave. line when it took nearly twice as long as the F did? Wasn't easing congestion on the F the main reason the connection at Essex St. was built in the first place?
Here's what I'd have done:
Made the QB the primary Brighton local operating during the same hours as the QJ/M.
Eliminatedd the EE and replaced it with an extension of the QB from 57th st. to Forest Hills.
Routed the M to Ditmas Ave. via the Culver shuttle, running local on 4th Ave. The cost of reinstalling the Manhattan bound track could be recouped by scuttling the now useless Essex/Bway Lafayette connection. Who knows, maybe the resumption of thru service might have justified keeping this line.
Have both B and N trains bypass Dekalb all the time.
The only problem would be that Brighton line passangers who would want to access lower Manhattan would have to transfer at Dekalb. But they do that now, so that's no big deal.
Makes more sense, right?
Great ideas. BUT, It would have made things too easy. The TA would never want to do that.
The QB would be a Express then to 57th St like the old days via Bridge
The QB would be a Express then to 57th St like the old days via the Bridge to 57th St. via Bdwy The QT would be a local via the Tunnel to Forest Hills. The D would bypass DeKalb, since there was Brighton Service stopping there. The D would run express 24/7 The Q T would run local 24/7 QB Mon Sat 5AM-10PM
The D cannot bypass DeKalb Avenue, because from the Brighton Line,
there is NO access to the DeKalb Avenue bypass tracks. Only the B
bypasses DeKalb Avenue.
James S. Li,
"The D cannot bypass DeKalb Avenue, because from the Brighton Line,
there is NO access to the DeKalb Avenue bypass tracks. Only the B
bypasses DeKalb Avenue."
Your right, I bluffed. Brighton Lines aren't connected to the express track. Therefore I proposed the N bypassing this station.
You will need a connection to the D from 4th Ave B/N/R. If both the N and B bypass DeKalb, a person will have to change twice from a inbound 4th Ave to a Southbound Brighton. So the B should bypass DeKalb
People can get a "southbound" Brighton train at Pacific St. by utilizing the free transfer to the D/Q at Atlantic.
to long of a walk
No it isn't. It's what B riders do to access the Brighton line.
Bob,
"The D would run express 24/7 The Q T would run local 24/7 QB Mon Sat 5AM-10PM"
When the Manhattan Bridge is open for the N and Q, I will like to see the D (via Brighton) return as an express and the Q as a local.
Well the QT as a local and the QB as a express
Chris R,
"Have both B and N trains bypass Dekalb all the time."
This makes very good sense when the Manhattan Bridge is open for the N and Q lines.
1) reduce congestion on the D and Q to/from Brighton Beach.
As for EE, it was combined with N and became part of the N line service. After N switched Queens terminals with R, occasionally you can see some of R trains between 71st Av and Whitehall Street during rush hours.
By the way, when C switched northern terminals with B in March 1998, C's weekend service (168 Street and WTC) were exactly the same as the defunct AA until last June.
Chaohwa
Chao,
"By the way, when C switched northern terminals with B in March 1998, C's weekend service (168 Street and WTC) were
exactly the same as the defunct AA until last June."
Why was they an AA line in the first place. Although it was one of my favorite lines. It was faster than the B/CC and even the A; D come in a far last. It was the train that bust in the station more often than any other line.
The AA was part of the original IND lineup in 1932. In those days, a single letter meant express service, while a double letter indicated local service. The AA was the 8th Ave. local off of the Washington Heights branch; the A was the express counterpart. The AA became the K in 1985 when all double letter markings were dropped, and the K marking disappeared when the C began running all day long.
Actually, the AA didn't start until the 6th Ave. line opened in 1940. Prior to that, the CC ran all day, providing local service between 145 St. and Canal St.
-- Ed Sachs
Actually, according to this website the AA ran from opening day 1932 until the Concourse line opened in 1933. The CC then ran 24/7 from 205th St until the 6th Ave. D train opened in 1940. A trains ran local north of 145th during this time.
Ed: The AA ran from Sep 10,1932 until the July 1,1933 when the C and CC began running. The AA returned on Dec 15,1940 with the openning of the 6 Avenue Subway. The AA was redesignated the K on May 6,1986 and this service lasted until Dec 10,1988.
Larry,RedbirdR33
>>>Next was the RJ. It ran from 11/27/67 to 6/28/68. <<<
The RJ continued, in spirit, as the Chambers Street Specials which ran on the 4th Ave Line in rush hours into the 1980s.
>>>Then of course there were the two Chrystie Street Phase 3 Douplegangers, the KK and K.
The KK ran from 7/1/68 to 12/29/72.
The K ran from 1/2/73 to 8/27/76. <<<
There was another K designation till 1985 or so, replaced in the main by the C after that. You can still see a K sign or two on 8th Ave & 15th Street.
And then there were the various "SS" shuttles, each with its own color. Eventually most of them were redesignated with the number or letter (e.g. 5, M) of the line that they connected with or replaced at night, and the Culver and South Ferry shuttles were dropped altogether, leaving two grey "S" shuttles, Franklin Ave. and 42nd St.
Dan: The TA certainly loved the "SS" designation since they used it on seven different routes. Beginning in November 1967 the following routes Shuttles were signed "SS".
SS Bowling Green Shuttle (Dark Blue)
SS 42 Street Shuttle (Light Blue)
SS 145 Street Shuttle (Black)
SS Dyre Avenue Shuttle (Dark Green)
SS Culver Shuttle (Orange)
SS Franklin Av Shuttle (Yellow)
With the issuance of the new map on July 1,1968 all shuttles were recolored as Dark Green and the 145 St Shuttle became the Lenox Terminal Shuttle.
With the discontinuance of the MJ in Ocotber 1969 the seventh shuttle
SS Myrtle Av Shuttle began.
With the issuance of the 1972 map the Lenox,Dyre and Myrtle Shuttles were absorbed into the 3,5 and M services respectively.
The Culver Shuttle quit in May 1975 and the Bowling Green Shuttle in February 1977.
This left only the 42 Street and Franklin Av Shuttles and with the issuance of the new map in June of 1979 they both were redesignated "S." This was several years before the elimination of double letters on the other lines.
Not to mention that when the 8-Third Ave. El used R-12's, they were signed up as "SS".
I've never seen a picture of a Third Ave. el train with an SS sign. It usually said "shuttle" only.
The IRT #8 was to be used for the Third Avenue shuttle, but the
GE R-12's used there (5753-5802) always carried "Shuttle" on
their roll signs. The #8 was originally used for the Astoria line
when the R-12/14's arrived, but was never used since the Astoria
line bacame part of the BMT Broadway subway.
REMEMBER NUMBERS WERE FIRST ON THE BMT, SO 8 ASTORIA WAS CORRECT. AT THE TIME
Yes, #8 was the Astoria marking in the BMT number code, and the IRT adopted the same marking for its Astoria route in 1948. One has to wonder why the IRT didn't follow suit on the Flushing line, which the BMT had designated as #9. Then again, the #8 and #9 markings never appeared on BMT rolling stock, as well as 6 (5th Ave.), 11 (Myrtle Ave.), and 12 (Lexington Ave.).
Yes, #8 was the Astoria marking in the BMT number code, and the IRT adopted the same marking for its Astoria route in 1948. One has to wonder why the IRT didn't follow suit on the Flushing line, which the BMT had designated as #9. Then again, the #8 and #9 markings never appeared on BMT rolling stock, as well as 6 (5th Ave.), 11 (Myrtle Ave.), and 12 (Lexington Ave.).
The reason for this was because routes 6, 8, 9, 11 and 12 used the narrower wooden El cars (BU's and Q's) which, like the Lo-V's and A/B's had no front route and destination signs.
No, the signs read "SHUTTLE" not "SS". Actually, I believe I DID once see such a train that had its front sign set to "8". The sign was set slightly below-center so as to partially obscure the word ASTORIA below the number. But this was not the way they were usually signed.
I agree with the word "SHUTTLE" being displayed on 3d Avenue trains in the Bronx, but I also think that the IRT roll sign had a #8 designation. I know there was a #9-Dyre Ave designation. When I go home this weekend, I will report back.
The R-12 most certainly did have a #8 designation for Astoria and they did run to Astoria for a short time before the two lines were split. I don't know why it was never turned up on the el.
Larry,RedbirdR33
when did the R 12 go to Astoria,?I thought the R 12s came in after the split, and Old World Fares, Qs and Low Volts made that run. Wasn t the split in 47? Is it possible the signs were put there just in case?
Also wasn t the 8 actually a BMT Number at the time
Bob: In the case of the Astoria Line both the IRT and the BMT considered it route #8. The Flushing Line was IRT #7 and BMT #9.
Larry,RedbirdR33
So at the time there were 2 no. 7s the Franklin and the Flushing Line, I always wondered what the 8 and 9 were on the BMT, I knew the 6 was the Fulton St, I thought the 8 and 9 were the Lex and Myrtle Ave Els, which left what were the 11-13 on the BMT
Bob: The BMT had a numbering system that dates back to 1925. The IRT system began in 1948 with the delivery of the R-12's.
IRT Routes
#1 Broadway-7 Av
#2 7 Avenue-Bronx
#3 7 Avenue-Lenox
#4 Lexington-Jerome
#5 Lexington-White Plains Rd
#6 Lexington-Pelham
#7 Flushing
#8 Astoria
#9 Dyre Avenue
BMT Routes
#1 Brighton
#2 Fourth Av
#3 West End
#4 Sea Beach
#5 Culver
#6 Fifth Av
#7 Franklin Av
#8 Astoria
#9 Flushing
#10 Myrtle-Chambers
#11 Myrtle Av
#12 Lexington Av
#13 Fulton St
#14 Bway-Bklyn
#15 Jamaica
#16 14 St-Canarsie.
Of course there were some changesto the IRT system. The BMT system unfortunately is only a memory. It wasn't enough for the IND to steal their lines. They absconded with the numbering system also.
Larry,RedbirdR33
Of course there were some changes to the IRT system. The BMT system unfortunately is only a memory. It wasn't enough for the IND to steal their lines. They absconded with the numbering system also.
Larry,RedbirdR33
This is true. The BMT ceased to exist when the Christie St. connection opened 32 years ago. The thefts occurred as follows:
1 -D-Brighton-1967
2 -R-4th Ave. (intact)
3 -B-West End-1967
4 -N-Sea Beach (intact)
5 -F-Culver -1954
6 -Bay Ridge -1940 (removed from existence)
7 -Franklin (intact, less Dean St.)
8 -Astoria (incorporated into the N)
9 -7-Flushing-1947 (given to IRT)
10-M-B'way/Myrtle (intact)
11-Myrtle -1969 (removed from existence)
12-Lexington -1950 (removed from existence)
13-A-Fulton St.-1940, 1956
14-B'way/B'klyn (dropped)
15-J-Jamaica (intact, although amputated)
16-L-14th St./Canarsie (intact)
The BMT is still around, but it is in fragments; not as we remember it 32 years ago.
Actually the Astoria and Flushing Lines were IRT Lines over which the BMT enjoyed trackage rights on a 50/50 basis. When the lines were originally planned both companies were using 9 foot wide cars,by the time they were completed the BMT had opted for a ten foot wide car and this led to a lengthly court battle which the IRT won, ergo the use of BU El cars on the Queens Lines.
Larry,RedbirdR33
Queston:
Could cars of BMT/IND length operate on the IRT if their width was the standard IRT 8'10" length?
On the Lines constructed under Contract III I would have to say yes, but there may be some exceptions such as the sharp turn just north of East Tremont Av and the S curve between 138 St and 149 St LL.
I do believe that the tunnel clearances where built to accomadate ten foot wide cars. Note I am not referring to Contract I or II construction.
Larry,RedbirdR33
Us old timers will still call it the BMT in the Southern Division. In fact I remember this past year the conductor announced change to the IRT and BMT
It's always that way. I still use the abbreviations. My parents don't because it's before their time.
I still refer to the N/R line in Manhattan as the BMT Broadway line, and have no reservations about using the old Southern Division titles. The whole IND division is still referred to as the 8th Ave. subway.
Funny Most people who rode the subway prior to 1967 still call the divisions IRT IND and BMT. JJust like 6th Ave. Show me a sign that says 6th Ave anywhere along the street. It Reads Ave of the Americas. But New Yorkers still call it 6th Ave, also most of the old names are still called the old names, Lenox Ave, 110th St, etc
It's not JUST people who rode the system before then. It's the rest of us (who alternate) and the occasional conductor.
As for Sixth Ave., in at least some places it's double-signed. This was done, I believe, toward the end of Koch's mayorship -- giving in to reality after 40+ years of hearing it called "Sixth Avenue."
But am I the only one who still calls them the Pan Am Building or the RCA Building? Think those are lost causes, though I betcha the Chrysler Building would always be the Chrysler Building.
End of off-topic post. No response necessary!
I think LaGuardia Changed the Name to Ave of the Americas right after WWII, and you are not off topic. Somebody may ask what train to take to the RCA/Pan Am Bldg.It would be nice if someone still knows the name, same with the Woolworth Bldg, now would you call it the FootLocker Or Champs sports Bldg(same company that used to own Woolworth)
It's still called the Woolworth Building, even though it says "Venator Group" just beside the entrance. Just like the Chrysler Building is no longer used by Chrysler.
"...same with the Woolworth Bldg, now would you call it the FootLocker Or Champs sports Bldg(same company that used to own Woolworth)"
Well, the Sears Tower here in Chicago still goes by that name, even though Sears moved its headquarters from that famous and well-located building to some bu-fu-nowhere suburb out on the Northwest Tollroad, in some "office campus" called Prairie Stone, or Prairie View, or some other God-awful faux-rural (i.e. "it's safe to come here, we're not in the city") name. Can you tell that I think this was NOT a good thing? (^:
To keep this on a transit topic, Sears is proud as punch that they have something like 35% of their workforce traveling by transit, which is admittedly REALLY high for a distant suburban location served only by bus service (nowhere within an ass' roar of a Metra station). But it's bloody low compared to the 95% or more transit usage they had when they were in the Sears Tower.
Yes but Sears is Still Sears. There is no Pan Am or Woolworth anymore
11/11/99
I never approved of the name "Avenue of the Americas". To me 6th Ave. was is 6th Ave.! The 6th Ave. "EL" and 6th IND 6th Ave. subway identify with the street above. The name "Avenue of the Americas" to me was always sappy and "United Nations" sounding. Remember the R7-9's in the late 60's that had their side destination signs upgraded for the BMT Eastern Division? How about Avenue of the Americas Local?
Bill Mangahas
I loved the destination signs on those trains, with the crank.
The RCA Building is still just that to me. I also think it's a safe bet the Empire State Building will go by that title for as long as it remains standing.
Long live the IRT, BMT, and IND as well.
Here, here, the same for the Pan Am Building, the Interboro Parkway, Rodman Street (College Point Blvd.) the Singer Bowl, the Brenden Byrne Arena and Idelwild Airport, (officially New York International Airport).
What's the Singer Bowl? and of all those things you mentioned, only the Interborough I will stick with. And the Richmond Parkway and Willowbrook Expressway.
The Singer Bowl is the original name for the Louis Armstrong Stadium in Corona Meadows Park. It was built fr the 1964-65 World's Fair.
I beieve that it has been rebuilt and enlarged for the National Tennis Association.
Larry,Redbird R33
That is correct. They enlarged it to a 20,000 seating capacity for the 1978 U.S. Open. Last year they sliced off the top layer, reducing the capacity down to 10,000, due to the Arthur Ashe Stadium. All 10,000 seats I believe were replaced.
>>>Rodman Street (College Point
Blvd.)<<<
For much of its length, College Point Blvd. was known as Lawrence St. and north of Northern Blvd, College Point Causeway.
www.forgotten-ny.com
Back in the 50s they changed Delancey St to Schiff Pkwy. That lasted about 4 years and then back to Delancey St. New Yorkers just will not change. I am suprised about all the stret name changes in Bed Sty and Harlem, Do most of the people still call the streets by its old names or the new names?
IIRC, there is still a Reid Av(Malcolm X Blvd)sign at the intersection at Halsey St in Bklyn.........
3TM
I think it says both at every intersection of Reid. Same thing with Marcus Garvey Blvd, most of the signs still say Sumner Av. On Lewis Av every sign also says Sandy Ray Blvd but nobody calls it that. Also in Bklyn:Stone Av to Mother Gaston Blvd Hopkinson Av to Boyland Av And the one most near and dear to SubTalkers:Malbone St to Empire Blvd!!!
The only place I see the Reid Av sign is at Halsey St... BTW, Hopkinson is now known as Thomas S. Boyland St.
Marcy have a different name.
Pennsylvania Av is also known as Granville Payne Av.
Schenectady Av in Crown Heights have another name as well......
Graham Av is known as the "Avenue of Puerto Rico"??????
3TM
Graham Avenue is "Avenue of Puerto Rico" in Southside and "Amerigo Vespucci Way," or something to that effect, in Northside. It's a turf thing. The next step is to rename Bedford Avenue "Rebbe Schneerson St." south of the bridge and "Young Urban Professional Thruway" north of it; then we'll have Williamsburg neatly quartered.
er.. I think you may have a bit of a problem calling _anything_ after Rebbe Shneerson in Williamsburgh - that's where the Satmar hasidim live, and they are not too fond of the Lubavitchers, viewing them as somewhat heretical.
Bedford Ave should stay Bedford Ave, it is the longest Street In Brooklyn, and too many people will be affected on any name change
I think it says both at every intersection of Reid. Same thing with Marcus Garvey Blvd, most of the signs ALSO still say Sumner Av. On Lewis Av every sign also says Sandy Ray Blvd but nobody calls it that. Also in Bklyn:Stone Av to Mother Gaston Blvd Hopkinson Av to Boyland Av And the one most near and dear to SubTalkers:Malbone St to Empire Blvd!!!
Malbone Street was changed because of the accident. Also if you want to go that far back try 1917 Wilson Ave was German Ave( it was changed in WWI) Also a number of the Streets between Ocean and Nostrand Aves had other names beside being E 22, 23,24 etc
11/13/99
"Also if you want to go that far back try 1917, Wilson Ave was German Ave.(it was changed in WW I)
Wasn't Wilson Ave, originally Hamburg Avenue ?
Bill Newkirk
In other cities, other MAIN streets had their names changed. For
example:
Chicago
Crawford Avenue-renamed Pulaski Road
21st (or 22nd) Street-renamed Cermak Road
55th Street-renamed Garfield Boulevard
South Park Avenue-renamed King Drive
Philadelphia
63rd Street, Market to Ellsworth-renamed Cobbs Creek Parkway
Filbert Street west of City Hall-renamed Pennsylvania Boulevard in
1954, then John F. Kennedy Boulevard
Columbia Avenue, 8th to 33rd Streets-renamed Cecil B. Moore Blvd.
Vintage Street-renamed Curie Avenue
N Street, Erie to Wyoming Avenues-now Castor Avenue
Union City/Hoboken area
Hudson Boulevard-renamed John F. Kennedy Boulevard
Washington, D.C.
I Street, NW-sometimes called Eye Street
Chicago also renamed one street Pope John Paul II Drive after the pope's visit in 1979. 69th St. in Marquette Park was renamed Lithuanian Plaza Court.
In downtown Baltimore, Redwood St. (one block south of Baltimore St.) was originally German St. Also, north-south streets in Highlandtown (southeast Balto.) east of Highland Avenue were originally numbered; they were later given names in alphabetical order, starting with Baylis, Conkling, Dean, Eaton etc. The scheme ends with Vail St. in an industrial area, but picks up again briefly a little to the east. The odd thing is that a few of the numbered streets remain (62 thru 68) in the area of the city-county line. The name changes were probably done to avoid confusion with the number scheme on east-west streets in north-central and northeast Baltimore (19 1/2 to 43, starting above North Avenue).
As Ed McMahon would say to Johnny Carson: "You are correct, sir!"
To Bill Newkirk. I stand corrected, I knew it was a German name, but was not sure. So I just German Ave, hopeing someone would correct me Bob
11/13/99
You're welcome Bob. Since you STAND corrected , have a seat!
Bill Newkirk
Most of the streets in Brooklyn and Queens had other names before 1910, especially in Queens when the Philadelphia nunbering system was adopted in 1915. The remenants of those old names are on the elevated lines at the stations.
For example, on the #7, 33rd Rawson St. 51st Lincoln Ave, etc.
One the A line, the Queens portion of the old Fulton St. line, 104th - Oxford Ave., etc. I am not as familiar with the original names of any of the numbered Brooklyn streets and avenues.
Unlike Queens, the Brooklyn numbering system, like Manhattan outside the Village was laid out, not applied to exisiting streets.
Find a old map of Brooklyn, you will find some of the streets in the East 20s have names below Brooklyn College. I can t get to it now, but I will be able to have a list of a few on Sunday
11/14/99
I'll do you one better , and heypaul check this out. On the corner of Ocean AVE and Glenwood Road there are square brick type columns that used to have lights years ago. This was the entrance to the Midwood Park section of stately old homes. On top facing Ocean Ave. is of course the name Ocean Ave. But face Glenwood Road and the name AVE G should be there.
Paul Matus , you used to live there. Am I correct ?
Bill Newkirk
Also in the same Midwood/Flatbush
Alsoin the Same Midwood and Flatbush Neighborhoods according to Pages 22 and 23 Hagstrom 89 East 23 was Mansfield Place E 24 Delamen Place Also E 24 by Tilden Ave is Woods Place and East 26th same place was Veronica Place, not to mention all the city streets Brooklyn, Albany, Utica, Etc. Also some of the East West Aves were changed in the 20s from Letter Street (Glenwood) Quentin etc)
I wonder what the idea behind changing Ave F to Farragut, Ave G to Glenwood and Ave Q to Quentin was.
Farragut was the great 19th Century Naval Hero, the others, probably some local political hack
Avenue G is there! I first saw it from a B49 bus, it's kind of worn so it's look sort of like AVE C.
Also, look at the streets from East 15th through Coney Island Ave. north of Ave. H - they all change from numbers to names there too - Argyle, Marlboro, etc., to name a few.
subfan
From 11 to 15th Respectively:
Stratford
Westminster
Argyle
Rugby
Marlboro
Also, 16th is called Buckingham between Church and the part where it's broken by the Brighton cut.
Kind of British Royalty, Oh those Victorian Houses too.
11/16/99
Royal Islander,
CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG. What was the following:
AVE F- Farragut Rd or Foster Ave ?
AVE D -Ditmas or Dorchester Rd?
AVE C -Cortelyou Rd ?
AVE B -Beverly(Beverley) Rd?
AVE A - ??
AVE E - ??
I posted that Ave G was Glenwood Rd. the proof is there today. Maybe the new street names used the same first letter as theold name , such as Glenwood ??
Bill Newkirk
What was Newkirk Ave??
Newkirk Avenue was always Newkirk Avenue and
Avenue E=Foster
F=Farragut, although there is an Avenue F disconnected from it
C=Probably Clarendon, but there is also an Avenue C just like Ave F above.
D=Probably Ditmas as it is continued by Avenue D at Flatbush, yet somehow reappears in place of Clarendon and D at Ralph, then D reappears at Remsen!
B=Beverly definitely, in fact, it becomes B east of Ralph
A=Albemarle, there is also an Avenue A east of Ralph, although Albemarle doesn't make it that far.
Newkirk Ave s Claim to famde that it a Express Stop on the Brighton
My father told me that it means New Church in Dutch, I always thought it was just a family name.
This is Euclid Avenue, change for the A express
The next stop on this C train will be Grant-Conduit Avenues.
It's New Church in Scottish - don't know about Dutch. Quite possibly also a family name, as you suggest.
Until next time...
Anon_e_mouse
I'll have to check this one out.
www.forgotten-ny.com
>>Find a old map of Brooklyn, you will find some of the streets in the East 20s have names below
Brooklyn College. I can t get to it now, but I will be able to have a list of a few on Sunday <<<
I think it's Delamere, Mansfield, Kenmore and Elmont; the current Hagstrom has Delamere and Mansfield, but I think they're indulging in nostalgia.
www.forgotten-ny.com
>>>Also if you want to go that far back try 1917
Wilson Ave was German Ave( it was changed in WWI)<<<
Not true. Wilson Avenue was called Hamburg Avenue.
www.forgotten-ny.com
I was corrected the other dayy
Brian Cudahy in the Malbone St wreck book has a picture proving that there still IS a Malbone St in Brooklyn.....
Yeah it is by the 71st precinct, NY Ave and Empire Blvd........
Also in NYC- there is Fourth Avenue in Manhattan. Park Avenue South was created because the businesses did not want to be on Fourth Avenue
No, more because they would rather be on Park.
Funny Most people who rode the subway prior to 1967 still call the divisions IRT IND and BMT. JJust like 6th Ave. Show me a sign that says 6th Ave anywhere along the street. It Reads Ave of the Americas. But New Yorkers still call it 6th Ave, also most of the old names are still called the old names, Lenox Ave, 110th St, etc
Yep. Thats for sure. Old names die hard. In my post about the BMT failing to exist after Chrystie St., I make mention to the BMT as a division. I, myself still recognize the old BMT ROW's as BMT. I never in my life referred to 6th Ave. as Ave. of the Americas. As for the BMT vs. the IRT, at least the IRT is still a clearly-defined division. That is not true for the BMT. The BMT and the IND have completely merged, with the IND being the dominant of the 2. The reason why this occurred with the 3 divisions is that the IRT is the oddball, so it stands alone. The IND and BMT are compatable and can use the same rolling stock. Hence, the merger of the 2 divisions into one. Since Chrystie St., the TA has recognized only 2 divisions:
A Division (formerly IRT)
B Division (formerly BMT and IND)
Remember when subway maps separated the 3 divisions by color? The TA totally eradicated that in 1967 by color-coding each individual line (now its each trunk line). The TA has completely gotten away from a 3-division subway system.
I, myself still recognize the Culver Line as BMT, even though the IND completely took it over in 1954; and I'm not even old enough to remember the Culver Line operating as BMT, with the A/B's running on the line all the way to Stillwell. To an even larger extent was the IND takeover of Fulton St. With most of the el torn down and replaced with the IND subway, only a small 6-station portion of the BMT Fulton St. El remains as part of the IND A-Train; and even half of this was incorporated into the IND A-Train to the Rockaways.
The TA has completely gotten away from a 3-division subway system.
Would you believe that this is not entirely true?
In my Capsule History of the IND:
In the late '70s and early '80s, the New York City Transit Authority tried to delete the separate identities of each division, dropping them from maps and no longer using these terms in station announcements. While you won't find references to these divisions on maps anymore, you will still hear references to them in some station announcements as well as by conductors-- and at some stations (the "IRT" station at Cortlandt St./World Trade Center has the IRT name on entryway signs). In addition, at the front and rear of virtually every underground station in New York City, you will find a red sign identifying to emergency personnel the current location, where the next emergency exits are, and what division of the subway you're currently in.
--Mark
While you won't find references to these divisions on maps anymore, you will still hear references to them in some station announcements as well as by conductors-- and at some stations (the "IRT" station at Cortlandt St./World Trade Center has the IRT name on entryway signs).
This is true because, like I said in my post, "old names die hard". A lot of people still recognize the divisions as they knew them. There's no sense in confusing passengers. However, officially, the MTA only recognizes 2 divisions: A and B.
Show me a sign that says 6th Ave anywhere along the street.
Go to any street corner along 6th Avenue.
Just to add to Larry's post, at one time I think the concept of an articulated IRT car was being considered but was withdrawn due to the tight contact I clearances.
--Mark
Well, the Lex Ave tunnels were definitely built to BMT dimensions,as you can tell by the extra wide platforms. They were started as part of the old Triborough concept,before the Dual Contracts awarded the line to the IRT....I believe the Jerome el is also adaptable to BMT/IND dimensions, as this is always the line in the Bronx they want to attach any Second Ave line to....
Bob: The R-12's were placed in service on the Queens IRT Lines on July 13,1948. Through IRT Subway service to Astoria ended on July 25,1949. They did carry "Astoria Local" on the side route signs but in later years the "Astoria" was painted out.
Larry,RedbirdR33
THANKS FOR THE INFO LARRY ON THE ASTORIA LINE. I THOUGHT THE SPLIT CAME IN 47
I always thought they did that because it must have been very uncomfortable for Jewish people to ride on a line that's called the "SS".
I'm not sure whether our feelings were taken into account or not, but you do make a valid point - the designation "SS" does not have a positive connotation for those of my faith.
Until next time...
Anon_e_mouse
Chris: I honestly don't think many made the connection between our shuttles and Schicklgruber's Schutzstaffel. But then Nazi Germany had a whole truckload of abbreviations that SA,SD and GeStaPo amonst others.
Larry,RedbirdR33
Yeah, but when you say "SS", the whole world understands it's sinister meaning. If I were Jewish, I'd be uncomfortable with it.
This is quite true but I can honestly say I never haerd anyone say that they were going to take the SS train. Most people usally referred to the shuttles by there names as oppossed to saying "get the A train. I have heard a few refer to the 42 Street Shuttle as the S train but right now we have four routes with that designation so which one are they talking about?
Larry,RedbirdR33
This is quite true but I can honestly say I never haerd anyone say that they were going to take the SS train. Most people usally referred to the shuttles by there names as oppossed to saying "get the A train. I have heard a few refer to the 42 Street Shuttle as the S train but right now we have four routes with that designation so which one are they talking about?
Larry,RedbirdR33
That is why nobody ever said they were taking the SS train. Which one? There were several. All shuttles were designated SS.
Not only Jewish(which I am) but Gypsys, Poles, Russians. close to 25 million people, 11 million in tyhe camps alone
Not to mention the millions killed (including American Soldiers) by the Nazis starting WWII itself.
Not to mention the millions killed (including American Soldiers) by the Nazis starting WWII itself.
May I ask what this has to do with shuttles in NYC?
All this over the old shuttle designation of SS!!!! Stalin killed alot of people. Lets get rid of the S designation for shuttle. Milosevic killed many also, not to mention Chairman Mao. Lets call the M-Train something else. Auschwitz brings back horrible memories. Rename the A-Train; so does Buchenwald, so get rid of the B-Train.
Do I make my point?
No you don't! None of those people or places are ever known by their initials. The SS was known exclusively by it's abbreviation.
No you don't! None of those people or places are ever known by their initials. The SS was known exclusively by it's abbreviation.
Yes, and I'm also sure that there are people walking around with the initials KGB, which doesn't make them Russian communist spies. All I'm saying is that the SS-Shuttle designation didn't ruffle any feathers while it was used during 1967-1985. Why is it ruffling feathers now? I myself happen to be Jewish. It never bothered me. My father fought in Europe during the Second World War. It never bothered him either. What bothers me is the fact that Bayer aided Mengele in his savage experiments and made the Zyklon-B gas for the death camps, Benz and Volkswagen used forced Jewish slave labor, yet Jews continue to buy and use these products. That's what I don't understand; yet everyone is making a big deal over designating shuttle lines in NYC "SS".
The SS shuttle designation was only used into the 70's. By the time the diamond jubilee map of 1979 came out, S replaced SS.
I don't care, I don't think people here do either. I believe that the concern only arose because someone mentioned the connection and asked whether this was the reason it was changed. I don't think anybody ANYWHERE ever expressed concern about the SS train in the way. The KK too.
Agreed. It may have been tough for users of the Culver Shuttle to stomach the "SS" designation (since it ran through Borough Park). When someone says "SS" I don't think of "Shuttle", the other, more sinister connotation comes to mind.
A note on the Myrtle Avenue shuttle - I saw very few trains signed up as "SS" on it - it was almost always "M". The R-7/R-9 cars always carried "M". In 1970 I saw an R42 "M" shuttle - signed up as light blue "M" at the ends, the side signs were a mix of "SS" and "M".
The end sign designation was invariably an "M".
Wayne
As far as I can remember the M was always the M, either just from Metro Ave to Broadway or all the way to Coney Island it was the M or the 10
From 1969 thru 1972 subway maps identified the Myrtle Av Shuttle as "SS." However there never was signage on the cars for this other than the generic "SS Shuttle." The stations signs at both Bway-Mytle and Metropolitan displayed both M and SS in colred discs. Wayne is right though. I think the cars themselves just displayed M signs.
Larry,RedbirdR33
I remember seeing an M/SS train of R-7/9s at Myrtle Ave. on a Saturday evening in 1969-70 which had one or more side route signs set to SS/Shuttle. This was a stiff overlay glued to the canvas. My side route roller curtain is still stiff as a board at that location due to the overlay.
On the second iteration of side signs that were put in R40-42s, the version with the colored disc at the side and then the 2 destinations stacked at the side, the only use of "SS" was for the Franklin Shuttle. The short runs on the "M" from Metropolitan to Bway-Myrtle were shown as M's.
Back in I think 1923 on tommorow's date, Philadelphia's Frankford el went into revenue service. Before then, the MFSE was just the Market Street el and subway, and the Ferry line to Delaware Avenue and I think South Street, which when out of service 10 years later. I hope to ride it after school to celebrate its birthday.
Issac: Your right, its November 5,1922 from Front and Arch Sts to a then temporary terminal at Frankford Av and Bridge St. Hope you have a good time.
Larry,RedbirdR33
Too bad my beloved Almond Joys won't be there for it.
No, it's the 77th. The Frankford El actually opened on November 4,
1922.
You are right, it is the 77th anniversary. But I read it was November 5, not November 4.
11/05/99
Ok , now for the other side of the coin.
I think the R-11 , since it was so oddball and was mothballed at times.
OR was it the BMT Green Hornet ?? Your input is welcome.
Bill Newkirk
Bill: The shortest run would have to be the Green Hornet. It arrived in 1934 and was sidelined in 1941. It left the property in 1942.
The R-11's lasted from 1949 until about the mid-seventies,even though they did take a ten year sabbatical from 1955 to 1965.
Larry,RedbirdR33
The R-11's were out of service for 8 years, not 10, from 1957 to
1965. Also, the original Bluebird ran from 1939 to 1942, the 5
newer Bluebirds ran for 15 years, from 1940 to 1955. And the 25
Multi-Section cars ran for 25 years, from 1936 to 1961.
In my day it was the R-11/34 cars, but then again, the Franklin Shuttle had them almost exclusively for a long stretch in the 1970s.
SudDude
If my predictions are correct, the new cars on order for both the IRT and BMT-IND will be the cars with the shortest life as they will be given a photo opportunity inaugaural run from 36th Street Yards to the Coney Island Yards where they will be parked on the scrapping tracks. If any of them break down on that route, the remaining cars will go from 36th Street over to the Bus Storage Yards right near 36th Street via the streets.
I don't think it's fair to count prototype/experimental cars such as the Green Hornet or R11s. Of production models, my guess for the shortest active lifespan is the BMT Multi-Section cars.
-- Ed Sachs
The shortest lifespan of an R-type was probably the R16, which miraculously lasted 32 years (55-87). However, many of them were retired even before that date.
Upon further examination, the R-22 only last 29 years (58 to 87).
That makes it a candidate for shortest service by an R series. Most likely, the last R-22s were delivered by 1958; possibly at the same time the first R-26s began showing up.
The IRT Worlds Fair cars of 1938 also lasted about 32 years, 1938 to 1970 (or was it 1969?). Can anybody confirm how many of that class made it to Third Ave. el service?
Although it wasn't our's, look how short-lived the SOAC was.
The SOAC cars ran on the A, D, E, and N lines from May to July,
1974, before they moved to Boston, Cleveland, Chicago, and
Philadelphia by the spring of 1975.
All 50 of the World's Fair-Steinway Motors saw service on the 3 Avenue El,together with about 12 or so Lo-V Trailers and several regular Steinway Motors. During the last year of service for the old cars even the five museum Lo-V Motors were pressed into service. The last train of old cars ran during the am rush of November 3,1969.
Larry,RedbirdR33
It should be noted that in 1964 two of the WF Cars broke from the ranks to become motors for the vacuum cleaner train. 5660 became 20501 and 5689 became 20502.
A whole bunch of the Steinway WF cars were spotted as work motors in the summer of 1970 at 207th Street yard by yours truly. Some regular Lo-V's were also seen as well in work service.
Wayne
A whole bunch of the Steinway WF cars were spotted as work motors in the summer of 1970 at 207th Street yard by yours truly. Some regular Lo-V's were also seen as well in work service.
That's what became of a lot of them once they were removed from 3rd Ave. service.
If I remember my history correct, the Green Hornet was scrapped during World War II scrap metal drive.
[Ok , now for the other side of the coin.
I think the R-11 , since it was so oddball and was mothballed at times.
OR was it the BMT Green Hornet ??]
Among major car types, the R27/30's died a young death.
Actually, the R2730 didnt die, it was killed because it didn't have A/C. If it did, I think they'd still be in service, as some of it's IRT brother redbirds are still going strong.
The R16 died young (32). And I mean died.
They were KILLED! The only reason the R27/30 died was because they were never given A/C. They could have been.
I think that there was no AC because this would make the cars heavier.......
3TM
9St. Transfer to the M8. The next stop will be Houston St. Transfer to the F,H,J,K,Z lines. The M21 on the upper level. Stand Clear.............
I think the reason was that they couldn't fit the AC units in the cars the way they were built.
I think the reason was that they couldn't fit the AC units in the cars the way they were built.
Body wise, the R-27/30 was identical to the R-32. The only real difference was one had a stainless steel exterior, one did not; and one had standard windows while the other had picture windows. If you can air condition an R-32, why can't you air condition an R-27/30?
I don't remember what the deal was with AC on the R30, but someone mentioned that they couldn't be retro-fitted with AC. I'm sure if they could have they'd still be around.
I think the TA just didn't care. Also, the R-32 has a stainless frame.
I don't remember what the deal was with AC on the R30, but someone mentioned that they couldn't be retro-fitted with AC. I'm sure if they could have they'd still be around.
The 27/30's were scrapped because they reached the magic number of 35 years. I don't think they had as much spunk as the 32's either, to warrant an overhauling. Its a shame, because the 27's are the first cars that I remember being put into service brand new.
If that's true, then they would have lasted until 1996, since they mostly came into service in 61. As for spunk, those babies moved through the Montague St. tunnel and the Canarsie line when I rode them.
The R-27/30s had carbon steel bodies as do the Redbirds. The R-32s have stainless steel bodies and frames and as delivered were lighter than their carbon steel brethren. Adding AC increased their weight to about what the R-27/30s weighed when new. Had the R-27/30s been retrofitted with A/C, their weight would have risen to BMT standard proportions. The only advantage would have been a better chance at a fair fight with one of those BMT Bullies.
Croaked would be more like it.
An odd question,perhaps, from a non-mechanical type: How is it that a car that basically had the same equipment,design(except for length and width)etc, etc as other cars bought for the IRT at the same time be such turkeys?? Or maybe all the stuff they say about machines having souls is true..hmmmmmm...
Did you hear about a possible increase in $1.50 fare? And I guess the Fun pass will cost more along with the weekly and monthly unlimiteds. Service keeps getting worse, it seems I have to wait longer for a city bus than a year ago. It seems there's a problem with the subway everyday. The trains crawl, often one can run faster. The delays and problems with LI Bus, not to mention poor service. No way I'm paying an extra 30 cents, I'd rather put it towards getting my own car and not dealing with the ripoff the MTA is.
You go to other countries, and cities like Hong Kong, Taiwan, Singapore, San Francisco and their service is cheap, reliable, and clean. NYC on the other hand is dirty, slow, and getting more expensive.
The result is even more cars on the streets of NYC and here in Nassau county, not to mention the higher cost of commuting. It might make some people and companies think of working elsewhere besides NYC.
$1.50 a ride is expensive enough. Not to mention crappy LIRR service that costs even more. We lack a real mass transit concsious like other countries have because not enough is done to make it appealing to car drivers. Several people I've spoken to are now closer to using their car more if the fare goes up, especially in Queens.
A fare increase will be a major setback to the subway and bus system, and should NOT be instituted. The money should come from the pockets of those who have, not the commuters who have not.
With today's thinking, it's amazing we even have a subway and bus system in NYC. In 20 years Shanghai, China will have a better transit system than NYC does, if we don't act soon.
But then again, mass transit in the USA is standing still compared to what countries like China are doing. Just build the 2nd ave subway, build whatever the city needs to move people around efficiently.
There is enough money in this city, in this state, and the country to have a much better transit system, not to mention feed and house everybody. Only problem is alot of it is in the hands of too few people, instead of the $$ being spread out more evenly among everybody.
It's a trial balloon by George Pataki's friend Virgial Conway. George wants to be George Bush's VP, so doesn't want to rock the boat in NYS on anything. The money is needed for Capital Improvements, which historically doesn't come out of the farebox. I suspect that Rudy Giuliani doesn't want to confront him on this right now because of his senate race, result WE LOOSE !
Problem: If NYS/NYC doesn't come up with it's share of the money, the Fed. with stop payment on that B-I-G check that Virgial recently held up for all the cameras.
Mr t__:^)
The proposal was for an increase in 2004, five years away. By that time the $1.50 fare will have been in effect for 9 years, which will be the longest period without a fare increase since the 15-cent fare lasted from 1953 to 1966 (13 years). No one likes to pay more, but price hikes for just about everything are a fact of life. A 20% increase after 9 years corresponds to an annual inflation rate of just over 2% (2.046%, compounded annually). That will likely be comparable to the overall rate of inflation over the same period.
As for the perceived lousy service, it is all relative. Read the article from Sweden recently posted here praising the service on the NYC subways, compared to that in Stockholm.
It's also my understanding that San Franciscans are extremely fed up with MUNI. A lot of tourists seem to be impressed with the service there, but the people who use it daily definitely aren't.
-- Tim
Let's not start the "save the fare, stop buying spare parts" nonsense again. Keeping the fare static for years, then pushing through a massive increase, makes no sense. Maybe its what you had to do when you relied on nickels, dimes, and quarters, but not now. Better to increase the fare by a few cents each year.
As for a strike, I believe there will be one, but it won't last long. George Pataki doesn't care about transit riders, and sticking it to us lowlife city residents just helps him in the rest of the state and country. Willie James does seem to care about city residents, but lots of dissedents in the union do not, so he will have to act tough. A confrontation will give them cover for the deal they have to cut.
My scenario is that negotiations go on until Thursday the 17th, and the union goes out Friday morning. Three day weekend. Other unions have promised to pay the cost of the strike. People hurt, but not that bad, and George and Willie get credit for being willing to fight to the last transit rider. A court finds the union in contempt. Does every transit worker get fined, or just those scheduled to work?
By Monday, the business community has its pound of flesh, and figures the costs are beginning to outweight the benefits. The fines are beginning to hurt the workers. Everyone goes back for the Monday morning rush.
One positive: Giuliani could use the strike as a pretext to issue lots of licenses to commuter vans. The City Council will never agree to allow anyone to open a business of any type, but neither will they ever try to close one.
Yes, and historically Muni has been horrendously dangerous to pedestrians. Don't recall the figures (any SF SubTalkers?) but I think they mow down dozens of people a month, of whom a number die. There have been horror stories of Muni drivers with dozens of infractions -- similar to the spate of stories about NYC cab drivers, except these guys (and women) are driving bigger, heavier buses, trolleys and streetcars.
Don't you think that's a bit overexaggeration -- "They down dozens of people a month, of whom a number die" ???
Funny, I am out here in California, and I haven't heard of a fatality at San Francisco Muni in quite some time. I hear of more people dying under the wheels of NYCTA subway trains than I do under any of Muni vehicles.
There WAS a suicide in front of a BART train last week. That was NOT SF Muni, and a suicide,last time anyone checked, wasn't the fault of the agency whose vehicle the suicidee (or is it -- suicidor?) jumps in front of/under.
OK, so maybe I was exaggerating a little. BUT ... when I lived in SF (10 years ago), there was a general acceptance that Muni drivers were dangerous, indifferent to pedestrian & auto safety, and to be watched carefully. And my friends in SF tell me nothing's changed.
Dunno about the suicides. I'm talking about pedestrians being grazed, hit, or outright run over.
I was in SF last month, the pedestrians there are WORSE then in New York, the run out from between parked cars without looking, run between busses. From then Trolley Stops on Market Street, they just, run off, without looking to catch the trolley or get off
For one thing, pedestrians in San Francisco seem to be a lot dumber than in any other city I have ever visited. They don't ever seem to wait for anything, it's like they DARE a motorist to run into them. I find San Francisco one of the most dangerous cities to drive a vehicle in, whether it be a car, bus, or whatever, due to the moronic actions of the pedestrians.
It's not just the Muni drivers that are the problem.....
Actually SF MUNI did have a dfatality last week--a station cleaner hit by an LRV at a surface station.
I got a lot worse in DC. Some people pay 6.50 to get to and from work here (I never have, luckily). That is 5 rides in NYC. The buses have always been slow and infrequent, and the subways are bad too. Who ever heard of waiting 5 minutes during rush hour for a packed train on the 6? The MTA is about to put the articulated buses on routes that DO NOT EVEN NEED THEM!!! The M79 and M86 can handle their load perfectly well 24 hours a day. The M15, M1-4, and M101-3 could use the 50% more space on the bus, and lure people away from the Lex (especially on the M15). 1.50 is NOT the service we are paying for. There will be more cars unless the services are more frequent, cleaner, comfortable, and if the trains and buses can't have those 3, at least put the buses with the largest capacitites where they are needed, on the M15. The M79 and 86 are fine. I am not paying a dollar 80 for a subway ride (although it is better than a cab).
the m15 was supposed to get the articulated buses, but they are unable to make the turn from 126th street from 1st avenue. the buses were moved. I can see them going to the M103 eventually or the M102 cause Westside depot houses the M102
Articulated busses DO NOT HAVE WIDER TURNING RADII!!! The crosstown routes were probably chosen because of the lack of a subway alternative.
why wouldn't you pay $1.80 for a subway ride but pay it for a bus ride?
I think it makes more sense to have people who use the subway pay for it. Rather than taxing people who might never even set foot inside. And BTW, I don't think the wealth should be "redistributed," if you don't make any money, that's not my fault. Why don't you move to a nice Soviet farm?
Enjoy paying a $5 fare, then. I'll pay my subsidies, thank you. (since I already do on all my utility bills, and a portion of the sales tax)
-Hank
So, what difference does it make paying them through taxes as opposed to outright? At least outright it goes where you want it. The only reason subsidies exist is to keep transit competitive with the car, using highly subsidized roads.
I think you answered your own question.
-Hank
And there you go. If the roads are subsidizedby my tax money why should't mass transit be subsidized by people who don't use it.
EVERYBODY uses the roads. You walk on them, the busses run on them. Your stores get delivery, THE TRAINS get delivery on them, you get emergency services through the roads. Yet you can live your whole life without ever using the subway.
good luck bud you and say 300,000 - 500,000 other folks turn to driving to work in New York City, hmm whats the traffic been like on say Queens Midtown tunnel 45-60 minutes wait at the tolls. The TRIBORO bridge collapses from the weight of the cars on the span..
The FDR falls into the East River cause its in such terrific shape
Gasoline prices rise to 2.40 pr gallon and parkin in the CITY????
remember not to block the box or Rudy will ticket your car and your insurance goes further into the stratusphere.
also remember to wear your gas masks since the atmosphere will literally be equal to inhaling ammonia...
This morning's (Friday 5 November 1999) issue of Dagens Nyheter, Sweden's largest morning newspaper, had a couple of articles praising the New York subway and comparing it to the Stockholm subway (which comes out looking really lousy). Here are the two main articles and some side material, translated by me, and followed by a couple of comments.
-------------
Main article:
"In New York, the trains run on time"
Welcome to the New York subway, one of the world's first and largest subway systems. The subway is the best proof that New York is the city that never sleeps.
In New York, the subway runs all the time, 24 hours a day, every day, year-round, in Manhattan, Queens, Brooklyn and the Bronx. On a normal weekday, four million passengers use the subway. Every year, it transports 1.2 billion New Yorkers and others.
The New York subway, with its 26 lines, is a living miracle. And Stockholm can learn a lot from it -- in spite of, or perhaps because of, the fact that it, together with the bus system, is one of the world's most extensive and complicated public transport systems.
Here in New York, the subway trains still run as they should, after 95 years. On time. They depart on time and arrive on time. It's enough to bring tears to the eyes of a Stockholmer who remembers when the Stockholm subway ran like clockwork.
There are minor delays from time to time, but they are rare. And of course repair and maintenance work is done, but mostly on weekends, when fewer people are affected. The series of delays, breakdowns and cancelled runs that have been hitting Stockholm for several years now doesn't happen here.
New Yorkers are incredibly impatient. Delays are very rare, and when they happen, people become very upset and angry. Four million people ride the subway every day, usually without incident.
"But when there are problems, we definitely find out what people think of them," says Albert W. O'Leary, head of press relations at MTA New York City Transit, the New York counterpart of SL in Stockholm.
The subway's signaling system, which is the be-all and end-all of a well-functioning subway system, works well even though it is the same system that's been in operation since the subway opened 95 years ago.
The Stockholm subway used the same system when it opened for service in Stockholm in 1950. And it worked extremely well, before SL began installing the new signaling system that has caused so much chaos on the green line.
But the smooth functioning of the New York subway system didn't come about on its own. Through the early 1980s, the subways and buses were in a state of deferred maintenance, as MTA itself calls it, because of budget constraints. There was simply no money available.
Buses and trains broke down regularly, miles of subway track were in very bad condition, and the entire infrastructure, the basis of the whole transport system, was falling apart.
MTA worked to get federal approval for a massive, multi-year capital program. In 1982 its efforts were rewarded: New York City Transit started one of the largest projects in US history.
Since then New York City Transit, through the MTA, has invested an incredible SEK 182 billion (about $21.8 billion) in public transport. The money has come from city, state and federal capital funds.
As a result, all subway cars, buses and tracks, and more than 60% of the subway stations, bus garages, trackbeds, the signaling system, switches, tunnel lighting and the rest of the infrastructure has been restored to a state of good repair.
---------------
Second article:
"Nobody is afraid of the night here"
The fear is gone. Most of it, anyway. Through the beginning of the 1990s, there were few who dared ride the subway outside the morning and afternoon rush hours. It was considered particularly dangerous to ride evenings, nights and early mornings, when the risk of being attacked, or being the victim of other crimes, was considerable.
Today, the difference is striking. The system is much safer than it was in 1990, when it was at its worst. This is connected to the general improvement of the situation in New York, and not least with the zero-tolerance efforts initiated by Chief of Police Bill Bratton in the mid-1990s.
The idea was, and is, that the police always immediately intervene in even minor crimes and offenses. Anyone who jumps the turnstiles is seized, handcuffed and taken down to the station, as are those who drink beer in public areas. The police intervene as quickly to stop those who urinate on the street or in the subway as they do to stop those who park illegally.
And surveillance of the subway is part of this new police methodology. As a result, the number of passengers has increased markedly -- evenings and nights as well.
"The more people you have using the subway, the safer it will be for everyone." Bill Bratton believed that it was important to stop people jumping the turnstiles because it was often these same people who robbed and attacked other passengers. "If you're carrying a pistol or a knife, you're not putting a token in the turnstile," says Albert O'Leary, the MTA's head of press relations, who was previously head of press relations for the New York police.
"In 1990, we had 18,000 crimes and major offenses in the subway. That number is now down to 4,000 per year, on a subway system that carries 1.2 billion passengers per year -- an incredible change," he says.
When DN's correspondents ride the subway today through various parts of New York, we are struck by how much cleaner and better-looking it has become. And the graffiti that used to cover the subway cars and much of the stations is gone.
People also ride much more today because MTA has introduced the Metrocard, which is similar to the monthly and season cards in Stockholm. This makes it easier for passengers, since they no longer have to stand in line to buy tokens in the morning.
And of course, the subway is an easy way to get around New York, with its heavy traffic. If you use the bus or drive a car, you can easily get stuck in a traffic jam.
And on most lines, you can choose between local trains, which stop at all stations, and express trains, which only stop at certain stations and which carry you long distances much faster.
--------------
Sidebars:
"Facts about the New York subway"
Unlike Stockholm, where the subway for the first time is being operated entirely by a private company, the New York subway is currently owned and operated entirely by the City of New York. The New York equivalent of SL in Stockholm, MTA New York City Transit, operates all of the subway and most of the bus service.
"The New York subway"
Service began -- 1904
Passengers per weekday -- 4 million
Passengers per year -- 1.2 billion
Number of cars -- 5,803
Stations -- 468
Kilometers of track -- 1,340
Signals -- 11,300
Switches -- 2,637
Bridges -- 68
Underwater tunnels -- 14
Stations with ventilation -- 199
Most heavily used station -- Times Square (38.4 million passengers per year)
"The Stockholm subway"
Service began -- 1950
Passengers per weekday -- 1 million
Passengers per year -- 276 million
Number of cars -- 900
Stations -- 100
---------------
A couple of comments from me.
It's incorrect to say that the Stockholm subway used the same signalling system as the New York subway. A book I have at home, "World Metro Systems," says that the Stockholm subway "pioneered cab signalling." The Stockholm system uses wayside color-light signals only at switches and interlockings. Aspects of the Stockholm subway as it was initially designed that were taken from the New York subway include the cars and the power distribution system.
Please be aware that the quotes from O'Leary and Bratton are translated from Swedish, and probably do not correspond exactly to what they actually said in English.
Regards,
--
Tim Kynerd
Sundbyberg (smĺstan i storstan), Sweden
tkynerd@my-deja.com
Tim, Tos-sa-micka (Swedish for thank you ?). My Grandparrents were from your neck of the woods but wouldn't teach their childern the language (didn't want them discriminated against).
What a great site this is to have subway buffs from around the world talking with us !
Mr t__:^)
Tim, Tos-sa-micka (Swedish for thank you ?).
Yep, spelled "tack sĺ mycket".
My Grandparrents were from your neck of the woods but wouldn't teach their childern the language (didn't want them discriminated against).
It's hard to blame them, but isn't it a shame they felt they had to do this! Certainly I think people should learn the language of the country they emigrate to, but that doesn't have to mean abandoning their native languages.
What a great site this is to have subway buffs from around the world talking with us !
Agreed!
Med vänlig hälsning
Tim Kynerd
PS FYI, I'm an American (originally from Mississippi). Didn't want anybody getting the wrong idea....
[My Grandparrents were from your neck of the woods but wouldn't teach their childern the language (didn't want them discriminated against).]
[It's hard to blame them, but isn't it a shame they felt they had to do this! Certainly I think people should learn the language of the country they emigrate to, but that doesn't have to mean abandoning their native languages.]
I agree with this. Some folks OVER HERE think it's new problem or an anti-black thing, but my generation, my kids & grandkids have no idea what it is to be Swedish, nor do they any interest in going their. I'm a genealogist and have traced my father's side to the 1630s, but can only get my mother's side back to Ellis Island (my great grandfather). My wife doesn't understand why I care about all those dead people. She also doesn't care about roots except she's proud to be mostly Irish. To me roots are an anchor that you need in life, just like a belief in God.
Tim, it sounds like you have a interesting family background !
To the rest of you folks, please pardon this non-topic rambling.
Mr t__:^)
Thanks for the long and interesting piece, Tim, and for taking the trouble to translate it.
A question: Sweden has a rep in the U.S. as being an ultra-liberal country--is this deserved? I ask because I note the paragraph:
The idea was, and is, that the police always immediately intervene in even minor crimes and offenses. Anyone who jumps the turnstiles is seized, handcuffed and taken down to the station, as are those who drink beer in public areas. The police intervene as quickly to stop those who urinate on the street or in the subway as they do to stop those who park illegally.
Many in New York think that is oppressive, even though it's one of the reasons the murder rate is down from about 2200 in 1990 to about 700 today.
How would you say that plays with the Swedish "person-in-the-street"? How does Stockholm deal with petty crime?
Thanks for the long and interesting piece, Tim, and for taking the trouble to translate it.
No problem. When I saw it on the front page of my newspaper this morning, I immediately thought, "I need to translate this and post it to SubTalk."
A question: Sweden has a rep in the U.S. as being an ultra-liberal country--is this deserved? I ask because I note the paragraph:
"The idea was, and is, that the police always immediately intervene in even minor crimes and offenses. Anyone who jumps the turnstiles is seized, handcuffed and taken down to the station, as are those who drink beer in public areas. The police intervene as quickly to stop those who urinate on the street or in the subway as they do to stop those who park illegally."
Many in New York think that is oppressive, even though it's one of the reasons the murder rate is down from about 2200 in 1990 to about 700 today.
How would you say that plays with the Swedish "person-in-the-street"? How does Stockholm deal with petty crime?
Complex question. I'll try to do it justice.
First of all, I have to point out that by any American standards, Stockholm is a very safe city.
But crime is on the increase in Stockholm. One article in this morning's Metro (a free newspaper distributed on the public transport system; coming to Philadelphia soon, AIUI) said that the police are not making much use of their new ability to issue fines on the spot for certain offenses, ranging from public urination to being on the tracks of the subway. Another said that a blind man was hospitalized yesterday after being stabbed by one or more robbers at the central railway station. (I use this latter example not because I expect it to shock a bunch of jaded New Yorkers ;-), but because it's certainly not typical of what you expect to hear about happening in Sweden.)
Because of this, my impression is that the "Swede in the street" wants all kinds of offenses to be dealt with somewhat more decisively. Zero tolerance has been talked about here, and supposedly even put into practice for short periods once or twice. The underlying problem is that the police force is underfunded and can't even keep up with serious crimes; there is said to be a significant backlog of murder cases that the police don't even have time to *investigate*, much less solve.
And to get back to the subject of the article -- which was, if obliquely, the problems in Stockholm's public transit system: Someone pointed out recently, on a Swedish bulletin board that I read, that the fundamental problem is not with the network itself and how it's laid out. It's the fact that nobody is taking overall responsibility for seeing that (1) every part of the system works the way it's supposed to, and (2) the parts of the system fit together in such a way as to make a smooth, coordinated journey possible. I agree with this assessment, and with the writer's explanation for it: the privatization of Stockholm's public transport since 1993 has led to underfunding (low bidder gets the contract), resulting in staff shortages (which are, unbeknownst to the public, a MAJOR source of disruptions in service on the subway), and increased mechanical problems (another source of service disruptions in all modes).
The police are essentially suffering from similar problems, which in their case have rather different symptoms, but the overall effect is similar -- what needs to get done isn't getting done because of underfunding.
Yet Sweden has the world's highest tax burden as a percentage of GNP. Go figure.
So I'm not all that optimistic. We'll see what happens.
Best regards,
Tim Kynerd
I forgot to mention that accompanying these two articles were three illustrations:
-- A schematic diagram of the New York subway, with only certain stations marked (and some names wrong; I'm not aware of a station called "Colombia University," exactly, and certainly not of one called "Port Authority Bus Terminal" ;-) or of one called "Qeensboro Plaza"). This has an inset showing the Stockholm subway for comparison.
-- A nice color picture showing one wall of the remodeled Franklin Avenue station with the stained glass.
-- A good B/W shot of the Manhattan skyline from Smith/9th.
Tim
[A schematic diagram of the New York subway, with only certain stations marked (and some names wrong; I'm not aware of a station called "Colombia University]
It's on the Bogota Metro.
Seriously though, thanks for posting such an interesting article.
Add my thanks too, not only for posting -- but for translating as well!
To all of you who thanked me for posting the article: You're very welcome.
As for the translation, I really like to translate, so I just decided to do this during my lunch hour yesterday. I got my lunch and sat at my desk, translating while I ate, and then posted the article to SubTalk.
Glad you all enjoyed it.
Regards,
Tim
-- A schematic diagram of the New York subway, with only certain stations marked (and some names wrong; I'm not aware of a station called "Colombia University," exactly, and certainly not of one called "Port Authority Bus Terminal" ;-) or of one called "Qeensboro Plaza"). This has an inset showing the Stockholm subway for comparison.
The 116 St/Columbia University stop is on the Upper West Side of Manhattan on the Broadway IRT (1/9) line.
The 42 St/Port Authority Bus Terminal stop is on the west side of Midtown Manhattan on the 8th Avenue IND (A/C/E) line.
The Queensboro Plaza stop is just across the river in Queens on the Corona / Flushing IRT (7) and the Astoria BMT (N) lines. As mentioned elsewhere on this site, this station is unique in that it is the only station in the system with a cross-platform trasfer between an IRT Division and an IND/BMT Division line.
-- David
Chicago, IL
www.NthWard.com
Um, you missed a couple of things.
That's Columbia University, not Col*o*mbia University. The latter is what the map in the newspaper showed.
And AFAIK it's Queensboro Plaza, not Qeensboro Plaza. Same problem there.
I don't recall "Port Authority Bus Terminal" being part of the official name of any subway station. If it is, then I stand corrected.
Regards,
Tim
You are correct; it isn't!
The IND 8th ave. line, **42d St.** Station (A,C,E) is the stop which has a lower level entrance to the PABT, outside the fare zone.
There also is a walkway, within the fare zone, from this station to the **Times Square - 42d St** Stations for the IRT and BMT (1,2,3,9,N,R,S) at 7th Ave & Broadway.
Tim .. great post! Thank you for translating the articles for us.
What is the general impression of people regarding the public-vs-privately owned issue? As you probably already know, New York City pccasionally raises trial balloons of privatizing some city agencies. It doesn't sound like it's too successful as it relates to the Stockholm subway.
Also, how big is the Stockholm subway system? (track or route miles, stations, rolling stock)
--Mark
It's hard for me to give the general impression of privatization here in Stockholm. My own impression is that it has had a strong negative effect on the quality of service, but I would not be willing to ascribe that opinion to other people.
The subway in Stockholm is 110 km (66 miles) in route length, has 100 stations and about 900 cars. There are seven lines that run all the time, as well as a number (about five) extra lines that only run at certain times, mostly in the peak hours. On a normal weekday, it carries about a million people -- more than any US heavy-rail system except New York's. (For comparison, greater Stockholm is about the size of the Kansas City or Milwaukee metro area.)
The newspaper article's reference to the subway being run by a private agency refers to the acquisition, by a subsidiary of the French company CGEA Transport, of SL Tunnelbanan AB. ("AB" means "share company," i.e. corporation.) However, while this acquisition is recent, having been completed on 30 June of this year, the subway system has been regularly tendered (contracted out) since, I believe, 1994. SL Tunnelbanan, a subsidiary of the transit agency (AB Storstockholms Lokaltrafik, which as the name indicates is organized as a corporation), has won all the tenders.
In my view, the years of competitive contracting in public transport here have resulted in an underfunded and undermaintained system, because the mistake has been made of not having sufficient guarantees of quality in the contracts. Another problem is that the parceling out of various parts of the system for tender has meant that cooperation and communication between, for instance, the bus system and the commuter trains have suffered. On the whole, the quality of the system has declined somewhat -- not more than that -- but the ability of the system to meet challenges, like those posed by a serious service disruption, has been greatly impaired, which in itself is a reduction in quality and which has negatively affected public perceptions of the system as a whole.
Regards,
Tim
Forgot to give my comment about privatization in New York: Fight it tooth and nail, but if you can't stop it, at least work to make sure that (1) the funding is entirely adequate, and (2) good measures and guarantees of quality are built into the tenders.
Regards,
Tim
I would point out that "privatization" seems to be causing problems in the UK, but US freight railroads have always been private and now they're doing better, I would argue, than if the government ran them, despite thefact that they have to compete with publicly subsidized modes.
I think the issue in US cities would not be private/public per se as political conditions have changed so much since the days that private ownership of public transit was common.
In NYC the issue is competition, or the lack of it. The TA was directed to privatize its bus system, and never did. As an experiment, I would like to see the City competitively hiring separate management teams to operate the two subway divisions, as well as the bus lines, with a different organization (on the buses) at least down to the borough level.
The problem with privitizing a capital asset is that if the fare is fixed by regulation the operator has an incentive to cash cow the asset and then walk away. That's what the private operators did with the subways. That's what the Jamaica Water Company did with the infrastructure of that part of Queens. And that's what landlords do with NYC's rent regulated housing stock.
On the other hand, if you allow them to charge as much as they want, you are left with an unregulated monopoly that can gouge like crazy.
So you can't "privatize" the subways, but you could allow private operators to provide local bus service.
The problem with privitizing a capital asset is that if the fare is fixed by regulation the operator has an incentive to cash cow the asset and then walk away. That's what the private operators did with the subways.
Neither your characterization of the nature of private operation of the IRT and BMT nor the impetus for the takeover by the City describe the historical reality.
This is not to say that the IRT did not, in its early days, attempt to use city-built infrastructure as a "cash cow," as you have it, but this reality turned over first, by thesigning of the Dual Contracts, and second, by the wartime inflation of the 'teens.
Subsidized competition destroyed privately owned transportation infrastructure in the U.S., Automobile,Trucking and Construction intrests CONvinced the military and political leadership to throw terabucks at the highway system with disastrous results. This CORRUPTION is why America will ALWAYS have a second rate transportation system, forever dependent on government handouts.
As far as the freight roads go, the government did run the Northeast out of the hole with Conrail (RIP), and I think that it was 1984 (much earlier than anyone ever expected) that the system went back into public hands.
At the same time that the government "subsidized" air and highway traffic, they de-regulated the rail industry, and left the highway users saddled with a grossly inefficient long-distance system. Anyone who thinks that the highway is better for long distance freight should talk to a logistics expert for J.B.Hunt, Schnieder National, or UPS, all of whom use rail service extensively, because it's simply too inefficient to truck large quantities of materials across the country.
The other government-owned rail system, Amtrak, faces mandates to become self-sufficent (I'm not sure if this is a route to privatization, or just to be free of tax dollars, like the USPS). Amtrak is pretty close, and I think that revenue is about 90%(or more) of costs right now. The subway, or any of the regional mass-transit systems face a much larger economic hurdle. Actually, the only division of the MTA that could stand alone is Bridges&Tunnels, and privatized construction of toll-facilities has proven to be very feasible and profitable, meaning less [subsidy]tax dollars in the pot and more [user] tolls to pay.
As far as I can see, the only motivation for privatization is to work some form of magic through the introduction of the profit motive. A truly competitive situation, in which the customer (the passenger) can choose among several suppliers of the *same* product or service, is not practical in public transit -- the infrastructure's too expensive to permit that.
What privatization has meant in Stockholm, at least, is turning the transit agency into a "buyer" of transit service. It decides what transit service it wants to have, and goes out and solicits bids, and awards a contract to one company or another to provide the service being tendered. The end customer, the passenger, still ends up with no choice at all.
Unfortunately, in my view, it is extremely difficult to structure a privatization in such a way that the most profitable course for the operator is to provide the best possible service to passengers. That's the challenge, and I'm not aware of any place that's fully met it -- New Zealand seems to have come rather far, but I'm not sure how far.
None of this is to say that public agencies are always good at providing the best possible service either. I'm just pointing out that privatization isn't really the cure-all it's often made out to be.
-- Tim
In a perfect world, Government's role would be to regulate so that everybody plays nice and levy taxes to finance it's own operations. Certainly, I advocate comprehensive regulation and a progressive personal income tax with a high max. bracket, but ownership should be in private hands. Only the private sector can create wealth. As for trucking, in the early '80's there was a proposal put forth by the American Trucking Associations to purchase the Interstate Highway System from the federal government. I wonder what ever became of that
Businesses love privitization. They see goldbricking civil servants ripping off the public and say gee, we could be ripping off the public instead!
Having seen first hand what a sucker the public sector is in purchasing and contracts, I have my doubts about privitization. Unles s you have an agency controlled by a group that operates more like a mafia than a group of workers, you're better off with your own team, especially in an labor shortage environment.
The private sector is quickly adjusting to the new balance of power in the labor market. The government, as usual, is behind the curve. Those contracts you sign to contract out could get quite pricy in the next few years.
Besides putting a man on the moon (even that cost a fortune), what has government EVER done effeciently?
Perfect examples: Post Office, DMV, Sanitation, TRANSIT, etc, etc........
Government has no bottom line, so there is absolutely NO incentive to fund rationally or produce a profit.
Thanks for the long and interesting piece, Tim, and for taking the trouble to translate it.
A question: Sweden has a rep in the U.S. as being an ultra-liberal country--is this deserved? I ask because I note the paragraph:
The idea was, and is, that the police always immediately intervene in even minor crimes and offenses. Anyone who jumps the turnstiles is seized, handcuffed and taken down to the station, as are those who drink beer in public areas. The police intervene as quickly to stop those who urinate on the street or in the subway as they do to stop those who park illegally.
Many in New York think that is oppressive, even though it's one of the reasons the murder rate is down from about 2200 in 1990 to about 700 today.
How would you say that plays with the Swedish "person-in-the-street"? How does Stockholm deal with petty crime?
Thanks for the long and interesting piece, Tim, and for taking the trouble to translate it.
No problem. When I saw it on the front page of my newspaper this morning, I immediately thought, "I need to translate this and post it to SubTalk."
A question: Sweden has a rep in the U.S. as being an ultra-liberal country--is this deserved? I ask because I note the paragraph:
"The idea was, and is, that the police always immediately intervene in even minor crimes and offenses. Anyone who jumps the turnstiles is seized, handcuffed and taken down to the station, as are those who drink beer in public areas. The police intervene as quickly to stop those who urinate on the street or in the subway as they do to stop those who park illegally."
Many in New York think that is oppressive, even though it's one of the reasons the murder rate is down from about 2200 in 1990 to about 700 today.
How would you say that plays with the Swedish "person-in-the-street"? How does Stockholm deal with petty crime?
Complex question. I'll try to do it justice.
First of all, I have to point out that by any American standards, Stockholm is a very safe city.
But crime is on the increase in Stockholm. One article in this morning's Metro (a free newspaper distributed on the public transport system; coming to Philadelphia soon, AIUI) said that the police are not making much use of their new ability to issue fines on the spot for certain offenses, ranging from public urination to being on the tracks of the subway. Another said that a blind man was hospitalized yesterday after being stabbed by one or more robbers at the central railway station. (I use this latter example not because I expect it to shock a bunch of jaded New Yorkers ;-), but because it's certainly not typical of what you expect to hear about happening in Sweden.)
Because of this, my impression is that the "Swede in the street" wants all kinds of offenses to be dealt with somewhat more decisively. Zero tolerance has been talked about here, and supposedly even put into practice for short periods once or twice. The underlying problem is that the police force is underfunded and can't even keep up with serious crimes; there is said to be a significant backlog of murder cases that the police don't even have time to *investigate*, much less solve.
And to get back to the subject of the article -- which was, if obliquely, the problems in Stockholm's public transit system: Someone pointed out recently, on a Swedish bulletin board that I read, that the fundamental problem is not with the network itself and how it's laid out. It's the fact that nobody is taking overall responsibility for seeing that (1) every part of the system works the way it's supposed to, and (2) the parts of the system fit together in such a way as to make a smooth, coordinated journey possible. I agree with this assessment, and with the writer's explanation for it: the privatization of Stockholm's public transport since 1993 has led to underfunding (low bidder gets the contract), resulting in staff shortages (which are, unbeknownst to the public, a MAJOR source of disruptions in service on the subway), and increased mechanical problems (another source of service disruptions in all modes).
The police are essentially suffering from similar problems, which in their case have rather different symptoms, but the overall effect is similar -- what needs to get done isn't getting done because of underfunding.
Yet Sweden has the world's highest tax burden as a percentage of GNP. Go figure.
So I'm not all that optimistic. We'll see what happens.
Best regards,
Tim Kynerd
Tim, Tos-sa-micka (Swedish for thank you ?). My Grandparrents were from your neck of the woods but wouldn't teach their childern the language (didn't want them discriminated against).
What a great site this is to have subway buffs from around the world talking with us !
Mr t__:^)
Tim, Tos-sa-micka (Swedish for thank you ?).
Yep, spelled "tack sĺ mycket".
My Grandparrents were from your neck of the woods but wouldn't teach their childern the language (didn't want them discriminated against).
It's hard to blame them, but isn't it a shame they felt they had to do this! Certainly I think people should learn the language of the country they emigrate to, but that doesn't have to mean abandoning their native languages.
What a great site this is to have subway buffs from around the world talking with us !
Agreed!
Med vänlig hälsning
Tim Kynerd
PS FYI, I'm an American (originally from Mississippi). Didn't want anybody getting the wrong idea....
[My Grandparrents were from your neck of the woods but wouldn't teach their childern the language (didn't want them discriminated against).]
[It's hard to blame them, but isn't it a shame they felt they had to do this! Certainly I think people should learn the language of the country they emigrate to, but that doesn't have to mean abandoning their native languages.]
I agree with this. Some folks OVER HERE think it's new problem or an anti-black thing, but my generation, my kids & grandkids have no idea what it is to be Swedish, nor do they any interest in going their. I'm a genealogist and have traced my father's side to the 1630s, but can only get my mother's side back to Ellis Island (my great grandfather). My wife doesn't understand why I care about all those dead people. She also doesn't care about roots except she's proud to be mostly Irish. To me roots are an anchor that you need in life, just like a belief in God.
Tim, it sounds like you have a interesting family background !
To the rest of you folks, please pardon this non-topic rambling.
Mr t__:^)
A MVM receipt collection would be very interesting You could make a collection of receipts from all the machine locations. You could document the fastest time required to purchase a metrocard from every location, of course using the subway to get from one location to another. You could prove to the world that you are without fear by purchasing a $120 Monthly Express Bus Card in CASH from one of the more desolate, dangerous machine locations at night.
As an aside, I wonder if the MTA could make some much needed income by adding on a picture taking mechanism to the MVM so that you could have 5 candid pictures of yourself taken as you use the machine, maybe for an extra cost of $2. Sort of what they had in Coney Island years ago. It would be good for people who need pictures for passports, or just for friends who want to memorialize the day they spent together.
In the London Underground, when you buy anything longer than a day pass (weekly, monthly) you have to get a laminated photo card issued by the ticket-seller. For this purpose, they have little photo booths in the corner of many (? every?) stations. I was all set to get really ticked off when the agent asked for my photo, since I had been notified that I needed one ... and it wasn't until I asked where the nearest photo service was that he silently pointed to the corner across the mezzanine of the Maida Vale station. Ah, British reserve.
If you buy your Travelcards in the U.S. before you visit (aka a Visitor Travelcard) it's not necessary to have a photo.
I've got an unused voucher for a 7 day, 6 zone travelcard but it's not transferable and expires in February. Probably won't get the chance to use it.
HeyPaul,
That's a great idea! As at Coney Island, you could get your picture taken in a gorilla suit or a mermaid mockup! Or with your best friend's girlfriend!
Maybe you could have your picture electronically integrated so you could pose with New York personalities, like David Lynch or David Berkowitz or the Soup Nazi Guy.
Or we could save money on the 2000 election--you could pose with Rudy or Hillary and they could just see which one sells more MetroCards.
You're a genius!
I forgot to mention that accompanying these two articles were three illustrations:
-- A schematic diagram of the New York subway, with only certain stations marked (and some names wrong; I'm not aware of a station called "Colombia University," exactly, and certainly not of one called "Port Authority Bus Terminal" ;-) or of one called "Qeensboro Plaza"). This has an inset showing the Stockholm subway for comparison.
-- A nice color picture showing one wall of the remodeled Franklin Avenue station with the stained glass.
-- A good B/W shot of the Manhattan skyline from Smith/9th.
Tim
[A schematic diagram of the New York subway, with only certain stations marked (and some names wrong; I'm not aware of a station called "Colombia University]
It's on the Bogota Metro.
Seriously though, thanks for posting such an interesting article.
Add my thanks too, not only for posting -- but for translating as well!
To all of you who thanked me for posting the article: You're very welcome.
As for the translation, I really like to translate, so I just decided to do this during my lunch hour yesterday. I got my lunch and sat at my desk, translating while I ate, and then posted the article to SubTalk.
Glad you all enjoyed it.
Regards,
Tim
-- A schematic diagram of the New York subway, with only certain stations marked (and some names wrong; I'm not aware of a station called "Colombia University," exactly, and certainly not of one called "Port Authority Bus Terminal" ;-) or of one called "Qeensboro Plaza"). This has an inset showing the Stockholm subway for comparison.
The 116 St/Columbia University stop is on the Upper West Side of Manhattan on the Broadway IRT (1/9) line.
The 42 St/Port Authority Bus Terminal stop is on the west side of Midtown Manhattan on the 8th Avenue IND (A/C/E) line.
The Queensboro Plaza stop is just across the river in Queens on the Corona / Flushing IRT (7) and the Astoria BMT (N) lines. As mentioned elsewhere on this site, this station is unique in that it is the only station in the system with a cross-platform trasfer between an IRT Division and an IND/BMT Division line.
-- David
Chicago, IL
www.NthWard.com
Um, you missed a couple of things.
That's Columbia University, not Col*o*mbia University. The latter is what the map in the newspaper showed.
And AFAIK it's Queensboro Plaza, not Qeensboro Plaza. Same problem there.
I don't recall "Port Authority Bus Terminal" being part of the official name of any subway station. If it is, then I stand corrected.
Regards,
Tim
You are correct; it isn't!
The IND 8th ave. line, **42d St.** Station (A,C,E) is the stop which has a lower level entrance to the PABT, outside the fare zone.
There also is a walkway, within the fare zone, from this station to the **Times Square - 42d St** Stations for the IRT and BMT (1,2,3,9,N,R,S) at 7th Ave & Broadway.
I can see the new design being done on the old express platform at Canal Street, seems that when it is ever finished, it will look really nice. Anyone knows when the "N" will return to the express line via the bridge or will we have to wait until the 2nd Avenue Subway is bulit to see it open(though i hope it happens within my lifetime)
We have all these ideas and thoughts about transit, has anybody ever tried contacting high level MTA officials with them? Maybe we could compile a list and send a letter.
I've had the opportunity, over the years, to speak with TA/MTA/City officials (and some other cities, too) at levels running from middle to fairly high (but in NYC, never very "top," except maybe to say hello).
Watching this evolve over 3-4 decades, I'm inclined to say that high level officials are less likely to be influenced by the peanut gallery than, say, 30 years ago.
Part of this might be because there is so much organized advocacy now, so that officialdom only responds to the noisiest or best connected (example--Straphangers' Campaign has the ear of the New York Times).
Another reason might be that high officials answer too much to politicians and power brokers than to customers and the marketplace.
We have some "suits" that visit the board. Maybe they could comment on these observations.
[Watching this evolve over 3-4 decades, I'm inclined to say that high level officials [TA/MTA/City] are less likely to be influenced by the peanut gallery than, say, 30 years ago.
Part of this might be because there is so much organized advocacy now, so that officialdom only responds to the noisiest or best connected (example--Straphangers' Campaign has the ear of the New York Times).
Another reason might be that high officials answer too much to politicians and power brokers than to customers and the marketplace.]
It's a shame that the business community hasn't gotten together to demand transit improvements. If a large company says it'll move to the Sunbelt if it doesn't get tax breaks, City Hall sends over a blank check so fast it'll make your head spin.
If we can dream for a minute, imagine if the suits at, say, Citibank decided that inadequate transit was cutting down on productivity. That's not impossible to imagine, as workers who arrive late all frazzled by transit delays aren't likely to work up to their full potential. Inadequate transit also might make recruitng more difficult. At any rate, Citibank's CEO calls the Mayor and says that they'll be relocating to Phoenix or Atlanta unless the full Second Avenue line (none of that stubway nonsense) is running within a few years. You can rest 100% assured that the line would be opened on schedule.
It's a shame that the business community hasn't gotten together to demand transit improvements. If a large company says it'll move to the Sunbelt if it doesn't get tax breaks, City Hall sends over a blank check so fast it'll make your head spin.
If we can dream for a minute, imagine if the suits at, say, Citibank decided that inadequate transit was cutting down on productivity. That's not impossible to imagine, as workers who arrive late all frazzled by transit delays aren't likely to work up to their full potential. Inadequate transit also might make recruitng more difficult. At any rate, Citibank's CEO calls the Mayor and says that they'll be relocating to Phoenix or Atlanta unless the full Second Avenue line (none of that stubway nonsense) is running within a few years. You can rest 100% assured that the line would be opened on schedule
Money talks, Bulls__t walks!
Ah, Yes, This is in line with my proper use theory for big business fear tactics. I wish Citibank or somebody would do something like this to CRUSH THE NIMBYS
Having the business community advocate transit routes was the norm until Mayor Hylan, who advanced the idea that business interests were too self-interested to be involved in noble pursuits like transit development.
I've tried to open my mouth on the Manhattan Bridge issue, which is of particular interest to me. All I've got for my trouble is a stupid City Planning study that appears likely to fizzle out. They want to duck their head and say maybe the bridge will be fine and maybe it won't but we already paid to fix it so we can't pay more, but maybe there will be a replacement tunnel someday (barf).
I want them to at least endorse the MTA's DeKalb -Rutgers connection. The plan seems to be to wait until the redevelopment of Fulton Ferry places enough NIMBY neighbors in its path to make it impossible or prohibitively expensive to build. The Planning Department has a rule against thinking ahead. One political deal at a time, that's our motto.
[I want them to at least endorse the MTA's DeKalb -Rutgers connection. The plan seems to be to wait until the redevelopment of Fulton Ferry places enough NIMBY neighbors in its path to make it impossible or prohibitively expensive to build. The Planning Department has a rule against thinking ahead. One political deal at a time, that's our motto.]
Can you provide a few more details on this? Either to SubTalk or to me personally? Thanks ....
Part of Fulton Ferry was recently rezoned to permit residential conversions (which haven't spread east of the MB -- yet). There was an organized group of (illegal) residents and property owners to fight with it.
The MTA proposed the Rutgers/DeKalb connection in a study that disclosed just how dicey the future of the MB is. The study was deep sixed, and the plan was dropped. Pataki (Cuomo) figures if the bridge fails, they can cut service and blame the city. Giuliani (Dinkins, Koch) hopes to be out of office before anything bad happens.
City Planning got funding to re-study the issue (I suggested it), but can't release something that implies a criticism of the non-decision. To make things worse, the guy in the transportation division who knew a lot about the system left for a new job in the middle of the project. The best we can hope for is a muddle that gets filed in a drawer.
But I have E-mailed the Mayor and Governor on this one, a legislator or two, a newspaper or two. I yelled at the head of the MTA Lower Manhattan Access study for planning to connect the suburbs while cutting off Brooklyn. A member of the Mayor's staff E-mailed back that the subways are the responsibility of the MTA, a state agency. The MTA Lower Manhattan guy pointed out that the Manhattan is a city bridge, and the MTA is just a tenant.
Maybe if all you guys started contacting newspapers, polticos, etc. someone would notice. The Brooklyn political delegation certainly hasn't.
How difficult is this connection? I don't have the track book here, and on the map the two lines (F tunnel & B/D/Q on M. Bridge) cross over each other. Assume it'd be allow cross-running among all directions of these lines, but are both below grade at that point? What's on top of them? Would the connector be west of the split between the West End and Brighton Lines? Thanks ....
This connection would be a waste of money, as that tunnel cannot handle all the 6th Ave. trains going through Dekalb along with current F service.
[This connection would be a waste of money, as that tunnel cannot handle all the 6th Ave. trains going through Dekalb along with current F service.]
The connection could not replace the Manhattan Bridge. But if/when the bridge becomes completely useless, the connection would make it possible for at least some trains to get to Manhattan. Brooklyn's subway service would be much worse than it is today, but it (hopefully) would not be a complete disaster.
I'd rather see the money spent on a replacement tunnel for the bridge.
[I'd rather see the money spent on a replacement tunnel for the bridge.]
Me too. But a Rutgers/DeKalb connection would be far cheaper and could be built much more quickly.
I doubt that. The bridge tracks are already well above the tracks at York St, where they cross the IND tracks. There would be the need for considerable tunneling to be able to connect them at an underground grade.
Chris: So how difficult is this connection? I don't have the track book here, but if the bridge tracks are up in the air and the IND lines are tunneled, what would it REALISTICALLY take? Is this a project roughly equal in complexity to the 63rd Street connector, say?
And, would the Rutgers/DeKalb connector be west of the split between the West End and Brighton Lines so that both lines would receive traffic from the running-at-capacity F tunnel?
The plan was to branch off from the A/B tracks past the last junction, slope down, and merge in past York There is enough room. When the whole area is occupied by Yuppies, I don't know.
No one is going to build a replacement tunnel for Brooklyn. The only people in Brooklyn who matter have other options, and would oppose.
There will be a replacement tunnel....as soon as the present bridge is deemed unsafe and is forced to close.
(As soon as the bridge is deemed unsafe there will be a replacement tunnel).
You mean a decade or more later. By them much of Brooklyn's middle class will have moved to the suburbs, taking a loss on their house (if they own one) in the process, with their place taken by those who do not work in Manhattan or (since there are not enough jobs in Broooklyn) at all. Brooklyn would suffer a catastrophic loss of population and income. By the time the tunnel is built, it will no longer be needed.
Perhaps a half million people can move out to Long Island if the LIRR to GCT is built. They can become illegal tenents in one-family zones, since they will no longer be able to afford a house.
Perhaps what is now Bensonhurst and Boro Park can be used for the new Fresh Kills.
When Reuter visited City Planning and I asked him about the bridge he even told me (before I told him) that if the bridge were lost the southern rim of Brooklyn would be depopulated, thus showing he isn't the idiot some people say.
How about a proper BRIDGE to replace the existing bridge? One that is built to handle railroad, auto and truck traffic properly. Price tag?
'Bout $4 Billion. But once built, it would last a couple hundred years.
Wayne
I'm sure you could build 4 tunnels for a lot less and retrofit the existing Manhattan Bridge to auto traffic only. Once the trains are gone the bridge will probably be much mre structurally sound.
We went over this a couple of months ago. The only way to build a new bridge would be to tear down the Manhattan Bridge and build a completely new span in the exact same spot, and the five-to-seven year delays that would cause would scare off all the politicians. A paralell bridge (build it and then tear down the Manhattan) would require a landing in Manhattan somewhere either around Chatham Square or near Pike and Canal Streets -- the NIMBY outcry would be incredible.
Ideally, they would build the Rutgers connection and run the B though that (turning it from a Sixth Ave. express to a Sixth Ave. local via 63rd St. in the process), and build a new tunnel for the D/N/Q to use with connections to both the Grand St. station for the Sixth Ave. D and Canal St. for the N and Q on Broadway.
Unfortunately, a slow deterioration of the bridge will probably never spark enough of a public outcry to get that project off the groud. A catasrophic failure that could be milked by the tabs and the TV station for months -- that's another story. You'd get the tunnel funds within six months of the disaster.
11/06/99
This is a very interesting yet serious problem. Placing the subway tracks on the outside of the Manny B and years of train traffic , may cause a possible catastrophy. Though the TA is quiet about this , they must plan NOW and not put it off like the Second Avenue subway. A catastrophy causing a indefinite TOTAL shutdown of this bridge would even cause a transit calamity of enormous proportions.
Years of flexing of the main deck from passing trains in both directions over the years may spell a problem known as "metal fatigue". Go down to the TA's Transit Museum , look at B-type #2204. Check out where the black roof meets the brown sides. See the slight bulges between the rivets?,that's metal fatigue.
The TA better take this seriously and confer with the DOT and predict (if possible) the future of this span. If the future looks bleak despite any repairs , it may be time for some serious action and not a subway line to the Meadowlands!
Bill Newkirk
No one is going to build a replacement tunnel. My thought is that if you had the Rutgers/DeKalb connection AND a Chambers/Grand connection (discussed by the MTA in the East River Crossing Study), one could run up to 50 percent more trains than today OFF PEAK without using the bridge, while serving all stations. Rush hours, you could run just one service per side. Weekly bridge traffic would fall 70 to 75 percent.
If they did that, maybe the amount of metal fatigue would be low enough to make this $500 million fix last. Or, if you were only using the bridge five hours per day five days per week, maybe you could replace the metal as fast as it cracks. That's my suggestion, anyway.
I also thing you need to build a new toll tunnel, then push the trucks off the Willie B and Manhanttan as well, to reduce the stress.
Without doing this stuff, and soon, I'm afraid we'll be right back in the same boat (or worse) 15 years after the latest fix is finished in 2004, with $500 million down the drain.
Why another toll tunnel? I never remember the Battery Tunnel being crowded at all.
11/07/99
Just one question on the DeKalb/Rutgers connection. If this connection were to become reality and the north side Manhattan Bridge tracks were abandoned , what would become of Grand Street?
Bill Newkirk
Remember what they did in '95? The had a shuttle from Broadway-Lafayette to Grand Street. That's what their also going to do the next couple of weekends too. They're closing down the bridge again. If they do build another bridge they should get the same guys that did the Williamsburg Bridge, but I'm not sure if they specialize ion building the bridge. Just don't get the same guys that did the original work!!!
Whoa!!! That didn't come out right! I meant to say "but I'm not sure on building bridges from scrap" Sorry :(
11/08/99
MR. R-68A,
I don't remember the closure in '95 but I remember the earlier closure in the 80's when the TA must have found any graffittied R-27/30 with flat wheels to run on the (S) 6th Ave shuttle !!
Bill Newkirk
Those trains rivaled the R10 for sheer noise.
Unless they built a new tunnel, or a connection to the Nassau Street loop, either:
1: The MTA would institute a shuttle (S not SS) between Broadway-Lafayette and Grand and run switch both the B and D over to the F track to run through the Rutgers tunnel;
2. The B would terminate at Grand, the D would run through Rutgers, or:
3. The MTA would simply close Grand Street and run the B and D through Rutgers.
Also, if the Manhattan Bridge closes, either the M would have to become the full-time Brighton express service, replacing the Q, or the Q would have to be switched back to Broadway and the M would terminate at Chambers or Broad full time. They could probably squeeze the B D and F through Rutgers, but four lines through one tunnel is impossible in rush hour.
And 3 would be impossible through that tunnel, because a 4 minute headway on the F line during rush hours is a must.
Unless you turned some Fs at Second Ave. to maintain existing Sixth Ave.-Queens service and extended the G to Chruch Ave. or Kings Highway during rush hours to make up the difference (I know, I know -- Park Slope and Carroll Gardens don't want a train that doesn't go into Manhattan, but we're talking about what would happen if the bridge became completely unavailable, and the Brighton and West End seem to get priority over the Culver in the MTA's book)
Completely impossible. There would be 3 trains using the same track from south of W4 to 2nd Ave. Talk about a bottleneck. If the Rutger St. tunnel were to be used as a replacement for the bridge, the F train would have to have service cut significantly, something that cannot be done.
If we had the Rutgers/DeKalb connection, and a Chambers/Grand connection, we wouldn't need to use the bridge except during rush hours. For example, aside from rush hours, the F, D, and Q are scheduled for no more than 8, 6, and 6 trains per hour. That would fit. The Chambers/Grand connection would allow Grand Street to be served 24/7 and put another service on 6th Avenue via the Montague.
Imagine this "base" service: F, D, Q (with new connection) via Rutgers -- 20 trains today, up to 30 possible. B (6th Ave via Chambers to Grand connection), N, and R via Montague -- 18 trains today, up to 30 possible. The M only runs through to Brooklyn during rush hours.
During rush hours, you'd still need the bridge. Perhaps you'd move the N to the H tracks to make room for the M and more R trains, and the D to the A/B tracks to make room for more F and Q trains.
Maybe if subway (and truck traffic) were reduced on the bridge, the current fix would last, and the bridge could remain in use.
The trucks have no where to go if the bridge was closed! They would have to frive up to the Williamsburg, but they are preparing to rebuild the Manhattan-Bound roadway.
(Where would the trucks go?) A new toll tunnel. Polically, you might get away with making commercial vehicles pay tolls in a new facilities, since most people think trucks have nothing to do with them. Cars are a different story, however.
None of these will ever happen our lifetime, why $$$$$$$$$$$$
...unless you have a catastophic failure on the Manhattan bridge that results in loss of live and galvanizes public opinion (and the local media) to force politicians to do something.
It's sad to think that it would take the deaths of people to get the problem solved, but nowadays you need a compelling story that shocks people into action or touches their hearts to get anything done. A steel girder from thew bridge collapsing onto a building or an R-68 plunge into the East River meets those requirements.
Or a earthquake, I still picture the SF Bay Bridge in 89, and the AC District Bus only 5 feet from the collapse.
Three trains (B,D,Q) now use the 6th Ave. express tracks, why couldn't three use the local tracks instead? The Rutgers tunnel is very much underutilized today.
They might do it if and when the Q goes back to Broadway, the may run a local thru the 63rd St Tunnel up 6th
11/09/99
I have another question about this subject:
The city (DOT) is rebuilding the Manhattan Bridge or so it seems. Would it be wise for the TA to go ahead with the Rutgers connection anyway just in case or would they be questioned as to why spending great sums of money for a connection that won't be utilized ?
Bill Newkirk
Again money, where is it going to come from?
Because the F runs much more frequently than either the B, D or Q during rushhours. Right now the trip over the bridge during the rush is slow to begin with. F servce cannot be cut, due to ridership needs in Queens.
Because the F runs much more frequently than either the B, D or Q during rushhours. Right now the trip over the bridge during the rush is slow to begin with. F servce cannot be cut, due to ridership needs in Queens.
What they could do is have some F-Trains turning back to Queens at B'way-Lafayette, as in pre-Chrystie St. days.
Any routing that you could come up will include an unbearable bottleneck at this location. Where would you turn trains around? B'way Laffayette cannot be used like it was pre-1967 because there would be train service coming from Grand St., which didn't exist then. B'way Lafayette cant be used as a terminal. Using Second Ave. would require all trains sharing a track for a short period, which is impossible at today's present service levels.
Well, if the TA put in a switch on the center track at Essex St., you could turn some of the Fs at Broadway-Lafayette by using the old KK connection.
It would be a bit of a trip for the F just to change direction, but we are talking about an emergency situation if the bridge were to go out completely. And it would get the F off the main line quickly to avoid backups with the B and D (I'm assuming the Q would go Broadway/Montague tunnel if the bridge shut down)
Of course there are advantages of having this connection should the bridge be lost completely. However, the cost in dollars and manpower would be much more productive if it were used to build replacement tunnels for the 6th Ave. Manhattan bridge tracks (tunnels for the Broadway tracks would be a luxury).
We also know how "emergency re-routes" become permanent service changes in the TA's mind.
Well, if the TA put in a switch on the center track at Essex St., you could turn some of the Fs at Broadway-Lafayette by using the old KK connection.
It would be a bit of a trip for the F just to change direction, but we are talking about an emergency situation if the bridge were to go out completely. And it would get the F off the main line quickly to avoid backups with the B and D (I'm assuming the Q would go Broadway/Montague tunnel if the bridge shut down)
In an emergency situation, they could even cut the volume of F service from Jamaica-179 St. to Stillwell in half, and reinstitute the old K service, instead of 57+6, going all the way to Jamaica-179 from Jamaica Center/Parsons, and eliminate Z service. The K could run skip-stop with the J, like it used to. That way, only half the the F-Train volume would be using the Rutgers Tunnel. The rest of Queens IND service out of Jam/179, the K, would be using the Williamsburgh Bridge.
But this also cuts half the service on the F in Brooklyn, which carries almost as many passangers as the F in Queens. So you cant even do that. And any service by the old "K" would have trains limited to 8 cars, and no 75 footers allowed.
But this also cuts half the service on the F in Brooklyn, which carries almost as many passangers as the F in Queens. So you cant even do that. And any service by the old "K" would have trains limited to 8 cars, and no 75 footers allowed.
Probably what we're going to see when the MB closes is D to 34 St., B to Grand St. with a B West End Shuttle, only Q service on the Brighton, and everything else as is. I don't think we're going to see the Rutgers/DeKalb connection, or anything else that any of us are thinking about. Then watch the bottlenecks. I don't see mucho bucks being spent on a fix that is only going to be temporary. Whatever the TA and the City decide, the Culver Shuttle would have been a vital link now. That way, people could have taken the F into Brooklyn from Manhattan and had a link to the West End. If the Culver Shuttle wasn't torn down, it could have been made usable again for this emergency. It was left standing for many years after it closed.
11/10/99
BMT LINES,
I assume your prediction includes the reopening of the SOUTH side Manhattan Bridge tracks.
Bill Newkirk
I assume your prediction includes the reopening of the SOUTH side Manhattan Bridge tracks.
I would like to see complete restoration of MB service--North and South tracks. I don't know what we're going to ultimately see. It will probably be a lot less than we hoped for!
Barring an emergency, there will be at least one set of bridge tracks open at all times. Shutting both down is not an option.
But this also cuts half the service on the F in Brooklyn, which carries almost as many passangers as the F in Queens. So you cant even do that. And any service by the old "K" would have trains limited to 8 cars, and no 75 footers allowed.
It would be impossible for the F in Brooklyn to carry almost as many passengers as the F in Queens:
1-Queens is a larger borough than Brooklyn.
2-Brooklyn has far many more routes and route miles than Queens.
3-Passengers in Brooklyn have more alternatives than in Queens.
4-Many people in Queens come to the Queens IND from further out with busses, far more than do in Brooklyn.
5-The Queens IND line also gets riders from Nassau and Suffolk counties that drive to the IND Queens Line and park their cars in Municipal parking lots for the day.
The bottom line on this debate is that Brooklyn would be uncomfortable without the Smith St./Culver line, but Queens would be devastated without the Queens IND subway. MANY MORE PEOPLE USE THE F IN QUEENS THAN THEY USE THE F IN BROOKLYN. As for emergency route changes, you do what you have to do in a temporary crisis situation--even if it means cutting service on the Culver and running 8 car trains on the Queens Line and 6th Ave. B'way/Jamaica Line. With a Manhattan Bridge closing, loads of people are going to be inconvenienced, but you need to try to keep service as normal as possible for the city as a whole.
They'd better not scrap a SINGLE R32, R38, R40, R40M or R42 - if the Manhattan bridge fails and the above "K" scenario arises, they'll need every spare unit they can get their hands on.
Can't they push some of the "B" (we should call it "T") Brooklyn trains through to Whitehall at least?
Wayne
They'd better not scrap a SINGLE R32, R38, R40, R40M or R42 - if the Manhattan bridge fails and the above "K" scenario arises, they'll need every spare unit they can get their hands on.
Can't they push some of the "B" (we should call it "T") Brooklyn trains through to Whitehall at least?
Wayne
Everything you say makes sense--about the 32, 38 ,40, 40M &42, and also about the T. It also would have helped to ease the situation if the Culver Shuttle wasn't scrapped. The structure remained for so many years after service on it was discontinued. It could have been mad fit to run again and pressed into emergency service to provide a vital link between the F and B, after the Manh. Bridge would close. But answer one question for me:
DOES THE MTA EVERDO ANYTHING THAT MAKES SENSE?
Like I said in an earlier post, probably what we'll see is D to 34 St., B to Grand St., B West End Shuttle, Q-only service on the Brighton and everything else as is (N and Q via B'way thru tunnel and F as is), and no Rutgers/DeKalb link.
11/10/99
If the Culver Shuttle structure wasn't razed and rehabbed as an emergency only route:
1) Would it be a single track only route?
2) Would the 13th Ave/ and Ft.Hamilton Pkwy stations be removed?
3) Would the neighborhood protest the rehabbing of the structure thus ending the "quiet" of the area?
4) Or even protest removal of the stations depriving the area of subway service?
Just some observations on the Culver Shuttle demolition that sort of compares with Pennsylvania Station demolition. IT's gone and the more we think about, the more we regret what a obvious blunder it was.
Bill Newkirk
It would require major construction, as the shuttle connected to the Coney Island bound F line. A new structure would have had to have been built at both ends to allow West End trains to run along it without having to discharge and turn around north of 9th Ave. Then the same thing would have had to have been done at Ditmas, to allow the train to turn onto the Manhattan bound Culver tracks. Serious construction would have to be undertaken, and there would also likely be a nasty grade crossing north of Ditmas. And what about the G? With new B service, their wouldn't be any capacity for the G train south of Hoyt St. So even this plan is full of flaws.
Build the !@#$%& replacement tunnels....starting today. I'll get the shovels.
Can you put a crossover entering Hoyt from the east to allow G's to reverse there? I've always wondered why there wasn't one. Is the grade or curve too sharp?
It would require major construction, as the shuttle
connected to the Coney Island bound F line. A new
structure would have had to have been built at both
ends to allow West End trains to run along it
without having to discharge and turn around north of
9th Ave. Then the same thing would have had to have
been done at Ditmas, to allow the train to turn onto
the Manhattan bound Culver tracks. Serious
construction would have to be undertaken, and there
would also likely be a nasty grade crossing north of
Ditmas. And what about the G? With new B service,
their wouldn't be any capacity for the G train south
of Hoyt St. So even this plan is full of flaws.
Build the !@#$%& replacement tunnels....starting
today. I'll get the shovels.
And I'll call for the TBMs, we'll need four of those suckers to chew through the riverbed. Or maybe we'll pull a Navy Yard-Anacostia - build four prefab tubes and drop 'em into the water one segment at a time.
Hey, instead of rebuilding the Culver Shuttle, why not build a short SUBWAY along, say, 39th Street (9th Avenue is already underground), and ramp it up to 18th Avenue station along McDonald? It would be a mess for a little while, but might be doable. Include one station at 12th Avenue.
Wayne
If the 2 old Culver stations were to be kept, I'd love to see the passangers on the B train as their conductor said "this is Fort Hamilton Pkwy, next stop is....Fort Hamilton Pkwy".
11/10/99
If the Culver Shuttle structure wasn't razed and rehabbed as an emergency only route:
1) Would it be a single track only route?
2) Would the 13th Ave/ and Ft.Hamilton Pkwy stations be removed?
3) Would the neighborhood protest the rehabbing of the structure thus ending the "quiet" of the area?
4) Or even protest removal of the stations depriving the area of subway service?
Just some observations on the Culver Shuttle demolition that sort of compares with Pennsylvania Station demolition. IT's gone and the more we think about, the more we regret what a obvious blunder it was.
Bill Newkirk
As a railfan, I would use this as an excuse to restore full 3-track operation over the whole line, but that's just a wild dream. No, practically speaking, 1-track operation without reopening 13 AV and Ft. H'ton Pkwy. to provide a vital link between B and F. Unless residents benefit by a reopening, yes they'll complain.
To bad about complaining, the el was there first, just like developers put houses near airports, then the buyers complain they are under the glide paths and it is too noisy.
The Culver El was on a ROW between 37th and 38th Streets IIRC..homes are there now, so any new structure would have to go over a street.
I can just see their faces now - "YOU'RE GONNA BUILD A WHAT???"
Wayne
The Culver El was on a ROW between 37th and 38th Streets IIRC..homes are there now, so any new structure would have to go over a street.
I can just see their faces now - "YOU'RE GONNA BUILD A WHAT???"
Wayne
Yeah! Maybe they should forget about building a subway on 2nd Ave and rebuild the el there instead! Do it in Victorian style again. This time, build it with 4 tracks instead of 3.
They could take a lesson on structure from Bart and Miami, built on Concrete rather then steel. To solve the problem of the bridge. Terminate all the trainsover the bridge at Atlantic Ave/Pacific St and run a shuttle across the bridge, and continue at Broadway/Canal and Grand. It sounds crazy, but dreaming of a new tunnel, as I keep asking where is the money coming from. Higher taxes and fares, I doubt it
As for 1, that is not true. While Queens may have a greater land area, that means nothing. The Dominion of Canada is the second largest country in the world, yet only 20 million people reside there. Brooklyn is the largest borough, with 2.3 million. Queens has 1.7.
As for 1, that is not true. While Queens may have a greater land area, that means nothing. The Dominion of Canada is the second largest country in the world, yet only 20 million people reside there. Brooklyn is the largest borough, with 2.3 million. Queens has 1.7.
Being larger in area, with less subway access, and Long Islanders driving to the subway, there are still far more riders on the F in Queens than there are in Brooklyn. That is what I am saying here-- RIDERSHIP, not population. Besides 2.3M is not that much greater than 1.7M. If someone told me he'd give me $2.3 million, and later changed his mind and said he could give me only $1.7 million, I'd take it and tell him "No Problem!"
Yes, many people drive to ride the Queens IND, but they have alternatives that passangers along the F line in Brooklyn do not, like the E and R trains. Have you ever ridden the Manhattan bound F in the AM rush? They are nearly, if not just as much as crowded as the F in Queens. F services Park Slope, an area full of upies who own no cars. 7th Ave. in the AM rush is almost as crowded as Union Tpke in Queens.
Anyone know for sure the ridership of the F in Queens as opposed to Brooklyn? I bet they are close.
Yes, many people drive to ride the Queens IND, but they have alternatives that passangers along the F line in Brooklyn do not, like the E and R trains.
Most people that use the F in Brooklyn can more easily get to other lines if they had to. Seventh Ave. is not that far from 4 Ave. The Culver Line is not that far from the Brighton, which it parallels, and also the Sea Beach, which it parallels for a stretch. Close the Smith St./Culver line and people will find alternatives. Close the IND Queens Line and it will choke the borough.
This thread has gotten a long way from reality. The connection between Queens and Manhattan is improving as a result of the substantial investment in the 63rd St tunnel. The connection between Brooklyn and Manhattan is theatened because of the deterioration of th e Manhattan Bridge. The F is not threatened directly, but would be hurt by all those people taking buses to the train if B/D/Q/M/N/R service had to be cut in half.
The city has spend zillions to fix the bridge, but it still cracks every time a train goes over. It will be closed for the next three weekends for repairs. The engineers say all will be well in 2004. The same people who said the bridge could be fixed in three years for $100 million in 1982.
The problem is not that the bridge will disappear tomarrow. Its that it will be repeatedly out of service with no way to reroute trains, and eventually close with no replacement in sight.
I understand that. But people have consistently come up with plans that would drastically cut F service to Brooklyn, something which is impossible today, let alone a time when/if the Manhattan Bridge closes.
Again, completely impossible, as that would dump all the riders from the F line on to other lines, the very same lines that would have their service cut drastically should the Manhattan Bridge be lost. If it is, the Culver IND will see even MORE passangers, and any cuts in service would be even worse. You cannot cut service on the F line in Brooklyn to make way for a Rutger/Dekalb connection.
If the F is sharing track space with the E through the 53rd St. tunnel, and is sharing track space with no other line through the Rutgers tunnel, it therefore means there is space for at least one other full-time line to use a Rutgers-DaKalb connection, either the B or the D. If you tried to send all three lines through Rutgers, then an adjustment would have to be made through 53rd St., increasing the number of E trains in proportion to the number of F trains that were cut back to permit B/D service to share the Rutgers trackage.
You would also have to cut into the number of B and D trains a bit, but not as much as with the F because those two lines already are sharing trackage with the Q between DeKalb and Rockefeller Center. It would mean overall service cuts for the Sixth Ave. line, and even more for the West End, if the Q took the M's place through the Montague tunnel, but it would be the best compromise solution to a problem that should have been dealt with 15 years ago.
I understand there is room for one more line through the tunnel, and one is eventually planned (V). However, you cannot use it as an adequate replacement for the bridge tracks. Only one line can be sent through it. That's really insufficient service for service through dekalb Ave. You can't cut F service because it is needed in Brooklyn as well as Queens, and extra E service doesn't do jack-squat for Brooklyn F riders. People continue to imagine that you can cut F service dramatically and get away with it. F trains are crowded as it is. Imagine the crowding as B and D riders, seeking alternate service to/from Brooklyn, cram on the F.
[You can't cut F service because it is needed in Brooklyn as well as Queens, and extra E service doesn't do jack-squat for Brooklyn F riders.]
But ChrisR, the E is only running every five minutes during rush hours compare to the F which runs every 2.5 minutes. Read your time schedule.
Before you knock the E service, please understand that the E is more heavily used than the F. Just go to the World Trade Center and Jamaica Center stations, the trains are full.
Stop complaining...
No, I think the fact that the F runs more frequently means it is more heavily used than the E.
Besides, every 2.5 minutes means 24 trains per hour on the F in Queens during rush hour. I've been told it's only 18 per hour (every 4 minutes).
I though I mentioned that yesterday about the Culver line and connecting Bus Service at almost every station to the Brighton Line
There seems to be some ignorance of the actual schedule here. There is more service in the peak direction in Queens than in Brooklyn -- 18 per hour for Queens, 14 per hour for Brooklyn. AM you have more trains going to Coney Island than to Manhattan.
I understand that. However, you can't cut service on the F line, as some have suggested.
There is no way to tell the difference in ridership in Brooklyn and Queens, because on most of the Queens lines, it shares with the E/R/G where the Brooklyn Portion shares only 2 stations with the G, unless you pick say Church Ave and 179th St where there is only one line serving it. Also if the Brooklyn Line is so crowded. why did the TA eliminate Express Service on the Brooklyn Portion during Rush Hours?
Because then the passengers at the local stations would complain about direct service to Manhattan?
3TM
The F would run as before Expresses Starting at Coney Island, Locals at Kings Highway(and visa versa) There would still be direct service into the city, the G would go to Church Ave instead of Smith 9th at that time
The F would run as before Expresses Starting at Coney Island, Locals at Kings Highway(and visa versa) There would still be direct service into the city, the G would go to Church Ave instead of Smith 9th at that time
Also the Brighton Line is less then a mile from the Culver and has connecting Bus Service at every stop between the 2 lines south of 7th Ave except Ditmas Ave & Ave P, where people can change iin case of a closing
Also the Brighton Line is less then a mile from the Culver and has connecting Bus Service at every stop between the 2 lines south of 7th Ave except Ditmas Ave & Ave P, where people can change in case of a closing
I wasn't talking about a closing. My idea was to cut F service in half and replace the other half with a K service that would run from Jamaica/179 St., down 6 Ave., thru the Chrystie St. connection, over the WB Bridge to Jamaica Center/Parsons, running skip-stop with the J, thereby eliminating Z service. Cutting F service in half and replacing the other half of it with this K service would lighten the load on the Rutgers tunnel, enabling B and D service to proceed thru Rutgers with less of a bottleneck than with full F service. The B and D would then go through the new proposed Rutgers/DeKalb link and enable the lines to run with as little disruption as possible. A response to this was that F service couldn't be cut in half because almost as many people ride the F in Brooklyn as they do in Queens. That isn't true, with all the routes and route miles in Brooklyn. Cutting Culver service in half would just shift some riders to other lines. Some would go to the Brighton, some to the West End, and some would remain on the Culver. The idea is to try to keep as normal service running as possible with a Manhattan Bridge closure.
As a rider of the F line, I can say without a doubt that any cuts in F service in Brooklyn are completely impossible because of the crowds that use it. Cutting it in half? You're crazy.
As a rider of the F line, I can say without a doubt that any cuts in F service in Brooklyn are completely impossible because of the crowds that use it. Cutting it in half? You're crazy.
Any time you change subway service, you upset a very delicate balance that will affect more things than anticipated. It is like the planet's ecosystem. That's why developing the Everglades or the Amazon Jungle would devistate the planet. (Talk about getting off topic!) Getting back to the topic at hand, the Rutgers/DeKalb connection, what is your idea on how to handle the bottleneck that would be caused by routing B and D trains thru the Rutgers Tunnel with the F? Leaving the level of service as it is will cause gridlock conditions. Something is going to have to be cut, if not one service,
a little of everything. The same bottleneck would result if all Brighton service, Sea Beach and West End service were routed up Broadway via the Montague St. Tunnel. The only reason why all Broadway service worked prior to Chrystie St. was because we had both bridge and tunnel service. BTW, the reason for our conflicting opinions is because I'm an F Queens rider, while you're an F Brooklyn rider.
My idea: Build tunnels NOW to replace the bridge tracks. It's the only way that would prevent a transit disaster should the bridge be completely lost. Spending money on a Rutger/Dekalb connection isn't worth the money that will be needed for it's construction, because it creates as many problems as it solves.
My idea: Build tunnels NOW to replace the bridge tracks. It's the only way that would prevent a transit disaster should the bridge be completely lost. Spending money on a Rutger/Dekalb connection isn't worth the money that will be needed for it's construction, because it creates as many problems as it solves.
I am in total agreement. If building a replacement tunnel takes as long as the 2nd Ave. Subway, we're all in trouble! Building a 4-track replacement tunnel is the best solution to the MB problem, but I don't see it happening any time soon, if at all. The cost would be too prohibitive. Also, we're dealing with the City and the MTA. Do you see a replacement tunnel being built any time soon? If the bridge collapses, we'll probably get Rutgers. Without a major disaster, we'll just get bandaids. When it first was discovered that there was a serious problem with Manhattan Bridge, a decision should have been made to build a 4-track subway tunnel to get the B'way and 6th Ave. trains off the bridge.
"The cost would be too prohibitive."
How much will it cost to build a full four track tunnel for the B, D, N and Q lines from Manhattan to Brooklyn?
N Broadway Line
"The cost would be too prohibitive."
How much will it cost to build a full four track tunnel for the B, D, N and Q lines from Manhattan to Brooklyn?
N Broadway Line
I couldn't say. I do know that it wouldn't run cheap. We're talking about a river tunnel, not cut'n'cover. They can't even get the damn 2nd Ave. Subway built, they're going to build a tunnel to replace the bridge tracks! Believe me, I'd love to see it, but I don't think its going to happen. Look how long it took for Archer Ave. and the 63rd St. tunnel. The 63rd St. tunnel project, although trains are running through it, isn't finished yet. They still have to connect it to the Queens IND. As for the 2nd Ave. Subway, our children probably won't live long enough to ride it!
"The cost would be too prohibitive."
How much will it cost to build a full four track tunnel for the B, D, N and Q lines from Manhattan to Brooklyn?
N Broadway Line
I'd settle for just a tunnel for 6th Ave. trains. The B'way tracks could be moved to the center of the bridge, thereby removing the main reason the bridge is falling apart.
I'd settle for just a tunnel for 6th Ave. trains. The B'way tracks could be moved to the center of the bridge, thereby removing the main reason the bridge is falling apart.
Any tunnel is better than none, but that's what I think we're going to see is "none"!
You would be more likely to get something if the MTA proposed a downtown version of the 63rd St. tunnel -- two tracks for the subway, and two tracks for a future LIRR connection from Atlantic Ave. to lower Manhattan.
That way, you would at least get some political backing from people and politicians in Nassau and Suffolk who wouldn't give a damn about a four track subway tunnel to serve south Brooklyn.
A two track line, with Sixth Ave. and Broadway connections for the D/N/Q and a Rutgers link for the B to share track with the F would have close to the capacity that's available if all four bridge tracks were opened.
Perhaps if their precious LIRR were held hostage, those politicians would come around. I'm etting sick and tired of suburbanites who think that the city doesn't exist, and doesn't deserve a fair share of the MTA budget.
BMT Lines,
I think the K using the Chrystie connection is a good idea, except, the running time on the Z is 8 minutes. How can passengers be convince to use this new line if the running time is almost 3 times less often than the F? Is there an alternative way to make this service more attractive by cutting it back to Broadway Eastern Parkway? For instance, it will used the center track in the peak direction and run every 4 minutes.
N Broadway Line
Would either the K or F run express from 179th to Continental Ave., and the other one remain as a local? That would decrease service at the local stops between 179th and Continental. We had a problem with that when the Archer Ave. extension first opened. The E would stay on the express track until it branched off and the F ran express to 179th. They gave us the R as a local to 179th. The service was terrible. I can remember waiting up to 20 minutes at Union Tpke. to get an R one stop to Van Wyke. Some days it was faster to walk to Briarwood from Union Tpke, even though the distance was 4 times as far.
The Briarwood Community Orginization and severl other local groups protested and we got F service restored. Prior to the Archer Ave connection, the F ran express and the E ran local between Contintal Ave and 179th at all times and we had no problems. I am worried about repeating history if F services is cut back and a different train becomes the local train.
Why is everyone talking about the closing of the Manny B? The connection to the F will also never happen. Who is going to pay for it? There are high priorities such as the 2nd Ave Line, extending the train past Jamaica Center. All those who wish to see the Manny B colapse, just watch Channel 2 of Sunday Night 9PM in the Movie AfterShock. That is the closest you will get to see the Manny B fall into the East iver in our life time.
It doesn't have to collapse for someone to step in in the near future and ban all rail traffic. The point was some type of catastrophic failure would be the only way to grab the public's attention enough to get a replacement tunnel built quickly.
"I can remember waiting up to 20 minutes at Union Tpke. to get an R
one stop to Van Wyke."
Why did the R line take so long? Was it because of the G, which terminated at 71st Street, or delays? And, couldn't they (MTA) send both lines to 179th Street during rush hours - middays G to Court Square?
N Broadway Line
The R was never run as frequently as the F when it went to 179. Hopefully, when the 63rd St connector opens, the F can run express from 179 and the local can be serviced by the R and whatever new line they come up with.
I have a feeling it will be the Q Express Mon-Sat 179th thru either Bdwy or 6th Ave, and the F Will be a complete Local from Coney Island to 179th St(Q will use 63rd St)
That would require the F to crossover after Queens Plaza, which would delay the R if both arrived in the station at the same time.
The Q (or the V or whatever) will likely run local via 63rd St., with the F as express in Queens, and on Sixth Ave. the Q/V will run express, and the F will be the local.
It's silly, but that will cause the fewest delays.
where will the tracks from the 63rd St Tunnel connect to the Queens line? If the tracks connect Express, Then Q could use it, If local, the Q will use 60 St, and the F 63rd St.
They connect to the LOCAL tracks east of Queens Plaza (BEFORE Queens Plaza when heading into Manhattan) after the 36 St. station.
But why not other way round, more or less? Q uses 63rd St and F continues to use 53rd St. Why bring 60th St into it?
The QB remains a Express on its entire route if it uses Bdwy, thru the 60th St Tunnel, The F a local all the way thru 63rd St. Remember we are always projecting. The N Terminates at 57th St, The QT goes thru 60th St to Forest Hills. The R goes to Astoria 24/7
So on Queens Line Express E & QB Local F & QT Mon-Sat Express E & F Local G & QT Nts Sundays Holidays
The 63rd. St. tracks will connect to BOTH express and local tracks just to the south of 36th St.
You are right. As you head East, the 63rd St. track ramps up between the local and express tracks and terminates at a switch at which the train must move either left or right, toward the express or local track. Going West, the set up is the same, except the traffic merges onto the 63rd St. track from the local and express tracks instead of splitting off.
I noticed today that the switches to both of the new tracks have been installed, and the skeletonized track going down the ramps towards 21 St. are coming along nicely I can already imagine service running through it.
BTW, does the MTA have enough subway cars in it's present fleet to accomodate a new (or extended) 63rd. St. line, or will it's opening have to wait till the R143s arrive in numbers?
Do the layups tracks and switches between Queens Plaza ans 36 Street still exist. 2 more additional tracks? hmmm. They must of done something to fit them in. Maybe dug a wider tunnel?
The tunnel was widened on the Manhattan-bound side, and that local track was shifted over. The access ramp for the Manhattan-bound 63rd St. track was dug out in the area vacated by the local track.
In contrast, the Archer Ave. connection was put in when the Queens line was originally built. If I'm not mistaken, this is the only IND Second System provision which was ever put into use.
How about the Queens (nothbound tracks)?
"In contrast, the Archer Ave. connection was put in when the Queens line was originally built. If I'm not mistaken, this is the
only IND Second System provision which was ever put into use."
As a matter of fact, The local tracks swing over to make room for the tracks going to Archer Avenue. Therefore, this was not the original setup when the line was built back in the early 30's.
N Broadway Line
Actually, it was. The ramps that are now used by the E train were intended to be used for the never built Van Wyck Blvd spur. They were built at the same time as the rest of the line, in the 30's. Check out the Queens section of the Second System page on this website. In fact, I suggest you read it all. It took me at least a dozen reads to fully imagine what the system would look like had it all been built.
I picked up a copy of that collection of 12 maps a year ago which is mentioned in the IND Second System section on this website. The 1929 wish list map is really something. A few items were omitted, such as the extension from Bedford-Nostrand which would have continued along Lafayette Ave., turning northward at Stanhope St. and meeting the Myrtle-Central Ave. line, along with the linkup from Court St. to the Chambers St. dead end tracks.
If you're referring to the IND Chambers St. dead end tracks, those were supposed to be connected to the Worth St. tunnel and link up with the other IND lines at S4 Street. At least thats what the Second System page on this site lays out.
"If you're referring to the IND Chambers St. dead end tracks, those were supposed to be connected to the Worth St. tunnel and link
up with the other IND lines at S4 Street."
How could it be hook up to Worth Street Chris when Worth Street is north from that station? Wouldn't that mean it reversing in the opposite direction?
I think the idea with the Worth St. tunnel would have been to abandon the WTC stub and turn the local tracks east once they leave Canal St. (This would've meant the line only skirted major office centers, if it ran down Eighth Avenue and then turned toward Brooklyn before getting to City Hall, which is probably why it's never been revived since. Maybe major development was expected along Worth St. before the Depression; that can never happen now, because of the Tribeca Historic Districts and residential re-zoning. So I don't want to see this line on anybody's fantasy maps, you hear?)
I wasn't sure. The only thing that makes sense was to branch off directly south of the Canal St. station. The East Bway stop on the F was built to accomodate this plan. Either the local tracks were to split, 1 set going to the WTC stub and the other to the Worth St. tunnel, or the WTC terminal would be eliminated and all 8th Ave. local trains would go to S4 via Worth. All I know was that the plans called for a connection somewhere.
"I wasn't sure. The only thing that makes sense was to branch off directly south of the Canal St. station. The East Bway stop
on the F was built to accomodate this plan. Either the local tracks were to split, 1 set going to the WTC stub and the other to
the Worth St. tunnel, or the WTC terminal would be eliminated and all 8th Ave. local trains would go to S4 via Worth. All I
know was that the plans called for a connection somewhere."
The C or E turning off the main route would have made these two lines useless. But anything coming out of brooklyn to World Trade Center will be a big improvement. Only one problem is the new running time on the E. It (E) will have to negotiate between the new line (via Worth Street) and the C. The solution will be to make the World Trade Center wider (maybe four tracks instead of two) which will not affect the running time on the C and E.
N Broadway Line
There are provisions in the tunnel south of Canal St. for such a hookup.
The 57th St./6 Av. station is another. The only difference was that the original plan had the line turning north of 57th St along 61st. to merge with the never built 2nd Ave. line and become the "Super Express" portion of this six track line.
Also, if I'm not mistaken, the Chrystie St. connection was also another Second System plan, which got modified. I believe the Grand St. station was designed to feed into the 2nd Ave. line, and not the 6th Ave. line, as it was later configured.
It can feed into it tiday. If the wall is removed there will be 2 trackways.
Your right about that. Chrystie Street was constructed to be converted into a four track two island platform station with the through 2 Avenue tracks using the outer tracks.
Larry,RedbirdR33
I always thought the connection to the Sixth Ave express from Grand was a modification of the original idea. The 6th Ave express was supposed to feed the Utica and the Myrtle/Central/Rockaway lines via the never built Houston St. tunnel and the S4 St. complex. Grand St. was meant to be the first stop on the Second Ave express.
But I could be interpreting the plans laid out in the 2nd. System page on this website incorrectly.
"The 57th St./6 Av. station is another. The only difference was that the original plan had the line turning north of 57th St along
61st. to merge with the never built 2nd Ave. line and become the "Super Express" portion of this six track line."
A crosstown 77/79th Street line from 57th Street (6/7th Avs) would have been much better. It would have reduce some of the over crowding on the Lexington Avenue line without thinking about the Second Avenue route as an immediate solution.
N Broadway Line
The problem with that was Central Park. They had to tear up a playground area near 59th St. to do tunner work between Sixth and Seventh Aves and Fifth Ave. and 63rd, and the NIMBYs were in full hue and cry. And theses were very, very rich NIMBYs who could (and did) get their story onto Page 1 metro of the New York Times.
The MTA had tp promise to replace absolutely everything the way it was, or improve the facilities for the kids just to cut through the southeastern edge of the park. running a line a mile through the park would have caused a major court battle against people who had enough money to kill the entire project.
In addition to the wealth of its neighbors, Central Park is now protected by city and Federal landmark designation. Trying to dig in it again is pretty much unthinkable from a legal point of view.
I'm a little hurt by your characterizing opposition to construction in the Park as NIMBYism from Fifth Avenue. Hundreds of thousands of people come there every week; office workers, baseball leagues, bicyclists, shoppers, and tourists all have a stake in the park's preservation. There are concrete vents all over the southwest corner of Prospect Park from that ridiculous shortcut the F express tracks take there; we don't need any more of those in Central Park.
My point was the hundreds of thousands of people from outer areas who use the park couldn't have gotten a Page 1 metro coverage in the Times the way the people who live around the park, with more money and influence, were able to obtain.
If the MTA tried to run, say, a connection through Prospect Park to link the Brighton line up with the Culver if the Manhattan Bridge eventually goes out, the above-ground disruption that would be required for several years might generate protests, but would get far less media coverage.
If transit needs dictate that a new line is necessary, you'll learn to live with it. I am really getting sick and tired of people scuttling building projects badly needed by other areas of the city simply because it will cause a few minor inconvienences during construction.
"If transit needs dictate that a new line is necessary, you'll learn to live with it. I am really getting sick and tired of people
scuttling building projects badly needed by other areas of the city simply because it will cause a few minor inconvienences
during construction."
This time I agree with you. 77/79th Street would've been a better solution to the overcrowding crisis on the Lexington Avenue Lines.
N Broadway Line
Not wanting to get too riled up about a purely hypothetical project, I'll just say this: there are a dozen north-south avenues in Manhattan that don't pass through Central Park, eight of which don't yet have subway lines underneath them. The choice, if we ever had to make it, would be between digging in the Park and digging someplace else, not between a Park route and nothing. We may imagine that excavating in the Park is easier and more practical than excavating a street--no buildings to shore up--but the Park is really as artificial a landscape as the city around it, and it has the same web of utilities beneath it (as well as an even more complicated drainage and sewer system); the complicated topography of boulders and lakes would be expensive to uproot and even more expensive to put back together, compared to an asphalt street. And even if we assume no private groups will sue, the paperwork requirements of intervening on this scale in a city landmark shared by five community boards pose a formidable legal expense.
That said, a street route already seems more attractive. At that point, we can throw in cost-benefit factors both of temporary disruption (i.e., about ten years, plus however long it takes for the trees and grass to recover) to a mile-long chunk of the Park, and of the permanent traces that would be left in the landscape. The 63rd St. line isn't in the Park for long, and I think it only has one vent (near 59th St.), but a longer line will have to leave big grated hunks of concrete scattered in the grass, or a fan plant.
These objections may not move anyone who doesn't consider Central Park a work of art, but it is one: it took thousands of men and tons of dynamite twenty years to turn eight hundred acres of swamps and thorn bushes into the fragile, romanticized landscape we have today. It's not only the founding textbook of landscape architecture, it's the escape valve for everyone who works or lives nearby, and one of our biggest attractions for tourists from all over the world; and I simply don't see why we should mess around with it when there are other options available.
So my response to the particular suggestion of a 79th St. crosstown-and-south line would be to turn it down, say, Madison Avenue and then plug it into the 63 St. tracks leading to Broadway. But I'm not sure why a train stopping at 86th St/2 Av, 79th st/Lex Av, and 57th/7th is that much better than one via 86/2, 72/2, and 63rd St/Lex to 57th/7th, aside from the one less stop. It would be nice if there was a transfer to the IRT, but the MTA is planning one at 125th, and IRT passengers already can get to the west side lines via 59 and 51 Sts.
I wasnt really referring to this proposed project, but community opposition to subway construction in general. The proposed Jamaica Super Express that was originally supposed to connect with the 63rd. St. tubes and then run along the Montaulk LIRR comes to mind. This line would have had immesurable benefits to passangers who now use overcrowded E and F trains to get into Manhattan. But, a few Glendale and Ridgewood residents scuttled the plan simply because they didn't want the trains passing through their neighborhoods.
Someone needs to stand up to these people and say "The city needs this project. Your concerns are not enough to justify killing it. Sit down and shut up. If you don't like trains in your neighborhood, simply move".
Right! This is just like Maryland's Central Light Rail Line which Gov. Schaefer rammed thru the northern Baltimore suburbs, without much input from residents. Because of opposition, there are no stops on the line from Falls Rd. (just outside the city line) to Lutherville some two miles north. The trolley is also single-tracked for much of this stretch (and in other places), limiting capacity and causing delays. Residents of Ruxton and Riderwood would not allow stations in their upscale areas, fearing the road would be a "conduit for crime". Now, they're screaming for service! Go figure...
Weren t the tracks there before the homes. Yes Right, when they moved they knew there was train service in the area. either 1 train a day or 60 trains a hour too bad. I had family in Brooklyn who livs right next door to the El, and even when I visit, it gets to that you can t hear it. Right all you guys who have family in Coney Island at Brightwater Apts on W 5th and Surf Ave
The trolley is also single-tracked for much of this stretch (and in other places), limiting capacity and causing delays.
It was a $$$$ issue. I think the line was built to eventually be double-tracked.
--Mark
This is not a new problem, the reason there is a lower roadway on the George Washington bridge is because it was supposed to carry an extension of the IND subway line over into New Jersey. Supposedly, New Jersey did not want a subway connection to New York. More likely it was the lack of money to build the line!
Jan Eyerman
The George Washington Bridge was not built with two levels, only one. The lower roadway was added in the 1960's around the time "The Apartments" were built. If they had planned on extending the subway to New Jerse when the bridge was built in 1931 I think they would have made the lower roadway then.
The bridge was constructed with provisions for a second level to be added for the purpose of carrying "light rail transit" (I'm quoting Henry Petroski here) at a later time. Instead, the consultant's study in the 1950s recommended the construction of the second deck as a dedicated vehicular level, and it was opened as such in August 1962. The same study also recommended the construction of another Hudson River crossing to be located at 125th Street "in the future".
Until next time...
Anon_e_mouse
I guess that additional 125th Street crossing will be very much in the future, since I have never heard about it.
I would assume so! If you look at the logic of it, though, that location is 55 blocks south of the GWB and 80 blocks north of the Lincoln Tunnel, so it would be a good spot, at least on the NYC side of the river. I'm not familiar enough with the topography on the NJ side of the river at that point to know how difficult it would be to anchor and connect a bridge on that end.
Until next time...
Anon_e_mouse
They could always bring back the 125th St Ferry
... and the proposed 125th St - crosstown subway line to meet it that Mayor Hylan had in his plans of 1920 ....
--Mark
I sometimes wonder why we don't do more in the way of dual mode roll on, roll off stuff with ferries. Modern ferries move at 40 knots, and if the ferries outnumbered the trains, you could have one waiting each time a train rolled in; it would be almost as fast as driving the train through a tunnel, faster actually compared to current service on the pokeyer lines.
The crossing would have come into New Jersey on the bluff where the old Pallisades Amusement Park was located, while connecting to Manhattan at Harlem Valley. A bridge would have to have a long ramp on the New York side coming down onto 125th (the N.J. side would be similar to the GW, with the land coming up to meet the bridge). A tunnel would be the opposite -- easy to dig down on the New York side, but a long ramp up to get atop the Pallisades in New Jersey.
Of course, by now the area is so built up NIMBY protests would be tougher to deal with than the construction hassles.
Does anybody know how the Upper Manhattan (125th) Expressway would have been constructed, and what it's path would be. I know the exact route of the Mid-Manhattan and Lower Manhattan Expressway, had they been built.
This is Cross Bay Boulevard
The next stop on this C train will be Lefferts Boulevard.
Wasn't the plan to literally build it above 125 St. all the way, on an elevated structure? I have read that the Manhattan end of the Triboro Bridge has some girders that were intended to form the beginning of this structure. There is no way in hell that such a thing could be built today, of course - and probably just as well.
I've heard that about the Triboro too, on a Transit Museum tour a couple of years ago. They pointed out the girders to us. Whether or not the story is accurate is another matter, but in this particular case I would trust the source - Joe Cunningham.
Until next time...
Anon_e_mouse
Given that Bob Moses wanted to put an expressway over Canal St. to link the Manny B and the Holland Tunnel and over 30th St. to link the Queens Midtown and Lincoln tunnels, an expressway over 125th to link the Triborough with a fourth New Jersey crossing would fit in perfectly with the man's thinking.
Both of those ideas would have been great.
"Given that Bob Moses wanted to put an expressway over Canal St. to link the Manny B and the Holland Tunnel and over 30th St. to link the Queens Midtown and Lincoln tunnels, an expressway over 125th to link the Triborough with a fourth New Jersey crossing would fit in perfectly with the man's thinking."
Neither freeway would go over the aforementioned thoroughfares.
The Lower Manhattan Expressway would start at the West Side Highway and travel on the north side of Canal Street before curving north to meet the entrance to the Holland Tunnel, it would then briefly travel near Watts Street before taking a position between Spring and Broome Streets through the then derelict Castiron District. At the Bowery, it would split into two distinct four lane roadways, one would travel on the east side of the Bowery to the Manhattan Bridge and another, the main connection, would drop into an open cut in Delancey Street before connecting to the Williamsburg Bridge.
The Middle Manhattan Expressway would begin also at the West Side Highway and promptly descend into the center of a widened Thirtieth Street, where it would remain before moving to the north for a connection to the Lincoln Tunnel. From there, now travelling between Thirtieth and Thirty-first Streets, the freeway would begin to rise, crossing under Ninth Avenue while crossing over Eighth. From there, the freeway would cross Thirtieth Street again. Beyond that, the freeway would be constructed with heavy supports, designed to allow skyscrapers to rise from below and go around the roadway, with the median sufficiently wide to contain the neccessary elevators and stairways. Exits would be provided at Fifth and Seventh Avenues, then bidirectional. Connection would be provided directly to extended ramps to the Queens-Midtown tunnel which would be placed on a grade not at level the streets. The Freeway would proceed to end at the FDR Drive.
The Lower Manhattan Expressway would be designated as Interstate 78, along with the Holland Tunnel and the Williamsburg Bridge. The Manhattan Bridge spur would be designated Interstate 478 along with the Manhattan Bridge
The Middle Manhattan Expressway would be designated Interstate 495 along with the Lincoln and Queens-Midtown Tunnels.
I believe these projects would have caused more benefit than detriment, especially with the construction of a Bushwick Expressway (I-78) in conjuction with the Lower Manhattan.
Umm...I think an exit ramp at Fifth Ave. Seventh Ave. and 30th Sts. would have tuned both those places into traffic/pedestian nightmares (picture a Lincoln-tunnel like backup headed down Fifth in one direction and up Madison and across 31 to the on ramp in the other. Scary)
Canal Street traffic wouldn't seem to be able to be any worse than it already is, but a new highway is like "Field of Dreams" -- If you build it, they (the cars, trucks and buses) will come -- and there would be more overall vehicular use of the expressway, while other drivers attempted to use Canal as a "Shortcut"
Plus, the interchange for the Manny B and Willie B would have to be either a bi-level or tri-level affair in order to provide free-flowing traffic patterns. That would have created a concrete wall in at least that one area (between Broadway and the Bowery) to the current northward expansion of Chinatown. A buried roadway to the west could be covered over to make it less obtrusive, decrease emissions into the surrounding area (and boost property values), but that would have required major reconstruction/relocation of several subway lines through the area.
Or we could have had the worst of both worlds like Boston is currently experiencing with their I-93 project -- an elevated I-478 built by Moses in the 60s, becomes obsolite and has to be replaced by a multi-billion dollar "Big Dig" project less than 30 years later that would screw up north-south subway service for years...
..And then after it's all done, the Manny B falls down, of course.
Or we could have had the worst of both worlds like Boston is currently experiencing with their I-93 project -- an elevated I-478
built by Moses in the 60s, becomes obsolite and has to be replaced by a multi-billion dollar "Big Dig" project less than 30 years
later that would screw up north-south subway service for years...
Although, just to give it its due, remember that after major political pressure by urban planners & railfans, the Big Dig now includes at least the underpinnings of a tunnel to connect Boston's South Station and North Station. It will still have to be tunneled out, but I believe the support walls are there under the lowest roadway level -- so that perhaps by the end of the youngest current SubTalker's lifetime, we might have through service from NYC into downtown Boston and then onto Portland, Maine.
Not to mention that downtown Boston will be an immeasurably nicer place with the JFK down. SF faced a very similar issue after the 1989 quake, but they simply tore down the Embarcadero Freeway (which was never connected up to the Golden Gate anyway) and built a new streetcar line along the waterfront to connect to both their new baseball stadium and the CalTrain station. Smart, huh?
In 1989, San Francisco decided to not rebuild a freeway downed by a quake. In New York in 1973, no earthquake was neccessary to down a highway, and they didn't even replace it with the tunnel they promised.
"Canal Street traffic wouldn't seem to be able to be any worse than it already is, but a new highway is like 'Field of Dreams' -- If you build it, they (the cars, trucks and buses) will come -- and there would be more overall vehicular use of the expressway, while other drivers attempted to use Canal as a 'Shortcut'"
Where would they come from? So they would stop using the Verrazanno alternative which would free up capacity there. Or the new cars would come from new economic developement spurred by the highway, which of course kills birds and as such must be shunned.
Eugenius: Thx for a detailed summary. Just to add to it, I believe that the one built remnant of this plan is the roughly north/South Midtown Tunnel access ramp that runs between 9th/10th Avenues starting just past the Post Office building in the low W 30s. It has a name, which I've forgotten. I've also forgotten why this piece actually got built.
In hindsight, Moses was trying to solve a problem -- capacity for cars -- in a way that tended to destroy the places with the problem. These discussions can turn into religious wars pretty quickly, and "Power Broker," while comprehensive and definitive, is somewhat a product of its time (the Seventies). I think we're better off now looking at TRANSPORTATION needs rather than freeway needs and train needs. Park-and-ride is the best example. To me, auto advocates (AAA etc.) and rail-transit advocates (us & others) should be working together to improve mobility.
A few years ago, I recall the local AAA very cautiously issuing a statement that said, in essence, "Yes, perhaps increased funding for rail might be a good thing because it could reduce traffic growth on the roads we love to use so much and thus we could drive more easily." They got hell from the more conservative AAA establishment, IIRC, but it was a start.
According to the MTA site, 3/5 of automobile users surveyed believe that money should be spent on trains rather than cars. May of course be a self-serving survey . . .
Much of the problem now seems to me that we have a ways to go before mass transit in the City becomes as comfortable as a car ride. In spite of the delays, in many cases it's still faster, cheaper, and more comfortable to drive. We should be turning our mass transportation system into a regional asset, but instead transporation is considered a liability by local businesses.
The sad thing is that we have most of the infrastructure we need to give people a comfortable, economical, high speed park and ride trip--politics, unions, and conservative management all stand in the way. Perfect example: $1.5 billion dollars for a train to nowhere, a boondoggle which no one will use, when for a few hundred million dollars more we could have frequent automated 20-30 minute service from JFK to Penn, GCT, and the World Trade Center, a quick cab ride from the major business centers. Check in on board the train, to let you get to the airport later--from a businessman's perspective, it would make the City's airports more than competitive with those in *any* locality, and given the number of flights a major asset.
Damn it, most of the infrastructure is already there or being built! We just aren't using it.
I posted recently how it's much faster to drive than to take mass transit. The only thing in the way of that is the exorbitant parking rate. Some time ago, the city figured that a nice way to lower traffic congestion in the city would be to raise parking rates through various means. It didn't work. I think that a good start to more efficient transport is to construct large parking garages at key subway stations to eliminate the worst leg of the trip: The bus.
BUS: 20 Km/h (I might as well ride my bike)
Q TRAIN: Under 15 minutes from Atlantic to Kings
3 or 2 train: Just over 15 from Chambers to Atlantic
Total time wasted waiting: over 10 minutes (almost the time on the whole Q)
Automobile: Approximately 50 km/h, full distance
Time wasted waiting: ZERO MINUTES
Route is more direct
Total time saved via automobile: OVER THIRTY MINUTES!
Just killing the bus in favor of the car saves 10, not couting the wait.
I don't know how much faster it would be with a Cross-Brooklyn Expressway or even with a Flatbush Expressway.
[I posted recently how it's much faster to drive than to take mass transit. The only thing in the way of that is the exorbitant parking rate. Some time ago, the city figured that a nice way to lower traffic congestion in the city would be to raise parking rates through various means. It didn't work. I think that a good start to more efficient transport is to construct large parking garages at key subway stations to eliminate the worst leg of the trip: The bus.
BUS: 20 Km/h (I might as well ride my bike)
Q TRAIN: Under 15 minutes from Atlantic to Kings
3 or 2 train: Just over 15 from Chambers to Atlantic
Total time wasted waiting: over 10 minutes (almost the time on the whole Q)
Automobile: Approximately 50 km/h, full distance
Time wasted waiting: ZERO MINUTES
Route is more direct
Total time saved via automobile: OVER THIRTY MINUTES!
Just killing the bus in favor of the car saves 10, not couting the wait.
I don't know how much faster it would be with a Cross-Brooklyn Expressway or even with a Flatbush Expressway.]
That's one of the reasons I favor superexpresses, using (at least initially) the commuter RR infrastructure.
I think you have to take these problems on a case by case basis. The first and worst problem is that the subway system has slowed down pathetically. Until the TA starts running trains again at full speed, it's almost meaningless to talk about other options.
Then there are other obvious ways to speed things up. Automation, of course, with reductions in headway and station crowding, larger platforms and trains where necessary, bigger doors, further increases in train speed--what's the advantages of trains when they only travel at 40? Skip stop service should be used on all outlying areas.
There are all sorts of interesting options that vary by location--degree of traffic, density, etc. Buses should be speeded up by reducing the number of stops to IRT standards--say one every seven blocks--and giving them three doors and loading platforms with turnstiles--the amount of time spent collecting fares is ridiculous. There are places where subways aren't dense, and in many of them it wouldn't be economical to build a two track tunnel at $350 million/mile--so why not substitute linked bus/superexpress service, and (in the case of two and three track lines) forgo the local stops on the subway line? The subway would serve as a high speed artery. There are also places where it makes a lot more sense to just run zoned express buses and forget about the subway, because they can provide faster service for less.
These are all low cost options, except for automation, which is actually a negative cost option since it pays for itself almost instantly. Many of the bus services need only be offered during peak hours.
Meanwhile, I see lots of money wasting stuff that makes no sense. Ten car trains carrying two people during off hours, that are paralleled by equally underutilized and infrequent bus routes.
I don't know exactly what your origin is--I assume it's in that terra incognita area of Brooklyn--but an automated, high speed zoned system could very likely take you from Kings to your destination in under 15 minutes, including waits and latency, with one change in Manhattan. We could do almost as well by upgrading what we have and skipping some unimportant stops.
wouldn t it have 40th rather then 30th since both tunnel entrances are at 40th St?
I doubt 125th is wide enough for a six lane highway, or is it. When I was there on Tuesday it was dark and after leaving the bus I went right down to the 2.
I am not sure if this was addressed of not (I am new to SubTalk) but when the 63rd Street Connection is completed:
E service will remain the same.
F service will operate ALL LOCAL 179/STL-F
R service will remain the same
Q service will operate as the Queens Blvd/6 Av/Brighton Express from 179/BBC
G service will remain the same (CSQ/4AV)
Since the Q will be the new Queens Blvd. route will Jamaica Yard need to be modified to handle new equipment (i.e.--R40 or R68/68A)? I tend to doubt it since Jamaica once maintained R40's and a couple of R-68's ran on the F some years back. The 68's were probably CI ones though.
I would think that the F would run express to 179th and the Q would run local to 179th. Currently the G is running local to Forest Hills, except for late nites. The Q will replace the local G service.
The F will stay express in Queens and the Q will go local to avoid having to have the F crossover to the local track at Queens Plaza and cause potential delays on the N line.
Either way you look at it, the R (not the N) will have a train cross in front of it. You cannot avoid it. Either the F will cross from D4 to D2 north of the Plaza OR the Q will merge onto the D2 south of 36th Street.
The last service plan I saw had the F via Queens Blvd Local (via 53rd Street), and the Q via Express 179 to 21 Street (obviously via 63rd Street). The G will be cut back to a permanent 24/7 terminal at Court Square. The E and R will not change.
Is the service plan located online?
Everything is speculation at this point. No service plan has been published. The only thing that's close to certain is that the G will be cut back to Court Square.
Until next time...
Anon_e_mouse
Will the Q Run 24/7? Also will there be a connection from the Bdwy Line. The F should run local, and make it a local all the way. Also if both the F and Q are going to Queens, who will use 63rd and who will use 53 St Tunnels. I guess the express will use 53rd and the local 63,
i want 2 know a little more about the q running in queens alongside the R train.
There is no definate plans as to the service that will be provided when the 63rd. St. connection opens in 2 years. Speculation about the Q being extended to Forest Hills or 179th St. has been bantered about over the past few months, but it's not definate that this will happen.
CAN SOMEONE TELL ME WHERE I CAN FIND AN ARTICLE ABOUT THIS PLEASE E-MAIL IT 2 ME, I REALLY WANNA KNOW MORE ABOUT THIS.
"i want 2 know a little more about the q running in queens alongside the R train."
All I know, 4th Avenue Express, I don't like the fact:
1) two Broadway Lines are local in Queens (that's when the Q is return to Broadway) not giving people any real options.
2) the Q runing local in Queens, while in Manhattan, it will be express.
N Broadway Line
As stated before, the Queens Blvd. local train that runs through the 63rd. St. tunnel will almost without a doubt be a 6th Ave. train, whether it's the Q, B or something else. Broadway Q service via 63rd. St to Queens has not been seriousley discussed.
That makes sense, especially since the 6th Ave. tracks lead directly to the tunnel itself. Although there are scissor switches to the west of Lexington Ave., the Broadway tracks are supposed to lead to the 2nd Ave. line, if and when it ever gets built.
It makes more sense for the express to use 63rd St and the local to use 53rd St. It would speed things up to bypass Queens Plaza and 53-Lex.
Those are 2 of the most patronozed stations along that line. Plus, the local would cause a backup switching to the express tracks to access the 53rd. St. tubes.
It aint gonna happen.
It does mane more sense, but with the way the track layout is set up, it's only feasible if both the 63rd and 53rd St. trains operate as locals in Sixth Ave., because there are no track crossovers that way.
"It makes more sense for the express to use 63rd St and the local to use 53rd St. It would speed things up to bypass Queens Plaza and 53-Lex."
Is the Queens Plaza Station a really heavy used station, or, a heavy transfer station? What I notice, is that, it more of a heavy transfer station than a heavy used station. Please help me...
N Broadway Line
It's used heavly as a transfer for people from express trains to the R and G, and from G passangers coming in from Brooklyn, mostly Greenpoint. These passangers will be shifted to the Court Sq/Ely Ave connection when the G gets cut back.
There really isn't much in that area of Queens. In fact the 36th. St station probably has more fares collected at its turnstiles than does QPlaza.
11/19/99
One thing not discussed about this connection is when it will be totally finished. Maybe a year? If they plan 2002 the year on initiation of service,is that because that's when new equipment arrives to supplant this extra service
Bill Newkirk
I keep hearing 2001 as the target for service to start. Has it changed?
The trains would run even faster if they never stopped at all. Some would say that that would defeat their purpose. Do you really think it makes more sense for the express to stop at 21st St., Roosevelt Island, and 63rd and Lex?
It's only a 2 tack line, so unless they run skip stop, its going to be a local.
My point exactly. It's four stops from Roosevelt Ave. to Rockefeller Center regardless of which tunnel is used. It seems to me that it is better to provide the faster service on the more heavily traveled route.
Only 6th Av Local feeds directly into the 53rd St. track, so the F will continue to use that tunnel; and since that track becomes the express track at Queens Plaza, I assume they'll keep the F express in Queens to avoid switching in front of the R train, which enters QP on the local track.
There was a thread on this site that said the 53rd Street tunnel will close due to severe water damage.
Um, never, ever, ever would they close this tunnel. Perhaps after the 63rd. st connection opens up, there will be night/weekend service diversions so they can repair any damage.
WHY DONT THEY TAKE THE M AND RUN IT LOCAL VIA THE N LINE TO CONEY ISLAND FOR BETTER SERVICE BETWEEN PACIFIC AND 59 STREET BROOKLYN
WHY DON'T YOU TAKE YOUR CAPS LOCK AND RUN IT EXPRESS OUT OF TOWN
This is Newark-Penn Station, change for the 10
The next and last stop on this 8 train will be Newark International Airport.
He's probably too lazy to go get his reading glasses.
The Q more likely will be local to 71st Street replacing the G.
If they really want to save money, they could run the F via 63rd Street (leaving the E via 53rd Street) and eliminate the Q entirely (replacing it with the M). The D will once again be the brighton Beach Express.
We know the above is terrible service, however, it's the most simplest.
Comments welcome.
N Broadway Line
To N Broadway Line's suggestion:
While I agree that the Q is totally senseless as it duplicates the D from 47-50 to Brighton Beach. Brighton Line passengers no longer have the triplicate of choice they once did when 6th Ave, Bway, and Nassau St services ran there. I am in FULL agreement that the M should return to Brighton--it is pointless on 4th Avenue. BUT, Queens Blvd. needs another service to Manhattan to alleviate overcrowding. It makes little sense from an overcrowding standpoint to still have three Manhattan services (E, F and R) once the Connection is open. You need the fourth service and the Q is the most likely candidate.
Hopefully the Q will return to Broadway if and when the south side tracks of The Money Pit, aka Manhattan Bridge reopen.
Another idea, beside the Q running on Bdwy to 57th St Only, have a K Brighton-6th Ave-Queens Local run.
And reserve the H for Rockaway Park service via 6th Avenue.
N Broadway Line
If the Q remains on the express track on Sixth Ave. then the F has to run via 53rd, since the Q will only have access to the 63rd St. tunnel.
If they switch the Q to the local track past West Fourth (two express lines and two local lines on Sixth Ave. would make more sense), then either the Q or F could run on 53rd St., but the problem would remain that the most direct link to the Queens express track would be via the Sixth (and Eighth) Ave. local tracks.
I don't see that as a problem. The F will probably be more desireable to Queens riders than the Q (if it's still running the 6th Ave. line in 2001) because the F stops at 23rd. and 14th St., something the Q wouldn't do.
Yeah, it would be weird to have the 6th Ave. express run local in Queens, and the 6th. Ave. local run express, but ridership patterns would make this the ideal setup.
"Yeah, it would be weird to have the 6th Ave. express run local in Queens, and the 6th. Ave. local run express, but ridership
patterns would make this the ideal setup."
No longer will they have to run the F at a four minute heyway. So, the Q could be local along sixth Avenue. The only difference is Queens. The F will be express via the 53rd Street tunnel, while the Q will be local via the 63rd Street tunnel.
Being that the Q is one of the last letters of the alphabet, it just makes since for it to be local. In the case of Broadway, it should express because it comes before R.
Q Broadway Line
can someone fill me in on this information about the q running in queens.
"can someone fill me in on this information about the q running in queens."
As someone say earlier, the Q is really designated for the 2nd Avenue route (via Broadway). The tracks leads to a possible connection with the new second avenue line, however, this route is no where near finished. So, expect the Q to the be sent to Queens until the second avenue route is completed.
N Broadway Line
If the Q is routed via Broadway again, it will terminate at 57th/7th, until the 2nd Ave. spur gets built. The Queens-bound 63rd. St. train will always come off of 6th. Ave. line, whether it's today's Q, B or another line (V?).
can someone fill me in on this information about the q running in queens.
"can someone fill me in on this information about the q running in queens."
As someone say earlier, the Q is really designated for the 2nd Avenue route (via Broadway). The tracks leads to a possible connection with the new second avenue line, however, this route is no where near finished. So, expect the Q to the be sent to Queens until the second avenue route is completed.
N Broadway Line
If the Q is routed via Broadway again, it will terminate at 57th/7th, until the 2nd Ave. spur gets built. The Queens-bound 63rd. St. train will always come off of 6th. Ave. line, whether it's today's Q, B or another line (V?).
F service, even after the 63rd. st connection opens, is adequate for local service on 6th Ave. People are used to having the Q as an express, and the junction north of Rockefeller Center is the best place to merge trains, as a waiting Q wont cause delays for trains behind it, as it would if the trains had to switch over to the express tracks south of W4 St.
If the Q runs down 63rd Street, it will alread by an express like it is now. So just run the train as a local in Queens, then it can go express in Manhattan and Brooklyn. If they run it to 179th as a local, during rush hours only, then the F can go back to the express it once was from 179th.
Nobody from Jamaica and Briarwood will allow the F to go back as an express east of 71st. Ave. with only the Q as a local. Both Q and R trains will have to be extended to 179th St. for this plan to happen.
Has anybody thought that they Q may go back to Broadway?
"Has anybody thought that they Q may go back to Broadway?"
We will love to have our family member (Q) back on Broadway. However, with the Manhattan Bridge out, service in Astoria and Southern Broolyn will have to be cut back. Something passengers of my line wouldn't tolerate.
The M N and R all share the Montague tunnel which limits compacity on these lines.
N Broadway Line
"If they run it to 179th as a local, during rush hours only, then the F can go back to the express it once was from 179th."
So are they still going to use 71st Street Continental Avenue to terminate R trains? This will cause a problem with Q trains. Please explain why you suggest the above as an option?
N Broadway Line
No it will not, the trains turning at 71 use a lower level.
Eugenius,
Yes, I know that. But, what about the time it takes to clear the train before it switches to the tracks that leads to the lower level? That of course if they run the R to 71st and the Q to 179th Street.
N Broadway Line
It only takes about 30 seconds longer to terminate the train at 71st than to close it up an any other stop. Going in that direction, the train is usually almost empty by the time it gets to 71st. Most passangers get on at Roosevelt and get off somewhere in between. I don't believe that too many passengers get on at the local stops in the morning to go into Jamaica. Some do but not that many.
As for the Q and the R interchanging at 71st going towards Manhattan, I have seen both R and G trains pull in and leave in less than 30 seconds, so I don't see it causing a big delay. No worse than when the F sits at 75th Avenue waiting for an E to clear.
Also, I should point out they had this arrangement once before. When Archer Ave opended in 1988, the F stayed express and the R ran local to 179th. The G still terminated at 71st. The only reason it was changed is becuase those of us who used 169th St. Sutphin Blvd., Van Wyck Blvd., and 75th Avenue complained that we lost our direct express service (the E used to be the local, then went express after 71st), and the R ran very infrequently. Sometimes we had to wait 15 minutes for one to come along. When you are used to an E every four or five minutes, it is a major disruption in the service. They didn't change it becuause of problems with the G terminating at 7st and the R continuing.
Will the Q make the situation better than the R which suffered from delays earlier? And, is there enough passenger patronage to justify sending both the Q and R to 179th Street?
Thanks for your comments.
N Broadwy Line
Neither the Q or R are adequate by themsleves in providing local service east of Continental Ave. Only sending both will the residents of the affected communities be satisfied with the loss of F express service. Remember, they used the R and the R only as the local from 88-90 (24/7) and 90-92 (rush hours) and the residents along Hillside Ave made a lot of noise.
The N and R was running on Bway 24/7????????
3TM
No, the R ran to 179th St. 24 hours a day/7 days a week.
The biggest problem with the R was the lack of service. If the R had a similar headway to the F, (or the E prior to Archer Ave.) we could have lived with it. Waiting up to fifteen minutes during the mornign and evening rush was intolerable.
I've heard this "waiting for 15 minutes for an R train" from Jamaica IND riders for years, and it's totally bogus. Why does everyone seem to exaggerate their delays on a subway? Unless a train had to be taken out of service, or some other calamity, there is no way a Hillside Ave. local rider can claim that he/she had to wait 15 minutes all the time for an R train. Rush hour R trains ran at least every 5-7 minutes, and it was supplemented by E service in the AM.
However, this might still be inadequate. R service plus the new 63rd. St. line should be more than adequate for their needs.
If they would ever get the Manhattan Bridge back up an running normally so the N could return to Broadway express service, that would allow the MTA to increase the number of R locals during rush hour, since it would only share tunnel trackage with one other line, not two, in the Montague Street tunnel.
That would allow the MTA to cut the times between trains on the Queens local section (assuming the 60th St. N/R tunnel can handle the same number of trains per hour as the 53rd St. E/F does).
Of course, some people would still grumble because their station was served by a local instead of an express. Then you're into the same territory as the Carroll Gardens situation in Brooklyn, and it would depend on how well the top officials can handle the pressure.
Actually, that could be done now. Many many months ago I suggested in here that the TA double the number of R trains that run during a typical weekday. Instead of 10 minute headways during the midday hours, run them at 5 minute headways, terminating alternate R trains at Whitehall St. Cut back the G to Court Sq 24/7 right now (don't wait for the 63rd. St. connection to open). You'd double the amount of Manhattan bound local service in Queens and you'd increase service on the Broadway line by 33% (at least north of Whitehall). This would provide the Bway BMT with the same number of trains that serve the 6th Ave. express:
6th Ave exp:
18 trains per hour:
6 B
6 D
6 Q
Bway Local:
18 trains per hour:
12 R (6 to Whitehall only, 6 to Bay Ridge)
6 N
I'm sure the Bway local has the capacity for this extra service.
During the rush hours, increase R service to a 3 minute headway, with alternate R trains terminating at Whitehall. This would maintain the 6 minute headway the R currently runs on in Brooklyn during the rush. To ease congestion a bit, increase the headway on the M from 8.5 minutes to 10 minutes. I have yet to ride on a Manhattan bound M coming in from Bay Pkway which could be considered "crowded". 10 minute headways on this line is adequate.
Makes sense to me. Is it feasible?
Actually, the N train, if any service were to be increase on the Bway line, needs it first.
From Queens? No way. The R train carries more passangers. The plan I layed out doesn't increase service on either line in Brooklyn.
"From Queens? No way. The R train carries more passangers. The plan I layed out doesn't increase service on either line in
Brooklyn."
YOU GOT TO BE KIDDING!!!!!!!!!!!!!! IT IS SO CROWDED ON THE N LINE THAT YOU ARE PHYSICALLY LEADING ON PEOPLE!!!!!! RIDE IT CHRISR, IT'S A REAL TROUBLE EXPERIENCE!!!!!! ON THE OTHER HAND, THE R IS SO UNDERUSED THAT YOUR SUGGESTION OF INCREASING SERVICE IS TOTALLY BOGUS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
N Broadway Line
So crowded
So slow
To much delays
And very smelly
The N doesn't carry as many passangers as the R. Why do people continually exaggerate their own transit problems, while ridiculing other people's problems?
[The N doesn't carry as many passangers as the R. Why do people continually exaggerate their own transit problems, while ridiculing other people's problems?]
I think you've answered your own question!
On this website there's a report about each line and how they are affected by crowds. The E/F are on the top, while the N and 7 are very close behind. Meanwhile, the R is rated as underused. That statistic did not come from me, but the people who did the report.
What they don't mention is two main reason why that line is underused.
1) People have two alternatives: G into the E/F lines
2) you have to say, the route that the R travels from Queens Plaza is really slow. Before connecting to the N, it goes around 4 turns (who ever built this line made it zig zag too many times), another at before and after 5th Avenue.
Some times I get so feedup with the crowded situation on the N line that I take the R to Broadway and a bus. And a lot of times, they is plenty of standing room. In some cases, they are seats left if someone want to sit down. As for the N, it will have to be going in the reverse direction (against the work traffic) before you're able to get a decent seat. And, I'm not talking about 6AM - 12AM. For instance, in the early mornings (around 3AM) you can get a seat out of Astoria. However, don't even think about getting a seat at the same time going towards Astoria! Yes 3 AM! It happens all the time. And in some cases, the train is so crowded that you have to push your way in.
The Brooklyn N riders don't have the same problems. We do! That is why I'm writing the MTA again. Telling them to run extra N trains at least to 14th Street. That is where the train starts to get empty.
By the time it gets to the dekalb station it is practically empty. So, extra service in that area will defeat the purpose.
N Broadway Line
How arout running a N to City Hall or White Hall Street from Astoria during Rush Hours
It might result in a train shortage problem Brighton Express as already being claimed.
N Broadway Line
There aren't enough people in the limited areas served by the Astoria Line to justify more trains, even though more trains are needed to provide good service.
If you want better Astoria Line service, how about getting out there to take on the NIMBYs who are against extending the Astoria Line past Ditmars up to LaGuardia Airport?
If the N were extended to the airport, you'd have Astoria and airport riders together, justifying 4-6 more trains per hour off peak and on. And, as the city's "front-door" service, the N would get the best trains, the best maintenence the most extensive police, everything the best.
When a public hearing was held, not only did people show up to demand that the N not be extended beyond Ditmars, they wanted to get rid of the el they already have. City can't afford a subway? Fine -- get rid of the el anyway!
The next meeting should be held on Jamaica Avenue.
LOL! Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
Again, why do we humor these community activists? If a project is needed as badly as a this one is, just build the damn thing. Even though I despise what Robert Moses did, he simply stole the land he needed in Bay Ridge to build the approahes to the Verrazano Bridge. There must be some middle ground where the community has some of its concerns addressed, but it's not given the power to torpedo a project that the city as a whole needs.
(Why do we humor these political activists)
What do you mean WE. When it comes to public works with long term benefits, there is no we. It just doesn't sell to the small number of people who really count in this town.
Besides, people have gotten the idea that if they hold things up they'll get paid. But we can't afford to pay them all, so nothing gets done. How much do we need to pay Peter Vallone to get this thing built?
This is why I am a strong supporter of term limits. Vallone will soon be out of power, and Astoria won't have a disproportionate amount of representation in the City Council.
Every few years, everybody starts from scratch.
What a concept ...
[This is why I am a strong supporter of term limits. Vallone will soon be out of power, and Astoria won't have a disproportionate amount of representation in the City Council.
Every few years, everybody starts from scratch.
What a concept ... ]
Unfortunately, term limits have the opposite effect in the more accountable offices (e.g., the offices where people actually lose re-election bids), because they kick out the good officials along with the bad. If one gives the voters *any* credit for being able to make a reasonable choice, then the average term of a bad official will be shorter than the average term of a good official, and that makes it mathematically inevitable that term limits will *decrease* the ratio of good to bad officials. Then too, rather than hurting professional pols, they increase the expense of the sleazy behind-the-sceners at the expense of the guys who are in the public eye.
Term limits are good. Judging by you're other postings, you seem to be a Giuliani fan, but Giuliani has done nothing useful since 1996. Even if someone is pretty good on the job, you need to rotate them out to get new ideas and attention to new problems. Like transportation -- Rudy just doesn't get it.
"....but Giuliani has done nothing useful since 1996"
Probably because of term limits. If Giuliani had the opportunity to run for another term, I'm sure that he would want to do the same things he did last term. Now he's not going to be mayor for another term whether he likes it or not, so he can do all the crap that he wants, nothing will change.
[Term limits are good. Judging by you're other postings, you seem to be a Giuliani fan, but Giuliani has done nothing useful since 1996. Even if someone is pretty good on the job, you need to rotate them out to get new ideas and attention to new problems. Like transportation -- Rudy just doesn't get it.]
If the voters don't want him, they can always choose to get rid of him. I'm not aware of any law that says that politicians go bad after a certain period of time, though I've certainly seen it happen, or that getting rid of someone who's done a lot will insure that the next guy will do a good job too; on the contrary, getting rid of someone who's above average is a pretty fair way of reducing the quality of government. And I'm afraid that Giuliani's successor will be a well meaning duffer, or worse.
Giuliani is just about the only mayor I remember who, like it or not, has made vast improvements in the City. I'd gladly put up with his weaknesses for a few more years. We should be getting rid of the very mediocre Pataki, not our own mayor.
(Next Mayor will be a duffer)
Most of the people looking to take Giuliani's job are not duffers. Thanks to term limits, the most able holders of other offices are running for new positions. And the City Council members who ARE duffers (the majority) will disappear. I love it.
The problem is we don't have Vampire State term limits.
[The problem is we don't have Vampire State term limits.]
That's why I'm hoping that Pataki gets selected for the vice presidency.
"That's why I'm hoping that Pataki gets selected for the vice presidency."
Now there's a useless, do nothing job.
Right Eugenius. The Vice Presidency is a useless, do nothing job, and since that's so we've the perfect do nothing, useless bum occupying it right now--Al the bore Gore.
Uhhhh ... guys ... off topic, hmmmm?
JV: Oooops, I slipped. If they don't I won't, but it was too good a chance to pass up.
I'll second that. Fred hit the nail square on the head.
Unfortunatley, the "good" politicians become corrupted after a few terms, becoming more concerned about re-electon than actually doing anything good.
Since the vast majority of City Council members are worthless, useless and incompetant boobs, I don't mind seeing them all kicked out of office after 2 terms.
That's frequently the case. Still, I think that's a decision the voters should make. Giuliani is an ideal e ample; will his successor at least maintain the successful aspects of his policies? In political life strong men tend to be followed by weak ones, and we can't afford to regress because we have too far to go.
I might add that Giuliani has done so much more than any mayor in living memory, it strikes me as a crying shame that we don't trust him enough to grant him another term.
I voted for Rudy two out of three times, but I'm sick of him, and will be glad to see him go.
Rudy Giuliani is a idiot Mayor i ever see & I don't vote for him because he think he a toughest mayor in new york city? gimme me a brake.
James Bond Jr. (Known an 0007)
We couldn't elect Giuliani mayor a third time if we wanted to. There's a two-term limit. This was put into place in the City charter after (or because of?) Koch's three terms.
Koch was not the first mayor to have three terms, Wagner and LaGuardia come to mind, (although all three failed in their attempt for a fourth, as did Cuomo as Governor), I don't think it had much to do with him. At the time that issue was on the ballet in New York, it was also big talk for the Republicans in Congress, (where it went down in flames and has not come back). I would like to see term limits at the state level as well. In Congress I would like to see a six term limit in the House and three terms in the Senate. (I can tolerate a senator for 18 years, but to have guys around as long as Kennedy and Thurmond is obscene).
I'm not sure, but I think that Rudy can run for a third term. Just no a third term in a row. After rotating to someone else, if the public is dissastified, it can put Rudy back in.
All it prevents is perpetual incumbancy, the plague of this state.
That may be true, I don't know all the facts. A president can't do that, ten years is the most they are allowed to serve. (That would be a VP who finishes a Pres. term, serving less than two years plus two of his own). I can't see any way or reason that Rudy would run again after being out of office for a term even if he wants to. I also don't believe he really wants to be senator. I think he is biding his time waiting for the eventual exit from the race by Hillary. Despite her recent announcments, I don't believe she will run. I think the mayor really wants to be Attorney General assuming W. wins next year.
All this talk about Term Limits is a waste of time.
We are given the right every four (or six) years to oust whomever we are not satified with. Why are term limits necessary in our supposedly Democratic society?
Doug aka BMTman
For two reasons.
Reason #1 - Money. The incumbents have an inside track to the money flow and will have it all flow their way.
Reason #2 - The Media. The Media which consists of mostly Democrats and Liberals will do their best to sway the people to vote that way. Look at the current presidential race. W. is way ahead in popularity and Gore's campain is a disaster, however all the stories your read are slamming W. This is nothing new.
Political races are by their nature unfair. Putting in term limits puts a nature of fairness into the system. Besides, the career politician was not what the Founding Father's of this country had in mind. They fought a revolution to free themselves of that yoke.
Regarding #2: The media used to be more liberal (or left-leaning) -- not anymore. Most media owners are NOT liberal, case in point Mr. Murdoch, the greedmonger, who owns most of it nowadays. There is a big difference between a newspaper's OP-ED page and their ownership.
Lastly, the founding fathers created the one-man-one vote so we can pick and choose candidates. It was fair then and is fair now. The problem in the past twenty years has been the COST of campaigning and the fact that there is not a level playing field for the poor-schnook politician who might have some great ideas and the fat-cat industrialist-types who have more money than God and can literally buy their way into political office. That's what's not fair. We need real campaign financing reform -- not term limits.
Doug aka BMTman
The best way to get finance reform is to get rid of the $1,000 contribution limit. The amount was set back in 1974 as a response to Watergate and has never been adjusted for inflation. That forces the candidates to spend too much of their time fundraising and often leads to questionable practices.
As far as ownership is concerned, Merdoch is only one outlet. ABC, CBS, and Time Warner (CNN) all have ownership that leans far to the left. FOX which is Murdoch is the only one that leans somewhat to the right.
ABC, CBS, and NBC are so left-leaning that it's a wonder that they haven't toppled over sideways. Did you notice that only FOX carried the story of Jesse "jackass" Jackson making a sorry spectacle of himself by trying to raise a cause-celebre over the expulsion of a bunch of punks, three of whom were beginning their third year in the ninth grade? You had to look in the back part of Part I to find even a smattering of news about it. Turner and his Communist wife are even worse. Oh, come on guys, stop this. You are making me break my promise to stay on subject. OK, let's hear it out there. What's your favorite train? Station?
FOX is run by Rupert "I would be King" Murdoch who is a pompous wind-bag. I guess he's your kind of guy. Not that I'm a fan of that phoney Jesse Jackson, but Mr. Murdoch's character is less than sparkling.
BTW, the New York Post -- which is conservative if you haven't noticed -- used to be a respectable paper. Now it is little more than a rag full of headlines that are closer to sensationalist demogogery than real jouralism. Too bad New York City doesn't have an outlet for the conservative intellectual -- unless that's a contradiction in terms???
Doug aka BMTman
No, it's not. Just look at North Carolina's senior Senator, Jesse Helms - a newspaper and TV reporter/commentator turned politician, as conservative as they come, probably the most intelligent and honest member of Congress. Regardless of whether or not you agree with his views, you have to give him credit for all that.
Until next time...
Anon_e_mouse
Doug: Now don't have a stroke, but I can't stand Ruppert Murdock. He is a first class dork. As you know he now owns the Dodgers and you know how crappy they are. No, he's not my kind of guy at all. Yes, he is worse than Jesse Jackson. But of all of them, Hanoi Jane is the worst. It was one thing to protest the Vietnam War, but quite another to go there and taunt the American prisoners by telling them they were wrong and that Communism is a good thing. Some people have bad memories but I'm not one of them. I will never forget what that Commie %#@*&^ did. By the way, what is your favorite BMT train?
I agree Sea Beach, Lame Jane beats all others hands down as a complete disgrace and an embarrassment to Americans the world over. She should do us all a favor and disappear (along with her nitwit husband, Mr. CNN).
Since I was too young for the BMT AB Standards although they are on my list as having the most historic significance to Brookyn rapid transit. So my favorite train is not technically BMT equipment -- the R-38 cars, followed closely by the R-11/34s and the slant R-40s -- altough they spent a good deal of their running lives on Kings County routes. As for non-stainless steel favorites are the Standards and their (weaker) IND counterparts, the R-1 thru 9 series cars.
Any favorites in my list match yours?
Doug aka BMTman
Personally, I would take the R-1/9s over the BMT standards any day. Granted, both classes of cars moaned and groaned the same way. But the former had route and destination signs up front, while the latter did not. That was the main reason I didn't like the standards, plus I thought they looked ugly. OK, I was 10 when I first laid eyes on a train of BMT standards. Riding them on the Canarsie was cruel and unusual punishment to me. I couldn't wait to bail out at Union Square and take a nice, MARKED, speedy N express to 34th St. or Times Square. Over the years, I've come to appreciate them for their durability and toughness, and if they were still around today, I wouldn't have any qualms about riding them.
I associate the BMT standards with the Eastern Division, since by the time I became immersed in the subway, they were gone from the Southern Division. To this day, the R-32s, one of my all-time favorites, remain synonimous with the Southern Division in much the same way the R-10s (now you know how I feel about them) are forever linked with my all-time favorite route, the A.
P. S. I personally support term limits at any level of government.
A feature of the standards that usually goes unlooked at in this forum is the fact that the storm door window could be opened or closed. Maybe thats a subconscious reason I got into motorcycles after the discontinuance of the standards. Today I miss both the BMT Standards and the R1-9's. (What I call the IND Standards)
[The media used to be more liberal (or left-leaning) -- not anymore. Most media owners are NOT liberal, case in point Mr. Murdoch, the greedmonger, who owns most of it nowadays. There is a big difference between a newspaper's OP-ED page and their ownership.]
That might be true elsewhere in the country, but New York's a grand exception. While other places have an ever-increasing plethora of media outlets (newspapers, radio, TV, Internet, etc.), in New York the people that make the decisions rely on a single outlet - I speak, of course, of the _Times_. You would have to go back to the days of _Pravda_ in the old Soviet Union to find another newspaper or media outlet that controls the hearts and minds of the elites in the way that the _Times_ controls New York's leaders. And it goes without saying that the _Times_ remains firmly in control of the Upper West Side's limousine liberals.
And to think that once the New York Times was a leading Republican paper whose editor, Henry Raymond, led the charge for Abraham Lincoln's re-election during the critical Civil War year of 1864.
The Times is just pro-incumbant and anti-change, not pro-Democrat. Once Giuliani was in, the Times backed his re-election.
But they won't back him for Senate, whether or not Hillary runs. The editorial writers wouldn't want to deal with the abuse they would get on the Manhattan social circuit, including possibly being left off some of the `A' list party invitations next fall.
[But they won't back him for Senate, whether or not Hillary runs. The editorial writers wouldn't want to deal with the abuse they would get on the Manhattan social circuit, including possibly being left off some of the `A' list party invitations next fall.]
I can see that. I think Giuliani's a great mayor, but I don't think he would make a great Senator--he's a doer, not a group player, an executive rather than a legislator. I'd much rather see him replace the very mediocre Governor Pataki. Carey did little and Cuomo was all talk, so it's been a long time since NY State has had the kind of powerhouse governor it used to.
At one time too I thought he would make a fine Republican presidential candidate, a dedicated reformer in the spirit of Teddy Roosevelet, but his positions on free speech issues now seems to me too extreme to make that desireable.
Right. People always scream that The New York Times is some-how liberal. That's all perception, mostly due to the fact that they have sections of the paper that may appeal to a large segment of the 'artsy' community that are seen by the general public to be 'left-leaning'. But by and large The Times, if anything is middle of the road, politically.
Even the Daily News is more conservative than liberal (at least in the past ten years).
To be honest, the most liberal New York paper isn't even based in the city, it is Newsday, a Long Island based daily.
Doug aka BMTman
[re liberalism of the _Times_]
You are correct in that the _Times_ is not necessarily liberal in the classic sense. It does not always support traditional liberal viewpoints such as socialized medicine, more progressive income taxation, and more constitutional rights for criminals - or, more correctly, its advocacy of these positions is generally lukewarm at best.
What the _Times_ *has* taken to extreme is political correctness. An excellent example was in a recent article concerning tougher domestic-violence statutes. These laws were designed to protect women, in fact the federal law is called the "Violence Against Women Act" or something to that effect. Yet it turns out that these laws have been having an unanticipated side effect - in many states, a substantial percentage of the people being arrested and convicted for domestic violence are female. Mutual-combat and revenge situations account for only a relatively small proportion of female arrests. This of course does not fit in with the p.c. notion of women as helpless victims who have to be protected from big bad men. It was amusing to see the _Times_ trot out one self-proclaimed "expert" after another to explain away this state of affairs. The conclusion (reported elsewhere) that the _Times_ could not bring itself to face, and indeed which was mentioned by just one (female) expert in the article, is that for some reason there has been a big increase in the numbers of nasty, aggressive young women. No one at the _Times_ has the nerve to report such an un-p.c. conclusion.
[What the _Times_ *has* taken to extreme is political correctness. No one at the _Times_ has the nerve to report such an un-p.c. conclusion.]
You've hit the nail on the head. Staffing decisions were made, in some cases as the result of lawsuits, to broaden the background of reporters and writers without regard to talent. That has resulted in some embarassingly bad writing, a greater variety of unfortunately oversimplified viewpoints, and a good deal of dissension within the newsroom, because many staff members--including many who are traditional liberals--are very unhappy with some noteably unworthy decisions, such as assigning only minority writers to cover issues that affect minority communities. (That resulted in one of the most shameful incidents in the newspaper's history, when, during the Crown Heights riot, the reporters who were covering the event initially failed completely to report what was going on.)
But to me the saddest thing is the reduction in the analytical quality of the paper. Just look at some of their columnists--a hack conservative named under pressure from the Nixon administration, a semi-bright Harvard (and don't think he'll let you forget that) liberal whose every thought apparently starts with the proposition that Mayor Giuliani is evil incarnate, a nasty woman who does nothing but insult people. I happen to like diverse, broad spectrum viewpoints--but I don't find any of these people interesting in the least.
Larry: Thanks for the note on Giuliani and the Times. I didn't know they supported his re-election in 1997.
[And to think that once the New York Times was a leading Republican paper whose editor, Henry Raymond, led the charge for Abraham Lincoln's re-election during the critical Civil War year of 1864.]
The Republican party of the 19th Century was very different from the Republican party of today. The conservative southern wing of the Democratic party bolted over to the Republicans during the Reagan years, while the progressive Teddy Roosevelt wing of the Republican party moved to the Democrats. They aren't really the same animals.
Liberal now, liberal then. Remember that the Republicans were the more liberal Yankee party during the late unpleasantness.
Until next time...
Anon_e_mouse
Which means the Democrat Party was the jackass party then just as it is now. Late unpleasantness? Come on! If it was unpleasant, it turned out bad for your crowd, not mine. Besides, since Southerners are now accepted as the most patriotic pro-Americans, the fact that the Civil War turned out the way it did was a good thing for the South-----in the long run.
Campain finance reform is one of those politically correct chiches that everyone throws around these days similar to "We have to save Social Security", or "We need better schools", etc. No one every says what campain finance reform is or how to go about it. When I give ideas like term limits or in my previous post, eliminating the $1000 contriubiton limit, I usually get scorn, but no one ever gives me a better alternative.
Mark: Don't give it another thought. We Republicans raise more than the Democrats and they're envious as hell. By the way, what is your favorite and least favorite station? Do you have a favorite train? I think you can guess what mine is.
[Mark: Don't give it another thought. We Republicans raise more than the Democrats and they're envious as hell. By the way, what is your favorite and least favorite station? Do you have a favorite train? I think you can guess what mine is.]
Some might see it in a different perspective, i.e., the Republican leadership blocks campaign finance reform because it wants to protect its huge financial advantage as the party favored by big business and the rich.
Campaign finance reform is something no politician (of either party) wants to tackle since it is unpopular with the political hacks.
What the ideal situation wuld be is some form of "cap" on the amount a policitian can spend on TV commercials, newspaper ads, etc., so that even "the little guy" MIGHT be able to compete in the larger political arena. Just look what Dan Quayle had to say about George Dubya Bush -- it was something about his millions are hard to match for any opponent, making the process unfair.
Doug aka BMTman
Term limits are an effective substitute for campaign finance reform. The value of an asset depends on the number of years it will pay out income. These days, if you buy a politician, you could get returns for any number of years. With term limits, the return is less, and people will be willing to pay less to put them in. Besides, at the end of the term, they might vote their consciences.
The Supreme Court has ruled that it is unconstitutional to limit the amount of money that a candidate can spend on himself/herself. That being the case, putting limits on the contributions non-millionaire candidates can accept only further increases the advantage of the wealthy. That being the case, we are better off without any limits on contributions. It may sound paradoxical, but it is the truth.
[The Supreme Court has ruled that it is unconstitutional to limit the amount of money that a candidate can spend on himself/herself. That being the case, putting limits on the contributions non-millionaire candidates can accept only further increases the advantage of the wealthy. That being the case, we are better off without any limits on contributions. It may sound paradoxical, but it is the truth.]
But here's another paradox--many of our best, most honest public officials have been old-money scions. The reason, I think, is simple--they don't need contributions, so they can't be bought, and because they've inherited their money they lack the greedy callousness of the self-made man.
You are right. While not all self-made men are characterized by "greedy callousness", many are.
Our founding fathers set the remuneration of most public offices fairly low. One reason was precisely so that the people attracted to public service would be those who were already financially comfortable and so would not try to use their offices as vehicles for further enrichment. In general, they knew what they were doing, and we tamper with their plans at our peril.
Like I said, if you remove the $1,000 cap then the same people who funded W. would have had money availble to Quayle, or Liddy.
By the way, my favorite terminal is 33rd Street on the Path. There you can transfer to trains to take you anywhere!
[For two reasons.
Reason #1 - Money. The incumbents have an inside track to the money flow and will have it all flow their way.
Reason #2 - The Media. The Media which consists of mostly Democrats and Liberals will do their best to sway the people to vote that way. Look at the current presidential race. W. is way ahead in popularity and Gore's campain is a disaster, however all the stories your read are slamming W. This is nothing new.]
This contradicts number one. Bush is where he is because of money and the backing of the Republican machine, not because he fought his way through the Republican primaries. Ditto for Gore, thanks to his position as vice president. Neither was exactly chosen by the people, and it can fairly be argued that term limits have the effect of returning power to the party machines rather than the other way around.
As to media bias, I think it's much less partisan than you give it credit for. For example, the press slammed Clinton mercilessly until Newt Gringrich gave them a better target--after that, Clinton could do no wrong. The press slammed Carter from A to Z (remember the "killer rabbit"?), and Ford as well ("Ford to City: Drop Dead"), but was extremely kind to Reagan in spite of the fact most reporters diasgreed with him politically. Overall, it seems to me that the press reacts more to the perceived strength or weakness of a candidate than his position on the political spectrum.
Ironically, Washington insiders in both the Republican and Democratic parties typically think very highly of Al Gore--he's considered honest, serious, and capable. His weakness as a candidate is a perfect example of how charisma and spin have replaced other factors in our political life.
Honest and serious? OK, I'll buy that. Capable? Only relative to Dan Quayle.
Until next time...
Anon_e_mouse
[Honest and serious? OK, I'll buy that. Capable? Only relative to Dan Quayle.]
I think it's important not to confuse his campaign bungling with what insiders say is rock solid, capable performance behind the scenes. Unfortunately, Gore isn't alone in that respect--some very capable people just don't handle the spotlight well.
The famous Internet gaffe is a perfect example--his silly slip about "inventing" it obscured for the public the fact that he did indeed champion it in its early, government funded days.
There are lots of examples of this sort of public/private dichotomy. Eisenhower was so inarticulate in public that he was widely considered dumb, when in fact he was a genius who graduated first in his class. Richard Nixon came across as nervous in front of a crowd, but in person he was extremely warm. FDR came across as everybody's best friend, but those who dealt with him knew that he was a manipulative charmer who couldn't be trusted. Harry Truman had the appearance of a petty tough guy, but he's now widely considered to have been one of our most honest and dedicated presidents--while the grandfatherly, seemingly bumbling Eisenhower seems shifty, smart, and calculating in retrospect. And Abe Lincoln was an awkwardly gangly hayseed, ugly, with a laughably high, squeaky voice . . . and I wonder whether he could be elected today.
Josh: You are so right about those former Presidemts you mentioned. As far as Lincoln is concerned, you hit the mark on the head. As I write this my right bulletin board is crammed from top to bottom with pictures of Abe, who happens to be my hero. He could not get elected today because we put a lot of emphasis ons style and not on substance. Just imagine what our country would look like today if we had TV back in 1860 and Lincoln had to run under those conditions. We would not be the US today but a fractured conglomoration of broken provinces.
[Josh: You are so right about those former Presidemts you mentioned. As far as Lincoln is concerned, you hit the mark on the head. As I write this my right bulletin board is crammed from top to bottom with pictures of Abe, who happens to be my hero. He could not get elected today because we put a lot of emphasis ons style and not on substance. Just imagine what our country would look like today if we had TV back in 1860 and Lincoln had to run under those conditions. We would not be the US today but a fractured conglomoration of broken provinces.]
Scary thought. I like to think we become more serious about our leaders when we face a crisis, but maybe I'm being too optimistic.
Absolutely 100% correct Doug. The issue of term limits was another non-issue foisted upon the electorate to divert our attention while the 'INS' picked our pockets and the 'OUTS' waited for their turn.
[Koch was not the first mayor to have three terms, Wagner and LaGuardia come to mind, (although all three failed in their attempt for a fourth, as did Cuomo as Governor)]
I find it interesting--and supportive of my opposition to term limits--that Wagner was a good mayor, Koch a fine one, and LaGuardia a great one. Lesser mayors--Lindsay, Beame, Dinkins--would not have been affected by term limits, but better mayors would have been--and that would have been to the City's detriment.
Thank you. That's one of the best arguments I've heard here for no term limits. It hurts the good politician as much as a lousy one. To use an old phrase: Why through the baby out with the bath water?
Doug aka BMTman
See, I had always opposed tem limits and now you guys started me thinking. Now is Marion Barry a strong reason for term limits or the exception that proves the rule?
See, I had always opposed term limits and now you guys started me thinking. Now is Marion Barry a strong reason for term limits or the exception that proves the rule?
Actually, Marion Barry is a good reason to pass a law that ex-fellons cannot hold public office. A generation ago, he would have been run out of town, even in D.C.
New York State has such a statute. In order to hold public office, a convicted felon must have a "Certificate of No Disability" signed by a judge and stating he/she may hold public office.
How easy is it to pay off a judge to buy one on those? I prefer a permanent ban.
He was the rare exception.
His situation is like that of Bill Clinton. People saw that he had personal failings, but he was still able to govern once he got cleaned up.
Doug aka BMTman
The rationalizations of a true democrat.
But Bill Clinton was not a felon, in fact, he had committed no crime.
Not true. He did commit crimes, but the Senate didn't have the stomache to convict him. Remember, he was impeached by the House. Therefore, since there was no conviction, he is not a felon. That doen't mean he didn't commit crimes. Guilty people get off quite frequently, especially if you have fame and power. The more powerful you are, the harder it is to convict.
Actually, it's more of an opinion on what he did. House Republicans and Kenneth W. Starr believed he committed crimes, whereas Democrats didn't.
As for the perjury, I don't think it's a crime in that it's none of anyone else's business who he decides to play with in the Oval Office, so long as it's consented. It was irrelevant to the Jones trial too.
But Clinton also gets a nice present after all this. He would be on the list of famous presidents as the only man elected as president to be impeached by the House.
The real reason for term limits has nothing to do with any felonies. It has to do with coasting, and with the same special interests winning year after year.
As to the first, when David Gunn left the TA he said the reason was that everything seemed good to him relative to how bad things were before, so he had to leave in bring in someone else who would feel the need to make things better. Regardless of what you thing of Rudy's term thus far, there is no doubt he now believes this is the best of all possible cities, and there is no need for new ideas.
As to the latter, if enough of these SOBs were out, there is always a chance that some of their replacements will choose to staff schools and build transit lines instead of staffing and building hospitals.
[The real reason for term limits has nothing to do with any felonies. It has to do with coasting, and with the same special interests winning year after year.]
But the special interests win, term limits or not. In fact, it's been argued that term limits make them *more* powerful by rotating elected politicians while the back room guys stay in power. As to entrenched and tired incumbents, agreed, particularly in Congress--but it seems to me that they're a lot less likely to do something when deprived of a chance for re-election, and it's also important to recognize that for every Jesse Helms there's a competent, experienced, hard working politician somewhere.
[As to the first, when David Gunn left the TA he said the reason was that everything seemed good to him relative to how bad things were before, so he had to leave in bring in someone else who would feel the need to make things better. Regardless of what you thing of Rudy's term thus far, there is no doubt he now believes this is the best of all possible cities, and there is no need for new ideas.]
I don't believe that. I think that Giuliani has slacked off because of political reality--by law he's a lame duck, so he no longer has to worry about being re-elected, while at he same time he has a strong ince
[The real reason for term limits has nothing to do with any felonies. It has to do with coasting, and with the same special interests winning year after year.]
But the special interests win, term limits or not. In fact, it's been argued that term limits make them *more* powerful by rotating elected politicians while the back room guys stay in power. As to entrenched and tired incumbents, agreed, particularly in Congress--but it seems to me that they're a lot less likely to do something when deprived of a chance for re-election, and it's also important to recognize that for every Jesse Helms there's a competent, experienced, hard working politician somewhere.
[As to the first, when David Gunn left the TA he said the reason was that everything seemed good to him relative to how bad things were before, so he had to leave in bring in someone else who would feel the need to make things better. Regardless of what you thing of Rudy's term thus far, there is no doubt he now believes this is the best of all possible cities, and there is no need for new ideas.]
I don't believe that. I think that Giuliani has slacked off because of political reality--by law he's a lame duck, so he no longer has to worry about being re-elected, while at he same time he has a strong incentive to mend things with the likes of Pataki.
[As to the latter, if enough of these SOBs were out, there is always a chance that some of their replacements will choose to staff schools and build transit lines instead of staffing and building hospitals.]
Possibly, if they're good. But political office tends to go in cycles of competence/mediocrity, and my guess is that we're in for several years of a mediocrity which we can ill afford.
And while Giuliani hasn't been as pro-active as he was initially, he still runs a tight ship and addresses smaller problems effectively. He deserves credit for that.
The City badly needs a tough guy to continue the fight against the almost mind-boggling assortment of special interests that have Balkanized it. Even Giuliani was unsuccessful at defeating the medical lobby.
They should elect me. A one term mayor, guaranteed--they'd have to ring City Hall with troops.
Would you be willing to allow railfans to ride around the loop once again on the 6?
[Would you be willing to allow railfans to ride around the loop once again on the 6?]
As far as I know, you still can--get off the train and then duck back on!
[We couldn't elect Giuliani mayor a third time if we wanted to.]
My point, and a perfect example of why I oppose term limits. The voters already remove bad mayors after a term or two; term limits simply ensure that we'll remove the good ones as well.
I wouldn't want Guiliani to be around too long. The more you're re-elected, the more arrogant you get. See: Ed Koch.
[I wouldn't want Guiliani to be around too long. The more you're re-elected, the more arrogant you get. See: Ed Koch.]
Did Koch get arrogant, or did his political habits catch up with him? When he was elected, I recall hearing from people who worked for the City (including an unimpeachable source, my mother) that he'd brought back patronage in a big way--that the word came down that the borough presidents were to get everything they wanted, etc. Morale plummetted among those who cared more about their work than politics.
I'm not aware of any evidence that Koch himself was corrupt, but that sort of cronyism eventually led to the scandals that cost him his popularity.
Koch was all about image: he wanted the city to look good, even if it was falling apart on the inside. Do we all not forget those metal "fake" painted windows that were installed in abandoned buildings back in the 1980's? He constantly takes credit for the subway's resurgance under his administration, even though it was Cuomo who deserved that.
Patronage is common to every mayoral administration. It's a way of life that no man/woman will ever change. Koch's administration merely had more members caught engaging in such activities.
[Koch was all about image: he wanted the city to look good, even if it was falling apart on the inside. Do we all not forget those metal "fake" painted windows that were installed in abandoned buildings back in the 1980's? He constantly takes credit for the subway's resurgance under his administration, even though it was Cuomo who deserved that.]
Koch had to get at least some of the credit for the subway's improvement. Better policing was a major part of the improvement, and that was within his scope of responsibility. He also promoted a sense of "civil behavoir" that played a big part - for example, he made it clear that graffiti was destructive vandalism rather than "art," and that reduced the public tolerance for it.
[Koch was all about image: he wanted the city to look good, even if it was falling apart on the inside. Do we all not forget those metal "fake" painted windows that were installed in abandoned buildings back in the 1980's? He constantly takes credit for the subway's resurgance under his administration, even though it was Cuomo who deserved that.
Patronage is common to every mayoral administration. It's a way of life that no man/woman will ever change. Koch's administration merely had more members caught engaging in such activities.]
Koch stopped the City's slide, and took on some special interests--when he wasn't selling out to them.
Not all administrations are the same from a patronage or political angle. Koch's was *very* much on the sleazy side--something that never really makes it into the papers, but was well known to those who worked in the higher levels of City government, and had to live with the frequently demoralizing results.
Compare for example Koch's todying to his friends in the taxi industry with Giuliani's strong action to clean it up. Result: you couldn't even hail the filthy cabs in the Koch administration because they were off taking radio calls, the drivers never took you where you wanted to go, you had to fear for your life when you crossed the street. All of that changed under Giuliani, for the simple reason that he cared more about improving things than keeping an industry and a famously corrupt agency happy.
I think the only reason Kock "saved" this city was just getting elected, thus removng the incompetant Abe Beame. As for actually doing anything, I don't know ...
Koch's favorite line was "How'm I doing?", becasue he only cared about himself. If anyone benifited from his policies, that was secondary to him. The reason he hates Rudy so much is that Rudy (love him or hate him) does care about the city and the people who live here. Rudy has taken on things that no other mayor ever had the guts to do, (taxi industry, Fulton Fish Market, etc). Koch and his ego, can't stand Rudy's success.
i always found it funny on his old WABC call in show that he felt Rudy could not be a great mayor becuae to be a great mayor you have to be loved by the people. Mabey Koch has a selective memory, but one thing he was not, was loved by most of the people.
I don't doubt he was popular. He's a likeable guy. But compared to Rudy, Koch achieved nothing substantial during his reign.
Rudy's first term might have been better than Koch's first term, but Koch's first two terms were better than Rudy's second. All Rudy has done is pick fights and hand out cash to his friends.
In the 1980s, when the economy boomed, infrastructure investment and public school spending went up under Koch, and debt went down. Rudy continues to pile on the debt, and has kept transportation and school spending low relative to income (right where Josh would say it should be, because the people in those schools and trains don't deserve much anyway).
In short, for the issues I care about, Koch was better than Rudy. Rudy is much better on other issues, but he's stopped being an asset and started being a liability.
I thought Koch's best term was his first. Remember for a while he was "Rudy light" -- standing up to some of the special interest groups, in part because he had Felix Royatan and the financial control board supervising the spending of the city. Koch could say "no" because with the city coming out of bankruptcy, there really wasn't any extra money to spend.
Also, remember Koch wasn't supposed to win the Democratic primary for mayor, Bella Abzug was. Koch beat her in part because he came out in favor of the death penalty for certain crimes, and was accused of being insensative to the downtrodden of society. Sounds a lot like Rudy's current flap about the homeless, doesn't it?
[I thought Koch's best term was his first. Remember for a while he was "Rudy light" -- standing up to some of the special interest groups, in part because he had Felix Royatan and the financial control board supervising the spending of the city. Koch could say "no" because with the city coming out of bankruptcy, there really wasn't any extra money to spend.
Also, remember Koch wasn't supposed to win the Democratic primary for mayor, Bella Abzug was. Koch beat her in part because he came out in favor of the death penalty for certain crimes, and was accused of being insensative to the downtrodden of society. Sounds a lot like Rudy's current flap about the homeless, doesn't it?]
Agreed. We seem to have forgotten that Koch spent a lot of energy fighting some of the excesses and interests that Giuliani tackled more successfully later on.
That business about the homeless is obscene. What in the world is wrong with asking someone to work? The homeless consist of three sometimes overlapping groups--dumped mental patients, drug addicts, and people who are down on their luck. The mental patients deserve a simple quadrupartite system--medication on their own if they can hack it, supervised medication if they can't hack that, a halfway program if they can't hack that, and hospitalization for those who still don't respond. The addicts should be given the option of treatment--and if they refuse, they should be locked up, because it's the only thing that will save them. And the merely destitute should be given jobs and housing.
What's so hard about that? It sure beats leaving psychotics to die on the street or sending junkies to Riker's Island.
(Medication for the mentally ill).
One thing no one in this debate seems to mention -- at least in the articles I read -- is that the mentally ill don't want to take their medication. That's based on a couple of family members, cousins and such, who are plagued with that affliction. And its not just because their crazy.
Today's medicine is a blunt instrument. It suppresses inappropriate mental activity by suppressing all mental activity, and making you feel like a zombie. The medication benefits the rest of us by supressing anti-social behavior more than it benefits the mentally ill.
Family members who have to call people to put other family members in the hospital are resented -- for decades. They don't want to go. Between the side effects and the stigma of mental illness, the minute the worst symptoms are gone mental patients desperately want to believe they are "cured." So they stop taking the medication. Sometimes it seems to be episodic -- it comes and goes, so you can stop taking the medication -- sometimes.
The whole thing isn't easy. It just shows how the government is forced to shoot in the dark or err on the side of one type of mistake -- keep too many in, let too many out. Right now, perhaps we let too many out, because its cheaper. Subway therapy. Other states have an even cheaper solution. Greyhound therapy.
[(Medication for the mentally ill).
One thing no one in this debate seems to mention -- at least in the articles I read -- is that the mentally ill don't want to take their medication. That's based on a couple of family members, cousins and such, who are plagued with that affliction. And its not just because their crazy.
Today's medicine is a blunt instrument. It suppresses inappropriate mental activity by suppressing all mental activity, and making you feel like a zombie. The medication benefits the rest of us by supressing anti-social behavior more than it benefits the mentally ill.
Family members who have to call people to put other family members in the hospital are resented -- for decades. They don't want to go. Between the side effects and the stigma of mental illness, the minute the worst symptoms are gone mental patients desperately want to believe they are "cured." So they stop taking the medication. Sometimes it seems to be episodic -- it comes and goes, so you can stop taking the medication -- sometimes.
The whole thing isn't easy. It just shows how the government is forced to shoot in the dark or err on the side of one type of mistake -- keep too many in, let too many out. Right now, perhaps we let too many out, because its cheaper. Subway therapy. Other states have an even cheaper solution. Greyhound therapy. ]
Yes, the antipsychotic medications have some pretty dreadful side effects, although the newer ones are better than the old. Nevertheless, they're all we have, and by the time someone needs them they're frequently not competent to make a decision. I've seen two many horrors that came from deinstitutionalization--including a friend's mother who refused to take her medication and killed herself.
Also, while it may not be PC to say so, it seems to me that we can and should hold *everybody* to a minimum level of responsible behavior. If someone can take care of themselves, fine. But if someone is peeing on the street or threatening people or smoking crack, that behavior is unacceptable, and we have have the right to stop it--even if it means requiring someone to take medication, or locking them up. There are times still when the street feels like an insane asylum.
[Other states have an even cheaper solution (to the problem of the homesless mentally ill). Greyhound therapy.]
Yep, and we all know what city is the destination of those Greyhound buses :=(
[[Other states have an even cheaper solution (to the problem of the homesless mentally ill). Greyhound therapy.]
Yep, and we all know what city is the destination of those Greyhound buses :=( ]
And it may have something to do with the fact that we're the only City to house every homeless person--and that we aren't ballsy enough to take revenge.
[Rudy continues to pile on the debt, and has kept transportation and school spending low relative to income (right where Josh would say it should be, because the people in those schools and trains don't deserve much anyway).]
I don't know why you said that. It should be clear from what I've said here that I'm in favor of higher spending for both transit--to the tune of at least $1 billion/year--and for our schools, which desperately need several billion dollars for improvements to the physical plant and more competitive wages for teachers.
What I am *not* in favor of is spending money where we don't need it, e.g., on token clerks or conductors that we don't need rather than Second Avenue subway builders or teachers that we do. That's pork, it's wasteful, and it hurts people, because the same people who are being paid to do useless jobs could be paid to do useful ones. And I believe that any region that makes itself uncompetitive through taxation is just hurting its own citizens, because that's a zero sum game--it takes real economic activity to boost the fortunes of people in an area, not a British Disease shell game.
And as to what people "deserve," I think I've also made it clear that I believe in doing *more* for the poor, not less. But our current anti-poverty programs are perpetuators of poverty rather than enders of it.
(Business is a plus sum game)
So I would have argued. But recent figures suggest that tax revenues are going down from individual you're my pal you don't have to pay taxes deals. We've become very competitive for businesses that either dodge their taxes, or cut a "retention deal." We are very uncompetitive for businesses starting out without favors.
Here's the point -- people who demand tax reductions are not satisfied when taxes are reduced. Its ideology, not arithmetic. Just as the poverty industry is not satisfied by the fact that it gets more here than elsewhere. It's never enough.
[So I would have argued. But recent figures suggest that tax revenues are going down from individual you're my pal you don't have to pay taxes deals. We've become very competitive for businesses that either dodge their taxes, or cut a "retention deal." We are very uncompetitive for businesses starting out without favors.
Here's the point -- people who demand tax reductions are not satisfied when taxes are reduced. Its ideology, not arithmetic. Just as the poverty industry is not satisfied by the fact that it gets more here than elsewhere. It's never enough.]
I agree 95%. Rather than cutting deals, we should cut taxes moderately across the board. I say 95%, because there may indeed be some cases where a locality attempts to lure a major employer with a tax break, and it's genuinely in the City's interest to keep it.
Another consideration--even if a tax break results in a net decrease in government revenues, it can benefit the people of the City. The size of government may have to decrease because tax revenues do, but the people who work for the company do well. Our only goal can't be the maximization of tax revenue.
(Maximization of taxes is not the only goal.
How "competitive" are you willing to be, Josh?
Here's one for us parents. They have these optional categories of Medicaid spending called "home health care" and "personal care": the latter is basically maid and personal shopper service for elderly who cannot take care of themselves. Most states do not offer these services. They reason that the elderly will avoid a nursing home unless they have no choice, but will be thrilled if a doctor says they can have a maid and a personal shopper. These categories are responsible for most of the Medicaid growth, and the city and state pay 50 percent. We're talking billions.
Here's the kicker -- New York State accounts for half the national spending in these categories! The formerly middle class elderly, who gave their money to their kids who moved out of state and are now considered poor, have a pretty good deal. What do you say? Cut them and about 30,000 members of local 1199 off? Or do the easy thing -- continue to spend far less than average on schools and transit (they won't miss it anyway)?
Low taxes aren't the only goal either.
[How "competitive" are you willing to be, Josh?
Here's one for us parents. They have these optional categories of Medicaid spending called "home health care" and "personal care": the latter is basically maid and personal shopper service for elderly who cannot take care of themselves. Most states do not offer these services. They reason that the elderly will avoid a nursing home unless they have no choice, but will be thrilled if a doctor says they can have a maid and a personal shopper. These categories are responsible for most of the Medicaid growth, and the city and state pay 50 percent. We're talking billions.
Here's the kicker -- New York State accounts for half the national spending in these categories! The formerly middle class elderly, who gave their money to their kids who moved out of state and are now considered poor, have a pretty good deal. What do you say? Cut them and about 30,000 members of local 1199 off? Or do the easy thing -- continue to spend far less than average on schools and transit (they won't miss it anyway)?
Low taxes aren't the only goal either.]
I don't know the situation of the majority of elderly people who receive home care, but my grandmother had it, and it was far from a luxury--life was a constant struggle for her even with the program, and the only alternative was a nursing home. My understanding to the program is it's justification is that it's less costly to care for an elderly person that way than in a home, but that may no longer be true, and if it's not I'd say it should be eliminated--not because I don't believe in it on a compassionate basis, but because I don't think the City can go it alone on this sort of program without hurting its average resident more than it helps him, and because I don't think it's being delivered in the most efficient way. (I might add that from the perspective of the elderly the service is inadequate and wasteful. There are all sorts of silly rules--for example, the helper doesn't have to stand on a ladder, as if the old person could do that herself!)
Conversely, this is a perfect illustration of the kind of area that could be staffed at no cost by some of the hundreds of thousands of people the City now ignores or pays to do nothing.
I might add that those middle class children who move off and leave Grandma are probably leaving her in part because the government pays. Who wants to make sacrifices when the government will do it for you?
I have to stress again that I don't think that helping the poor is wrong, and I don't think that the country does enough. I just don't think that the City can make up for a national compassion on a local basis without hurting the average resident more than it helps him, and I think that many of the programs we offer on the city and federal level are political boondoggles and counterproductive mistakes.
(In place of a nursing home)
We also spend triple the national average on nursing homes. So all that home health care and personal care spending has not reduced nursing home spending at all. The counter-argument is that those working in these industries are not well paid, and it's an alternative to welfare, and therefore well worth spending 15-20 percent less than average on schools and 20-40 percent less than average on transportation.
Bottom line -- you want cuts, you've got to say who to cut. Right now, services on which our spending is BELOW average get cut first, for the same reason they got below average to begin with -- power.
[We also spend triple the national average on nursing homes. So all that home health care and personal care spending has not reduced nursing home spending at all. The counter-argument is that those working in these industries are not well paid, and it's an alternative to welfare, and therefore well worth spending 15-20 percent less than average on schools and 20-40 percent less than average on transportation.
Bottom line -- you want cuts, you've got to say who to cut. Right now, services on which our spending is BELOW average get cut first, for the same reason they got below average to begin with -- power.]
One of the reasons I'm so in favor of paring government--it just doesn't react to real needs. I can just imagine what would happen to a business that spent triple the national average on anything, even coffee stirrers!
[They have these optional categories of Medicaid spending called "home
health care" and "personal care": the latter is basically maid and personal shopper service for elderly who cannot take care of themselves ... New York State accounts for half the national spending in these categories! The formerly middle class elderly, who gave their money to their kids who moved out of state and are now considered poor, have a pretty good deal. What do you say? Cut them and about 30,000 members of local 1199 off? Or do the easy thing -- continue to spend far less than average on schools and transit (they won't miss it anyway)?]
I'm certainly no defender of New York's Medicaid spending levels, but there are a couple of factors to consider. Home health care and personal care services actually may save money in the long run despite their high cost. That's because these services may (I use the term "may" for a reason, as I don't know for sure) help many elderly people stay out of nursing homes, for a while at least. And there's no denying that nursing home care is monstrously expensive. Connecticut was spending so much Medicaid money on nursing homes that in the early 1990s the state put a moratorium on the construction of new facilities and the expansion of existing ones. Tough business, to be sure, but it was essential to save the state from financial ruin. My point is that keeping people out of nursing homes for as long as possible is absolutely crucial these days. It might well be that NY's special Medicaid services do help achieve that goal, however imperfect they may be.
The second factor ties in with your comment about the elderly who gave their money to the children, who then moved out of state. It may well be - once again, I do not know for sure - that a substantial percentage of NYC's elderly do not have children. I suspect this may be the case because the city's long been dominated, relatively speaking, by single people rather than families (though that's probably been changing). Much of the care for the elderly throughout the country is provided _gratis_ by their children and other relatives. That's probably true especially with respect to the sort of personal care services that cost NYC so much. Without families to rely upon, many of NYC's elderly have no choice but to turn to Medicaid.
[Without families to rely upon, many of NYC's elderly have no choice but to turn to Medicaid.]
Since it's so costly to take care of an elderly person in a nursing home or with home care, most families will avoid it if they can and let the old person go on Medicaid.
Quite frankly, we in this country today dump our old people; in an earlier age, they came to live with us. And yet those with parents old enough to require this sort of care are precisely at the times in their lives when they're at the peak of their prosperity.
[Quite frankly, we in this country today dump our old people; in an earlier age, they came to live with us.]
It's probably unrealistic to expect people today to care for the elderly to the same extent as in years past. Life expectancies may be longer today, but unfortunately the quality of life hasn't increased to the same extent. Many elderly people today linger on for months or years in a steadily deteriorating state, rather than dying relatively quickly as used to be the case (especially in the days before antibiotics, when pneumonia was known as the "old man's friend" for the way it carried off many older folks in a reasonably quick and painless manner before they deteriorated too far). It's one thing to make a home for a healthy, mobile elderly parent. It's another thing entirely to care for a parent who's become bedridden, senile and incontinent - conditions that probably are much more common today than in the past.
Agreed. I had the responsibility for my great-aunt Hilda, of blessed memory, and while I regret that she did not take us up on the offer to move into our home (choosing an assisted-living facility instead) I am glad that, when the time came that she was not able to remain there, we were able to find an excellent nursing home for her. Physically she was in very good shape right up to the end (at the age of 90) but mentally she was back in the New Paltz of her childhood, playing in the yard at 17 S. Chestnut Street and thinking I was her father, or occasionally down in Lynbrook teaching second grade and thinking I was one of her students. For my wife to try and deal with that, along with our three younger children who were still at home (and for a short stretch our older daughter who briefly returned to the nest) would have been way too much.
Until next time...
Anon_e_mouse
[It's probably unrealistic to expect people today to care for the elderly to the same extent as in years past. Life expectancies may be longer today, but unfortunately the quality of life hasn't increased to the same extent. Many elderly people today linger on for months or years in a steadily deteriorating state, rather than dying relatively quickly as used to be the case (especially in the days before antibiotics, when pneumonia was known as the "old man's friend" for the way it carried off many older folks in a reasonably quick and painless manner before they deteriorated too far). It's one thing to make a home for a healthy, mobile elderly parent. It's another thing entirely to care for a parent who's become bedridden, senile and incontinent - conditions that probably are much more common today than in the past]
True--that's often mentioned as a reason for home care/nursing care. But it seems to me that for many elderly people there are many years of in-between functioning. And--here's a question--is it harder to care for an incontinent, bed-ridden elderly person than it is to care for an infant? It seems to me that if there isn't a serious complication such as Alzheimer's, it's easier.
[And--here's a question--is it harder to care for an
incontinent, bed-ridden elderly person than it is to care for an infant?]
Yikes! Are you serious? An infant is tiny and can be picked up and taken wherever you need them to go. A bed-ridden elderly person is a full-size adult! MUCH harder to clean, bathe, change diapers, etc. -- especially if they're not cooperative. Furthermore, the developmental miracle is in reverse. Yes, a drooling incontinent babbling infant is superficially similar to an elderly person with dementia, but with the former you watch the miracle of their acquiring new skills, while with the latter you agonize as they lose skills and you remember what they were. I'm not saying we should abandon our elderly, but don't be so quick to criticize until you've walked the road yourself. And there's no question that modern medicine's "miracles" are making the physically-but-not-mentally alive elder situation more common. Assisted living is probably a better option, and frankly, we as a society should just realize we have to pay for it. If you're opposed to taxes, then how about required savings, based on a percentage of income, which could be passed on to heirs if not used?
[And there's no question that modern medicine's "miracles" are making
the physically-but-not-mentally alive elder situation more common. Assisted living is probably a better option, and frankly, we as a society should just realize we have to pay for it.]
Quite true, of course, but it doesn't explain why NYC spends such vastly greater amounts on care for the elderly than does any other place (meaning less money for transit and much else). While NYC's presumably higher percentage of family-less elderly may be part of the explanation, it can't be anything close to the full reason.
[Quite true, of course, but it doesn't explain why NYC spends such vastly greater amounts on care for the elderly than does any other place (meaning less money for transit and much else). While NYC's presumably higher percentage of family-less elderly may be part of the explanation, it can't be anything close to the full reason.]
I'm beginning to think that we need some kind of law capping our expenditures in any area to the national average. For a billion dollars a year, out of our 37 billion dollar budget, we could have a dream system of transportation. For another billion we could rebuild every school in two years, then hire good teachers and principals at competitive wages.
When I was looking for an apartment a couple of years back I read an article on what the City was spending on apartments for crack addicts I mean the homeless. It was something like $1000 a month, almost as much as it cost then to rent a market rate studio on the Upper East Side.
[Yikes! Are you serious? An infant is tiny and can be picked up and taken wherever you need them to go. A bed-ridden elderly person is a full-size adult! MUCH harder to clean, bathe, change diapers, etc. -- especially if they're not cooperative. Furthermore, the developmental miracle is in reverse. Yes, a drooling incontinent babbling infant is superficially similar to an elderly person with dementia, but with the former you watch the miracle of their acquiring new skills, while with the latter you agonize as they lose skills and you remember what they were. I'm not saying we should abandon our elderly, but don't be so quick to criticize until you've walked the road yourself. And there's no question that modern medicine's "miracles" are making the physically-but-not-mentally alive elder situation more common. Assisted living is probably a better option, and frankly, we as a society should just realize we have to pay for it. If you're opposed to taxes, then how about required savings, based on a percentage of income, which could be passed on to heirs if not used?]
I wasn't talking about elderly people with advanced dementia; that is indeed impossible for the typical family to deal with, and the sort of thing that government should help with--albeit through a different mechanism than the one that is employed today.
But the great majority of the feeble elderly I've seen over the years, the ones who require home care or a nursing home, are not that sick. They're too old to get in the bathtub unassisted, do the pots and pans, mop the floor, change a light bulb. That's the sort of thing a family can do, and traditionally did.
[And I believe that any region that makes itself uncompetitive through taxation is just hurting its own citizens, because that's a zero sum game--it takes real economic activity to boost the fortunes of people in an area, not a British Disease shell game.]
As I've said before, state and local tax burdens have rather little to do with a particular location's competitiveness. Other things being equal, a low-tax city will obviously be more attractive to businesses than a high-tax city - but things are seldom equal. Salary levels are by far the most important factors.
[I think the only reason Kock "saved" this city was just getting elected, thus removng the incompetant Abe Beame. As for actually doing anything, I don't know.]
Well, at least he was competent.
I suspect that Abe Beame would have coasted through as a non-memorable mayor had it not been for the fiscal crisis.
If there's a true villain here, I'd say it was the well meaning John Lindsay. But would he have had support if he'd been tougher?
If there's a true villain here, I'd say it was the well meaning John Lindsay. But would he have had support if he'd been tougher?
For one thing Lindsay came into office with his "Young Turks" claiming that he was going to be the toughest, reformist mayor the city had ever seen.
He wasn't going to have cozy deals with labor, as he accused Wagner of, but was going to cut the Unions down to size. His first victim was to be the TWU. However, Mike Quill (even in death) cut Lindsay down to size.
After that, every time any group in the City asked for more money, Lindsay said the City didn't have it. The group said "find it" and the City always did. This was the proximate cause of the near bankruptcy.
As to having support. By his second election in 1969, he didn't have any to speak of, because the Republicans' Marchi and the Democrats' Procacino split the vote, allowing Lindsay to slip in on the Liberal line, running on a campaign of pure fear.
[For one thing Lindsay came into office with his "Young Turks" claiming that he was going to be the toughest, reformist mayor the city had ever seen.
He wasn't going to have cozy deals with labor, as he accused Wagner of, but was going to cut the Unions down to size. His first victim was to be the TWU. However, Mike Quill (even in death) cut Lindsay down to size.
After that, every time any group in the City asked for more money, Lindsay said the City didn't have it. The group said "find it" and the City always did. This was the proximate cause of the near bankruptcy.]
Basically.
[As to having support. By his second election in 1969, he didn't have any to speak of, because the Republicans' Marchi and the Democrats' Procacino split the vote, allowing Lindsay to slip in on the Liberal line, running on a campaign of pure fear.]
They were both weak candidates, as I recall--they came across as extremists--but that may have been because many in the public hadn't yet grasped the direness of the situation.
[Lindsay's 1969 opponents] were both weak candidates, as I recall--they came across as extremists--but that may have been because many in the public hadn't yet grasped the direness of the situation.
All the alternatives looked so bad in 1969, that ultimately people went with the known quantity--Lindsay. He campaigned on the fact that NYC didn't burn down during his first term, while Newark, Baltimore and others did.
In his second term, he kept handing out the City's money with both fists partly because he had cried "wolf" too long--he said the city was broke, then came up with cash so many times that when it was broke, noone believed him.
Still, Lindsay was reelected with a clear minority of the vote cast.
[All the alternatives looked so bad in 1969, that ultimately people went with the known quantity--Lindsay. He campaigned on the fact that NYC didn't burn down during his first term, while Newark, Baltimore and others did.
In his second term, he kept handing out the City's money with both fists partly because he had cried "wolf" too long--he said the city was broke, then came up with cash so many times that when it was broke, noone believed him.
Still, Lindsay was reelected with a clear minority of the vote cast.]
Not the first time that sort of thing has happened, and a good argument for proportional ballots.
I've always thought that the one bright spot in Lindsay's tenure was that he *did* stave off the riots, walking the streets of Harlem at a time when that was dangerous, letting people know he cared. And during the sanitation strike he did try to hang firm, but Rockefeller intervened illegally to impose a settlement.
[All the alternatives looked so bad in 1969, that ultimately people went with the known quantity--Lindsay. He campaigned on the fact that NYC didn't burn down during his first term, while Newark, Baltimore and others did.]
Of course, NYC *did* burn down in 1977, following the blackout, but by then Lindsay was out of office.
Of course, NYC *did* burn down in 1977, following the blackout, but by then Lindsay was out of office
That was a real kick in the teeth to New Yorkers, as it shattered the self image of NYers all pulling together during a crisis, as in the '65 blackout.
But the destruction was nothing like what a lot of cities experienced during the '60s. I remember riding into Baltimore from the west years after the worst riots--a huge swath of utter devastation.
On the History Channel's series "Wrath of God: Blackouts" they showed the devestation that came from the 77 outage. I had heard about the rioting and looting, and as a 5 yo, I remember having no electricity, but I never realized just how BAD it got. They showed parts of Bushwick and Bed-Stuy that literally had entire blocks burned to the ground. Now I understand why Bed-Stuy looked like London after the blitz as I rode the J train through it when I was younger (late 70's-early 80's).
Only within the last 5-7 years have these neighborhoods recovered. But there are still entire blocks of empty lots that used to have buildings.
"Only within the last 5-7 years have these neighborhoods recovered. But there are still entire blocks of empty lots that used to have buildings."
What a perfect time to build a highway from the Williamsburg Bridge to JFK Airport.
If Vallone runs for mayor in 2001 and one of his opponents is smart enough to put this issue into play, it could get interesting. Would Peter back up his Astoria consituients and risk alieniating way more people around the rest of the city, or would he take a chance that it wouldn't be a "wedge issue" outside of Astoria and go on TV and into print stating his opposition? Or come up with an alternative plan that wouldn't affect Astoria, but would inconcienence other people (like a spur off the 7 along Grand Central Parkway) and one he knew would die a quiet death in 2002?
(Would Vallone oppose the Astoria Line extension if running for Mayor).
An elevated extension would negatively impact those living on two blocks north of Ditmars. I can only hope he is posturing in order to negotiate some form of negotiation or buyout for those affected. Otherwise, he's an idiot.
[If the N were extended to the airport, you'd have Astoria and airport riders together, justifying 4-6 more trains per hour off peak and on. And, as the city's "front-door" service, the N would get the best trains, the best maintenence the most extensive police, everything the best.
When a public hearing was held, not only did people show up to demand that the N not be extended beyond Ditmars, they wanted to get rid of the el they already have. City can't afford a subway? Fine -- get rid of the el anyway!]
Duuuh! Maybe if anyone with an I.Q. score over 85 actually lived in Astoria, they'd have a more reasonable attitude. Astoria may not be a bad area as these things go, but it's hardly Beverly Hills, and I'm sure its property values won't keep rising next time the economy slips a bit. Allowing the airport extension would be an easy way to ensure and increase the area's prosperity at no cost to its residents. But of course, they're too ignorant to realize that. Schmucks.
All I know, people who don't use this line everyday don't understand the amount of stress involve when you have to ride an extremely crowded train.
Again, the only solution is to cut back the R (they have the alternative, the G), then turn some N trains at 14th Street.
N Broadway Line
Everybody who rides the B, D, Q, E, F, R, and the East side IRT suffer more than anyone from Astoria riding the N. Let's get some perspective here. It takes 12 minutes to get from Astoria to Lexington Ave. It takes 14 minutes to get from Astoria to Grand Central (with a change to the 7 at Queensboro Plza.). It takes D and Q trains 20 minutes just to get from Dekalb to W4St. during the rush hour.
Those of you who regularly use the 4/5/6 to commute into Manhattan can aptly describe your horror as well.
[Those of you who regularly use the 4/5/6 to commute into Manhattan can aptly describe your horror as well.]
The Lexington Avenue is a horror. In some of these cases it's not even an issue of comfort, but violations of basic safety--platforms that are so overcrowded that somebody will eventually be pushed in front of a train.
Everybody who rides the B, D, Q, E, F, R, and the
East side IRT suffer more than anyone from Astoria
riding the N. Let's get some perspective here. It
takes 12 minutes to get from Astoria to Lexington
Ave. It takes 14 minutes to get from Astoria to
Grand Central (with a change to the 7 at Queensboro
Plza.). It takes D and Q trains 20 minutes just to
get from Dekalb to W4St. during the rush hour.
Those of you who regularly use the 4/5/6 to commute
into Manhattan can aptly describe your horror as
well.
[Everybody who rides the B, D, Q, E, F, R, and the
East side IRT suffer more than anyone from Astoria
riding the N. Let's get some perspective here. It
takes 12 minutes to get from Astoria to Lexington
Ave. It takes 14 minutes to get from Astoria to
Grand Central (with a change to the 7 at Queensboro
Plza.). It takes D and Q trains 20 minutes just to
get from Dekalb to W4St. during the rush hour.
Those of you who regularly use the 4/5/6 to commute
into Manhattan can aptly describe your horror as
well.]
Man, you haven't had the Lexington Avenue as your main line. Talk about horrors!
Sorry--while I agree that the N has become inexcusably sluggish, I lived on the East Side for many years and the Lexington Avenue was a true horror. The overcrowding on the 7th Avenue and the crosstown E, F are probably second in terms of hazardous overcrowding, but at least the lines function, unlike the Lexington Avenue which is so far beyond capacity that it suffers constant delays.
This goes way beyond inconvenience--there are places in these lines that are a frank safety hazard, because someday people are going to be pushed onto the tracks.
I don't even agree that the N is "inexcusably" sluggish. Could it use more service? Yes. But that could be said of a lot of other lines as well.
Perhaps if they stopped blocking the extension to Laguardia, then the Astoria line would gain more importance. Until then, Astoria residents can't whine about the city ignoring their needs when they themselves ignore the city's need for rail access to our airports.
[I don't even agree that the N is "inexcusably" sluggish.]
That's at the downtown/Brooklyn end--so is the R.
[Perhaps if they stopped blocking the extension to Laguardia, then the Astoria line would gain more importance. Until then, Astoria residents can't whine about the city ignoring their needs when they themselves ignore the city's need for rail access to our airports.]
I think LGA should tie into the Amtrak line, anyway. What we really need is one stop service between GCT/Penn/a downtown station and the airports.
The most reasonable way to do that would be to build a modern extension to the N that would allow the tracks to do double duty. What are we talking about, 1-1/2 miles? That's only a few hundred million as a *subway*--no el to ruin a street, and construction cost could be shared by the MTA and the airport.
As to the sevice issue--one word, automation. Two minute headway at off peak hours. "Trains" made of individual cars that change length dynamically to avoid excessive wear and energy costs. Meawhile, why do I always hear this stuff about the MTA not having enough cars? Seems to me they're always retiring old ones. How much would it take to mothball the most recently retired model?
The Astoria line only carries one-sixth the number of pasasangers that the Queens Blvd. line does. The reason that the R appears underused is because it has more trains assigned to it during rush hours, and that the people riding it almost always use it for one purpose: to get to 59th/Lexington. Most other destinations in Manhattan are more quickly accessed by the E and F. N passangers have no choice other than the 7.
"N passangers have no choice other than the 7."
No ChrisR, it is the other way around. The N is the choice for 7 riders entering Manhattan. Notice, the first stop is in Manhattan. These dummies (7 riders) rather stuff themselves in an already crowded line than to endure a few exta stops.
"The reason that the R appears underused is because it has more trains assigned to it during rush hours, and that the people riding it almost always use it for one purpose: to get to 59th/Lexington Avenue."
The "Queens Corridor Study" already stated the reason why the R line is underused. IT'S SLOWER!!!!! And, as for 59th Street station being a transfer point for the R riders, that does not compare to the E/F 51st Street connection. In other words, the E/F transfer is more popular than the R line for reason I just outlined.
Sometimes I wish they get rid of the R line and replace it with the F. That way they can run more N trains.
N Broadway Line
Two things:
The R line is not underused. It's more heavily used than the N. Anything you might have that says otherwise is dead wrong.
The Lexington/59th transfer is used by more Queens Blvd. riders than the E/F connection at 51st. The layout of the transfer, and long escalators have made using the R more palatable. You can also get express trains at 59th, not just slow locals at 51st. The Lexington/53rd. station seems to handle more passangers only because it has limited exits and is located right underneath the CityCorp building.
Here's an idea: Have all N trains skip Queensboro Plaza during the peak rush. Let the & riders suffer their way into Manhattan via the "long route".
I'm very interested in who authored this study you keep quoting. I'm curious as to the agenda the authors have, since it makes blatantly incorrect assumptions.
[On this website there's a report about each line and how they are affected by crowds. The E/F are on the top, while the N and 7 are very close behind. ]
Searched through this website, but didn't find it.
I'd be glad if s.o. could post the URL.
Thanks a lot :)
THANK YOU MRLYLE!
CHRISR,
I WILL FIGHT ANY IMPROVEMENTS ON THE R LINE UNLESS THE N IS INCLUDED.
N BROADWAY LINE
Thank you. That's a perfectly good example of how rampant NIMBYism kills progress. I'm not gonna benefit from this idea, so why should anyone else. Jeez ...
Any "R" train terminating at Whitehall should be signed up as "W", not "R", if possible although I would love to see an "EE" for old times sake.
Wayne
Isn't the "W" route reserved for the Astoria, not Queens Blvd. line? That's what the roll signs on the R32/38 say.
The R-44/46 electronic signs have it as Queens Blvd. service also. It can go to any BMT line and terminal accessible to the Broadway line.
Any route can be programmed into those signs. But the mechanical rollsigns have only Astoria "W" service, meaning that the TA was only seriously considering it running from Ditmars Blvd.
I guess at the time the signs came out, that was their thinking. But on the electronic signs, they expanded it, since there is much more "space" in a data bank than there is on a physical roller curtain
That's another reason electronic is better.
An EE of R-16s, right?
I hope not
To be more in tune with the period of the EE (the late 60s, early-mid 70s)it would have to be an out-of-service EE of R-16s, rocking back and forth with its horn blaring as it passes you going through the station on the way to the Jamaica shop.
Actually, I was thinking more along the lines of an EE of shiny, new R40M's, with the big Orange sign and their Brake Test numbers on.
Unfortunately, most of the "EE"s were R-6 and R-7s (initially), then R-16s afterwards.
Wayne
"Actually, that could be done now. Many many months ago I suggested in here that the TA double the number of R trains that
run during a typical weekday. Instead of 10 minute headways during the midday hours, run them at 5 minute headways,
terminating alternate R trains at Whitehall St. Cut back the G to Court Sq 24/7 right now (don't wait for the 63rd. St.
connection to open). You'd double the amount of Manhattan bound local service in Queens and you'd increase service on the
Broadway line by 33% (at least north of Whitehall). This would provide the Bway BMT with the same number of trains that
serve the 6th Ave. express:"
THIS IS NOT FAIR!!!!!!! THE N IS THREE TIMES AS CROWDED!!!!!!
N BROADWAY LINE
Coming in from Queens? I don't think so. The R carries more people during the rush than does the N. N trains on six-minute headways coming from Astoria is perfectly adequate.
2 problems: The TA doesn't have enough cars to do this, plus the N riders will scream about "all those R trains." As it is, an R rider will claim there are more N trains, and the N riders claim there are more R trains.
Reducing the G fleet in half and limiting their trains to 4 cars, plus cutting F service slightly would create more cars to do this, but I'm not sure if that's enough. As for N riders, who cares? This plan has nothing to do with them, and as long as N service remains intact, they shouldn't even be worrying about it.
"As for N riders, who cares? This plan has nothing to do with them, and as long as N service remains intact, they shouldn't even be worrying about it."
Shut Up!
N Rider
So basically you admit defeat by ChrisR in your argument?
The "N" is the Sea Beach and as you can tell from my name above I am always concerned when any change even hints at a change on my line. It's bad enough that the Sea Beach can't traverse over the Manhattan Bridge until God knows when, and that the stations in Brooklyn look like a leftover of World War II, but it seems that whenever there is a major change in routes or the opening of new connections it seems the Sea Beach (Broadway Express) gets it in the shorts. So for you Mr. N. keep it up and keep us informed out here if the TA plans any more shafting of my favorite line. And by the way, since the Brighton Line has been refurbished with new stations and new coats of paints, let's see some of that on the Sea Beach line as well. It's long overdue.
The 2000-2004 Capital Plan has plans for "minor rehabs" to 4 Brighton Line stations (mostly the concrete flooring). I think the major rehabs are coming in the following Plan.
I didn't recall seeing anything for any of the stations in the Sea Beach open-cut in Brooklyn.
They need more than just cosmetic work though. The concrete is peeling because (if I'm paraphrasing correctly what I heard on a tour of that line a year ago) it was an inferior type that was used which is not well-suited to ocean breezes. Seems that the salt air, even a distance from the beach, is part of the reason why the concrete is chipping. The Brighton Line suffers from it too, but not as extensively.
--Mark
They need more than just cosmetic work though. The concrete is peeling because (if I'm paraphrasing correctly what I heard on a tour of that line a year ago) it was an inferior type that was used which is not well-suited to ocean breezes. Seems that the salt air, even a distance from the beach, is part of the reason why the concrete is chipping. The Brighton Line suffers from it too, but not as extensively.
Inferior concrete? I think it held up quite well for 85 years. Salt will eat away at anything.
I thought that they just rehabed the Brighton Stations a few years ago. I think in 95 or 96
Mostly the station canopies, I think. Some of the station entrances and stairwells, too, but not much done to the flooring. Ave J (Manhattan-bound) still has a noticible dip in part of the platform.
--Mark
I think respective to other lines and even the concrete used in the open cut sections, it is "inferior". Church Ave on the Brighton Line suffered this same type of problem for a while, too. Most of the concrete beams have either been constantly repainted or surrounded with metal now.
--Mark
I've been told that the concrete used there was believed to be better at the time it was poured than what had been available before, but in actuality was worse - the folks who concocted the mixture made a couple of erroneous assumptions about the reaction of the ingredients in the aggregate. I'm no chemist, but it was something on the order of "if some of this ingredient is good then more is better", which turned out not to be the case.
Until next time...
Anon_e_mouse
Being that I live in the Astoria area, we really don't have any other alternative. Yes, I can take a bus to the G/R or Q train stations, but that's to much extra time.
What I suggest to the TA is to cut the running time on the R train to 7 minutes during rush hours and 10 minutes midday. On the other hand, increase the N's running time to 4 minutes during rush hours and 8 minutes other times. As for the M line, 10 minutes will be good for that line. Not too many people ride it.
ChrisR,
I'm really sorry for my vigor behavior, however, sometimes you take it too far. I have to deal with an extremely over crowded train every morning. A lot of times I'm telling people to say excuse me, or can you watch wear your stepping. It's really frustrating.
The R isn't as bad because the line share the same tracks with the G. That isn't the case with the N. People have alternatives, we don't. And for some reason, when an alternative is available (Queensboro Plaza), most of the 7's people get on our train; making it even more crowded.
Your practically on top of people. That along is too much for me, especially some of the F who don't believe in taking baths everyday.
By the way, thanks for the support SeaBeach.
N Broadway Line
Astoria Division
I know the N is crowded. But the Manhattan Bridge problems limit the amount of service you can run along that line.
And to be quite honest, the R train in Queens is more important than the N train. It carries more riders. I know that sucks if your an N rider, but it's true.
If I had my way, I'd add a few more "N" fill-ins during the rush hours, turning them around at 34th St.
It was not bogus. I can't tell you how many time during that period I had to wait at Union Tpke. going home for between 10 to 15 minutes to wait for an R to go one stop to Van Wyke Blvd. Sure, it didn't occur every day, but at least two time each week. Perhaps it was due to delays in Brooklyn or Manhattan, I don't know. If the service had been better, there would not have been such an outcry about it.
I agree R service is most unreliable, but people cried about 15 minute delays almost every day, something which is impossible. That's why I wouldn't restore F express service unless there were at least 2 lines running local to 179th (like the R and the new 63rd. St. train I layed out in another post).
could somebody tell me where this thread starts?
It only takes about 30 seconds longer to terminate the train at 71st than to close it up an any other stop. Going in that direction, the train is usually almost empty by the time it gets to 71st. Most passangers get on at Roosevelt and get off somewhere in between. I don't believe that too many passengers get on at the local stops in the morning to go into Jamaica. Some do but not that many.
As for the Q and the R interchanging at 71st going towards Manhattan, I have seen both R and G trains pull in and leave in less than 30 seconds, so I don't see it causing a big delay. No worse than when the F sits at 75th Avenue waiting for an E to clear.
"The F will stay express in Queens and the Q will go local to avoid having to have the F crossover to the local track at Queens Plaza and cause potential delays on the N line.
Not on sixth avenue.
N Broadway Line
Sorry. I meant the R.
Also, if an E express was coming in from Roosevelt to QP and an F local had just left 36th St. inbound, one of those trains would have to wait outside QP for the other to enter, creating a potential delay in the AM rush.
Where did you get you information? The word here has been that no final decision has been made on service patterns.
No plan has been decided on yet. This is mere speculation. What that person said was probably the most logical service plan out there. But nothing is definate.
I too have heard from my TA friends that no plan has been finalized. One interesting thing they've said, however, is that if the physical connection is ready before they have enough cars to begin regular service, the 63rd street connection may be used for temporary (G.O.) or emergency reroutes on an as-needed basis.
My comment was based on the track configuration and what would cause the fewest delays. The design is most efficient if the 53rd St. tunnel handles the Queens express trains, becuase that avoids having a crossover east of Queens Plaza.
But the MTA has done stranger things in the past, so we'll just have to see what happed two years from now.
This has been discussed ad nauseum. I personally have taken a wait-and-see approach, although I have heard the same proposal you have.
There has been absolutley NO definate plans as to how the new 63rd. St. connection will be serviced. There have been many speculations, but no definate decision. Some have suggested a new 6th Ave. local (V) that runs from Jamaica, via local, through 63rd. st and on down to Church Ave. If the Manhattan Bridge doesn't close, then the Q might be extended past Queensbridge. Nothing is set.
A few things can be said to be a sure bet, even though the decisions on service patterns have yet to be made:
The new 63rd. St. line will run local in Queens. That's a pretty sure bet.
The F will remain as an express.
The G will be permanently cut back to Court Square 24 hours a day.
Anything else is mere speculation.
The service plan I saw is not definite--I never said it was. The TA might not even use the V designation for any service. I agree that the F running local from 179 to Stillwell is a crime!! But that's what I am afraid they are leaning toward. The Q should be the Queens Local. After all it will remain the 6 Avenue & Brighton Express, which should be the D's designation, but that's a debate for another day.
About the only thing we can be sure of is the 63rd St. tunnel being open five years from now is a better bet than the Manhattan Bridge being open five years from now.
That said, the future alignment of the Queens routes could be two lines running via Broadway, with one going to Whitehall and the other through the Montague St. tunnel for all we know.
There is no service plan. Nothing has been decided on by anyone in any official capacity. Any talk of service plans for this connection is mere speculation. This must be one of the most often discussed topics on SubTalk, save for the Manhattan Bridge fiasco.
Agreed, let s just wait and see what happens.there are so many ways for this to happen
"After all it will remain the 6 Avenue & Brighton Express, which should be the D's designation, but that's a debate for another day."
The Q should not remain the 6th Avenue and the Brighton Express. It should operate local all stops. Meanwhile, the D should become the Brighton Express while the F should remain the express in Queens.
N Broadway Line
Why? Having the Q as the Brighton exp. simplifies thing immensly, as the local is ALWAYS the D and the Q is always the express. You don't have to check your watch to see if the D you're on will be local or express.
Besides, the Q designation has almost always been used to denote the Brighton exp., from 1960-67, and 1988-present.
I don't think an extension of the IND was the reason why the lower level was built, though I have the legend you describe and the accompanying story that there's an incomplete tunnel under Ft Washington Avenue that would have been the IND's connection to the GW.
BTW, the lower level of the GW ha sometimes been givem the nickname "Martha" ....
--Mark
I know Baltimore is going to add double-tracking in many places, but I haven't heard anything about residents asking for stations at Ruxton and Riderwood. (I think those stations were in the original plans but were dropped because of community opposition.) Have there been any reports about this in the Baltimore papers? Any links available?
They sure did! They obliterated the west wall of the existing IND, poured a new track bed, put in a new track, then poured themselves a brand new wall to close off the open tunnel.
Wayne
Is there any provision in this configuration for the old Rockaway super-express line--i.e., a way to extend the tunnel tracks straight under the junction with the IND toward Sunnyside and the LIRR ROW, should money ever come raining down from heaven?
I believe that the construction includes what they call a "bellmouth", which is a wye that heads off from the IND connection toward Sunnyside Yards and deadends at the edge of the yards. This was in the Draft Environmental Statement, anyway, when I read it several years ago.
Part of the actual 63rd Street Connector construction was building a huge subsurface retaining wall around Sunnyside Yards, to prevent further migration of plumes of bad pollutants (presumably PCBs and the like) from under the yards into the connector area. You'd have to breach this to build the Super-Express.
Don't hold your breath. But yes, I think there's a wye toward the yards.
I would assume that the V train would be a local. The B and D would run express, and the plan is to send V trains to Church Ave. and restore express on the IND line in Brooklyn.
In another post, I stated that I walk the tunnel from 63rd Street Lexington Avenue to 57th Street 7th Avenue. What I found was a crossover between 6th Avenue and 7th Avenue. And behind the wall was a full station platform with a layup N train.
What everyone sees, or apprears at the Lexington Avenue Station platform is really a double track platform for northbound trains on the top level and South Bound trains on the bottom level. The train coming out of seventh Avenue goes straight to the non used platform, while the sixth avenue trains (in service) goes directly to the used platform. In order for the seventh Avenue train to use the used platform, it must use the crossover track that leads to it.
I did not know this before I walk these tunnels.
I don't know who was fighting me about the Q not going to Queens but to upper Manhattan was absolutely right. I reluctantly overlooked this because I did not really know about the layout.
Other important facts.
The 57th Sixth Avenue station is only serve by one subway line which means, the likelihood of favoring the Broadway line (the 7th Avenue 57th Street station is already served by two other lines (N/R)) doesn't make sense.
---------------
Now that we know the Q will be the new line serving second avenue, what line will be serving the 63rd connection into Queens Blvd? As you all know, the B is designated for 168th Street (unless they are going to create a second B like before), the D is designated for the Bronx, and the F uses the 53rd Street tunnel.
As I see it, only the F is a good candidate for the 63rd route. Will the E soon be the only express line on this route? Also, can it handel the crowds the way both trains do now? And lastly, will the E running on a 2 minute headway (during rush) affect the service on the C line if the MTA decides to implement this plan?
Thank you all for your comments.
N Broadway Line
Your Yellow is very hard to read on a white backround
Your Yellow is very hard to read on a white backround
I agree. Use gold in your HTML instead. Its darker and more readable.
Thanks BMT,
N Broadway Line
Old Color
N Broadway Line
To: E 8Av Express Local, Is this better, with the yellow letters in a black table?? Us WebTV people HAVE to be good at HTML since we don't have computers, so we can never use ANY program!!! We have to do it ourselves!!!
Don't you need a Java compiler to make Java applets?
Don't you need a Java compiler to make Java applets?
Sure do, but all you need is notepad to configure existing ones to suit your needs.
So did you make this applet or did you get it somewhere? I read the example.led script.
So did you make this applet or did you get it somewhere? I read the example.led script.
If you read the script, then you know that I didn't make the applet. LED Sign is in the public domain. I don't remember where I downloaded it from, but you can download the original zip file HERE if you want to play with it.
much better, maybe one shade darker
I still think this gold should be used on both maps and signs, with white letter, instead of making it orangey.
Perhaps Mr. N train is not the only one who needs to adopt a new color scheme. They TA should make the yellow on the map a little darker, and do the same for the orange if the two are getting too close.
Gold? If you are familiar with the state of the stations on the 4th Avenue line in Brooklyn, perhaps you'd agree that gold would be cause for derision.
How's this, Bob?
May High School Color Combo. I have to figure how to do it when I use this mode and e mail
Not really. The F runs alone in Brooklyn, yet is almost as crowded as the F in Queens. Queens passangers have other options (E/R).
Actually, 75 footers probably could run on the K now, if it went to Eastern Pkwy or Canarsie. The problem curve near Marcy was rebuilt and eased, and the rest of the way would be for the most part straight. Still, you would need shorter that 600ft trains, so they will probably never try the K in rush hours again. (It would be better for weekends, though, especially during bridge closures where it could provide the service on 63rd St.)
So, basically, it comes down to this: What East River BMT/IND crossings (below the Williamsburg) have capacity, and how much for each? The Cranberry tunnels could always be used for some F service, and the Montague tunnels could always be used for some BDQ service, and there's still the Rutgers...
How many trains can fit on a single two-track line, per hour? And are the numbers in the FAQ (trains per line) still accurate?
[So, basically, it comes down to this: What East River BMT/IND crossings (below the Williamsburg) have capacity, and how much for each? The Cranberry tunnels could always be used for some F service, and the Montague tunnels could always be used for some BDQ service, and there's still the Rutgers...]
As far as I know ... Rutgers has a decent amount of available capacity, while Montague has very little and Cranberry none.
"Cranberry"
Who uses Cranberry?
N Broadway Line
The A and C trains.
subfan
Why is the tunnel called Cranberry? I thought it was the Fulton Street tunnel.
[Why is the tunnel called Cranberry? I thought it was the Fulton Street tunnel.]
Most of the tunnels between Manhattan and Brooklyn are known by the names of the streets they underlie on the Brooklyn side. They are Cranberry and Montague (BMT/IND), Clark and Joralemon (IRT). The one exception is the tunnel used by the F train, which is called Rutgers after the street it underlies on the Manhattan side.
One might add that the 14th Street, 60th Street, 63rd St and Lexington tunnels are based on the street on the Manhattan Side. Is it 161st Street on both sides of the tunnel? And what is that #2 train tunnel called?
The #2 tunnel is the Clark Street Tunnel. The 42nd St. Tunnel is the Steinway Tunnel. The Lexington Tunnel you refer to, is that the E & F trains? If so, its the 53rd St. Tunnel.
Why the tunnels use the Brooklyn Street names is beyond me. The A & C may be the Cranberry Tunnel, but I think Fulton Tunnel is much easier to remember.
And your right, the 14th Street Tunnel also connects Manhattan with Brooklyn, and gets the Manahattan Street name, same as the Rutgers.
The #2 tunnel is the Clark Street Tunnel.
I bet Larry was asking what the tunnel at the OTHER end of the # 2 train is called ... the one that passes from Harlem after the 135th St. station to connect to the Hub in the Bronx.
And even if he didn't mean that ... I'd like to know if it has a name.
It is the 149 Street Tunnel built of two cast iron tubes in concrete. At its deepest it is 50 feet below Mean High Water and the tubes are 650 feet between shafts. It opened on July 10,1905.
Larry,RedbirdR33
Maybe they were given from the name of the street they started building from, some from Man, others from BK and Queens.
All tunnels were built from each end and were linked in the middle.
It has room for one of the 3 lines that now uses the bridge. It cannot take all 3 or even 2.
Everyone's forgetting that the policy has been not to send the B&D anywhere south of 34th during closings, so all you would have to deal with is the F and the Q (—if Rutgers is connected), or whatever replaces the Q (most likely the V). In either case, both services would be 15 tph each.
What they also plan to do (if Rutgers not built) is send the E to the Rockaways, the A local to Euclid, and the C to WTC. This would actually open up space in WTC for additional 6th Av. local trains, but they never mentioned anything like that in the plans. The B & D always go to 34th.
Actually, B gets cut back to Pacific Street or 36th Street when the bridge is closed.
Dont be surised if the N was cut back to Pacific should the bridge have to close completely. More passangers use the West End line.
Dont be surpised if the N was cut back to Pacific should the bridge have to close completely. More passangers use the West End line
Nothing that the TA does surprises me anymore. If the N is cut back to a Pacific-Stillwell run, I guess that would free up the Montague St. Tunnel to take maybe a T-Train on the West End? They'd probably still designate it "B". Yeah! Have Q and T running through Montague and have D and F running through Rutgers. That would probably solve the bottleneck problems.
Being that they did make provisions on the new Franklin Shuttle for double tracking to Fulton and extension of the platforms (albeit with some work) , you increase the Shuttle to 30 tph., shunting many Brighton riders to Fulton St (as well as the IRT), reduce the Q, (so Brighton riders would still have their access to all 3 divisions)and then you would have more room in the Montague tunnel to squeeze in West End service.
Rather than try to make some kind of DeKalb-Rutgers connection, when they were re-building the shuttle, they should have dropped the Fulton St. end down below grade (possibly into a tunnel) to facilitate a future direct through trackage connection to the Fulton Street A and C lines - kind of like the original Franklin-Fulton El connection. Yes, a connection would be expensive, especially considering all the track underpinning necessary to avoid grade crossings, but once they were already completely rebuilding the shuttle, they could have at least put its end underground to make this a one-day, future-type possibility.
subfan
A Fulton St connection was one of the East River Crossings alternatives, but it was ruled out early on as too disruptive to the community as well as expensive. It could not make that sharp turn from Franklin to Fulton, so the entire line north of Park Pl would have to be realigned to the west, cutting through much property (It would all be below ground).
Grand Street could also be used as a terminal for the upcoming 63rd St connection if the Manhattan Bridge were to close. There'd be no need for a special shuttle if you ran, say, a V train from 179th St/Jamaica to Grand St.
--Mark
The only problem is that their is no crossover switch north of Grand, and there isn't room to build one, as the 2 tracks seperate sharply just north of the station.
There is room to the south of Grand St.
why is everyone talking about a "V" Line when the H,K, & T are available again. I know that there were pictures of a V, but only pictures. It would make sense to use lower letters first
What color is the T? What picture of a V?
I saw a picture of a V in a Magazine a few years back, it was in black and white. The T was the old West End, so probably thge color of the Broadway
V is orange, T is only on R-32/38 signs, in black & white. (They need to get new signs with a yellow T for the R-68's, so they can use this letter instead of the B when bridge service closes.)
I don't think they will use the letter T to denote the West End/Bway service when the 6th Ave. side closes. Probably they will use 2 B's like in 86-88.
Yes, V is orange.
Wayne
Dear Bob,
"why is everyone talking about a "V" Line when the H,K, & T are available again. I know that there were pictures of a V, but
only pictures. It would make sense to use lower letters first"
I agree with the above. H will be the most perferable because it is designated as IND and follow a sequence (B, D, F, H (2,4,6,8) A, C, E (1,3,5)). On the other hand, the K (11) can be retain for the BMT Nassau Street Lines replacing the Z (26). A great match for the J (10) , L (12) and M (13).
Broadway Lines: N (14) Q (17) R (18)
2nd Avenue Lines: P (16) T (20)
Crosstown Lines: This might need to be change in the future (G)
Notice, Smaller Letters tend to be the express, while Larger Letters tend to be the Local.
For example, Queens Blvd E/F are express while G/F are local. On the Sixth Avenue lines, the B/D (I don't know where the Q came from) are express and the F is local. 8th Avenue Lines, A is express, while C and E are locals. The N/Q use to be express on Broadway, while the R was the Local. The Brighton Line were also done like this. The M/Q were locals, while the D was the express. The same M is the local via Nassau Street Lines, while the J (I don't know where the Z came from) is express.
N Broadway Line
The problem is that the K and H letters were in use fairly recently and could cause confusion.
Why confusion, it has been a couple years hasn t it since H and K were used. The D and F Change in 54 and 67 did not confuse people.
The Q came from later in the Alphabet. After the IND went to H, I would not show up, so they just continued with J-K-L-M-N-Q-R-T leaving out o looks live zero P to confusing at a distance S-Special. It seems they gave the eastern division higher letters as each set of trains came in. Eastern already had the R 16s so they were changed first. That is what I am assuming
I used the "V" train in a hypothetical sense. You may assign any letter you like.
--Mark
I have a great idea. Rebuild the Manhattan bridge and charge tolls for vehicular traffic. This way the City gets a new bridge that's paid for!
Is there any way to replace the metal parts that are being stressed/fatigued with bearings that would allow them to bend in a controlled manner? Bridges have expansion joints in order to avoid thermal stress, tall buildings are built to sway in the wind, why not joints on the bridge structure (ball-and-socket type?) that will absorb the flexing caused by trains by letting the structure bend?
A properly designed bridge is built so that parts that can flex are placed where the forces encountered in use will tend to cause flexing in the structure. As we know, discussion of properly designed bridges has nothing to do with the MB, except by way of comparison.
The question is: having designed the bridge without the necessary joints, can the bridge be retrofitted?
Is there a civil engineer in the house?
The civil engineers seem to say yes, if you just pay me $100 million more. And yes again, if you just pay me $100 million more. Is there any other 100 year old suspension bridge in the country that has 4,000 trains per week passing over it?
I just can't believe how relatively little press the Manhattan Bridge Fiasco has gotten over this past decade and a half, considering how many people it affects. I wonder how many current subway riders from Manhattan to Brooklyn even know that it used to be just one one stop from Canal St. on the BMT Broadway line to Dekalb Ave. in Brooklyn and that the express tracks on Broadway were ever actually used? Sometimes I think that the "Powers that be" are hoping that, those of us old enough to remember when Brighton, Sea Beach and West End trains used to follow, one right after the other, over the Manhattan Bridge from Canal St., will begin to think that we were just imagining it!
wasn't once considered to tear down the Williamsburg Bridge and rebuild it cause it was in such bad shape? I'm suprised the same wasn't done for the Manhattan Br. Whenever I pass that old bridge it looks worse instead of improving..
If you look closely at the Willie B, you will see that they have been tearing it down -- one section at a time. The Willie B can be seen as having 9 sections: the two auto approaches at each end, the railroad approach at each end, and the Eastbound auto, rail, and Westbound auto parts of the main span. Four of the six approaches have been replaced from scratch. On the main span, the rail part has been scrapped and rebuilt from the main bridge beams up, and substantial (I'm not sure of the details) work has been done on the Eastbound auto part. Not to mention the work that is going on overhead. In short, they are virtually replacing the bridge one piece at a time.
(Threat to relocate to Atlanta or Phoenix if they don't get transit)
Those areas have lower taxes, so the tax threat makes sense. 2nd Avenue or no, our transit is better -- those regions are choking on traffic.
[(Threat to relocate to Atlanta or Phoenix if they don't get transit)
Those areas have lower taxes, so the tax threat makes sense. 2nd Avenue or no, our transit is better -- those regions are choking on traffic.]
Relocation threats don't have to make sense in order to open up the City's checkbook. Conde Nast made some utterly ludicrous off-to-the-Sunbelt threats when they demanded tax breaks for their new tower in Times Square. No one with half a brain seriously thought that the company would try editing _Vogue_ or _Vanity Fair_ out of Denver or Nashville. Didn't matter. The City coughed up the $$$. So, a transit-based relocation threat would work just fine.
Lets think about this. All of us have to pay high taxes, except that whoever the Mayor or Governor (alone without any accountability) decides doesn't have to pay any taxes. Does this sound like an invitation to arbitrary decisions, or worse? You bet it is. My guess is that a lot of these deals are dirty.
The deals are more desperate than dirty. No mayor or governor wants to be responsible for 'losing' a high-profile employer. So the deals get cut. But many lower profile employers in the brokerage and telecommunications industries are moving to places like Jersey City because they can't find or afford decent, modern space in class A buildings in Manhattan.
In the 1950s the Mobil Oil Company supposedly told the city that it wouldn't build it's new HQ at 3rd Ave & 42 St until the 3rd Avenue El came down. The El came down for many reason but the deisre to upgrade 3rd Avenue real estate was the main one. I can't see a major firm taking the opposite stance today - 'We won't build here or locate here until you throw billions of our tax dollars over the next 15 years into this here 2nd Avenue subway'. It just doesn't work that way. You think any executive wants to be in the same room with tax and spend guys like Gene Russianoff and Sheldon Silver? I don't think so.
[In the 1950s the Mobil Oil Company supposedly told the city that it wouldn't build it's new HQ at 3rd Ave & 42 St until the 3rd Avenue El came down. The El came down for many reason but the deisre to upgrade 3rd Avenue real estate was the main one. I can't see a major firm taking the opposite stance today - 'We won't build here or locate here until you throw billions of our tax dollars over the next 15 years into this here 2nd Avenue subway'. It just doesn't work that way.]
It's unfortunate but true that things don't work that way. The reason, as best I can tell, is that businesses can use the Sunbelt Strategy to get direct benefits like huge tax breaks. They've no incentive to seek indirect benefits like transit improvements.
One quibble I have with your post - if a big company did insist on completion of the Second Avenue subway, they'd never accept a 15-year time frame. They would demand - and get - completion in two or three years, tops.
- if a big company did insist on completion of the Second Avenue subway, they'd never accept a 15-year time frame. They would demand - and get - completion in two or three years, tops.
I don't see why it would take 15 years to build a subway line. With the technology that we have today, I don't see why we couldn't have the 2nd Ave. Subway running in 2-3 years. Maybe even 1-2 years.
clearly your vision is not obscured by corruption, criminality, fraud, or'juice.' Consider the following two cases. In the Bay Area we have just celebrated the tenth anniversary of the Loma Prieta 'quake. We are still arguing about 1. what to do with freeway routes in SF, 2. how to re fit the Bay Bridge. And barely 2 years ago the replacement for the east bay freeway wich 'pancaked killing almost all of the victims of the entire quake was finished for $1.2 B OR LA has quake Five freeway segments fail. All are up and running again in six months or less.
The original IRT from City Hall to 145 Street was completed in 1904 after 4.5 years of construction. The 63rd Street Connection from Queensbridge to 36 Street will, when completed in 2001, have taken 7 years to build. This is progress?
[The original IRT from City Hall to 145 Street was completed in 1904 after 4.5 years of construction. The 63rd Street Connection from Queensbridge to 36 Street will, when completed in 2001, have taken 7 years to build. This is progress?]
Government construction of any sort takes an eternity. Not just transit construction. A case in point is the new Baruch College building on Lexington Avenue and 25th Street. It's been under construction for at least two and a half years and still has a long way to go. While it's a big building, about 15 to 20 stories and occupying almost an entire city block, the fact remains that the far bigger Conde Nast building in Times Square was completed in less time.
Business Associations have demanded better transit service, and lower overall taxes, as in the past. But they are weaker than in the past, since "enlightened self interest" doesn't go as far as it did. The louder voices are individual businesses demanding a special deal for themselves. A new subway only helps an individual business a little, even if it helps business in general a lot.
With today's technology, a magazine could be put together thru a server in Jackson Hole, Wyoming by individual editors sited anywhere. HECK, we are using the internet right now.
Yeah, but the editors of Vogue and Vanity Fair would rather DIE than work in Atlanta, Jackson Hole or anywhere other than Manhattan below 96th Street. Printing has already been outsourced to (often non-union) printing plants in the Midwest and Mid-south; subscription services are done mostly in Boulder. So what's left? The business side -- ad salespeople who need to be near their clients the ad agencies, so they gotta be in NYC plus every other city -- and editorial. Conde Nast pretty much couldn't have moved. Peter's right, in the case of Conde Nast anyway. It was a hollow threat.
[With today's technology, a magazine could be put together thru a server in Jackson Hole, Wyoming by individual editors sited anywhere. HECK, we are using the internet right now.]
That's true, of course, but not in all circumstances. I experience something similar at work every day. From an office on lower Fifth Avenue, I edit professional-level online research materials for state taxation in Washington and Wisconsin. Relocating to Madison or Olympia would gain nothing. BUT - what holds true for me wouldn't hold true for fashionable magazines like those that Conde Nast pubblishes. Their writers and editors want to be physically close to the center of things, and in the case of fashion and culture, that's usually New York. And that's why Conde Nast's relocation threat was not serious ... although it worked, of course.
Can we organize?
Can we organize [to get MTA to listen to our ideas]?
Well, sure, assuming we had a leader and could form some kind of consensus to present ideas in a coherent manner.
But, that doesn't mean that MTA would listen.
If you (or any of us) felt personally that we wanted to be activists, the course of least resistence is to join an existing group.
The group that would seem to have the greatest clout is the Straphangers' Campaign of the New York Public Interest Research Group (NYPIRG). They have the advantages of having paid attorneys on staff (meaning they can file lawsuits, which MTA has to listen to, whether they want to or not), they have college-level student volunteers, they're well organized, and they have the ear of The New York Times. See how many times Gene Russianoff is quoted on different transit topics in the Tinmes.
But, even there, probably their biggest "success" was in advocating for the Weekly/Monthly Metrocard passes. But this was something MTA has been wanting to do anyway, as well as offering discounts for buying multiple rides (11 for 10). In fact, Straphangers probably helped grease the wheels for the MTA on this by countering class-based opposition to discounting.
I think Gene even had his picture taken with Gov. Pataki, but if he were to call Pataki tomorrow and say "I and all the members of NYPIRG want you to build the entire Second Avenue Subway now," what do you think Pataki would say? I can think of two distinct possibilities: (1) "Sure, Gene, as soon as NYPIRG loans the State $10 billion at zero interest rate."; (2) "Click."
You might also look at Steve Dobrow's "Committee for Better Transit." They are not as upfront as Straphangers', but have some really good research and ideas.
All that notwithstanding, if the MTA were actually looking to see what ideas were bouncing around, they would have somebody spending a few minutes a day reviewing forums such as this. Do you think they do?
[All that notwithstanding, if the MTA were actually looking to see what ideas were bouncing around, they would have somebody spending a few minutes a day reviewing forums such as this. Do you think they do?]
Does anyone have a feel for the general Internet awareness/usage level at the MTA and its various sub-agencies?
Sure, they all have websites (internally generated, I presume, not jobbed out to agencies?), but could they put together, for example, a program to order MetroCards by mail via the Internet and credit cards? Or is that laughable?
Well, you can order MetroCards online ... not sure who put the site together though.
Until next time...
Anon_e_mouse
I think you have been fooled if you think there is such a thing as an MTA that has independent freedom of action. I'm sure that everyone who works at the MTA is in favor of improving mass transit in every way possible.
But the MTA is controlled by the Governor, period. It's there so the Governor, and everyone else, can be in favor or workers and customers, but against the MTA, with no responsibility for any decisions it makes. Its nonsense.
The Governor's policy is to 1) cut taxes and 2) increase spending on suburban whites that vote Republican while 3) trying to avoid doing so much damage to the city that he kills the Golden Goose. At best, that means improving efficiency here (but not elsewhere in the state). At worst, that means ripping off the workers and cutting where he can.
One way he has done it is to run up the MTA's debt. The MTA may have a "surplus," but it has borrowed like crazy. That's why anything that doesn't happen by 2004 won't happen for another 20 years.
The Governor's policy is to 1) cut taxes and 2) increase spending on suburban whites
Perhaps you can express your relentlessly anti anyone-outisde-NYC feelings without adding race-baiting?
[The Governor's policy is to 1) cut taxes and 2) increase spending on suburban whites that vote Republican while 3) trying to avoid doing so much damage to the city that he kills the Golden Goose.]
Can you really blame him? If he didn't cut taxes, New York's competitive position would plummet and there'd be another wholesale exodus of jobs to other states ... it's happened before and most assuredly could happen again.
As far as the supposed bias in favor of suburban whites is concerned, I don't actually see where that exists. These suburban whites (as well as suburbanites of darker hues) already are being taxed to the hilt for supporting their local governments and, especially, their school systems. Getting some breaks from the state just evens things out a little. And taking things another step, even if Governor Pataki has a pro-suburb, anti-City bias, it's at least partially justified. City voters won't support him, suburban voters frequently will. It's simple human nature to treat your friends better than you treat your enemies.
(Pataki screws NYC because its natural to treat your friends better than hour enemies).
Then what explains the way Democrats treat NYC?
(Pataki screws NYC because its natural to treat your friends better than hour enemies).
Then what explains the way Democrats treat NYC?
Politicians always screw their constituents. They lie to you, so you'll vote for them. Then they kick you where you sit. They do whatever is best for them and their friends, not their constituents.
[(Pataki screws NYC because its natural to treat your friends better than our enemies).
Then what explains the way Democrats treat NYC?]
Democrats don't have to make an effort to treat NYC well because they'll get most votes anyway. In other words, Republicans don't like the city because they get no votes, while Democrats can take it for granted. If there actually were two political parties in the city, both sides would treat it better.
Rudy's a republican There ARE two parties in NYC, THINK and vote your beliefs, Republican or Democrat
The mayor is sort of a political fluke - NYC otherwise remains 100% Democratic, leading to its being left out by both parties.
No, Rudy is not a fluke.
NYC standard politics gets so out-of-hand periodically, that a Reform/Fusion Mayor gets elected, cleans things up to some extent, people get tired of him, then they go back to (relatively cleaned-up)business-as-usual.
It's happened four times is this century alone.
Plus, don't kid yourself--NYC is not ignored--its 40.5% of the State is the tail that wags the dog.
(With 40 percent of the population, NYC is the tail that waggs the dog).
The numbers say otherwise. New York State's policies do reflect the point of view of New York City's politicians, but the rest of the state drives a hard bargain. "We'll go along with all the high cost programs you want, as long as the city pays in more of its share and gets out less of its share." New York City politicians go for it every time. It works the same way at the national level. You wonder why Republicans are so against government spending, since so much of it goes to them.
That's why I fear Hillary. "Sure, we'll agree to universal health care, as long as the state by state funding formula works this way..."
Former Mayor Ed Koch said many times in response to exactly your argument that its untrue. People in NYC pay less than their per capita share into the state coffers, but businesses that pay state taxes pay more.
Those businesses happen to also be located in New York State as well as New York State. The quid pro quo for NYC has been that NYS policies have been to concentrate and encourage business to stay in NYC. This is why you have not seen major successful bids from, say, Long Island or Westchester for City-based businesses as from New Jersey or Connecticut.
I wish New Yorkers could look at some of the truly desperate old manufacturing cities upstate and their struggling school systems that are shut out from the funds they need by New York City's power. Think about that the next time you hear a New Yorker say how compassionate the City is.
[I wish New Yorkers could look at some of the truly desperate old manufacturing cities upstate and their struggling school systems that are shut out from the funds they need by New York City's power. Think about that the next time you hear a New Yorker say how compassionate the City is.]
City residents, especially those from the Upper West Side, *are* the most compassionate people on Earth, but only to a very limited geographic scope. NYC is probably the only place in America where most people would _welcome_ a homeless shelter or drug treatment center to their neighborhood. But this compassion doesn't extend beyond the city limits or indeed beyond Manhattan's limits. To the typical Manhattan resident, Brooklyn Heights or Long Island City is impossibly remote. Those struggling Upstate cities might as well be on Pluto. As a result, the plight of the cities and their inhabitants is simply too remote to interest a Manhattanite.
(Attitudes of Upper West Siders).
I would hesitate to characterize the attitudes of people in any part of the city at this point, so complete has been the turnover in population. If the attitudes of elected officials seem not to change, it is because they are no longer representative, but are merely incumbants entrenched by the political system.
The election of Rudy, and the muted protest as the homeless were swept from the street, represents the attitudes of new residents and compassion fatigue on the part of the old.
More recently, that "stop living off me" attitude is being directed at Upstate and other states. You read and hear this attitute all the time -- read John Tierney's columns in the Times for the most articulate statements. No one is directing people's attention at the real money sponge (ie the health care industry through Medicaid, primarily in the city). But no politician in NYC is going to gain votes advocating helping Upstate, the South, or the poor and homeless here in the city.
The past recession, when the city's economic distress and the whining of its politicians was greeted with sneering elsewhere, and from which the city recovered without any help from anyone, led to a change in attitude that will outlast Rudy. New Yorkers have had the scorn of the rest of the state and nation drubbed into them by politicians and the press, to the point where it may be exaggerated.
Well said; I agree absolutely. And now NYC is getting its revenge.
(I grew up upstate (Rochester), have lived in NYC for 18 years, and now spend weekends upstate (Saugerties). So I see -- and like to think I understand -- both sides.)
NYC is simply more dynamic, faster to respond to business changes (layoffs are a sign of a healthy economic system during a recession, I'm afraid) and still the place where people from around the country and around the world want to come to live and make money. A recent poll in the new media (Internet) industry found that NYC was the number one destinati