Jump to content
Attention: In order to reply to messages, create topics, have access to other features of the community you must sign up for an account.

Eric B

Veteran Member
  • Content Count

    3,332
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

979 Excellent

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I don't even know why they're still talking about LCD, unless it's for the FIND screen. LED's have gotten small enough to be like large TV pixels. Look closely at the large wall screen in the Apple store by BAM. That would be perfectly fine for the destination signs.
  2. OK; I know the R9's were probably the ones stored on the tracks leading to the museum. I heard about those being moved and scrapped. But I thought I had also heard something about a bunch of 32's. Maybe 3616 was what I had heard of?
  3. Weren't there a bunch of cars that were scrapped accidentally for some dumb reason? That might be what the 32's and/or 42's you're talking about were.
  4. The shuttle that ran from Rock Park, to Euclid, then to Far Rock.
  5. Like the Grand Central Shuttle fire, but that started in the station, I believe.
  6. There was actually a rumor about that floating around. But I didn't see how they would be able to do that, as the jobs are completely different.
  7. Being caught behind this many times, I've said they should extend only the ones actually laying up (not simply relaying back in service). And they could run down the express to Parsons where they are not in the way of anything else, then get everyone off, and then use the switches to head back to the yard or the layup positions. (though I think they've gone back to running the 179 's down the express, and I thought of this at a time when they all were dropping out at Kew Gardens. Still, it would be much less disruptive than the local track at Continental).
  8. WOW! Never heard of the being diverted anywhere past the BWJ platform itself!
  9. Don't know why there's all this talk of the 160's going back to CIY when the 211's arrive. This must be assuming the 211's are going to JYD. But it was already said they were going to the (N)(W) and (G). The 211T test units might show up on the (E), but not enough of the fleet to push 160's back. If they decide to order a fleet of 211T's and place them on the (E), then you might see some 160's go back. But that's not decided now.
  10. The circuitous route the 23 takes to get around the private section is murder. That section is probably lightly ridden anyway; I wonder if they homeowner's association would approve of a line using minibuses (like the dollar vans, but run by MTA), that could just run straight across Continental, between Myrtle and Queens Blvd, and then one of those other lines would pick up from there. Those would be less intrusive and more like private vehicles than regular buses, and more likely to pass whatever the vertical clearance is there. Having the other line across Yellowstone would help those who live in that direction. (from the article, it's not even clear exactly where the complaining people losing service are getting on at).
  11. That doesn't seem to be resident parking in that space. The gates have signs saying authorized vehicles only. Not sure whose cars are using that space. The ROW is probably owned by MTA or the city anyway, so NIMBYism isn't an issue as far as acquiring it. This is only between Forest and Fresh Pond. Between Fairview and Onderdonk, there's nothing parked in the ROW; it's just empty. There are parking garages adjacent to it, but those wouldn't have to be taken to open it. In fact, that should help alleviate the problem of it disrupting the houses, since most of them are not directly on the ROW.
  12. As far as cutting across the grid, it's primarily Woodbine st. it cuts across mid-block. It reaches Madison near the intersection of Woodward, so that's sort of like a typical "junction", as is Putnam, Fairview and Forest. As for stops, that might be difficult, but they might fit in existing empty spaces that are now lots, or you simply wouldn't have the stops for different directions opposite each other, and the opposite direction would have to wait to be able to pass (this often happens on narrow two way streets anyway). Or perhaps make the busway one way. That would still help. Or, perhaps use if for LTD service only, and would wouldn't need any stops in it.
  13. They could have used shrink wrapping like they did on those fancily done 160's. Every time I see those on the (E), with that turquoise blue on the wall, it would remind me of the original R32-42 scheme. Since they apparently wanted the last run of the 42's on a "mainline" (and not simply the where they were all running in the end), it would have been more fitting for the , where they ran far longer than on the . (Basically, a solid 20 years, from their arrival to the completion of the 68/68A order). The 32's were mainstays on the most of that whole period as well, but as "Brightliners", they probably should finish where they started; the Brighton line .
  14. WOW; I never knew there was an actual plan! I myself always said that should be made into a busway!
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.