Angry commuter...

Cyrus Afzali wrote:
>
> On Fri, 17 Feb 2006 20:46:32 GMT, "Peter T. Daniels"
> <grammatim@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> >Cyrus Afzali wrote:
> >>
> >> On Fri, 17 Feb 2006 03:21:53 GMT, "Peter T. Daniels"
> >> <grammatim@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Yet as every station is rehabbed, it's getting elevators.
> >>
> >> There are lots of stations in NYC that will never see elevators
> >
> >They got an ADA variance because of the impossibility of doing all
> >437(?) stations within the originally specified deadline.
> >
> >> because the relative distance from the street to the platform just
> >> doesn't make it feasible.
> >
> >Such as?
>
> Many local stations on the N/R/W lines in Manhattan, for example. Go
> to places like Prince Street and show me where they're going to put an
> elevator there. There's no room on the street or on the platform. The
> same goes for local stations all over the system.

That's got nothing to do with "relative distance." Several of those BMT
stations have the entrances half a block from the street, so there's
plenty of room for an elevator -- go see how they did it at 66th St.

--
Peter T. Daniels grammatim@att.net

On Fri, 17 Feb 2006 23:55:51 GMT, "Peter T. Daniels"
<grammatim@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

>Cyrus Afzali wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 17 Feb 2006 20:46:32 GMT, "Peter T. Daniels"
>> <grammatim@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>
>> >Cyrus Afzali wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Fri, 17 Feb 2006 03:21:53 GMT, "Peter T. Daniels"
>> >> <grammatim@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Yet as every station is rehabbed, it's getting elevators.
>> >>
>> >> There are lots of stations in NYC that will never see elevators
>> >
>> >They got an ADA variance because of the impossibility of doing all
>> >437(?) stations within the originally specified deadline.
>> >
>> >> because the relative distance from the street to the platform just
>> >> doesn't make it feasible.
>> >
>> >Such as?
>>
>> Many local stations on the N/R/W lines in Manhattan, for example. Go
>> to places like Prince Street and show me where they're going to put an
>> elevator there. There's no room on the street or on the platform. The
>> same goes for local stations all over the system.
>
>That's got nothing to do with "relative distance." Several of those BMT
>stations have the entrances half a block from the street, so there's
>plenty of room for an elevator -- go see how they did it at 66th St.

I'm talking about the shallow nature of the stations. And I know well
how they did it at 66th Street, but if you know NY, you know there's
nothing comparing the Lincoln Square area with the crowded conditions
below 34th Street that exist in many instances.

Cyrus Afzali wrote:

> >> >> On Fri, 17 Feb 2006 03:21:53 GMT, "Peter T. Daniels"
> >> >> <grammatim@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >Yet as every station is rehabbed, it's getting elevators.
> >> >>
> >> >> There are lots of stations in NYC that will never see elevators
> >> >
> >> >They got an ADA variance because of the impossibility of doing all
> >> >437(?) stations within the originally specified deadline.
> >> >
> >> >> because the relative distance from the street to the platform just
> >> >> doesn't make it feasible.
> >> >
> >> >Such as?
> >>
> >> Many local stations on the N/R/W lines in Manhattan, for example. Go
> >> to places like Prince Street and show me where they're going to put an
> >> elevator there. There's no room on the street or on the platform. The
> >> same goes for local stations all over the system.
> >
> >That's got nothing to do with "relative distance." Several of those BMT
> >stations have the entrances half a block from the street, so there's
> >plenty of room for an elevator -- go see how they did it at 66th St.
>
> I'm talking about the shallow nature of the stations. And I know well
> how they did it at 66th Street, but if you know NY, you know there's
> nothing comparing the Lincoln Square area with the crowded conditions
> below 34th Street that exist in many instances.

Many Financial District entrances are built into office buildings.
Plenty of room.
--
Peter T. Daniels grammatim@att.net

On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 14:30:19 GMT, "Peter T. Daniels"
<grammatim@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

>Cyrus Afzali wrote:
>
>> >> >> On Fri, 17 Feb 2006 03:21:53 GMT, "Peter T. Daniels"
>> >> >> <grammatim@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >Yet as every station is rehabbed, it's getting elevators.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> There are lots of stations in NYC that will never see elevators
>> >> >
>> >> >They got an ADA variance because of the impossibility of doing all
>> >> >437(?) stations within the originally specified deadline.
>> >> >
>> >> >> because the relative distance from the street to the platform just
>> >> >> doesn't make it feasible.
>> >> >
>> >> >Such as?
>> >>
>> >> Many local stations on the N/R/W lines in Manhattan, for example. Go
>> >> to places like Prince Street and show me where they're going to put an
>> >> elevator there. There's no room on the street or on the platform. The
>> >> same goes for local stations all over the system.
>> >
>> >That's got nothing to do with "relative distance." Several of those BMT
>> >stations have the entrances half a block from the street, so there's
>> >plenty of room for an elevator -- go see how they did it at 66th St.
>>
>> I'm talking about the shallow nature of the stations. And I know well
>> how they did it at 66th Street, but if you know NY, you know there's
>> nothing comparing the Lincoln Square area with the crowded conditions
>> below 34th Street that exist in many instances.
>
>Many Financial District entrances are built into office buildings.
>Plenty of room.

That's a separate issue. You made it sound as if most major rehabs
will result in elevators. I'd wager you won't see elevators throughout
many stations in the system, including many, if not most, local
stations. And the reason is you'd have a very difficult time locating
an elevator in the crowded platform conditions.