|
|
| Re: SAS to Queens (1424282) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
[1 2] |
||
|
Page 2 of 2 |
||
|
| (1424470) | |
Re: SAS to Queens |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Wed Jan 18 12:05:00 2017, in response to Re: SAS to Queens, posted by Mitch45 on Wed Jan 18 11:26:53 2017. LOL! |
|
|
| (1424496) | |
Re: SAS to Queens |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Wed Jan 18 15:56:18 2017, in response to Re: SAS to Queens, posted by Wallyhorse on Wed Jan 18 07:03:33 2017. Nope.Limited resources state the least path of resistance. Meaning whats simplest to build,will get built...if that. The Queens By Pass is a prime example of that.It could have been constructed right along with the ESA tunnels, even blueprints ,plans, the whole ball of wax was done PRE CONSTRUCTION...YET not one tube was push through the soft soil of LIC for subway service...but SEVERAL TUBES were built for LIRR and two for AMTRAK. The problem here is NYCT decided against even building provisions for the line For whatever "budget cuts" reasons made sense to them...and still,nothing will be done |
|
|
| (1424504) | |
Re: M Line via 6th Av. |
|
|
Posted by displaced angeleno on Wed Jan 18 16:55:59 2017, in response to Re: M Line via 6th Av., posted by randyo on Wed Jan 18 03:20:14 2017. I read your post. I wasn't trying to be difficult, just sharing information I learned from "The Routes Not Taken."The passage in the book states that seismological tests were performed to validate Rockefeller University's concerns, after which the tunnel was moved to 63rd. Progression of preferred routing, according to the book: 1. 76th Street 2. 61st Street 3. 64th Street 4. 63rd Street |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (1424516) | |
Re: SAS to Queens |
|
|
Posted by Express Rider on Wed Jan 18 18:57:29 2017, in response to Re: SAS to Queens, posted by Mitch45 on Wed Jan 18 11:26:53 2017. hey, hey, hey now.... :)remember Pink Floyd's "Animals" album cover |
|
|
| (1424523) | |
Re: M Line via 6th Av. |
|
|
Posted by VictorM on Wed Jan 18 20:20:17 2017, in response to Re: M Line via 6th Av., posted by randyo on Wed Jan 18 03:20:14 2017. The NYC Board of Estimate originally approved the 64th St route but it was later changed to 63rd St because of objections from Rockefeller Institute. (The Institute wanted an even more southerly route such as 61st St but they had to settle on 63rd St.) |
|
|
| (1424543) | |
Re: M Line via 6th Av. |
|
|
Posted by Express Rider on Thu Jan 19 01:07:59 2017, in response to Re: M Line via 6th Av., posted by randyo on Tue Jan 17 19:01:09 2017. I remember articles in the NY Times from this period about Rockefeller Institute and its concerns about how this route would affect their instruments. |
|
|
| (1424576) | |
Re: 61st instead of 63rd Street tunnel |
|
|
Posted by menJop on Thu Jan 19 15:04:20 2017, in response to Re: 61st instead of 63rd Street tunnel, posted by Wallyhorse on Tue Jan 17 19:29:21 2017. I've long felt that the Roosevelt Island station should have been built under the west channel of the river, with entrances on RI and 63rd St near York. I imagine this would have presented some interesting engineering challenges, but it would have been nice for that neighborhood, and could have provided convenient pedestrian access to the island.Rockefeller University would have greatly benefited, since they have the campus to the north of 63rd, housing immediately to the south, and more housing on RI. |
|
|
| (1424862) | |
Re: 63rd Street tunnel |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Sat Jan 21 20:08:54 2017, in response to Re: 61st instead of 63rd Street tunnel, posted by menJop on Thu Jan 19 15:04:20 2017. That would have covered too much ground. As it is the Roosevelt Island station on the (F) is about as far west as it can be. Too much ground to cover for it to have extended all the way to York Avenue.A York-1st Avenue station would have made more sense with exits on those streets. Aside what I previously wrote, a 1st Avenue entrance would have made such a line very appealing to many that far east since it would be one of just THREE subway entrances on 1st Avenue per se (the others being Houston/1st Street and 14th Street). |
|
|
| (1424867) | |
Re: 63rd Street tunnel |
|
|
Posted by menJop on Sat Jan 21 21:27:41 2017, in response to Re: 63rd Street tunnel, posted by Wallyhorse on Sat Jan 21 20:08:54 2017. That would have covered too much ground.Maybe a bit, but the channel is only about 800 feet wide there, so the station wouldn't be much longer than the current Lex/63rd. |
|
|
| (1425012) | |
Re: 61st instead of 63rd Street tunnel |
|
|
Posted by Dyre Dan on Sun Jan 22 23:04:29 2017, in response to Re: 61st instead of 63rd Street tunnel, posted by menJop on Thu Jan 19 15:04:20 2017. Building a station IN the underwater tunnel would not have been possible. The 63rd St. tunnel is an immersed tube that was fabricated off-site and then lowered to the riverbed. There is no room in the tube for platforms! |
|
|
| (1425026) | |
Re: 61st instead of 63rd Street tunnel |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Mon Jan 23 08:02:26 2017, in response to Re: 61st instead of 63rd Street tunnel, posted by Dyre Dan on Sun Jan 22 23:04:29 2017. Exactly, and as said, even if not, it would have been difficult to do a station there.That's why I said York-1st Avenues for a station as that would have given those on the far east side some subway access. |
|
|
| (1425070) | |
Re: 61st instead of 63rd Street tunnel |
|
|
Posted by Express Rider on Mon Jan 23 16:37:43 2017, in response to Re: 61st instead of 63rd Street tunnel, posted by Dyre Dan on Sun Jan 22 23:04:29 2017. re: Building a station IN the underwater tunnel would not have been possibleif it were possible, token booth staffers would issue snorkels to exiting patrons, who would ascend through an open and shut watertight door and airlock. |
|
|
| (1425079) | |
Re: 61st instead of 63rd Street tunnel |
|
|
Posted by transitbuff on Mon Jan 23 18:04:18 2017, in response to Re: 61st instead of 63rd Street tunnel, posted by Express Rider on Mon Jan 23 16:37:43 2017. Is that the AIR HOLE in station agents' booths? |
|
|
| (1425235) | |
Re: 61st instead of 63rd Street tunnel |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Wed Jan 25 00:37:54 2017, in response to Re: 61st instead of 63rd Street tunnel, posted by Dyre Dan on Sun Jan 22 23:04:29 2017. Actually building a station in the underwater tunnel would have been possible if the submersible tube were built as a station shell initially. I suspect it wasn’t done that way because it really wasn’t needed. |
|
|
[1 2] |
||
|
Page 2 of 2 |
||
