Forgot about it, Wallyhorse, and not in our lifetime ever, if anyone of us will actually live that long to see that! Besides, there are historic brownstones that sit on top of that, so the NIMBY's will have a field day in opposing it!
I was thinking the same thing. Had the Fulton el been completely rebuilt east of Nostrand, there would have been a number of possibilities. The Ind could have been connected to the Fulton el at Nostrand where the Fulton el had been rebuilt to dual contract standards or at the approximate location of the Bway/ENY (now Bway Jct) station of the IND. since the current Fulton St subway infrastructure curves slightly north under Truxton Pk a portal could have been built in the area connecting the IND to the Fulton St el at that point. Actually, there were a couple of other variations of the extension of the IND east of Rockaway Ave. One was to have the IND continue under Fulton St and under the Jamaica Line el structure to a point a bit east of Crescent St where it would have emerged onto a structure and connected to the Liberty Av el structure around the same place it does now. Another would have had the IND turn east along Liberty Ave and connect directly to the Fulton St el structure at Crescent St which would have required of course the upgrading of that portion of the el to dual contract standards. I suspect that the present routing was decided on since it pretty much duplicated the exact routing of the Fulton St el with a slightly smoother connection to Liberty Av as well as affording an additional route east into S/E Queens although that line was never built.
If you are talking about Court St, that might be a problem although I’m sure with a TBM, it could be accomplished with a minimum of inconvenience to the residents. If the line had been extended west to connect with some Manhattan line at the time the subway was first constructed, the city would merely have condemned the buildings in the way and through routed Schermerhorn St the way it did with 6 Av in Manhattan and Pitkin with Old South Rd in Queens. Had the Utica/Stuyvesant subway been completed, it would be safe to assume that S 4 St which ended at Union Ave would have been through routed in the same way by demolishing all the buildings in the path of the new subway. One of the reasons that Hoyt/Schermerhorn was able to be constructed as it was is because it was done during the depression and there were either empty lots over the station location or any buildings that might have been in the way were able to be condemned and demolished for the construction due to it being during the depression.
Any connection to the Court St station would require a new underwater crossing from the south end of Manhattan to get to Bkln. As originally envisioned, the existing stub tracks at Hudson Terminal (WTC) would have been connected to a reclaimed portion of the BMT Bway Subway since those 2 sets of tks line up almost perfectly. The bellmouths S/O Whitehall would then be connected to a new underwater tube connecting to Court St. While I have not seen any documentation on it it may be possible that the connection from Court St to the SAS might also have been part of the original plans as well although it is known that the SAS connection was definitely part of the 1940 plans.
Turning onto Clinton, and then turning again onto an east/west street might require more houses to be demolished than just a straight continuation.
Schermerhorn west of Smith is narrow (was not widened by the IND), and there is just enough room for the station. Judging by other turns, ~17 brownstones would need to be taken out for a south turn, or ~14 brownstones and an apartment building for north turn. This does not include any more demolitions for the west turn.
Extending Schermerhorn to Henry would require ~15 demolitions. That might give enough grade for a TBM to go under the remaining houses.
Of course, neither option will ever happen.
Even if funding magically appeared, tearing down this many houses in one of the most politically connected landmark districts in the city is a project killer.
Use both canal st and Bowery. Have it within fare control but additional access controls to prevent the general public from wandering in. Take regular J trains between the two stops to see both halves. Not sure how big the Bowery mezzanine is to host the exhibits (I know the Canal st one is too tiny).
#5 - Dyre Ave
on Fri Jun 15 18:32:02 2018, in response to SAS Connecting to Fulton Line, posted by Wallyhorse on Wed Jun 13 07:04:20 2018.
And wait till the next time Halley’s Comet comes around (i.e., 2062)? If we’re lucky?
Why not consider connecting the Fulton St Local tracks at Hoyt-Schermerhorn to the way-underutilized Montague St Tunnel? Then extend the W via the tunnel and have it replace the C as the Fulton St Local. This eliminates the merge between the A and C at Schermerhorn. The C can then run express to Lefferts while the A serves the Rockaways exclusively.
Take out the 2 center tracks, between Canal St and the Bowery. Put in ramps to/from under the Bowery station. Connect that to Christie St. No need for a new lower level station at the Bowery. Hardly anyone uses that station, anyway.
Isn't there a small section of the LOMEX built at Broome Street the same time as the Chrystie Street line? It might be in the way of a transfer, unless it could be incorporated into the passageway.
Also, J/Z riders already have access to uptown Sixth Ave service via the F transfer at Delancey, and to Manhattan Bridge service via Canal Street. Both transfers are just one stop away from Bowery, so the cost of building an additional transfer at Bowery may not be justified.
Quite frankly? The museum. Its location in an actual 1930's era subway station is unique. The station itself one of the museum displays. Putting the old trains someplace else would take something away from the museum's allure.
Now, of course, if they put the museum at 76th Street....
Its original purpose was NOT to serve as a stub terminal but was to be connected as I have described in several posts to the stub tracks at Hudson Terminal (WTC) via a new underwater tunnel connected to the bellmouths S/O Whitehall and the lcl tks of the BMT Bway subway between Whl and Cortlandt St. The stub tks at Hudson Term line up almost perfectly with the BMT tks under Church St.
Not a junction at all. BMT local trains coming from midtown ot Queens would terminate at City Hall or operate via the bridge and all Bway BMT exp service would operate via the bridge. The Montague St tunnel would serve only Nassau St.
That sounds ridiculous. Now, I'm not saying that it was never planned, but it wasn't on either the 1929 or 1939 Second System maps. It was obviously not the plan when the IND First system was drawn up in 1925. Moreover, it is clear, given the way the Crosstown Line is designed, that the IND initially had no intention of building any tunnels for Brooklyn/Queens locals.
Got it, thanks. I figured that might be the case. Under that scenario the the Broadway line station at Cortlandt would have been closed (as it has been clsince 9/11 so maybe no one would have missed it).
True, but had the proposed connection between the IND and the Lcl tks of the BMT at that location been built Cortlandt St would have become redundant due to its close proximity to the Hudson Terminal station.
Actually, one of the plans for an additional IND tunnel between Manhattan and Bkln did involve a local service since the bellmouths for the proposed Worth St Subway branch off the lcl tks S/O Canal St and the existing tks through the Rutgers St tube come from the 6 Ave local tks. When I first joined the ERA in 1959, one of the officers of the organization told me about the proposal for that connection so there must be something about it somewhere. From some of the early drawing plans I have for the IND, it seems that many of the plans for IND routes especially in the outer boroughs were a bit fluid.