|
|
| Re: SAS Phase 4: Water Street (554375) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 15 of 20 |
||
|
| (559921) | |
Re: SAS Phase 4: Water Street |
|
|
Posted by Russ on Sun Jan 27 12:27:07 2008, in response to Re: SAS Phase 4: Water Street, posted by Wallyhorse on Sat Jan 26 22:21:32 2008. Based on what the current MTA chairman has publicly stated (increase capacity on existing lines before building new ones,) I can see the MTA targeting the Eastern Division to be converted to accommodate 600' cars. That would, however, be independent of the SAS alignment. |
|
|
| (559928) | |
Re: SAS Phase 4: Water Street |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Sun Jan 27 12:56:48 2008, in response to Re: SAS Phase 4: Water Street, posted by Russ on Sun Jan 27 12:27:07 2008. Whether Mr. Sander was smoking dope or not remains to be seen. Talk is cheap. And Mr. Roberts was speculating about cutting trains to improve on-time performance statistics. These boys have to perform first before we believe what's said; they are, after all, politicians.Let's see what happens with the promised service increases. |
|
|
| (559930) | |
Re: SAS Phase 4: Water Street |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Sun Jan 27 13:13:03 2008, in response to Re: SAS Phase 4: Water Street, posted by Russ on Sun Jan 27 12:27:07 2008. You meant 600' trains. A 600' foot car would be impressive, though...:0) |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (559944) | |
Re: SAS Phase 4: Water Street |
|
|
Posted by Russ on Sun Jan 27 14:06:17 2008, in response to Re: SAS Phase 4: Water Street, posted by RonInBayside on Sun Jan 27 13:13:03 2008. You meant 600' trains. A 600' foot car would be impressive, though...:0)DOH!!! |
|
|
| (559945) | |
Re: SAS Phase 4: Water Street |
|
|
Posted by Russ on Sun Jan 27 14:08:57 2008, in response to Re: SAS Phase 4: Water Street, posted by trainsarefun on Sun Jan 27 12:56:48 2008. I was talking about a statement from the MTA's chairman, Mr. Hemmerdinger. Anyway, if ridership continues to grow, it seems reasonable to me that lengthening all trains to 600' will pop up on the MTA's agenda. |
|
|
| (560049) | |
Re: SAS Phase 4: Water Street |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Sun Jan 27 19:40:00 2008, in response to Re: SAS Phase 4: Water Street, posted by Russ on Sun Jan 27 14:08:57 2008. Which would make sense:If anything, if possible I would be looking at even going as far as to looking at lengthening all stations (including those for the SAS) to 720-750 feet to allow for 12 car trains (750 for 10 75' cars) on the BMT/IND lines. A couple of additional cars per train would probably help a lot. |
|
|
| (560056) | |
Re: SAS Phase 4: Water Street/Nassau Street |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Sun Jan 27 19:46:12 2008, in response to Re: SAS Phase 4: Water Street, posted by Russ on Sun Jan 27 09:29:49 2008. I think he meant only one of the SAS lines (T) would go via Nassau/Montauge, with that and the Q terminating at 125th/Lex or perhaps if the SAS is doubled into a 125th Street crosstown (perhaps as a Phase 2B) a further west point and/or possibly connected to the 8th avenue line in extreme upper Manhattan as well. The other line (U) would go via Water Street as planned, with that line either terminating at 116 or 125/2nd or continue into the Bronx via a 3rd avenue line there (either as a rebuilt El or new subway). |
|
|
| (560058) | |
Re: Fulton Street J/M Station |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Sun Jan 27 19:48:35 2008, in response to Re: M-V combo, posted by Grand concourse on Sat Jan 26 05:03:37 2008. Actually:It was mentioned elsewhere they were planning to lengthen Fulton to a 10-car station in the '70s before funds dried up, so those plans could be revisited if they did do that (very possible independent of anything else that would happen with the Nassau Street line). |
|
|
| (560078) | |
Re: SAS Phase 4: Water Street/Nassau Street |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Sun Jan 27 20:27:37 2008, in response to Re: SAS Phase 4: Water Street/Nassau Street, posted by Wallyhorse on Sun Jan 27 19:46:12 2008. Correct. Only the (T) would do Nassau St/Brooklyn. The 125/2/Bronx and Queens services would terminate at a Chatham Lower Level until extended down Water St. The (T) would have to go to an upper level and then cut and cover construction to Nassau St under Park Row. |
|
|
| (560143) | |
Re: SAS Phase 4: Water Street |
|
|
Posted by Grand concourse on Sun Jan 27 21:41:03 2008, in response to Re: SAS Phase 4: Water Street, posted by Wallyhorse on Sun Jan 27 19:40:00 2008. Plus more cars per train could also mean they can run a few trains less [ie: cut out a train or 2 per hour and not having a need for those t/o and c/r to save on employee expense. sorta like w/the articulated buses.] |
|
|
| (560146) | |
Re: SAS Phase 4: Water Street |
|
|
Posted by Grand concourse on Sun Jan 27 21:46:11 2008, in response to Re: SAS Phase 4: Water Street, posted by Russ on Sat Jan 26 07:15:06 2008. Technically, if there were some way to connect the SAS to the former MannyB stub tracks at Chambers then the J/Z would terminate on the Western platform [much like it does on weekends and late night] and the Eastern platform would be exclusively used by the T and the old 'nb express track' would again be reconnected to Fulton. That way the J would remain separate from the SAS.Also personally I see the Nassau line as underused and would vote more to add on to Nassau over a Water St segment. So yes if I had only one choice, I'd still say annex Nassau line and not build Water St. |
|
|
| (560149) | |
Re: SAS Phase 4: Water Street |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Jan 27 21:51:51 2008, in response to Re: SAS Phase 4: Water Street, posted by Grand concourse on Sun Jan 27 21:46:11 2008. And there is so much unusaed infastructure an capacity on the Nassau line. I mean you have a whole unused side at Canal, plenty of space at Chambers. Tunnels all built, ready to be used for something, yet sitting idle. I don't know if the line would bend to enter Bowery too, but at the very least, Canal and Chambers has plenty of space. And if for some reason there would be too many trains that would have to go through Fulton and Broad (which I can't imagine), you could always combine the M with the V to get rid of that, and terminate the J at Chambers. Not that I think the J couldn't still go through to Broad, but at the very least, it would give an excelent transfer for J people to have an across the platform transfer to the 2nd Ave subway at Canal and Chambers. |
|
|
| (560153) | |
Re: Fulton Street J/M Station |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Jan 27 21:58:30 2008, in response to Re: Fulton Street J/M Station, posted by Wallyhorse on Sun Jan 27 19:48:35 2008. I dont understand why all this talk is about it being so hard to extend the platforms along Nassau. First off, the platforms were able to handle 8 car BMT Standards trains which were 67 feet, so the platforms have to be at least 522 feet long to have once allowed for the BMT standards. So a 10 car train would be 600 feet...that's only about 75-80 feet of extension....35-40 feet or so on each side. This was done all over the system to the rest of the BMT. There's nothing harder along the Nassau line that would make this such a project that wasn't encountered elsewhere in the 60's when this was being done everywhere else. |
|
|
| (560165) | |
Have the TM at Bowery-Canal [Re: SAS Phase 4: Water Street] |
|
|
Posted by Grand concourse on Sun Jan 27 22:13:24 2008, in response to Re: SAS Phase 4: Water Street, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Jan 27 21:51:51 2008. True. Or north of Chambers would need to be redesigned so the Nassau line would use only the center tracks while the SAS uses the outer tracks.As for the unused Bowery-Canal platforms, they could be used as the alternative location for the transit museum so Court St can be freed up should it ever be connected to either the SAS or maybe the E stub at WTC or the City Hall LL platform... Many options are possible if Court St was made a thru station again. Plus the major benefit would be you wouldn't have to travel far to get to the TM at Canal or Bowery and together both platforms would hold more cars than the current museum can. |
|
|
| (560175) | |
Re: Have the TM at Bowery-Canal [Re: SAS Phase 4: Water Street] |
|
|
Posted by Jackson Park B Train on Sun Jan 27 22:26:57 2008, in response to Have the TM at Bowery-Canal [Re: SAS Phase 4: Water Street], posted by Grand concourse on Sun Jan 27 22:13:24 2008. travel far? having the Museum in Brooklyn with the 'annex' @ HCT is wonderful. both are easily accessible from transit and not quite everything in the world needs to be in Manhattan. |
|
|
| (560204) | |
Re: SAS Phase 4: Water Street/Nassau Street |
|
|
Posted by Russ on Sun Jan 27 23:16:51 2008, in response to Re: SAS Phase 4: Water Street/Nassau Street, posted by SMAZ on Sun Jan 27 20:27:37 2008. You can't have both the Water St and Nassau St alignments because they are redundant, so funding would be almost impossible to come by. It is one or the other, and Nassau can't handle the capacity. |
|
|
| (560205) | |
Re: Have the TM at Bowery-Canal [Re: SAS Phase 4: Water Street] |
|
|
Posted by Grand concourse on Sun Jan 27 23:21:28 2008, in response to Re: Have the TM at Bowery-Canal [Re: SAS Phase 4: Water Street], posted by Jackson Park B Train on Sun Jan 27 22:26:57 2008. Ok I didn't mean 'far' I mean at least you can take a train and w/in a few feet you are right there [Canal/Bowery] as opposed to walking and looking for it. [For me, the 1st time, it is not that easy to find it.] |
|
|
| (560206) | |
Re: SAS Phase 4: Water Street/Nassau Street |
|
|
Posted by Grand concourse on Sun Jan 27 23:22:30 2008, in response to Re: SAS Phase 4: Water Street/Nassau Street, posted by Russ on Sun Jan 27 23:16:51 2008. It can if the J terminates at chambers and the SAS connects at Chambers St. |
|
|
| (560207) | |
Re: Fulton Street J/M Station |
|
|
Posted by Grand concourse on Sun Jan 27 23:26:38 2008, in response to Re: Fulton Street J/M Station, posted by Wallyhorse on Sun Jan 27 19:48:35 2008. I still don't understand how that one station would stand in the way of the Nassau segment to be annexed to the SAS over an even more costly Water St. segment. Nassau is very underused, it would benefit if the SAS ran down it. |
|
|
| (560209) | |
Re: Fulton Street J/M Station |
|
|
Posted by Grand concourse on Sun Jan 27 23:28:12 2008, in response to Re: Fulton Street J/M Station, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Jan 27 21:58:30 2008. Exactly, unless Russ just wants Water St built and wants to preserve the underused Nassau as it is..? |
|
|
| (560215) | |
Re: SAS Phase 4: Water Street/Nassau Street |
|
|
Posted by Russ on Sun Jan 27 23:41:51 2008, in response to Re: SAS Phase 4: Water Street/Nassau Street, posted by Grand concourse on Sun Jan 27 23:22:30 2008. If the J terminates at Chambers, it never enters a CBD. In addition, such a route provides a disincentive for Jamaica originating riders to take the J, as compared to the E. This would crowd the E even further. |
|
|
| (560217) | |
Re: Fulton Street J/M Station |
|
|
Posted by Russ on Sun Jan 27 23:44:06 2008, in response to Re: Fulton Street J/M Station, posted by Grand concourse on Sun Jan 27 23:28:12 2008. Exactly, unless Russ just wants Water St built and wants to preserve the underused Nassau as it is..?Building an inferior alignment just to make use of unused capacity does not serve riders well. |
|
|
| (560224) | |
Re: Fulton Street J/M Station |
|
|
Posted by Grand concourse on Mon Jan 28 00:03:23 2008, in response to Re: Fulton Street J/M Station, posted by Russ on Sun Jan 27 23:44:06 2008. How is it inferior? It already has a connection to several lines at Fulton and would take ppl into Southern Brooklyn, while more or less mirroring the 4/5 line. Why not take advantage of it and use it? The M certainly is not making the most of it since it only runs thru Lower Manhattan rather than from Midtown or Uptown... |
|
|
| (560226) | |
Re: SAS Phase 4: Water Street/Nassau Street |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Mon Jan 28 00:31:02 2008, in response to Re: SAS Phase 4: Water Street/Nassau Street, posted by Russ on Sun Jan 27 23:16:51 2008. You can't have both the Water St and Nassau St alignments because they are redundant, so funding would be almost impossible to come byAbout as reduntant as the SAS will be to the Lex. If the SAS to Water St + Nassau is reduntant then Water St alone is also reduntant to the Nassau Corridor. |
|
|
| (560228) | |
Re: SAS Phase 4: Water Street/Nassau Street |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Mon Jan 28 00:45:48 2008, in response to Re: SAS Phase 4: Water Street/Nassau Street, posted by Russ on Sun Jan 27 23:41:51 2008. That is true:The idea in this case would be to ideally have the SAS connect to the Nassau line before Chambers, preferably at The Bowery or Canal Street. That would serve the main purposes of the Nassau Street connection, giving the SAS a lower Manhattan/Brooklyn connection sooner and taking pressure in lower Manhattan and Brooklyn off the 4/5 trains. |
|
|
| (560230) | |
Re: SAS Phase 4: Water Street/Nassau Street |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Mon Jan 28 00:47:39 2008, in response to Re: SAS Phase 4: Water Street/Nassau Street, posted by SMAZ on Mon Jan 28 00:31:02 2008. Exactly:Having both Water and Nassau Streets as SAS options would do very well, and again, Nassau in particular would take a lot of pressure off the 4/5 in lower Manhattan and Brooklyn. |
|
|
| (560231) | |
Re: SAS via Montague tunnel/Nassau Street |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Mon Jan 28 00:52:24 2008, in response to Re: Fulton Street J/M Station, posted by Grand concourse on Mon Jan 28 00:03:23 2008. Exactly!The main purpose of the SAS is supposed to be to take pressure off the 4/5/6, and the Nassau Street connection would take pressure off the 4/5 south of Chambers and to Pacific Street in Brooklyn. Such an SAS could probably go to the 9th Avenue D station Brooklyn full time and perhaps to Coney Island in rush hours. |
|
|
| (560234) | |
Re: SAS via Montague tunnel/Nassau Street |
|
|
Posted by Grand concourse on Mon Jan 28 00:55:31 2008, in response to Re: SAS via Montague tunnel/Nassau Street, posted by Wallyhorse on Mon Jan 28 00:52:24 2008. Or maybe even full time and replacing the R to 95th while the R runs to 9th Av when not to Bay Parkway. |
|
|
| (560243) | |
Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently |
|
|
Posted by Grand concourse on Mon Jan 28 01:06:12 2008, in response to Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently, posted by SMAZ on Wed Jan 23 05:30:49 2008. Very good! :) |
|
|
| (560244) | |
Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently |
|
|
Posted by Grand concourse on Mon Jan 28 01:08:57 2008, in response to Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently, posted by Wallyhorse on Wed Jan 23 06:34:46 2008. That actually is a great idea, never thought of that. That would make such a 2-train ride much more ideal as an alternative to just taking the 4/5 lines. |
|
|
| (560245) | |
Re: Fulton Street J/M Station |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Mon Jan 28 01:13:37 2008, in response to Re: Fulton Street J/M Station, posted by Wallyhorse on Sun Jan 27 19:48:35 2008. All of the BMT line stations were planned to be expanded to 10 cars..The Eastern Division was exceptional,due to its dual contract construction methods..it would have been difficult to do,but not impossible..and Not as "costly" as some here would have you believe[at least at the time of the planning].. What happened to throw the expansion off track was a number of factors..such as the city's budget crisis..which was drying up the MTA/TA pocket book..The MTA/TA total indifference to the Eastern Division lines...the downward spiral of the neighborhoods along the routes..the demise of the planned Second Avenue Route,which the BMT Broadway Jamaica line was going to be a part of...and the cancellation of a planned route relocation of the Fulton st section... Todays reasoning is a "panty waste" excuse..and not worth getting into. |
|
|
| (560265) | |
Re: Fulton Street J/M Station |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Mon Jan 28 02:44:34 2008, in response to Re: Fulton Street J/M Station, posted by Russ on Sun Jan 27 23:44:06 2008. People in Brooklyn would beg to differ. While I like "the subway on every corner" concept, I prefer the "subway to the most people" concept better. |
|
|
| (560266) | |
Re: Fulton Street J/M Station |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Mon Jan 28 03:09:22 2008, in response to Re: Fulton Street J/M Station, posted by Grand concourse on Sun Jan 27 23:26:38 2008. Indeed. If you connect it to Nassau St below Chatham Sq via Park Row while leaving provisions for a Water St extension, the only stations currently planned to not be built would be Seaport and Hanover Sq and billions would be saved. That's why I think that both segments could be done eventually. |
|
|
| (560267) | |
Re: Fulton Street J/M Station |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Mon Jan 28 03:10:57 2008, in response to Re: Fulton Street J/M Station, posted by Edwards! on Mon Jan 28 01:13:37 2008. What was the planned route relocation of the Fulton St segment? |
|
|
| (560275) | |
Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Mon Jan 28 03:42:39 2008, in response to Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently, posted by Grand concourse on Mon Jan 28 01:06:12 2008. The only limitation of such a flip would be that the (A) would be the only 8th Av train going Downtown and people on the local stations on CPW would be cut off completely from a one-seat ride. It would crush the (A) UNLESS the (C) merges with the (A) at 50th St and stays on 8th Av. At that point you can even bring in the (M) thru Christie Cut and and have it go local up 8th Av to perhaps 168th. In other words a Blue (M). Another problem with such a plan would be that the Cranberry St tunnel would be looking at about 30 TPH during rush hours. It may also be more service then the Fulton actually needs. |
|
|
| (560276) | |
Re: SAS Phase 4: Water Street |
|
|
Posted by EastSideRider on Mon Jan 28 03:45:23 2008, in response to Re: SAS Phase 4: Water Street, posted by Russ on Sun Jan 27 14:06:17 2008. *sings* This is the train that ne-ver eeeends! *sings* |
|
|
| (560305) | |
Re: Sas Phase 3: Adding a Nassau Street Connection |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Mon Jan 28 07:37:02 2008, in response to Re: Fulton Street J/M Station, posted by SMAZ on Mon Jan 28 02:44:34 2008. Very true:I think those in Brooklyn heading for midtown would appreciate having the SAS as an alternative to the 4/5, especially if they are headed for midtown. Another reason why the Nassau Street connection should be included as part of Phase 3. |
|
|
| (560379) | |
Re: Fulton Street J/M Station |
|
|
Posted by Wado MP73 on Mon Jan 28 11:56:02 2008, in response to Re: Fulton Street J/M Station, posted by SMAZ on Mon Jan 28 03:09:22 2008. If you connect it to Nassau St below Chatham Sq via Park RowThat would put the SAS/Nassau connection between Chambers and Fulton, bypassing Chambers St.! The cost of tunneling under Park Row won't be different from tunneling to Seaport and the cost of a difficult connection would be close to tunneling to Hanover Sq. |
|
|
| (560384) | |
Re: Fulton Street J/M Station |
|
|
Posted by Wado MP73 on Mon Jan 28 12:08:18 2008, in response to Re: Fulton Street J/M Station, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Jan 27 21:58:30 2008. It's not only about platforms extensions, it's about building the actual connection too. In your idea, where would you put the connection?Of the many ideas for a Nassau connection, only the Delancey/Kenmare remained on the table before it was eliminated itself. The others like connecting to the old bridge tracks south of Grand St. got eliminated during earlier studies. You don't expect the connection to be a flat junction to the Nassau tracks, do you? |
|
|
| (560390) | |
Re: SAS via Montague tunnel/Nassau Street |
|
|
Posted by Wado MP73 on Mon Jan 28 12:43:14 2008, in response to Re: SAS via Montague tunnel/Nassau Street, posted by Wallyhorse on Mon Jan 28 00:52:24 2008. Again, the FEIS states otherwise:In conclusion, the Nassau Street Option would not meet the goals and objectives of the project as well as the Water Street Option. It would not reduce crowding levels on the Lexington Avenue Line to the same degree as the Water Street Option. With the Nassau Street Option, crowding levels on the Lexington Avenue 4, 5 express routes would continue to exceed NYCT’s loading guidelines at Grand Central Station. With a Nassau connection, you would also lose the transfer at Grand St. to/from the Sixth Ave. line. |
|
|
| (560397) | |
Re: SAS Phase 4: Water Street |
|
|
Posted by Wado MP73 on Mon Jan 28 12:59:52 2008, in response to Re: SAS Phase 4: Water Street, posted by Grand concourse on Sun Jan 27 21:41:03 2008. You want less frequent service? Geez... |
|
|
| (560401) | |
Re: SAS Phase 4: Water Street |
|
|
Posted by Wado MP73 on Mon Jan 28 13:13:20 2008, in response to Re: SAS Phase 4: Water Street, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Jan 27 21:51:51 2008. I mean you have a whole unused side at Canal, plenty of space at Chambers. Tunnels all built, ready to be used for something, yet sitting idle.Two of the four tracks end at Canal. You will need to build a cut-and cover tunnel between Canal and the bridge tracks. Only a few blocks maybe, but sounds very expensive and disruptive. The cheaper option would be to terminate the J/Z at Canal but see below. terminate the J at Chambers. So J/Z riders from Jamaica will ride the E instead. That is one reason NYCT does not want to do it. |
|
|
| (560402) | |
Re: SAS Phase 4: Water Street/Nassau Street |
|
|
Posted by Wado MP73 on Mon Jan 28 13:25:01 2008, in response to Re: SAS Phase 4: Water Street/Nassau Street, posted by Russ on Sun Jan 27 23:16:51 2008. It's not because they are redundant. It's because funding is limited and they want to build it where there is more need.The difference between Water and Nassau is $360M. It will be less, if they find a skeleton or if they find that more underpinning of historic buildings is needed. |
|
|
| (560411) | |
Re: SAS via Montague tunnel/Nassau Street |
|
|
Posted by Russ on Mon Jan 28 13:53:02 2008, in response to Re: SAS via Montague tunnel/Nassau Street, posted by Wado MP73 on Mon Jan 28 12:43:14 2008. With a Nassau connection, you would also lose the transfer at Grand St. to/from the Sixth Ave. line.What's your source for this? If true, then a Nassau St alignment would have to accomodate the M train also. M+J+T+QB/SAS = a lot of trains. I'm not sure what the J runs at, but if it is 12tph, adding the M's 6tph, the T's 15tph and a potential QB/SAS at 10tph is 47tph. Nassau St can handle that in the area where it is least needed: Outside the CBDs. If 18tph of Broadway Brooklyn trains are terminated at Chambers (which is just outside of a CBD,) then 25tph of SAS trains would make it down to Broad St. They have to share the Montague Tunnel with the R train, which runs at 10tph. That means that one of the SAS trains has to terminate at Broad St. Nassau St capacity shrinks as it approaches Brooklyn. Water St allows for full Nassau St capacity to be utilized if the demand exists, and for two SAS lines to reach Brooklyn through Hanover Sq. |
|
|
| (560417) | |
Re: Fulton Street J/M Station |
|
|
Posted by Russ on Mon Jan 28 14:01:21 2008, in response to Re: Fulton Street J/M Station, posted by SMAZ on Mon Jan 28 02:44:34 2008. People in Brooklyn would beg to differ. While I like "the subway on every corner" concept, I prefer the "subway to the most people" concept better.Which is what Water St does. The Nassau St option equals the capacity of Water St until it moves south of Chambers St. Then it shrinks up very fast. |
|
|
| (560454) | |
Re: SAS via Montague tunnel/Nassau Street |
|
|
Posted by Michael549 on Mon Jan 28 15:58:47 2008, in response to Re: SAS via Montague tunnel/Nassau Street, posted by Russ on Mon Jan 28 13:53:02 2008. From a previous message: "If 18tph of Broadway Brooklyn trains are terminated at Chambers (which is just outside of a CBD,) then 25tph of SAS trains would make it down to Broad St. They have to share the Montague Tunnel with the R train, which runs at 10tph. That means that one of the SAS trains has to terminate at Broad St."It seems that your definition of CBD is puzzling. If the J-M-Z Chambers Street station is "just outside the CBD" then just what do you called that very tall building that sits on top of the station? Its called the Municipal Building, and near it are 1 Police Plaza, several court buildings, and other office buildings. If that collection of buildings is not a part of a business district Just for the record, the "central business district" (CBD) has been defined for decades as that area from the bottom tip of Battery Park to 60th Street inclusive in Manhattan. While some may want to point that some sections of that land area contains more residential sections - the definition of CBD never excluded residential sections anyway. In recent years, due to the nature of economic activities in Manhattan some planners wanted to extend the definition of CBD to 86th Street. Mike |
|
|
| (560556) | |
Re: SAS Phase 4: Water Street/Nassau Street |
|
|
Posted by Russ on Mon Jan 28 18:42:17 2008, in response to Re: SAS Phase 4: Water Street/Nassau Street, posted by SMAZ on Mon Jan 28 00:31:02 2008. About as reduntant as the SAS will be to the Lex. If the SAS to Water St + Nassau is reduntant then Water St alone is also reduntant to the Nassau Corridor.Terrible comparison. The Lex is overcrowded and the SAS will provide relief. No one is complaining about how overcrowded Nassau St is, and how we need all 4 tracks to be used, in addition to the Water St alignment. |
|
|
| (560564) | |
Re: SAS via Montague tunnel/Nassau Street |
|
|
Posted by Russ on Mon Jan 28 18:55:07 2008, in response to Re: SAS via Montague tunnel/Nassau Street, posted by Michael549 on Mon Jan 28 15:58:47 2008. It seems that your definition of CBD is puzzling. If the J-M-Z Chambers Street station is "just outside the CBD" then just what do you called that very tall building that sits on top of the station? Its called the Municipal Building, and near it are 1 Police Plaza, several court buildings, and other office buildings. If that collection of buildings is not a part of a business districtThe building on top of the station is called The Municipal Building. It was designed by McKim, Mead and White, and I can see it from my apartment window. It is one of my favorite buildings. Rather than debate if this is in the downtown CBD, lets just change my references to the Financial District. Just for the record, the "central business district" (CBD) has been defined for decades as that area from the bottom tip of Battery Park to 60th Street inclusive in Manhattan. The City considers the Downtown and Midtown CBDs to be distinct. The RPA considers them to be distinct. The Federal Government considers them to be distinct. Who considers all of Manhattan below 59th St to be part of one CBD? |
|
|
| (560572) | |
Re: SAS Phase 4: Water Street |
|
|
Posted by Grand concourse on Mon Jan 28 19:06:19 2008, in response to Re: SAS Phase 4: Water Street, posted by Wado MP73 on Mon Jan 28 13:13:20 2008. Don't the majority already take the E over J anyway? |
|
|
| (560579) | |
Re: SAS via Montague tunnel/Nassau Street |
|
|
Posted by Wado MP73 on Mon Jan 28 19:19:44 2008, in response to Re: SAS via Montague tunnel/Nassau Street, posted by Russ on Mon Jan 28 13:53:02 2008. I meant the T to/from B/D transfer at Grand St. station, not the Chrystie connection between Essex and Broad/Laf. |
|
|
|
Page 15 of 20 |
||
