|
|
| Re: SAS Phase 4: Water Street (554375) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 16 of 20 |
||
|
| (560601) | |
Re: SAS Phase 4: Water Street |
|
|
Posted by Russ on Mon Jan 28 19:47:23 2008, in response to Re: SAS Phase 4: Water Street, posted by Grand concourse on Mon Jan 28 19:06:19 2008. RIght. Why make the situation worse? |
|
|
| (560604) | |
Re: SAS via Montague tunnel/Nassau Street |
|
|
Posted by Russ on Mon Jan 28 19:50:13 2008, in response to Re: SAS via Montague tunnel/Nassau Street, posted by Wado MP73 on Mon Jan 28 19:19:44 2008. OK, thanks for the clarification. |
|
|
| (560608) | |
Re: SAS via Montague tunnel/Nassau Street |
|
|
Posted by Wado MP73 on Mon Jan 28 19:53:02 2008, in response to Re: SAS via Montague tunnel/Nassau Street, posted by Michael549 on Mon Jan 28 15:58:47 2008. Many real estate agencies consider the Midtown CBD and Lower Manhattan CBD as separate, and they consider zip code 10007 to be the north end of the latter. That puts Chambers and Worth Sts. as the northern border.While it may not be outside, it's at the edge of it. You sound like a middle/high school/college teacher who's been out of touch from the real world and forgot how to think outside of the text book. Mind you, I'm not saying you're one but you do sound like one. |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (560662) | |
Re: SAS/four tracks |
|
|
Posted by R160 8818 on Mon Jan 28 20:46:42 2008, in response to Re: SAS/four tracks, posted by Wallyhorse on Mon Jan 21 15:46:02 2008. The bi level express plan on the SAS may be costly, but I like this plan.The express/local service will begin at 14th Street. Between Houston and 14th, there will be track connections allowing trains to become local or express. The locals can enter Brooklyn via the Houston Street Tunnel to S. 4th Street and then use the Bushwick Avenue Tunnel or continue down Brooklyn via the Utica Avenue Line. Or it could tunnel under Avenue C, then under East Broadway and then Park Row. It could connect to the Nassau Street Line at Fulton Street. The express tracks could swing onto the Centre Street Subway just east of Bowery, continue on SAS Phase 4 or cross the Manny B to Brooklyn. But Plans 1 and 2 will seem more likely as there will be a SAS-Bridge service (namely the Q). The expresses can use a new level under the planned alignment. According to my proposal they should stop at Houston, 14th, 42nd, 55-57th, 72nd, 86th, 116th. It will head into the Bronx after 116th. As for the locals, they will stop at 14th, 23rd, 34th, 42nd, 50th, 60th, 72nd, 79th, 86th, 96th, 106th, 116th, 125/Lex. At 34th, the express tracks will move to the sides and rise to meet the locals at the same level just before 42nd. 42nd will have side platforms for the expresses and an island platform for the locals. The expresses will dive under the locals again to stop at 55th-57th. The proposed 55th Station of Phase 3 will be deleted to make way for the 50th and 60th Street Stations or become extended so that it could function as one long platform (similar to the long platforms on the Dearborn/State Street Subways in Chicago) allowing for better transfer facilities. The expresses will rise in the same fashion after 62nd Street so that it could meet the Broadway connection and locals at 72nd Street. After 72nd Street it dips below and will not rise again until before 116th Street. The explanation for the dipping and rising is so that there will be more flexibility on the line. If something happens on the local, the trains could switch to the express, or vice versa. It would be a costlier alternative than constructing a traditional 4 track subway but would be more feasible than to add tracks flanking the proposed tunnels. |
|
|
| (560680) | |
Re: Future phases of SAS |
|
|
Posted by R160 8818 on Mon Jan 28 21:02:33 2008, in response to Future phases of SAS, posted by Wallyhorse on Wed Jan 23 07:24:21 2008. Building a SAS-Nassau Connection would make more sense than to have trains terminate at Houston Street and transfer to the F to the J/Z to reach Lower Manhattan. The MTA should consider the connection as part of Phase 3 so that riders can access Lower Manhattan via this connection. It also has a huge advantage of stopping at Canal Street (where there are transfers to the Bridge Lines, the Broadway Local and the 6) and Fulton (where there are transfers to many lines) and finally it could enter Brooklyn via the Montague and could be sent to the Brighton, Bay Ridge, Sea Beach, West End.Transferring at Grand will only provide access to the B/D which connects Brighton Beach and Bensonhurst. There is no transfer at Chatham Sq, Seaport or Hanover Square so this connection is much needed. |
|
|
| (560699) | |
Re: M-V combo |
|
|
Posted by Wado MP73 on Mon Jan 28 21:14:06 2008, in response to Re: M-V combo, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed Jan 23 12:37:10 2008. I didn't notice this reply until now. I wouldn't ask that question if I knew well about Ridgewood. Although I've been there before I only started to frequent Bushwick recently. Just like East Village/LES in the early nineties, many Lower Manhattan bound people are moving there.You would laugh at how many former musicians/artists/dancers became traders and programmers too. Now now, let me get back at securing the SAS Water St. line against Nassau St. lol. Even though I'd probably be retired or even dead by then, it's like replacing the Myrtle El with the Crosstown line for me. |
|
|
| (560724) | |
Re: SAS via Montague tunnel/Nassau Street |
|
|
Posted by Wado MP73 on Mon Jan 28 21:37:21 2008, in response to Re: SAS via Montague tunnel/Nassau Street, posted by Russ on Mon Jan 28 19:50:13 2008. I also wish that the SAS Grand St. station would be built a block north so it can also have a transfer to the J/M/Z Bowery station but that's not in the plans either. |
|
|
| (560796) | |
Re: SAS via Montague tunnel/Nassau Street |
|
|
Posted by R160 8818 on Mon Jan 28 22:30:46 2008, in response to Re: SAS via Montague tunnel/Nassau Street, posted by Wallyhorse on Mon Jan 28 00:52:24 2008. It makes the most sense.Multiple transfer options and many possibilities that are ALREADY BUILT in Brooklyn. Even if a crossover was built to link to the D line, the possibilities are not as rich as sending the line down the Centre Street Subway. Plus the MTA never mentioned transfer options at Seaport, and we can assume there aren't going to be transfer options at Chatham Sq and Hanover Sq. The Centre Street Subway has transfers to the IRT Lex Line, the BMT Broadway Line, the IND 8th Ave/Fulton Line, the IRT Seventh Ave Line etc... And it goes to Lower Manhattan without a transfer. Grand Street does not provide transfers to a train that could take one to Lower Manhattan. |
|
|
| (560838) | |
Re: SAS via Montague tunnel/Nassau Street |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Mon Jan 28 22:52:40 2008, in response to Re: SAS via Montague tunnel/Nassau Street, posted by R160 8818 on Mon Jan 28 22:30:46 2008. Grand st Should be a juction for trains heading to lower Manhattan and Brooklyn.. |
|
|
| (560900) | |
Re: SAS Phase 4: Water Street/Nassau Street |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Tue Jan 29 01:05:43 2008, in response to Re: SAS Phase 4: Water Street/Nassau Street, posted by Russ on Mon Jan 28 18:42:17 2008. I don't think that all four tracks need to be used. I would merge it into the two Nassau tracks below Chambers St. My insistence on a SAS to Nassau St has more to do with its access to the Montague St Tunnel and therefore to Brooklyn. It's not about the Nassau Line itself. It's about a new trunk line (the SAS) that will relieve the Lex not just from the Bronx and Manhattan but from Brooklyn as well. |
|
|
| (560910) | |
Re: SAS Phase 4: Water Street/Nassau Street |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Tue Jan 29 02:14:07 2008, in response to Re: SAS Phase 4: Water Street/Nassau Street, posted by SMAZ on Tue Jan 29 01:05:43 2008. And that is the point I've been driving across as well:An SAS/Nassau Street connection provides access to the Montauge Street tunnel that is already there. That will give Brooklyn riders between Court and Pacific Street not wishing to use the 4/5 in Brooklyn a choice between the SAS and the Broadway line, as well as those further south along 4th Avenue in Brooklyn a one-seat ride to east side locations in Manhattan (other than 59th/Lex). That is the major benefit of a Nassau Street connection to the SAS aside from the fact such can be up and running well before the Water Street portion can be ready. |
|
|
| (560911) | |
Re: SAS Phase 4: Water Street/Nassau Street |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Tue Jan 29 02:21:50 2008, in response to Re: SAS Phase 4: Water Street, posted by Wado MP73 on Mon Jan 28 13:13:20 2008. Except:Chambers would not be in that scenario the worst place to terminate the J, especially if the SAS is continuing from there as if the SAS joins the Nassau Street line before Chambers (preferably at The Bowery Station), J riders at worst would have a cross-platform transfer to the SAS for Fulton and Broad Street and more than likely a same platform transfer before that available to them. Plus, even if it is technically not the financial district, Chambers is a very busy area as it is, with a lot of offices right there. |
|
|
| (560923) | |
Re: Fulton Street J/M Station |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Tue Jan 29 03:25:11 2008, in response to Re: Fulton Street J/M Station, posted by Russ on Mon Jan 28 14:01:21 2008. Running a SAS service to South Brooklyn in place of the (M) enables riders of the most populous borough to have a one-seat or two-seat ride to the entire length of the CBD in addition to the UES as opposed to just the Downtown area with the current (M) service. It would de-congest the Brooklyn IRT in a very significant way. As I mentioned before I would split the (T) into two services to address capacity issues on Nassau/Montague and I wouldn't have the merge occur until after Chatham Sq unlike the operational, engineering and economic nightmare merger proposals that some here have advanced. My idea would bring the SAS to the most people even though Lower Manhattan would not have stations constructed at Seaport and Hanover Square. (which could be done anyway eventually). Having the Lower SAS not merge into Nassau/Montague is like having the Upper SAS not merge with the (Q). |
|
|
| (560924) | |
Re: Sas Phase 3: Adding a Nassau Street Connection |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Tue Jan 29 03:25:58 2008, in response to Re: Sas Phase 3: Adding a Nassau Street Connection, posted by Wallyhorse on Mon Jan 28 07:37:02 2008. or at least as a Phase 4a. |
|
|
| (560925) | |
Re: Fulton Street J/M Station |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Tue Jan 29 03:31:10 2008, in response to Re: Fulton Street J/M Station, posted by Wado MP73 on Mon Jan 28 11:56:02 2008. Seaport and Hanover Square will not take you to/from Brooklyn. Even if it were to cost the same, the cost-benefit of a Nassau St connection would be make it more worthy. Stations are also the more costly items of subway extensions. A Nassau Connection via Park Row would save money that would otherwise be used for new stations. |
|
|
| (560932) | |
Re: SAS via Montague tunnel/Nassau Street |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Tue Jan 29 04:33:30 2008, in response to Re: SAS via Montague tunnel/Nassau Street, posted by Russ on Mon Jan 28 18:55:07 2008. I agree with you that Manhattan has two distinct CBDs. For the purposes of discussions on this board, I will personally refer to them as the Midtown and Downtown CBDs even though considering all of Manhattan below 60th St as one CBD can greatly simplify things sometimes. |
|
|
| (560933) | |
Re: SAS via Montague tunnel/Nassau Street |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Tue Jan 29 04:37:46 2008, in response to Re: SAS via Montague tunnel/Nassau Street, posted by Wado MP73 on Mon Jan 28 21:37:21 2008. I hope they resurrect the cross-platform Christie St Shallow Option and still build a transfer to the (J/M/Z) at The Bowery. I think that the Grand St transfer will be the most important on the SAS. |
|
|
| (560934) | |
Re: SAS via Montague tunnel/Nassau Street |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Tue Jan 29 04:46:07 2008, in response to Re: SAS via Montague tunnel/Nassau Street, posted by Edwards! on Mon Jan 28 22:52:40 2008. Didn't the "Plan For Action" actually once consider the (B) to Water or Nassau/Montague and the SAS to Manny B/Coney Island option. I think I once saw a map with such an illustration. I would imagine that it would make for a switching nightmare at Grand. |
|
|
| (560936) | |
Re: SAS via Montague tunnel/Nassau Street |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Tue Jan 29 04:58:59 2008, in response to Re: SAS via Montague tunnel/Nassau Street, posted by SMAZ on Tue Jan 29 04:37:46 2008. The shallow option is one that needs to be re-examined:The key there is to educate people about the benefits of that, especially since it would make Grand Street a much easier transfer and if it also makes for an easier time in doing a Nassau Connection that would in the long term allow for people to transfer to the B/D and also have the SAS be able to then head on Nassau. If possible, I would look at moving up the Grand Street Station into Phase 3, especially if the "Shallow Chrystie" option is brought back that allows for cross-platform transfers and a connection to the Nassau Street Line from Grand that would allow people to either do a direct transfer to the J/M/Z at Bowery or the SAS going onto the Nassau Street line after Grand Street (that in turn also allows lower Manhattan SAS riders to access the Broadway trains at Canal Street if they want to go via the Bridge, or stay on the SAS to go to Brooklyn via Montaugue). |
|
|
| (560937) | |
Re: SAS in Brooklyn (via Montauge and Nassau) |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Tue Jan 29 05:08:01 2008, in response to Re: Fulton Street J/M Station, posted by SMAZ on Tue Jan 29 03:25:11 2008. Exactly!!Having the SAS via Montauge Tunnel and Nassau Street provides Brooklyn riders with a badly needed option aside from the 4/5 from midtown. Knowing how crowded the 4/5 gets south of 59th during both rush hours both ways, the SAS to/from Brooklyn (probably as a full-time train to at least 9th Avenue and rush hours to at least Bay Parkway replacing the rush-hour M train) would be a huge benefit to riders there wanting midtown on the east side and not having to deal with the 4/5, and for many a cross-platform transfer to the 6 at Brooklyn Bridge or 14th. |
|
|
| (560938) | |
Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Tue Jan 29 05:12:49 2008, in response to Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently, posted by 67th Avenue on Fri Jan 25 21:02:13 2008. The R would be a full-time run on Queens Blvd.Also, G riders now have the 7 as a MetroCard transfer at Court Square if they are going to Manhattan (that transfer will eventually become an in-system transfer) in addtition to the E/V transfer there. |
|
|
| (560970) | |
Re: SAS in Brooklyn (via Montauge and Nassau) |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Tue Jan 29 06:55:40 2008, in response to Re: SAS in Brooklyn (via Montauge and Nassau), posted by Wallyhorse on Tue Jan 29 05:08:01 2008. It would also avoid turning the planned transfer between the SAS and the (B)(D) at Grand St into something genocidal. Current (D)(M) riders would be able took take the (T) directly from the West End Line for example. (N)(R) riders would also be able to transfer while still in Brooklyn unless they are heading for the Upper SAS in which case the (Q) is more convenient. IRT riders could also transfer while still in Brooklyn. And of course...yes...the mythical M/V combo could be finally realized. BROOKLYN WINS!!! |
|
|
| (560971) | |
Re: SAS via Montague tunnel/Nassau Street |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Tue Jan 29 06:59:56 2008, in response to Re: SAS via Montague tunnel/Nassau Street, posted by Wallyhorse on Tue Jan 29 04:58:59 2008. Locals need to be told the truth about the proposed depth of the SAS station. Then they need to be reminded about broken escalators. |
|
|
| (560998) | |
Re: SAS in Brooklyn (via Montauge and Nassau) |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Tue Jan 29 07:27:41 2008, in response to Re: SAS in Brooklyn (via Montauge and Nassau), posted by SMAZ on Tue Jan 29 06:55:40 2008. And that is something we need to drive the point home about!!In addition, J riders at Essex (and Chambers who don't want to take the 4/5/6) could switch to the SAS at either Fulton or Broad on the SAME PLATFORM for the SAS to Brooklyn if the SAS doesn't join the Nassau Street Line before Chambers, Canal or The Bowery if they don't want to use the 4/5 or go via the Bridge from Canal Street to Brooklyn. Yes, Brooklyn riders would win big, and if I were in a position to provide political clout in Brooklyn, I'd be lobbying heavily for funding to make sure that connection happened since it would benefit Brooklyn riders tremendously. |
|
|
| (561002) | |
Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently |
|
|
Posted by Osmosis Jones on Tue Jan 29 07:34:43 2008, in response to Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently, posted by Wallyhorse on Tue Jan 29 05:12:49 2008. (that transfer will eventually become an in-system transfer)Proof? |
|
|
| (561006) | |
SAS: Water vs. Nassau Street and M-V Combo |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Tue Jan 29 07:47:30 2008, in response to Re: M-V combo, posted by Wado MP73 on Mon Jan 28 21:14:06 2008. Wado:Ideally, both lower Manhattan branches of the SAS would be built: The Nassau Street connection as either an add-on to Phase 3 (connecting to the Nassau Street line at The Bowery or Canal Street) OR as either an extension of Phase 3 to Chatam Square (meaning the Grand Street station also gets built in Phase 3 instead of Phase 4) or as the first half of Phase 4, with until the Water Street branch is built all T trains going to Brooklyn via Nassau and Montague, also replacing the M in lower Manhattan/South Brooklyn as the M would by then hopefully be combined with the C or V and headed up 6th or 8th Avenue in Manhattan (if with the C to 168th, if with the V to 71st-Continental). The Water Street Branch as the second part of Phase 4 (after Chatam Square, with the stops at Seaport and Hanover Square. Those that do go to/from Chambers and points north of there and the Williamsburg Bridge on the current Nassau Line can for Manhattan take change to/from the J on the same platform at Broad or Fulton and who take the M to Metropolitan can do that and/or make a cross-platform transfer at Essex. |
|
|
| (561010) | |
Re: Future phases of SAS |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Tue Jan 29 07:52:50 2008, in response to Re: Future phases of SAS, posted by R160 8818 on Mon Jan 28 21:02:33 2008. That has been my point all along!!The connection the way it would ideally be done would be to have the SAS join the Nassau Street line at The Bowery, and then proceed to Canal Street, where it would be a HUGE transfer point (and I'm sure a lot of people who work for the Manhattan DA's Office would LOVE that in particular since there is an exit at Walker and Centre Streets from the J/M/Z station at Canal that is only a couple of blocks from the Manhattan courts and the DA's Office at Hogan Place). Canal and Fulton would be HUGE transfer points for a Nassau Branch of the SAS. The Water Street branch of the SAS still should be built, but I would build the Nassau Street connection first, and preferably from Houston as an add-on to Phase 3. |
|
|
| (561012) | |
Re: Fulton Street J/M Station |
|
|
Posted by Qveensboro_Plaza on Tue Jan 29 07:56:05 2008, in response to Re: Fulton Street J/M Station, posted by Wado MP73 on Mon Jan 28 11:56:02 2008. There is no reason why the proposed Park Row tunnel couldn't have a stop at Brooklyn Bridge/Chambers Street just east of the existing J/M//Z station, enabling transfers to it as well as the 4/5/6. |
|
|
| (561062) | |
Re: SAS via Montague tunnel/Nassau Street |
|
|
Posted by Wado MP73 on Tue Jan 29 10:19:35 2008, in response to Re: SAS via Montague tunnel/Nassau Street, posted by SMAZ on Tue Jan 29 06:59:56 2008. It seems that these days you never win against park space. South Ferry could have been cheaper too. |
|
|
| (561064) | |
Re: Fulton Street J/M Station |
|
|
Posted by Wado MP73 on Tue Jan 29 10:20:41 2008, in response to Re: Fulton Street J/M Station, posted by Qveensboro_Plaza on Tue Jan 29 07:56:05 2008. Yeah, more money. |
|
|
| (561068) | |
Re: Fulton Street J/M Station |
|
|
Posted by Wado MP73 on Tue Jan 29 10:31:03 2008, in response to Re: Fulton Street J/M Station, posted by SMAZ on Tue Jan 29 03:31:10 2008. It is too costly to build a connection there.
|
|
|
| (561072) | |
Re: SAS Phase 4: Water Street/Nassau Street |
|
|
Posted by Wado MP73 on Tue Jan 29 10:36:18 2008, in response to Re: SAS Phase 4: Water Street/Nassau Street, posted by Wallyhorse on Tue Jan 29 02:21:50 2008. First the M riders, then the Lefferts riders. You are really into forcing people with one-seat rides to transfer at the same platform instead. lol. |
|
|
| (561077) | |
Re: SAS Phase 4: Water Street |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Tue Jan 29 11:05:14 2008, in response to Re: SAS Phase 4: Water Street, posted by Wado MP73 on Mon Jan 28 13:13:20 2008. Wrong..One of the four tracks end at Canal street...and the wall[on the so called Closed Jamaica bound express trackway] separating THAT one track can be removed without problem as it was built with a false wall. |
|
|
| (561078) | |
Re: SAS: Water vs. Nassau Street and M-V Combo |
|
|
Posted by Wado MP73 on Tue Jan 29 11:05:38 2008, in response to SAS: Water vs. Nassau Street and M-V Combo, posted by Wallyhorse on Tue Jan 29 07:47:30 2008. From a community outreach standpoint, consultation with Community Board 1 and local interest groups—the South Street Seaport and South Street Seaport Museum, The Downtown Alliance, and Regional Plan Association (RPA)—indicates that these groups prefer the Water Street alignment, as it provides new service in the eastern portion of Lower Manhattan and has provisions for future growth, benefits not provided by the Nassau Street Option.And I agree. |
|
|
| (561079) | |
Re: SAS Phase 4: Water Street |
|
|
Posted by Wado MP73 on Tue Jan 29 11:11:32 2008, in response to Re: SAS Phase 4: Water Street, posted by Edwards! on Tue Jan 29 11:05:14 2008. It doesn't matter if all the tracks at Canal are connected or not. You only have two tracks south of Canal until the bridge tracks merges from East. |
|
|
| (561081) | |
Re: Fulton Street J/M Station |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Tue Jan 29 11:21:54 2008, in response to Re: Fulton Street J/M Station, posted by SMAZ on Tue Jan 29 03:31:10 2008. If the Water st line is built..according to the plans..its tail tracks would end somewhere under the upper NEW YORK BAY off shore from Battery park.This can lead to a new river tunnel to Brooklyn,making landfall under Atlantic Avenue.. What Would make the most sense is to combine projects...such as the LOWER MANHATTAN ACCESS STUDY ROUTE PLAN[now The New Airtrain/LIRR JFK Connection] with the Water st Subway..with a branch to the WTC 8th Avenue Local E line. The MTA should look into purchasing a new type of subway car that combines the best of commuters cars like the M7 and Subway cars like the R160/179... Lets call the cars "H-1's"...300 cars for SAS/Airport/Commuter service. This way..riders could have trains serving the line that operate at higher speeds along the SAS and Atlantic avenue subways...luggage areas for Airport travelers..and ADA equipment. |
|
|
| (561085) | |
Re: SAS Phase 4: Water Street |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Tue Jan 29 11:35:12 2008, in response to Re: SAS Phase 4: Water Street, posted by Wado MP73 on Tue Jan 29 11:11:32 2008. Actually..all four tracks can be used..if the MTA wanted.A earlier plan from the original Chrystie st days had ALL tracks from Chambers st thur running to Essex st[the walls from the Bridge line was reconfigured back to the original trackways] Shoe horning the SAS line into this mess would be complicated,to say the least..but it is not impossible to do according to the MTA.. They CHOSE not to built this connection due to the so call disruption it would cause..which I find particular funny..since construction of ANY SUBWAY project causes SOME discomfort to the neighborhood it transverses. Take a look at the current SAS project being built.. Instead of going with cut and cover..they went with a much more destructive method..deep bore.. With DEEP BORE..you have to take MORE PROPERTY..whole parcels of land to build WHOLE BUILDINGS to VENT the subway..which drives up the cost of the project overall. Im not surprise at this in any case..someones making money on this thing..and its NOT THE RIDERS. |
|
|
| (561086) | |
Re: Fulton Street J/M Station |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Tue Jan 29 11:36:42 2008, in response to Re: Fulton Street J/M Station, posted by Edwards! on Tue Jan 29 11:21:54 2008. They already built JFK Airtrain, however, and the rolling stock it uses is quite incompatible with LIRR/NYCT rolling stock.If they did eventually build a tunnel between Lower Manhattan and LIRR's FBA terminal, preferably it should be a double decker arrangement, with LIRR on one level and NYCT on another. That would take care of your AirTrain plans too: whether from the ESA terminal, NYP, or a new Lower Manhattan terminal (which hopefully would see NJT trains coming in from the west). Take LIRR to Jamaica, and get on the AirTrain there at that massive complex the PA built overhead. No need to manufacture fancy rolling stock capable of running with linear induction and third rail, incompatible signal systems, ZPTO v. manned operation, wasted dinky two car JFK Airtrains taking up capacity, etc. |
|
|
| (561090) | |
Re: SAS: Water vs. Nassau Street and M-V Combo |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Tue Jan 29 11:49:13 2008, in response to Re: SAS: Water vs. Nassau Street and M-V Combo, posted by Wado MP73 on Tue Jan 29 11:05:38 2008. I agree.Nassau st is too far west to be useful here..and lets face it..its one heck of a walk from Fulton st/Nassau complex to the SeaPort area. The Water st subway Should be built..without question it will be a boon for the neighborhood. The glaring problem here is that there wont be a SOUTH FERRY STATION,even though the line tail tracks will end under the FERRY TERMINAL area,under the Upper NY Bay.. The subway line is SO important..that it should be constructed from the Chrystie st subway's Grand st station..Instead of the so called "deep bore station" of the current SAS plan...and it should be done TODAY. |
|
|
| (561092) | |
More uses for Chrystie St Cut Re: SAS: Water vs. Nassau Street and M-V Combo |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Tue Jan 29 12:01:13 2008, in response to Re: SAS: Water vs. Nassau Street and M-V Combo, posted by Wado MP73 on Tue Jan 29 11:05:38 2008. Chrystie St helps to afford Eastern Division riders direct 6th Av service; the way it works out, especially riders on the Myrtle Av branch of the ex-BMT Jamaica. But Chrystie St does little for making the Nassau St Line stations more useful.What if the Chrystie St cut also connected the Nassau St Line to the 6th Av Line? (So trains from Brooklyn via Montague St, or from Broad St terminal, could make all stops, to say, Bowery, and then Broadway-Lafayette St and all stops heading to Queens). Of course, given competition from the M/V proposal for the limited terminal capacity at Forest Hills under present operations, well, that's competition. Now, 6th Av trains could have direct access to Lower Manhattan without need to switch at Washington Sq, which has lots of consequences. Since there's a lot of inactive trackage in the area, construction mightn't affect current operations. Sure, given the current fiscal woes, we might not see this viable for a while, but it seems worth considering. |
|
|
| (561094) | |
Re: SAS: Water vs. Nassau Street and M-V Combo |
|
|
Posted by R160 8818 on Tue Jan 29 12:02:07 2008, in response to SAS: Water vs. Nassau Street and M-V Combo, posted by Wallyhorse on Tue Jan 29 07:47:30 2008. I believe the SAS-Nassau connection will work best.First of all, in the current plan for Phase 3 (the installment of the T), the train will terminate at Houston Street with a transfer to the F. The F does not go into Downtown Manhattan, but rather the Lower East Side. A connection connecting the tracks to the Nassau tracks will prove sufficient and favorable as riders are directed to Downtown via the Nassau St Line stopping at Canal, Chambers, Fulton and Broad. There are many transfer options at Canal and Fulton. Finally, it could replace the M south of Chambers. Instead of just following the M route, it has many possibilities. It can terminate at 9th Ave, Bay Parkway, Brighton Beach, Coney Island (via West End), Coney Island (via Sea beach) etc... There are a lot of possibilities once past the Montague tunnel. As Wallyhorse said earlier, the original idea of the SAS was to reduce pressure on the Lex lines. By following the J/Z route, it is paralleled to the Lex line all the way to Broad Street. Phase 4 will not be as attractive, but is still needed. However it only provides a transfer option at Grand Street to the D which takes riders to Brooklyn and not Downtown. Seaport and Hanover Sq may be a stone's throw from existing subway stations, but no transfer options are made at this point. As a side note, could the platforms at Bowery, Canal, Chambers, Fulton and Broad we extended 120 feet so that 10 car trains could run? |
|
|
| (561095) | |
Re: More uses for Chrystie St Cut Re: SAS: Water vs. Nassau Street and M-V Combo |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Tue Jan 29 12:05:45 2008, in response to More uses for Chrystie St Cut Re: SAS: Water vs. Nassau Street and M-V Combo, posted by trainsarefun on Tue Jan 29 12:01:13 2008. Its a great idea..and right now there are tunnel shells for that purpose sitting on top of the current tunnels under Chrystie st...but they will never be completed..since they do NOT FIT INTO ANY CURRENT PLANS THE MTA ENVISIONED.Sad ..isn't it..? |
|
|
| (561098) | |
Re: SAS: Water vs. Nassau Street and M-V Combo |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Tue Jan 29 12:09:35 2008, in response to Re: SAS: Water vs. Nassau Street and M-V Combo, posted by R160 8818 on Tue Jan 29 12:02:07 2008. I'm more for connecting the SAS with the Houston st line under Essex st.Rerouting F trains to the East Side..using the 63rd st subway for Queens. |
|
|
| (561101) | |
Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Tue Jan 29 12:12:15 2008, in response to Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently, posted by Osmosis Jones on Tue Jan 29 07:34:43 2008. That's what I had read a while back, on this board as I recall.From what I remember reading, we were discussing this, and I remember in fact asking a question on that meaning that in addition to the G, you would also have an in-system transfer to the E/F from the 7 at Court Square (as you do from the G already) once that is done. That's how I remember it. |
|
|
| (561103) | |
Re: SAS: South Ferry Station |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Tue Jan 29 12:16:46 2008, in response to Re: SAS: Water vs. Nassau Street and M-V Combo, posted by Edwards! on Tue Jan 29 11:49:13 2008. I do agree that if you are going to build the SAS tracks to South Ferry (on the Water Street branch), there should be a station there as well (with transfers there to the 1/N/R/W).I would also do it with a provision of a that such a tunnel would then continue to perhaps have such a branch of the SAS to Staten Island down the road. |
|
|
| (561107) | |
SAS: Water/Nassau Street Branches |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Tue Jan 29 12:20:31 2008, in response to Re: SAS: South Ferry Station, posted by Wallyhorse on Tue Jan 29 12:16:46 2008. One other thing:The Water Street branch should definitely be built. That is NOT the issue. The Nassau Street branch's main feature would be to give the SAS a route to Brooklyn as well as lower Manhattan BEFORE the Water Street branch can be built. There is no question the Water Street branch needs to be built, but a Nassau connection should ALSO be built since: 1. It can be used before Water Street can be ready. 2. It gives riders in Brooklyn wanting East Side access an alternative to the 4/5 into Manhattan, a line that gets CRUSH LOADED. |
|
|
| (561112) | |
Re: SAS via Montague tunnel/Nassau Street |
|
|
Posted by Michael549 on Tue Jan 29 12:29:06 2008, in response to Re: SAS via Montague tunnel/Nassau Street, posted by Russ on Mon Jan 28 18:55:07 2008. From a previous message: "You sound like a middle/high school/college teacher who's been out of touch from the real world and forgot how to think outside of the text book. Mind you, I'm not saying you're one but you do sound like one."Usually I try to be polite on the forums, but right now I am not going to bother with being polite. This particular discussion started with the statement by Russ that, "Chambers (which is just outside of a CBD, referring to the Chambers Street station of the J-M-Z lines is considered by him to be "outside of the CBD" of Manhattan. I called him on what is basically, logically, geographically, and historically - a STUPID STATEMENT. It was a stupid statement, and in later messages he wished to support the stupid statement that he made. He does this in a number of ways: 1) He names the architects who designed the Municipal Building. Please note that any day of the week I can pull out my AIA Guide to NYC and other resources to name the architects of many buildings. On any day of the week I can also discuss the history of the area, I'm good at that. Naming the architect of the building does nothing to bolster his argument, so he tries another method: 2) Russ then tries to change the terms of the debate by saying, let's call it the Financial District. I agree that there are a number of districts in Manhattan and the city, and that there could be arguments about their boundaries. For example, define: "Lower Manhattan" - some consider that to be entire area south of 14th Street, while others use south of Canal Street. The boundary definitions of the Financial District and so many other places can be confusing - it all depends upon who is drawing the lines. One can describe "The Financial District" as a specialized district. If one is going to do that then one can also describe a "government - civic district" as containing municipal offices, court buildings, police headquarters, etc - which the Municipal Building (and the Chambers Street station under it) happens to be in the middle of. 3) Then he says that "the city" makes a distinction between "downtown" and "midtown" and that the RPA (Regional Planning Association) and the Federal Government considers them (downtown and midtown) to be distinct. In his next message, Russ than says: "Many real estate agencies consider the Midtown CBD and Lower Manhattan CBD as separate..." If you wish to consider "downtown" and "midtown" distinct districts that's ok with me. Some consider 14th Street to be the dividing line between the two, while others consider Canal Street and 31st Street to be boundaries. There was always that problematic section in the middle the "teens' and twenties" (which would make one of the city's earliest skyscrapers outside the "business district" ha, ha). Some folks really want to be bound by tight boundaries on a map often to the point of forgetting that while a boundary line often flows down the middle of a street, that the "other side of the street still exists. Usually these boundary lines are used as a short hand way to describe activities on the street and the area. This argument is a distraction from his particular point, and was meant as such. 4) Russ then says, "Who considers all of Manhattan below 59th Street one CBD? Recent discussions concerning "congestion pricing" as a way to reduce traffic in Manhattan - did not bother to consider Manhattan was containing separate districts, or boundary lines around each of the districts. In none of the discussions where there distinctions between "midtown" and "downtown" or any other "town" of Manhattan - but one mass area. Why? The City Planning Department for decades considered Manhattan below 59th Street to be the CBD, and their zoning regulations supported that decision, which does not undermine any idea that there are districts within the whole. Frankly there are times when to consider the whole area a business district as shorthand since many activities take place in a number of locations. We can be nerdy and particular but there is no need to be. 5) In his next message, Russ attempts to say that "zip code 10007 to be the north end of the latter", (meaning the Lower Manhattan CBD). That puts Chambers and Worth Sts. as the northern border." Using zip codes as boundary descriptions of neighborhoods and districts was always problematic. Drawing boundary lines for zip codes, census tracts, community districts, etc. can also be problematic. For example, the whole "Financial District" is a part of Community District #1, the building in question is located in Manhattan Census tract #29, and it is near the edge of zip code 10007. Do you want a tax-block and lot number? 6) Saying that because a building exists near the boundary line of (a census tract, zip code, a district, etc) that is "outside of" said boundary is completely silly. Russ concedes that when he says, "While it may not be outside, it is at the edge of it." One could also make the argument that since the World Trade Center was near the boundary of Manhattan, thus it is outside of Manhattan. That is a silly stupid statement on the face of it, and that needs to be made clear. 7) Then Russ says, "You sound like a middle/high school/college teacher who's been out of touch from the real world and forgot how to think outside of the text book." There are a number of readings of this statement, so I'll take each one at a time. If you are calling me a college teacher who knows their stuff and who does not stand for crap, then I will take that was a compliment. It is true, I do not allow crap to go on in my class and I expect my students to be capable of making adult serious arguments to support their contentions. If Russ is saying that I am "out of touch" and that "I forgot how to think outside of the text book" then he is sadly mistaken. This statement was meant as a distraction from the particular point that I made, and was meant as such. 8) Russ wishes to make some kind of statement about the J-train, the Second Avenue subway, and the attractivess of lower Manhattan compared to midtown, etc. Others are making arguments about an alignment for the Second Avenue subway - all fair. 9) In my original statement - I challenged the description of the Chambers Street station "AS OUTSIDE OF THE CBD". I still stand by my description, and nothing Russ has said has changed the truth of what I said. Mike |
|
|
| (561114) | |
Re: More uses for Chrystie St Cut Re: SAS: Water vs. Nassau Street and M-V Combo |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Tue Jan 29 12:31:15 2008, in response to Re: More uses for Chrystie St Cut Re: SAS: Water vs. Nassau Street and M-V Combo, posted by Edwards! on Tue Jan 29 12:05:45 2008. I know:That is a case where you need to EDUCATE people that: 1. The tunnels are there and can be used for such a purpose on the 6th avenue line. 2. It is possible to have a connection via Chrystie Street that can use such tunnels for 6th Avenue trains to access Lower Manhattan and Brooklyn via Nassau and Montauge Streets. That would be an excellent option if a 6th Avenue train can go via Nassau after a stop at Broadway-Lafayette, since such would give Downtown 6 riders the option of switching to such a line there rather than at Canal Street, and eventually uptown 6 riders the same option. Such an option would take some pressure off the 4/5 in Brooklyn since those riders can in this scenario take the much-less crowded (at that point) 6 to Broadway-Lafayette for that option. |
|
|
| (561117) | |
Re: SAS: Water vs. Nassau Street and M-V Combo |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Tue Jan 29 12:35:00 2008, in response to Re: SAS: Water vs. Nassau Street and M-V Combo, posted by Edwards! on Tue Jan 29 12:09:35 2008. That would be an interesting move, however:What line would replace the F on Sixth Avenue if you moved the F to the SAS? Remember, you would have only either the V or an M-V combo line running up 6th avenue as a local at that point. |
|
|
| (561118) | |
Re: SAS Phase 4: Water Street/Nassau Street |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Tue Jan 29 12:37:54 2008, in response to Re: SAS Phase 4: Water Street/Nassau Street, posted by Wado MP73 on Tue Jan 29 10:36:18 2008. Yes:But in the case of Nassau, the SAS on it would mean a 24/7 line via Montauge to Brooklyn that way, so J riders would be able to go that way via such a transfer on weekends as opposed to having to switch to the 4/5 at Chambers as they do now. |
|
|
|
Page 16 of 20 |
||
