|
|
| Re: SAS Phases 3/4: Water Street/Nassau Street (554375) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 19 of 20 |
||
|
| (562458) | |
Re: SAS Phases 3/4: Water Street/Nassau Street |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Fri Feb 1 05:13:22 2008, in response to Re: SAS Phase 4: Water Street/Nassau Street, posted by R160 8818 on Thu Jan 31 20:35:37 2008. Exactly!!Most of us have been saying PHASE THREE, NOT PHASE FOUR for the Nassau connection! The Nassau Connection would be Phase 3 so the SAS does not dead-end at Houston Street. That would have it likely joining the Nassau line at The Bowery while Phase 4 is being built. By the time Phase 4 is ready, it could be there is enough demand to keep the Nassau connection of Phase 3 as a permanent regular line, plus obviously having such available for G.O.'s on the Broadway line that the Q and R can use for instance. As for the issues in Southeast Queens, yes that also is needed, and I have said myself many times what I would do there extend the E/J/Z lines in Queens all the way to Belmont Park, where there could be a HUGE terminal/underground yard under the parking lot on the backstretch there that can also on big race days (i.e. Belmont Stakes Day for instance). This can make Belmont Park a huge park-and ride facility for those coming from Nassau County as well as be very attractive since by the time this was built, Belmont Park will likely be a "racino" with Video Lottery Terminals. |
|
|
| (562462) | |
Re: Southeast Queens Issues |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Fri Feb 1 05:16:45 2008, in response to Re: SAS Phases 3/4: Water Street/Nassau Street, posted by Wallyhorse on Fri Feb 1 05:13:22 2008. I said in the last post:As for the issues in Southeast Queens, yes that also is needed, and I have said myself many times what I would do there extend the E/J/Z lines in Queens all the way to Belmont Park, where there could be a HUGE terminal/underground yard under the parking lot on the backstretch there that can also on big race days (i.e. Belmont Stakes Day for instance). This can make Belmont Park a huge park-and ride facility for those coming from Nassau County as well as be very attractive since by the time this was built, Belmont Park will likely be a "racino" with Video Lottery Terminals. I meant to say: As for the issues in Southeast Queens, yes that also is needed, and I have said myself many times what I would do there extend the E/J/Z lines in Queens all the way to Belmont Park, where there could be a HUGE terminal/underground yard under the parking lot on the backstretch there that can also on big race days (i.e. Belmont Stakes Day for instance) serve as a major loading facility for loading people on trains more efficiently than the LIRR trains there on those days. This can make Belmont Park a huge park-and ride facility for those coming from Nassau County as well as be very attractive since by the time this was built, Belmont Park will likely be a "racino" with Video Lottery Terminals. |
|
|
| (562561) | |
Re: Southeast Queens Issues |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Fri Feb 1 09:16:25 2008, in response to Re: Southeast Queens Issues, posted by Wallyhorse on Fri Feb 1 05:16:45 2008. I have hopes for transit uses of Belmont Park too. Frankly, with better service to the LIRR stops already in SE Queens, that would actually make bringing subway service through there a lesser priority to my mind.Of course, infrastructure improvements would be required. The terminal still retains its low platforms, which is a problem because all active LIRR equipment works with high platforms. Also, the move to/from the mainline via QUEENS interlocking is accomplished at very low speeds, from my observations. That would need to be corrected because it's a crossing at grade, and takes way too long as is. |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (562849) | |
Re: SAS Phase 4: Water Street/Nassau Street |
|
|
Posted by R160 8818 on Fri Feb 1 18:18:37 2008, in response to Re: SAS Phase 4: Water Street/Nassau Street, posted by Wallyhorse on Fri Feb 1 04:57:42 2008. Yup.There will be a slight problem though, wouldn't the J act the same way when this plan is implemented as the Q's provisional extension to Queensbridge? |
|
|
| (562853) | |
Re: SAS Phase 4: Water Street/Nassau Street |
|
|
Posted by R160 8818 on Fri Feb 1 18:26:22 2008, in response to Re: SAS Phase 4: Water Street/Nassau Street, posted by Wallyhorse on Thu Jan 31 23:20:03 2008. Because it cuts through the heart of the F/D.That will make sense as we could send the Hanover branch to UES and send the Nassau to Queens or the other way around. It provides long term benefits when there are two lines. When there is a Queens service, and if only Phase 4 is built then the two lines must terminate at the same terminal which lowers the TPH. The Nassau line will act as an outlet for the line. True the Queens line won't be implemented that quickly as the Queens Blvd line is packed. But having an outlet or some alternative route will allow for better service and flexibility. |
|
|
| (562854) | |
Re: SAS Phase 4: Water Street/Nassau Street |
|
|
Posted by R160 8818 on Fri Feb 1 18:27:42 2008, in response to Re: SAS Phase 4: Water Street/Nassau Street, posted by Grand concourse on Thu Jan 31 23:38:26 2008. Yeah... and such a connection will be complicated.By the time Phase 1 gets completed, such a price tag will be +10B |
|
|
| (562855) | |
Re: SAS Phase 4: Water Street/Nassau Street |
|
|
Posted by R160 8818 on Fri Feb 1 18:29:14 2008, in response to Re: SAS Phase 4: Water Street/Nassau Street, posted by SMAZ on Fri Feb 1 01:22:35 2008. LOLS. |
|
|
| (562856) | |
Re: SAS Phase 4: Water Street/Nassau Street |
|
|
Posted by R160 8818 on Fri Feb 1 18:30:03 2008, in response to Re: SAS Phase 4: Water Street/Nassau Street, posted by SMAZ on Fri Feb 1 01:19:41 2008. (Agreed.) |
|
|
| (562862) | |
Re: SAS: Water vs. Nassau Street and M-V Combo |
|
|
Posted by R160 8818 on Fri Feb 1 18:37:35 2008, in response to Re: SAS: Water vs. Nassau Street and M-V Combo, posted by SMAZ on Wed Jan 30 03:24:14 2008. In which the Glass Egg is endangered of being dropped. |
|
|
| (562923) | |
Re: Southeast Queens Issues |
|
|
Posted by R160 8818 on Fri Feb 1 19:32:31 2008, in response to Re: Southeast Queens Issues, posted by Wallyhorse on Fri Feb 1 05:16:45 2008. All of East QueensNot just Southeast Queens but also areas like Fresh Meadows, Oakwood Heights, Bay Terrace, Bayside, Little Neck... |
|
|
| (562930) | |
Re: SAS Phase 4: Water Street/Nassau Street |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Fri Feb 1 19:39:15 2008, in response to Re: SAS Phase 4: Water Street/Nassau Street, posted by R160 8818 on Fri Feb 1 18:26:22 2008. Exactly:Having that service available, even if not used right away or in the case of QB only used for G.O.s is something that needs to be considered. This also ties into what I would be looking at doing as an additional phase of the SAS if funds became available, a portion of the line that would break from the SAS north after 72nd and makes stops at 79th and York-1st Avenues and Roosevelt Island before heading to a new terminal at Roosevelt Blvd. or somewhere further up the QB line on new tracks as a super express. |
|
|
| (562933) | |
Re: SAS Phase 4: Water Street/Nassau Street |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Fri Feb 1 19:41:31 2008, in response to Re: SAS Phase 4: Water Street/Nassau Street, posted by R160 8818 on Fri Feb 1 18:18:37 2008. Not the way I would do it:The J would continue to Broad Street while the T would go to Bay Parkway. The Q's to Queensbridge would mainly be while the tram is shut down on Roosevelt Island, but would be to 96th once that branch opens. |
|
|
| (562935) | |
Re: SAS Phase 4: Water Street/Nassau Street |
|
|
Posted by R160 8818 on Fri Feb 1 19:42:29 2008, in response to Re: SAS Phase 4: Water Street/Nassau Street, posted by Wallyhorse on Fri Feb 1 19:39:15 2008. Not just GOs... ANYTHING can happen that can disrupt normal subway service.Turning out after 72nd Street proves as a good plan, sometimes service diversions would allow the R to switch onto these tracks and access QB via the new tunnel. Now which is cheaper? An East Side Tunnel to Queens or an underwater tube to Brooklyn or Staten Island? |
|
|
| (562941) | |
Re: SAS Phase 4: Water Street/Nassau Street |
|
|
Posted by R160 8818 on Fri Feb 1 19:44:38 2008, in response to Re: SAS Phase 4: Water Street/Nassau Street, posted by Wallyhorse on Fri Feb 1 19:41:31 2008. Tell me about what tracks are going to be used, because it will get a little messy near the Chambers Street area. If all 4 tracks are used between Bowery and Chambers Street and if you decided to allow the J to terminate within the borough that will call for some merging. That will raise some capacity issues, wouldn't it? |
|
|
| (562971) | |
Re: Southeast Queens Issues |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Fri Feb 1 20:24:22 2008, in response to Re: Southeast Queens Issues, posted by R160 8818 on Fri Feb 1 19:32:31 2008. Not just Southeast Queens but also areas like Fresh Meadows, Oakwood Heights, Bay Terrace, Bayside, Little Neck...I'm curious - where's 'Oakwood Heights' in eastern Queens? |
|
|
| (563365) | |
Re: Southeast Queens Issues |
|
|
Posted by R160 8818 on Sat Feb 2 13:02:39 2008, in response to Re: Southeast Queens Issues, posted by trainsarefun on Fri Feb 1 20:24:22 2008. sorryI was reminded of this area in Staten Island instead Should've been Oakland Gardens, I believe |
|
|
| (563374) | |
Re: Southeast Queens Issues |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Sat Feb 2 13:24:31 2008, in response to Re: Southeast Queens Issues, posted by R160 8818 on Sat Feb 2 13:02:39 2008. OK, that's what I thought - thanks. |
|
|
| (563427) | |
Re: SAS Phase 4: Water Street/Nassau Street |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Sat Feb 2 15:29:12 2008, in response to Re: SAS Phase 4: Water Street/Nassau Street, posted by R160 8818 on Fri Feb 1 19:44:38 2008. That area on the Nassau Street line I would only be using the current two tracks in use all the way, not four (obviously, this assumes an M-V merger would be in place by the time this came up).If necessary, some T trains would terminate at Houston or Chatam Square if there was a Nassau connection, but there no Water Street branch at that point, but I suspect there would be enough room for both the J/Z and T trains along Nassau, with the T continuing to Bay Parkway at ALL TIMES. |
|
|
| (563565) | |
Re: SAS Phase 4: Water Street/Nassau Street |
|
|
Posted by Wado MP73 on Sat Feb 2 19:48:16 2008, in response to Re: SAS Phase 4: Water Street/Nassau Street, posted by Russ on Thu Jan 31 18:53:11 2008. You still haven't addressed the problem of capacity that shrinks south of Chambers.South of Canal, not Chambers. |
|
|
| (563809) | |
Re: SAS via Montague tunnel/Nassau Street |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Sun Feb 3 06:37:13 2008, in response to Re: SAS via Montague tunnel/Nassau Street, posted by SMAZ on Tue Jan 29 04:46:07 2008. That I don't know about, however, that would sound like a nightmare switching situation given what is in place at Grand Street now. |
|
|
| (563810) | |
Re: SAS in Brooklyn (via Montauge and Nassau) |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Sun Feb 3 06:38:16 2008, in response to Re: SAS in Brooklyn (via Montauge and Nassau), posted by SMAZ on Wed Jan 30 02:45:55 2008. Are those two stations (Grand Street and The Bowery) close enough where such an in-system transfer could be built? |
|
|
| (564017) | |
Re: SAS Phase 4: Water Street/Nassau Street |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Sun Feb 3 14:20:19 2008, in response to Re: SAS Phase 4: Water Street/Nassau Street, posted by Wado MP73 on Sat Feb 2 19:48:16 2008. That is the part that is forgotten:Before the rebuild of Canal Street (and The Bowery), what used to be the "express" tracks actually were end tracks that terminated at Canal Street (if you remember, there used to be a walkway at what was the front of the south end of Canal Street between the two platforms before the renovations changed that station). The J/Z and T trains should be able to fit since the T would be replacing the M in lower Manhattan (with the M going via 6th avenue, combined with the V). |
|
|
| (564019) | |
Re: Southeast Queens Issues |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Sun Feb 3 14:23:20 2008, in response to Re: Southeast Queens Issues, posted by trainsarefun on Fri Feb 1 09:16:25 2008. That is the big problem with the Belmont Park LIRR station now:What would need to be a more efficient LIRR terminal would require making the Bridge two tracks, with one going above all of the other tracks at Queens Village and then coming around and joining the other tracks there. Obviously, the platforms would also have to be rebuilt there as well. The E/J/Z station that I would have there would be a much more efficient terminal. |
|
|
| (564027) | |
Re: Southeast Queens Issues |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Sun Feb 3 14:56:06 2008, in response to Re: Southeast Queens Issues, posted by Wallyhorse on Sun Feb 3 14:23:20 2008. That is the big problem with the Belmont Park LIRR station now:What would need to be a more efficient LIRR terminal would require making the Bridge two tracks, with one going above all of the other tracks at Queens Village and then coming around and joining the other tracks there. Obviously, the platforms would also have to be rebuilt there as well. Which "Bridge" are you talking about? The problem as I see it is that Belmont Park makes a connection only to the southernmost of the Main Line, and that only one of those connections is going westbound. But that's just one single tracking problem over a very short segment, measuring maybe bit longer than a 10 car train, as I remember it, before one gets to the switches determining whether one ends up on the eastern or western sides of the terminal. True, it would nice if the eastbound connection could be made into a westbound connection linking to one of the two northern tracks, but that adds lots of expense. I'd focus more on making moves to/from the spur speedier so that the grade crossing left less potential for delays. Since there's more than enough terminal capacity - 8 tracks holding 8 or 10 cars, as I recall - to hold westbound trains as an eastbound train comes into Belmont Pk terminal, I don't see that very short segment of single-tracking being a problem. |
|
|
| (564060) | |
Re: SAS Phase 4: Water Street |
|
|
Posted by R143 on Sun Feb 3 15:49:36 2008, in response to Re: SAS Phase 4: Water Street, posted by Wado MP73 on Mon Jan 28 13:13:20 2008. Three tracks go through at Canal. The former Queens bound track still cuts through. And there would be nothing stopping them from cutting the other through as they did with the current Queens track on the former Broad st only platform. |
|
|
| (564062) | |
Re: Fulton Street J/M Station |
|
|
Posted by R143 on Sun Feb 3 15:50:41 2008, in response to Re: Fulton Street J/M Station, posted by Wado MP73 on Tue Jan 29 10:31:03 2008. Why, the SAS connection would be built either before Bowery, or between Bowery and Canal. |
|
|
| (564065) | |
Re: Fulton Street J/M Station |
|
|
Posted by R143 on Sun Feb 3 15:53:06 2008, in response to Re: Fulton Street J/M Station, posted by Russ on Sun Jan 27 23:44:06 2008. It's not inferior. The Nassau line is a line already there, and underused. And also a link to Brooklyn. The Water St alignment would be nice, but we are not in a world of uinlimited funds. |
|
|
| (564071) | |
Re: SAS via Montague tunnel/Nassau Street |
|
|
Posted by R143 on Sun Feb 3 15:56:06 2008, in response to Re: SAS via Montague tunnel/Nassau Street, posted by Russ on Mon Jan 28 13:53:02 2008. What do you mean it stinks near brooklyn? You can't say that it runs at capacity! Sure it shrinks from 4 to 2 tracks after Chambers, but Just send the M to Forest Hills, the J terminate at Chambers, and run the T through to Brooklyn. The J may even be able to also stay at Broad, with the T going through to Brooklyn, as the M and J do that just fine now (and did when the M ran all day. But before someone mentioned the 4 tracks to 2 after Chambers, there's the answer too. |
|
|
| (564082) | |
Re: SAS via Montague tunnel/Nassau Street |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Sun Feb 3 16:13:26 2008, in response to Re: SAS via Montague tunnel/Nassau Street, posted by R143 on Sun Feb 3 15:56:06 2008. And that is the point:The M-V would be a Sixth avenue line, with the J/Z and T trains after Essex (starting with The Bowery). That would work and not be too much different from what there is now, with the T replacing the M in Brooklyn. |
|
|
| (564084) | |
Re: SAS in Brooklyn (via Montauge and Nassau) |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Sun Feb 3 16:19:16 2008, in response to Re: SAS in Brooklyn (via Montauge and Nassau), posted by Wallyhorse on Sun Feb 3 06:38:16 2008. Yes. The north side of Grand St station is adjacent to Delancey. Proximity is not a problem but there are probably some infrustructure obstacles to such a transfer, otherwise I would think that it would have been done in 1967 when Grand St opened. Anybody here know why? |
|
|
| (564086) | |
Re: Fulton Street J/M Station |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Sun Feb 3 16:20:30 2008, in response to Re: Fulton Street J/M Station, posted by R143 on Sun Feb 3 15:53:06 2008. Exactly:Not to mention the fact the Nassau connection can be ready several years before Water Street is. |
|
|
| (564089) | |
Re: SAS Phase 4: Water Street |
|
|
Posted by Russ on Sun Feb 3 16:30:03 2008, in response to Re: SAS Phase 4: Water Street/Nassau Street, posted by Grand concourse on Thu Jan 31 23:38:26 2008. That's not what I wrote. I wrote that Phase 4 is in the $4 billion range (actually estimated at $4.8 billion in the FEIS,) and that a tunnel may be in that range. That could be $9 billion+. Advocating the construction of two Phase 4 alignments, even though one is renamed, would also be in the $9 billion range. |
|
|
| (564090) | |
Re: SAS Phase 4: Water Street/Nassau Street |
|
|
Posted by Russ on Sun Feb 3 16:32:03 2008, in response to Re: SAS Phase 4: Water Street/Nassau Street, posted by Wallyhorse on Fri Feb 1 04:57:42 2008. You never mentioned a second SAS/QB line. The MTA may not have publicly committed to running such a line, but they are building the infrastructure to make such a line possible. Where does that terminate? |
|
|
| (564091) | |
Re: SAS Phase 4: Water Street/Nassau Street |
|
|
Posted by Russ on Sun Feb 3 16:33:00 2008, in response to Re: SAS Phase 4: Water Street/Nassau Street, posted by Wado MP73 on Sat Feb 2 19:48:16 2008. Good point. That could be fixed, but it would require more funding. |
|
|
| (564095) | |
Re: SAS Phases 3/4: Water Street/Nassau Street |
|
|
Posted by Russ on Sun Feb 3 16:36:24 2008, in response to Re: SAS Phases 3/4: Water Street/Nassau Street, posted by Wallyhorse on Fri Feb 1 05:13:22 2008. Most of us have been saying PHASE THREE, NOT PHASE FOUR for the Nassau connection!OK, so now because you combined the rejected Nassau St Phase 4 alignment with Phase 3, Phase 3's price goes from $4.8 billion+ to $9.6 billion+. Where will that extra $4.8 billion come from? Which projects don't get executed? |
|
|
| (564097) | |
Re: SAS Phase 4: Water Street/Nassau Street |
|
|
Posted by Russ on Sun Feb 3 16:38:49 2008, in response to Re: SAS Phase 4: Water Street/Nassau Street, posted by SMAZ on Fri Feb 1 04:35:30 2008. So the Christie St Connection for the (B/D) to the Manny B and to South Brooklyn was reduntant because it uses pre-existing BMT infrustructure? They could have sent the (B/D) down to Water St after all.No, the Manny B connection was not redundant to Water St 40 years ago because a Water St alignment didn't exist. |
|
|
| (564098) | |
Re: SAS in Brooklyn (via Montauge and Nassau) |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Sun Feb 3 16:38:53 2008, in response to Re: SAS in Brooklyn (via Montauge and Nassau), posted by SMAZ on Sun Feb 3 16:19:16 2008. Proximity is not a problem but there are probably some infrustructure obstacles to such a transfer, otherwise I would think that it would have been done in 1967 when Grand St opened. Anybody here know why?Actually, I think that the Grand St station only extends northward only to Broome St, a block short of Delancey St. What's puzzling to me is why Chrystie St instead of Bowery itself was chosen to lead the 6th Av Line to the Manhattan Bridge. |
|
|
| (564112) | |
Re: SAS in Brooklyn (via Montauge and Nassau) |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Sun Feb 3 17:00:07 2008, in response to Re: SAS in Brooklyn (via Montauge and Nassau), posted by trainsarefun on Sun Feb 3 16:38:53 2008. What's puzzling to me is why Chrystie St instead of Bowery itself was chosen to lead the 6th Av Line to the Manhattan Bridge.My guess is they chose Christie St with the SAS in mind since Chrystie is the continuation of 2nd Av. Perhaps the connection to the old Bway BMT-Manny B tracks might have been easier from there too. Robert Moses' plans for his LOMEX may have also influenced the project's location. |
|
|
| (564119) | |
Re: SAS Phase 4: Water Street |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Sun Feb 3 17:10:43 2008, in response to Re: SAS Phase 4: Water Street, posted by Russ on Sun Feb 3 16:30:03 2008. I think that the cost of a Park Row tunnel from Chatham Sq directly into the Nassau stacks would be along the lines of the 41st Av Connector (adjusted for construction cost inflation). |
|
|
| (564120) | |
Re: SAS in Brooklyn (via Montauge and Nassau) |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Sun Feb 3 17:11:20 2008, in response to Re: SAS in Brooklyn (via Montauge and Nassau), posted by SMAZ on Sun Feb 3 17:00:07 2008. It may not have hurt that the southeast corner of Houston and Chrystie was an empty lot at the time, making construction of the tracks under non-street property as they go around the curve far less expensive than if there had been buildings there. |
|
|
| (564121) | |
Re: SAS in Brooklyn (via Montauge and Nassau) |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Sun Feb 3 17:12:10 2008, in response to Re: SAS in Brooklyn (via Montauge and Nassau), posted by AlM on Sun Feb 3 17:11:20 2008. I meant southwest. |
|
|
| (564123) | |
Re: SAS Phase 4: Water Street/Nassau Street |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Sun Feb 3 17:15:15 2008, in response to Re: SAS Phase 4: Water Street/Nassau Street, posted by Russ on Sun Feb 3 16:32:03 2008. I called it the (Y) for the purpose of this discussion and it would terminate at a Chatham Sq Lower Level along with the (U) aka The Bronx Line, while the (T) at 10-12 TPH would replace the (M) to Nassau/Brooklyn. |
|
|
| (564127) | |
Re: SAS Phase 4: Water Street/Nassau Street |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Sun Feb 3 17:28:10 2008, in response to Re: SAS Phase 4: Water Street/Nassau Street, posted by Russ on Sun Feb 3 16:38:49 2008. The Water St alignment wasn't built back then BECAUSE they chose the pre-existing Manny B tracks instead. They chose redundancy over serving new areas because post-Chrystie the Manny B tracks would take all riders into Midtown. I don't disagree with that decision because it's more efficient then the previous BMT service just like a connection to the BMT Nassau Line initially in place of Water St would be more efficient and connect Nassau St to the entire length of Manhattan. Current (M) riders in Brooklyn and Lower Manhattan could take the (T) all the way to Harlem. People that currently don't take the (M) because it doesn't go above Delancey would instead have a service that does. |
|
|
| (564131) | |
Re: SAS in Brooklyn (via Montauge and Nassau) |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Sun Feb 3 17:32:58 2008, in response to Re: SAS in Brooklyn (via Montauge and Nassau), posted by AlM on Sun Feb 3 17:12:10 2008. Interesting. I figured that there had to be a good reason. |
|
|
| (564198) | |
Re: SAS Phase 4: Water Street |
|
|
Posted by Russ on Sun Feb 3 19:39:30 2008, in response to Re: SAS Phase 4: Water Street/Nassau Street, posted by SMAZ on Sun Feb 3 17:15:15 2008. 1) There are no provisions for building a terminal in Chatham Sq.2) Terminating trains that never go through the Financial District is a political non-starter, which leads us to... 3) It is highly improbable that any such funding will ever materialize. 4) Finally, the need to construct additional terminal capacity with a Nassau St alignment clearly illustrates the shrinking capacity problem of it as it approaches, and then moves south of, the Financial District. |
|
|
| (564278) | |
Re: SAS Phases 3/4: Water Street/Nassau Street |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Mon Feb 4 01:14:40 2008, in response to Re: SAS Phase 4: Water Street, posted by SMAZ on Sun Feb 3 17:10:43 2008. Then how much more would it be to have a connection to the Nassau Line from Houston added on to the cost of Phase 3? That's when I would be looking to do the Nassau connection because then that would be ready several years earlier AND would allow most T trains to go to Brooklyn rather than terminate at Houston Street (where Phase 3 is supposed to end as of now). |
|
|
| (564282) | |
Re: SAS Phase 4: Water Street |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Mon Feb 4 01:20:44 2008, in response to Re: SAS Phase 4: Water Street, posted by Russ on Sun Feb 3 19:39:30 2008. Actually:In the scenario noted, Queens and Bronx (U/Y) trains would terminate at Chatam Square, while the T would continue to Bay Parkway, allowing Bronx and Queens passengers to make a same platform transfer anywhere the other lines and the T all run together. Chatam Square could be made into a four-track station with provisions to later convert the terminal tracks at Chatam Square into through tracks via a second level to South Ferry/Hanover Square. |
|
|
| (564283) | |
Re: SAS Phase 4: Water Street |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Mon Feb 4 01:21:07 2008, in response to Re: SAS Phase 4: Water Street, posted by Russ on Sun Feb 3 19:39:30 2008. 1)There are no provisions for building a terminal in Chatham Sq.There aren't any provision for anything yet at Chatham Sq since it's not there. Provisions can be put into the plan for Phase III or IV. 2)Terminating trains that never go through the Financial District is a political non-starter, which leads us to... The (T) would go thru the heart of the Financial District making the plan all the more attractive. 3)It is highly improbable that any such funding will ever materialize As I explained, the cost of such a connection would be a fraction of a full Water St Line. 4)Finally, the need to construct additional terminal capacity with a Nassau St alignment clearly illustrates the shrinking capacity problem of it as it approaches, and then moves south of, the Financial District. As I repeatedly have pointed out, the (T) would be replacing the (M). If anything the current line would lose trains from The Bowery to Chambers. If the Nassau Line can handle the (J/Z/M) to Broad St, it can handle a 10-12 TPH (T) plus the (J/Z). The (T) plus the (R) would fit handily in the Montague St Tunnel and beyond. That said THE GIANTS RULE THE UNIVERSE!!!! |
|
|
| (564286) | |
Re: SAS Phases 3/4: Water Street/Nassau Street |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Mon Feb 4 01:26:58 2008, in response to Re: SAS Phases 3/4: Water Street/Nassau Street, posted by Russ on Sun Feb 3 16:36:24 2008. Russ:The thinking is, combing the Nassau connection with Phase 3 probably saves money since both would be done at once, plus making Nassau part of Phase 3 allows downtown access years before Phase 4 can be completed, and avoids having the T terminate at Houston while Phase 4 is being built. Also, needs can change between now and the time Phases 3 and 4 are actually built. |
|
|
| (564287) | |
Re: SAS Phase 4: Water Street/Nassau Street |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Mon Feb 4 01:30:09 2008, in response to Re: SAS Phase 4: Water Street/Nassau Street, posted by SMAZ on Sun Feb 3 17:28:10 2008. And that is the point.Add to that it will be several years after Phase 3 is finished before Phase 4 is ready, and it also makes more sense to have a Nassau connection ready when Phase 3 is so the T doesn't have to terminate at Houston while Phase 4 is being built. |
|
|
|
Page 19 of 20 |
||
