ChemWhizNYC

Last I checked, there were 2 building evacuations that were at least partially attributable to the blasting for 2nd Avenue Subway - to lose a skyscraper down there would be unimaginable. T train comes in before Bowery, and merges before Canal - you want to say that the train comes in on the outer platforms, I can re-generate the track maps. But ultimately, it'll continue like the M-line to Brooklyn. To have a tunnel running to the G-train at Hoyt-Schermerhorn is... unnecessary, I think. Even temporary, I think the provisions for having the T-train run along Broadway-Nassau (rather than an expensive expenditure that may never happen at this rate) is plausible. Do we really need another Brooklyn-Manhattan tunnel? I think the Montague tunnel would suffice.

Considering everything we learned from Phase 1, I think everything is going back to the drawing board (or at the very least, should.) We (re)learned how dangerous it is to extend a subway line. We (re)learned how expensive it is to put in MASSIVE expansions to infrastructure. We (re)learned how bad the MTA budget is (because of cost overruns, I recall seeing numerous articles that other maintenance will have to be shelved or cut.) I'm going to ask a question - is lower Manhattan really in need for a new subway line? Can the topography tolerate a new subway, or will it all flood in with the next storm? Is the ground even stable for the construction that needs to be done? Do the community really want a new subway line, or can they live with an improvement to what already exists? What if the trick is to NOT bore another hole through an area that is properly served by other lines, and not disturb the existing buildings? I don't know if this proposal was ever looked at or not, but the Second Ave Subway can go in at Bowery / Kenmare Street to the inner platforms. Have it hit Canal, Chambers, Fulton, Broad Street, and continue to the Montague Street Tunnels. Does Hanover Square really need to be served? Does anyone consider that part of the street outside to even be safe? Is that area that desperate for a subway, or will it suffice? Considering the cost overruns, a single blast, plus track realignment will definitely be cheaper than blowing through lower Manhattan and creating a new connection. With the "savings," you can extend the Broadway / Nassau platforms, and even make a Grand Street-Bowery Connection. And the people wouldn't have to deal with the round-the clock construction for 20 years (haha.)

So, I went through this last week - not too bad (I usually don't do late nights.) Going from Manhattan, I can attest that it was pleasant to skip getting off at Atlantic, and instead heading to Franklin Ave, getting on the shuttle, and heading over to Prospect Park from there. Can anyone speak to the reliability / how pleasant the shuttle bus was? I think they'd do better next time cancelling the shuttle, and just having everyone use the number trains to Franklin. Thoughts? And, for those in Brighton, it probably would be easier for them to have the N trains extended to Brighton Beach for the few nights. Just Brighton - so, Coney, West 8th, Ocean Parkway, Brighton Beach, done. Let's talk about a line with similar structure - the F line in Brooklyn goes above and below grade, and has limited weeknight closure potential. One that does exist, and this will make it easy, is between Church Ave and 7th Ave. The F train, because of how the tracks are on different levels, will be able to run local from Coney to Ditmas. After Ditmas, it can slip onto the express tracks, stop at Church, skip Fort Hamilton and Prospect Park, stop at 7th Ave, and skip 4 Ave 9th street, finally crossing back on to the local at Smith-9th. You'd skip a bunch of important stops (4th Avenue is important for R-line connection,) but at least the F line wouldn't have to run in 2 sections. How feasible is this plan, and will the MTA do it next year?

But that's just it - don't go any further. T hits Hanover Square, runs along the Montague Tunnel - my that has it run along the West End Line, like the old M train did, during Rush hour, because its main point is to do what? Relieve congestion on Lexington Avenue. Bringing the 2nd Ave line out to Brooklyn too far, and you open up more problems (ie, a stalled train in downtown Brooklyn, a signal problem further down the line, or that it's already crowded before it gets to Manhattan.) T hits Hanover Square, runs past Broad Street (have it skip), run along the tracks from Broad through the Montague Tube, and continues past Atlantic. I agree that (one of) the 2nd avenue lines needs to go to Queens - I disagree, however, taking it at 59th street. You have enough East-river crossings in the area. You'd do better, having it run EAST at 125th, and passing at Astoria / Ditmars, running past LaGuardia (it's a small airport) and then serving Northern queens. It could be the new Subway Series train, if it runs past Willets Point. I disagree that the 2nd Ave line needs to run in the Bronx. To put that up (read: you need a bridge because of fault lines,) would require a massive destruction of more places in the south Bronx. I like the idea of taking it west along 125th, down to Morningside Heights (or up to City College). You really need something connecting the norther East Side with the northern West Side, and whether that is Spanish Harlem and Washington Heights, or the ritsy Upper East + Upper West Side, it does work nicely. I think this might suit it a bit better. http://tinypic.com/r/30ud3di/8