MTR Admiralty Posted June 15, 2010 Share #26 Posted June 15, 2010 \Correct, but in my fantasy idea, they would be two seperate, connected platforms. Idea: station: 23d to 26th Streets; station: 23rd to 20th Streets. and trains each end at bumper blpcks. With this, one could also go from Tudor City to Peter Cooper Village-Stuyvesant Town. I would place a small walkway dividing the two stations that would contain elevators. So inherently, there will be a cross shaped configuration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GojiMet86 Posted June 15, 2010 Author Share #27 Posted June 15, 2010 Unfortunately, it will never be happening. MTA is a NY state owned bureaucracy, and NJT is a Joisey thing. For the MTA to cross onto Joisey territory, it might have to involve the federal government. Besides, there's already the PATH. Once there's fare integration with the PATH then I don't see any point of the MTA taking over PATH tunnels or boring into Joisey. That's why I rather focus on addressing transit needs IN the city because there are communities that DESPERATELY need service. As for Joisey, take the PATH. Kinda off topic, but would it be possible for a train to go beyond the city, but within the state? Let's say, a to Yonkers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MTR Admiralty Posted June 15, 2010 Share #28 Posted June 15, 2010 Kinda off topic, but would it be possible for a train to go beyond the city, but within the state? Let's say, a to Yonkers? To be honest, in other systems it is frequently done. If the outlying communities that are not part of the city concede to it, I guess it could be done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grand Concourse Posted June 15, 2010 Share #29 Posted June 15, 2010 But the 7 is built to IRT standards, wouldn't the platforms have to be adjusted to allow the wider B division equipment to fit? That would be expensive, plus the 7 portion could only accommodate B division rolling stock (or gap fillers at each station). Platform 'cropping' would not be that big a deal. But if the tunnel itself is not built to B division specs, then you can pretty much rule out the to enter the stations on the - assuming they were to extend the to 23rd st or something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NX Express Posted June 15, 2010 Share #30 Posted June 15, 2010 Platform 'cropping' would not be that big a deal. But if the tunnel itself is not built to B division specs, then you can pretty much rule out the to enter the stations on the - assuming they were to extend the to 23rd st or something. And A Div cars on the now- would be disaster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grand Concourse Posted June 15, 2010 Share #31 Posted June 15, 2010 Well that's if people don't watch the first step though, but it's the reverse where a B division train enters the A division where the bigger disaster would be - with the train scrapping up everything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MTR Admiralty Posted June 15, 2010 Share #32 Posted June 15, 2010 Well that's if people don't watch the first step though, but it's the reverse where a B division train enters the A division where the bigger disaster would be - with the train scrapping up everything. Didn't that actually happen? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grand Concourse Posted June 16, 2010 Share #33 Posted June 16, 2010 I honestly don't know, but if it did, my best guess would be from Concourse yard to a Jerome el station. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R10 2952 Posted June 16, 2010 Share #34 Posted June 16, 2010 Well, regardless of whether they want to add one station or two stations to the extension (two stations would be ideal, of course), the only way I could see this as ever being truly useful would be if it were to serve as a 'stepping stone' to something greater, such as a potential extension down 10th or 11th Avenue. Of course, it would probably not be undertaken for years, if EVER, but still... it would be a worthwhile project one day.... On a side note: Could the 'High Line' (once it was abandoned) ever have been used to accomodate a possible extension of the to the Lower West Side? Or would a tunnel simply be a better option (if such an extension was ever to be done)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LRG Posted June 16, 2010 Share #35 Posted June 16, 2010 I honestly don't know, but if it did, my best guess would be from Concourse yard to a Jerome el station. That actually did happen. An R10 was in a consist of IRT cars and the car got damaged at Bedford Park Boulevard (from nycsubway.org). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grand Concourse Posted June 16, 2010 Share #36 Posted June 16, 2010 Ah, thanks for confirming that then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MTR Admiralty Posted June 16, 2010 Share #37 Posted June 16, 2010 Well, regardless of whether they want to add one station or two stations to the extension (two stations would be ideal, of course), the only way I could see this as ever being truly useful would be if it were to serve as a 'stepping stone' to something greater, such as a potential extension down 10th or 11th Avenue. Of course, it would probably not be undertaken for years, if EVER, but still... it would be a worthwhile project one day....On a side note: Could the 'High Line' (once it was abandoned) ever have been used to accomodate a possible extension of the to the Lower West Side? Or would a tunnel simply be a better option (if such an extension was ever to be done)? Unlikely, first you will get an uproar from the community because you're turning a park into a subway line. Also, there will be a huge grade difference if you want to change from deep underground to a dozen feet high in the air. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NX Express Posted June 16, 2010 Share #38 Posted June 16, 2010 Well that's if people don't watch the first step though, Even if the now- is converted to A-Division platforms, the crowding will be like the is now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MTR Admiralty Posted June 16, 2010 Share #39 Posted June 16, 2010 Even if the now- is converted to A-Division platforms, the crowding will be like the is now. That's a nightmare. Why the deuce would anyone want to convert the into IRT specs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NX Express Posted June 16, 2010 Share #40 Posted June 16, 2010 That's a nightmare. Why the deuce would anyone want to convert the into IRT specs. IDK, to merge the and the ? (Fantasy idea: Extend the from Eighth Avenue to 23d Street-Tenth Avenue to meet the with connecting platforms and you'd nearly have a one-seat ride from Flushing-Main Street to Canarsie-Rockaway Parkway.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MTR Admiralty Posted June 16, 2010 Share #41 Posted June 16, 2010 IDK, to merge the and the ? Oy vey.. that will not happen.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eric B Posted June 17, 2010 Share #42 Posted June 17, 2010 They'd have to do it in phases and completely replace the Steinway tubes. So ou would have an extended from GCT to Canarsie, a shuttle from Vernon Jackson to QBP, and then you can convert the Flushing line itself to B Div. as well. Then, you connect the new tunnel, do whatever modofications for the 3 stations between the tunnel and QBP, and then you could have the full line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grand Concourse Posted June 17, 2010 Share #43 Posted June 17, 2010 Steinway would have to be replaced anyway, there's only so much they can keep making trains to accomodate the tunnel. It slows things down drastically. It needs to be replaced. And then maybe they can turn the current tube to a car tunnel or something? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MTR Admiralty Posted June 17, 2010 Share #44 Posted June 17, 2010 They'd have to do it in phases and completely replace the Steinway tubes. So ou would have an extended from GCT to Canarsie, a shuttle from Vernon Jackson to QBP, and then you can convert the Flushing line itself to B Div. as well. Then, you connect the new tunnel, do whatever modofications for the 3 stations between the tunnel and QBP, and then you could have the full line. Though the Steinway tunnels ought to be replaced, is there really a need for a (L)/(7) merger? I mean, yeah, it looks good on paper, but let's talk about being practical. For anything, extending the to Lower Manhattan may deem more appropriate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grand Concourse Posted June 17, 2010 Share #45 Posted June 17, 2010 I dunno, since Manhattan becomes narrower, it doesn't seem like the West side needs a subway line. Not to mention how much of a mess the west side is south of 14th because it follows no grid structure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LRG Posted June 17, 2010 Share #46 Posted June 17, 2010 Oy vey.. that will not happen.... Agreed. The LAST thing I wanna hear is an (7)/(L) combo :tdown: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2Line1291 Posted June 17, 2010 Share #47 Posted June 17, 2010 I wonder why 10th Ave wasn't a priority first since people already live there. If people wanted to go to Javits then they could have just have some kind of special bus service going to and from there until the station was built and completed..... then a extension to Chelsea Piers. But what about extening the east past Flushing?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MTR Admiralty Posted June 17, 2010 Share #48 Posted June 17, 2010 I dunno, since Manhattan becomes narrower, it doesn't seem like the West side needs a subway line. Not to mention how much of a mess the west side is south of 14th because it follows no grid structure. Not really.. it can follow the West Side Highway. There are developments now on that part of town. Pier 40 could get a boost from such a line. Chelsea Piers, most certainly. And also, the WFC complex.. Look at them, they have to walk all the way to Church for the train. Yes, sure, there will be a major transportation hub at the new WTC but still, that is a considerable distance from Goldman Sachs and the WFC complex. Not to mention, Battery Park City. Those workers don't have to take the to Times Square or Jackson Heights for the , they could just catch an extended . It could reduce pressure off critical subway lines. Some studies actually recommend a transit corridor along West St/West Side Hwy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grand Concourse Posted June 17, 2010 Share #49 Posted June 17, 2010 That area especially near the former WTC area is landfill, so the tunnel would have to be really deep. I'm not sure it is such a good idea to build under the WSH. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MTR Admiralty Posted June 17, 2010 Share #50 Posted June 17, 2010 That area especially near the former WTC area is landfill, so the tunnel would have to be really deep. I'm not sure it is such a good idea to build under the WSH. I never said we ought to tunnel under the highway. Plus there's going to be a lot of stuff happening in the WTC-WFC area. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.