Equipment failure delays 2nd Ave. subway AGAIN!

[Grand Concourse]

Digging under Manhattan is NOT CHEAP. So it's one segment and that's it. There won't be 'other lines'. And why send the over the Bridge? What do you do with either the ( or lines? Just leave them alone and have the go to Lower Manhattan first and then worry later about sending it to Brooklyn.

[LRG]

Send the to Staten Island!!! Lol I just had to write that

[NX Express]

Don't forget about the technological side of the project. Its posted that the 2nd Ave Subway should be done completely by 2065 as of right now. Can anybody fill me in the on the 4 phases and the things in each stage? Thanks. That I dont know about.

 

http://www.mta.info/capconstr/sas/

[Roadcruiser1]

Also this map wasn't mines. This map comes from a construction study pass down to someone and is pass to you guys here. So if you have anything to say about the Lower section of the Second Avenue Subway talk to the not me. :eek:

[Grand Concourse]

This was your exact words:

They are actually not spurs they are ways for the Second Avenue Subway to access Brooklyn. The tunnels or bridges are going to be used to connect to Brooklyn via cheaper ways so the won't spend too much. I still favor the to run to Brooklyn via the Manhattan Bridge. Though I was thinking about the Avenue C spur and I am wondering why would you extend the Second Avenue Subway to the Eighth Avenue Line when you could extend the Eighth Avenue Line east and the Second Avenue Subway east so they could construct the never built IND Worth Street Line to the never built IND Utica Line.

Point is only one path should be chosen and that's it. It doesn't matter that it isn't your idea. Stop being so defensive. This is just a general point. And you still didn't answer my question about which line gets shafted so the runs over the bridge.

[Joe]

Hey, as they say, shit happens.

[Roadcruiser1]

I am no longer in support of running the onto the Manhattan Bridge because of the flaw that allows the bridge to sway when a train moves through. It may seem better if we let the run via Montague Street Tunnel with the , and a potential Nassau Street extension to Brooklyn. Also I have doubts that they will built a new tunnel under the East River because of the budget. Also the Williamsburg Bridge and the Second Avenue Subway has car differences and even signal differences so that won't work. Extending the to Avenue C for the Worth Street and Utica Line is expensive as well. So just running the through the Montague Street Tunnel might work.

[iGeMiNix]

Hey, as they say, shit happens.

 

Too bad here, it's all the time.

[R32 3348]

I am no longer in support of running the onto the Manhattan Bridge because of the flaw that allows the bridge to sway when a train moves through.

That is not a design flaw. Bridges are supposed to sway when trains pass through, in order to absorb the vibrations caused by the train (or however you wanna word it). If a bridge were rigid when a train passed the bridge would stress much more easily. Also, by that argument, the ( and shouldn't run via bridge either, despite the near 20 years of work that were just spent fixing the bridge.

[INDman]

That is not a design flaw. Bridges are supposed to sway when trains pass through, in order to absorb the vibrations caused by the train (or however you wanna word it). If a bridge were rigid when a train passed the bridge would stress much more easily. Also, by that argument, the ( and shouldn't run via bridge either, despite the near 20 years of work that were just spent fixing the bridge.

 

Actually, it is a design flaw. The roadway should have been built on the outside with the tracks in the middle. Yes a bridge should sway, but the Manny B sways too much and that's why so much money has been spent on it. A good design would have been something like that Willy B.

[Roadcruiser1]

Yes and that proves my point is exactly right!

[LRG]

If it does happen in our life time then this might happen:

 

 

Yeah sure, imagine the heading to Middle Village, then residents along the Myrtle Avenue Line will complain about the being too new and doesn't have historical value and would then want the (Mx)/(M) to turn turquoise!!!!!

[NX Express]

Yeah sure, imagine the heading to Middle Village, then residents along the Myrtle Avenue Line will complain about the being too new and doesn't have historical value and would then want the (Mx)/(M) to turn turquoise!!!!!

 

The to Middle Village would not work because 10 cars are needed on the . About the second part of that post, LOL!

[Grand Concourse]

Actually, it is a design flaw. The roadway should have been built on the outside with the tracks in the middle. Yes a bridge should sway, but the Manny B sways too much and that's why so much money has been spent on it. A good design would have been something like that Willy B.

 

While the design of the Willy B is good for trains, their roadways are too damn narrow for two cars to safely pass. When the B39 bus ran on it, it would take up both lanes as it is so wide.

They would've been better off demolishing the old bridge and build a brand new one with wider lanes. If not for the supports that divides up the interior and exterior lanes, it realistically should've had 6 lanes [3 per]. Sort of like the QB bridge's lower level.

[INDman]

While the design of the Willy B is good for trains, their roadways are too damn narrow for two cars to safely pass. When the B39 bus ran on it, it would take up both lanes as it is so wide.

They would've been better off demolishing the old bridge and build a brand new one with wider lanes. If not for the supports that divides up the interior and exterior lanes, it realistically should've had 6 lanes [3 per]. Sort of like the QB bridge's lower level.

 

The Willy B should have been built wider, but you have to keep in mind that when it was built, cars were not nearly as wide as they are now.

[Grand Concourse]

That is true, but I'm not talking about two Hummer 2s side by side, but like a couple of sedans next to each other. I worry about being too close to that person and ending up damaging the side mirror. That's why I think they should've just built a new bridge [with then provisions] to have lanes be wide enough to handle wider cars. I think a 3-lane per side bridge would've done a much better job than this current 4-lane per side bridge.

[INDman]

That is true, but I'm not talking about two Hummer 2s side by side, but like a couple of sedans next to each other. I worry about being too close to that person and ending up damaging the side mirror. That's why I think they should've just built a new bridge [with then provisions] to have lanes be wide enough to handle wider cars. I think a 3-lane per side bridge would've done a much better job than this current 4-lane per side bridge.

 

Sedans are very wide vehicles...

[Roadcruiser1]

How about this;you leave the Williamsburg Bridge as a 2 Lane bridge but built a new bridge next to it. It should be some sort of suspension bridge or a cable stayed bridge. It would be built to be wider and bigger for traffic but have a location for rail tracks. That way like in the map except a bit different. A new Eighth Avenue Service and a new Second Avenue Service called the for the Eighth Avenue and a (U) for the Second Avenue would run across the bridge completing the never built IND Worth Street Line to a never built IND Utica Avenue Line. Thus the would be extended to the Bronx to 242 St Riverdale to Floyd Bennett Field and the (U) would be extended from 125 St to Floyd Bennett Field. If its possible the (U) could be extended via a new bridge to the Rockaway Park Shuttle .

 

To tell you people something IM Pei did propose a replacement or a second Williamsburg in 1988 it never got through.

 

http://www.pcf-p.com/a/p/8705/s.html

 

 

 

 

[INDman]

How about you think realisticly for once, every thing you have suggested will not happen any time soon because it will cost way too much money. Think reasonably for a change.

[Roadcruiser1]

Hey I am just fantisizing. They are not building them anytime soon. I know about the budget. Then what would this page be good for without any fantisizing people would start falling asleep. That's why I want to be an architect and civil engineer double major because even though you might not be successful with your plans all the time you can fantisize.

[2Line1291]

How about this;you leave the Williamsburg Bridge as a 2 Lane bridge but built a new bridge next to it. It should be some sort of suspension bridge or a cable stayed bridge. It would be built to be wider and bigger for traffic but have a location for rail tracks. That way like in the map except a bit different. A new Eighth Avenue Service and a new Second Avenue Service called the for the Eighth Avenue and a (U) for the Second Avenue would run across the bridge completing the never built IND Worth Street Line to a never built IND Utica Avenue Line. Thus the would be extended to the Bronx to 242 St Riverdale to Floyd Bennett Field and the (U) would be extended from 125 St to Floyd Bennett Field. If its possible the (U) could be extended via a new bridge to the Rockaway Park Shuttle .

 

To tell you people something IM Pei did propose a replacement or a second Williamsburg in 1988 it never got through.

Try making fantasy subway maps w/ all those ideas in your head.

[iGeMiNix]

The problem is that dude you pretty much spam every thread that talks about service with your ideas. It is good to fantasize, but don't always put something that isn't really going to help the conversation. If not just start your own topic about your ideas instead of always putting them into current threads that ask for a more realistic approach then an idealistic one.

[R32 3348]

Yes and that proves my point is exactly right!

OK but that doesn't mean Manhattan Bridge service needs to stop ASAP BECAUSE of this flaw. Likewise, even though it's a moot point, not sending the via bridge wouldn't have solved anything considering there are already four other lines going across the bridge.

[DJ MC]

Please, watch the Nazi Banksters Crimes Ripple Effect at http://jforjustice.co.uk/banksters

[Eric B]

And why send the over the Bridge? What do you do with either the ( or lines?

And you still didn't answer my question about which line gets shafted so the runs over the bridge.

That could be done without cutting another line. It would be like when the other side was closed, and the (Q6) ran there. They probably reduced te a bit. If they did this, then perhaps the could be the Bay Pkwy service, filling it in. (Returning to the West End where it started!)

 

This might have been a temporary alternative for when the line is constructed as far down as Chrystie St. and the Water st. section is not built yet. Problem is, it likely requires shallow Chrystie construction, which has been ruled out for being too disruptive to the community.

And as others point out; who knows when or if it will ever get that far.