Far Rock Depot Posted May 27, 2012 Share #526 Posted May 27, 2012 bowery sits in the general area of the chrystie cut, about 2 blocks north of Grand St with its entrance between Chrystie and Bowery. one quick block west the Nassau line begins to turn south to Centre and just east it prepares to have the Chrystie cut tunnels merge with it. Wheres the room to connect? and you cant cay just south of the turn because you have the IRT tunnels very close to it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VWM Posted May 27, 2012 Share #527 Posted May 27, 2012 Start the connection north of Bowery, I guess and use the north platform for the 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brighton Express Posted May 27, 2012 Share #528 Posted May 27, 2012 (edited) Start the connection north of Bowery, I guess and use the north platform for the Hold on, we are crossing the , and then onto the ? That would be aright, but; 1) We would need a new connection between the and the 2) Essex St is a 3T, Bowery is a 4T. The and the could use the false wall as a Station at Bowery, but once we get to Essex, all those tracks are taken. Edited May 27, 2012 by trainguy97 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VWM Posted May 27, 2012 Share #529 Posted May 27, 2012 No, we are talking about a to Brooklyn via montague/4 av 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grand Concourse Posted May 27, 2012 Share #530 Posted May 27, 2012 I was tired, sorry.I meant that you should connect it at Bowery. What did I say about water street? I meant that drilling in that one area would be worth it over more tunneling in Lower Manhattan in general. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roadcruiser1 Posted May 27, 2012 Share #531 Posted May 27, 2012 (edited) Impossible. I explained that the study showed the soil is not strong enough to connect the to the Nassau Street Line and the Montague Street Tunnel. The did a whole study on this and this proved impossible. Unless if you have some alien technology that humans don't know then it won't happen. You guys have to remember that not all of Manhattan sits on land. Parts of the harbor was filled with trash, or soil to make room for more expansion. An example would be Battery Park City. These areas are not suitable to build tunnels in. Edited May 27, 2012 by Roadcruiser1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NX Express Posted May 28, 2012 Share #532 Posted May 28, 2012 Impossible. I explained that the study showed the soil is not strong enough to connect the to the Nassau Street Line and the Montague Street Tunnel. The did a whole study on this and this proved impossible. Unless if you have some alien technology that humans don't know then it won't happen. You guys have to remember that not all of Manhattan sits on land. Parts of the harbor was filled with trash, or soil to make room for more expansion. An example would be Battery Park City. These areas are not suitable to build tunnels in. Do you have a link to this study? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roadcruiser1 Posted May 28, 2012 Share #533 Posted May 28, 2012 (edited) Do you have a link to this study? http://www.mta.info/...ry%20report.pdf Page 28 "For the optional connection to the Nassau line, the soft soils south of 4th Street make use of a TBM impossible. In this area, cut-and-cover construction or a drilling machine appropriate for soft soils (known as an Earth Pressure Balance Machine, or EPBM), may be used. In addition, the connection requires a shallow profile to join with the existing Nassau line, which is just below the surface along Kenmare Street. This shallow profile, combined with the need to construct both the Houston Street station and the Nassau line connection with cut-and-cover methods, make use of a soft-soil tunneling approach, such as an EPBM, more difficult. Along the existing Nassau line, cut-and-cover construction is expected between the connection and the south end of the existing Canal Street station because of the need to reconstruct a significant portion of the existing structure. For the platform extensions at Chambers, Fulton, and Broad Streets, it is expected that the majority of the work could be completed from within the existing tunnel structure. However, some cut-and-cover construction may be required pending more detailed investigations during advanced design." It's just cheaper and easier to bypass this completely. Edited May 28, 2012 by Roadcruiser1 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VWM Posted May 28, 2012 Share #534 Posted May 28, 2012 Interesting, it's the complete opposite of what we though. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Far Rock Depot Posted May 28, 2012 Share #535 Posted May 28, 2012 See? It's not always the easier, cheaper option to just connect to an existing tunnel. That area alone has always seen its share of subway construction difficulties, accidents and, unfortunately, deaths. most of which occurred duringthe original subway construction in the early 1900s. although technology has advanced in the last century, so has costs. And as you can see in the pdf that Roadcruiser1 linked ( nice. You beat me to it btw. Lol), it's not just connecting the tunnels, it's also in a way, rebuilding the existing infrastructure. It's why they favor building a new line. Sometimes there actually is a method to their madness. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roadcruiser1 Posted May 28, 2012 Share #536 Posted May 28, 2012 Still a Rutgers Street Connection needs to be tested to see if it's possible. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brighton Express Posted May 28, 2012 Share #537 Posted May 28, 2012 Why are we even talking about this? Does anyone really think that the is gonna really get a new construction as an inclusion to the 2 Av Subway? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Threxx Posted May 28, 2012 Share #538 Posted May 28, 2012 Why are we even talking about this? Does anyone really think that the is gonna really get a new construction as an inclusion to the 2 Av Subway? I did not understand a word of this post... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VWM Posted May 28, 2012 Share #539 Posted May 28, 2012 He saying that it's unrealistic the (T)s Plans will be changed to connect it to another line, I believe. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brighton Express Posted May 28, 2012 Share #540 Posted May 28, 2012 He saying that it's unrealistic the (T)s Plans will be changed to connect it to another line, I believe. Exactly. Why would they want to change the plan altogether? I think that would be something for the far future if it were ever to happen. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Threxx Posted May 28, 2012 Share #541 Posted May 28, 2012 Exactly. Why would they want to change the plan altogether? I think that would be something for the far future if it were ever to happen. Because this plan is cheaper. The is all about saving money and cost neutrality... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tokkemon Posted May 28, 2012 Share #542 Posted May 28, 2012 Actually they're all about providing service to the citizens of New York. How they do that should be as cheap as possible, but its clear that they don't know how to do that very well. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanTheTransitMan Posted May 28, 2012 Share #543 Posted May 28, 2012 Well here is an update: The MTA blasted the Chase bank on the Northwest corner of 86th street for the SAS train station. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Far Rock Depot Posted May 28, 2012 Share #544 Posted May 28, 2012 Because this plan is cheaper. The is all about saving money and cost neutrality... Who said it may be cheaper. Sometime cheaper, isnt the more efficient way. If Nassau st was denied, why would Rutgers be the better option? Too many existing factors may be in they way. Theres benefits to building a new line compared to using an existing line built almost a century ago. Service to brooklyn from jump isnt enough to warrant them to retract the "Commitment to Build a Full Length SAS" they signed back in 2000. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brighton Express Posted May 28, 2012 Share #545 Posted May 28, 2012 Exactly. It is all pointless. Why not just accept what they are doing now? We don't want to worry about all these problems with Culver, and plus with the Viaduct being fixed, it would be hell. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roadcruiser1 Posted May 29, 2012 Share #546 Posted May 29, 2012 Exactly. It is all pointless. Why not just accept what they are doing now? We don't want to worry about all these problems with Culver, and plus with the Viaduct being fixed, it would be hell. The Viaduct would be fixed way before the Second Avenue Subway comes online . 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VWM Posted May 29, 2012 Share #547 Posted May 29, 2012 Second avenue subway completetion dat (imo) 2040ish Culver comletion date 2012 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grand Concourse Posted May 29, 2012 Share #548 Posted May 29, 2012 You basically restated what he said. What's the point? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brighton Express Posted May 29, 2012 Share #549 Posted May 29, 2012 Ok, you got me. And what makes you think that any chance that this will ever happen? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Lance Posted June 1, 2012 Share #550 Posted June 1, 2012 Here's some news about the projected opening date of the Second Avenue line: The is projecting a late December 2016 opening while the FTA says it will likely see revenue service starting late February 2018. http://www.fta.dot.g..._FTA_14437.html http://www.fta.dot.g...-Feb_PMOC_R.pdf - page 24 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.