VWM Posted May 26, 2012 Share #501 Posted May 26, 2012 meh 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Threxx Posted May 26, 2012 Share #502 Posted May 26, 2012 meh OK, one whole post for that?! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brighton Express Posted May 26, 2012 Share #503 Posted May 26, 2012 OK, one whole post for that?! I wouldn't be talkin if I were you... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B3 Via Av U Posted May 26, 2012 Share #504 Posted May 26, 2012 I wouldn't be talkin if I were you... Sheesh man back on topic! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2Line1291 Posted May 26, 2012 Share #505 Posted May 26, 2012 It'll be nice if the and the rest of the country had good, then it wouldn't be a problem building subway expansion projects like this #justsayin. After Houston St, for a start should go to Lower Manhattan as a sole east side line to relieve the Lexington completely and along 3rd Av to Concourse Yard. So far as Culver express, that's an whole another issue. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brighton Express Posted May 27, 2012 Share #506 Posted May 27, 2012 It'll be nice if the and the rest of the country had good, then it wouldn't be a problem building subway expansion projects like this #justsayin. After Houston St, for a start should go to Lower Manhattan as a sole east side line to relieve the Lexington completely and along 3rd Av to Concourse Yard. So far as Culver express, that's an whole another issue. I agree here. I really don't see any need for the to go to Brooklyn. On that note however does anyone know if the connection they made from the to the is new? Or was it just unused? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2Line1291 Posted May 27, 2012 Share #507 Posted May 27, 2012 (edited) On that note however does anyone know if the connection they made from the to the is new? Or was it just unused? It was unused, it was built i think in 1968 Edited May 27, 2012 by CJ_2Line91 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brighton Express Posted May 27, 2012 Share #508 Posted May 27, 2012 On that matter again, was there anything built that was pretty new before plans of the Extension and Construction started? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NX Express Posted May 27, 2012 Share #509 Posted May 27, 2012 Archer Av and the 63 St tunnel are the newest (except new South Ferry) segments of track now in service. Secondly, who said the will only be 8-10 tph? It could be as much as 20 without causing significant problems with the . Finally, IMHO if they can get the to go to Brooklyn relatively cheaply, they should. Brooklyn is a huge market for the . 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Threxx Posted May 27, 2012 Share #510 Posted May 27, 2012 Archer Av and the 63 St tunnel are the newest (except new South Ferry) segments of track now in service. Secondly, who said the will only be 8-10 tph? It could be as much as 20 without causing significant problems with the . Finally, IMHO if they can get the to go to Brooklyn relatively cheaply, they should. Brooklyn is a huge market for the . Agreed. If a connection to Rutgers costs less than Phase 4 (which it should) then by all means, do it! It gives the direct access to a yard & gives the SAS a second Brooklyn connection. I wouldn't be talkin if I were you... Don't start. (God, we are now like VG8 & Checkmate of the subway forums, smh...) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CDTA Posted May 27, 2012 Share #511 Posted May 27, 2012 Don't start. (God, we are now like VG8 & Checkmate of the subway forums, smh...) Man I was just about to say that.... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roadcruiser1 Posted May 27, 2012 Share #512 Posted May 27, 2012 Actually a running to Brooklyn will most certainly take at least half of the loads of the Lexington Avenue Line. At least half of the current Lexington Avenue riders come from Brooklyn. Now if we can do the same thing with the Bronx. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brighton Express Posted May 27, 2012 Share #513 Posted May 27, 2012 And THAT is why they should not have torn down the 3 Av EL. Anyone see how this is working out? Cuz I am making plenty of connections. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2Line1291 Posted May 27, 2012 Share #514 Posted May 27, 2012 Everything happens for a reason Actually a running to Brooklyn will most certainly take at least half of the loads of the Lexington Avenue Line. At least half of the current Lexington Avenue riders come from Brooklyn. Now if we can do the same thing with the Bronx. When I said and done SAS should have two services. The Bronx-Coney Island and the other SAS route from Queens to Lower Manhattan (for the other SAS route to happen, Queens Blvd needs to increase it's capacity super-express or not) almost complimenting the . 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grand Concourse Posted May 27, 2012 Share #515 Posted May 27, 2012 (edited) SAS doesn't really need two services (not counting the ). I don't see the need for the or the other SAS line go down Water St when annexing the Nassau line would allow for: cheaper costs by using an underused line and allow for a direct connection to Brooklyn. I think the via 4th av would be very useful especially to help take off some riders on the by providing a parallel service. As for what part of the Nassau line to connect at, that's up to everyone here. I still say it should be b/w Canal and Chambers, but others have said around Bowery, so eh. OK, one whole post for that?! He's been doing that (one word stuff) for a bunch of posts recently. Edited May 27, 2012 by Grand Concourse 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VWM Posted May 27, 2012 Share #516 Posted May 27, 2012 But if you were to connect it at Canal/Chambers wouldn't you need to do tunneling across lower manhattan which no one wants? Connect it at Bowery, it's easier. Put some use to the abandoned platform there and at Chambers St also. If an extension along 4th Av somewhere were to be thought of, have the run like the the . Local, with a connection to the at 9th Street and to Kings Highway where it can turn. @ThrexxBus and Grand Concourse Problem? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Threxx Posted May 27, 2012 Share #517 Posted May 27, 2012 SAS doesn't really need two services (not counting the ). I don't see the need for the or the other SAS line go down Water St when annexing the Nassau line would allow for: cheaper costs by using an underused line and allow for a direct connection to Brooklyn. I think the via 4th av would be very useful especially to help take off some riders on the by providing a parallel service. As for what part of the Nassau line to connect at, that's up to everyone here. I still say it should be b/w Canal and Chambers, but others have said around Bowery, so eh. The deep soil around that area isn't stable enough for a connection, but Rutgers is, so that connection would be more feasible. @ThrexxBus and Grand Concourse Problem? Yes. We have a problem. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brighton Express Posted May 27, 2012 Share #518 Posted May 27, 2012 This would be the first connection since the 63 St one as I am told... It would surely be a breakthrough, but I still doubt it is going to happen. @ThrexxBus and Grand Concourse Problem? Always. Ya boy here could care less. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Threxx Posted May 27, 2012 Share #519 Posted May 27, 2012 Always. Ya boy here could care less. Still going on with that ish? Still. One word? I understand why some people think that people post just to increase their counts... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roadcruiser1 Posted May 27, 2012 Share #520 Posted May 27, 2012 The soil for any Rutgers Street Connection has been untested.... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Threxx Posted May 27, 2012 Share #521 Posted May 27, 2012 The soil for any Rutgers Street Connection has been untested.... That's true, but being further inland increases the likeliness of any such connection. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Far Rock Depot Posted May 27, 2012 Share #522 Posted May 27, 2012 That's true, but being further inland increases the likeliness of any such connection. Not nessessarily. The original shoreline came up to between water and madison sts. so it doesnt really increase the chances. During original construcion of E. Broadway Station, a provision was made for the proposed canal st crosstown to meet the houston st crosstown to merge at S 4th St mega station in Williamsburg Its alignment was to travel north on east broadway to Bk, south of east broadway to canal. This provision made decades ago, plus the state of the ground after all these decades (housing complexes, foundation shifting/settling, ground shifting over the decades) may actually make this idea even less likely. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grand Concourse Posted May 27, 2012 Share #523 Posted May 27, 2012 But if you were to connect it at Canal/Chambers wouldn't you need to do tunneling across lower manhattan which no one wants? Connect it at Bowery, it's easier. Put some use to the abandoned platform there and at Chambers St also. If an extension along 4th Av somewhere were to be thought of, have the run like the the . Local, with a connection to the at 9th Street and to Kings Highway where it can turn. The line would require more tunneling if it had to go further down via Water st. I think an inconvenience in one area will be better in the long term. See isn't this better than 1 word posts that does nothing? The deep soil around that area isn't stable enough for a connection, but Rutgers is, so that connection would be more feasible. Around which area? Centre St/Bowery? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VWM Posted May 27, 2012 Share #524 Posted May 27, 2012 (edited) I was tired, sorry.I meant that you should connect it at Bowery. What did I say about water street? Edited May 27, 2012 by VWM 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Threxx Posted May 27, 2012 Share #525 Posted May 27, 2012 Around which area? Centre St/Bowery? probably. i'm not sure. 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.