Cortlandt Street will re-open in October on the 1 Train

[officiallyliam]

2 hours ago, Italianstallion said:

Lincoln didn't agree with you.

Lincoln had very little to do with the Declaration of Independence; it was written thirty years before he was even born.

And it doesn't really change anything about whether the Declaration belongs written on the wall of a subway station.

[Italianstallion]

On 6/23/2018 at 10:21 PM, officiallyliam said:

Lincoln had very little to do with the Declaration of Independence; it was written thirty years before he was even born.

And it doesn't really change anything about whether the Declaration belongs written on the wall of a subway station.

LOL. Know your history, man. Lincoln's Gettysburg Address was an extended riff on the Declaration, using its themes to argue for the unity of the nation and the equality of all its citizens.

Subtract "4 scores and seven years" from 1863 and see what year you get.

[RR503]

12 minutes ago, Italianstallion said:

LOL. Know your history, man. Lincoln's Gettysburg Address was an extended riff on the Declaration, using its themes to argue for the unity of the nation and the equality of all its citizens.

Subtract "4 scores and seven years" from 1863 and see what year you get.

Whether or not Lincoln riffed off of the DoI in the Gettysburg address has no relevance whatsoever on that document’s meaningfulness. In fact, it makes good speech material precisely because it is such a bale of platitudes — it is a declaration, after all. 

[Italianstallion]

6 minutes ago, RR503 said:

Whether or not Lincoln riffed off of the DoI in the Gettysburg address has no relevance whatsoever on that document’s meaningfulness. In fact, it makes good speech material precisely because it is such a bale of platitudes — it is a declaration, after all. 

Ha. Yes, a declaration that moved a populace to fight for 7 years and succeed.

[RR503]

26 minutes ago, Italianstallion said:

Ha. Yes, a declaration that moved a populace to fight for 7 years and succeed.

We’re not disagreeing, you know. My original post: 

On 6/12/2018 at 1:04 AM, RR503 said:

That’s literally what it is, yes. It is not legally binding in any way, and was meant as propoganda for a tepidly popular revolution. So I would actually go so far as to eliminate the word “borderline.” 

I think it’s also worth noting that while there certainly was a nationalistic push involved in the war, most military historians agree that the thing that put the revolution over the top was the monetary assistance/involvement of the French and Native Americans starting in the late 1770s — factors which had nothing to do with the sweeping rhetoric of the document, but with more prosaic geopolitical concerns. 

[LTA1992]

I just went through a could nights ago. Turnstiles are installed, air ducts seem to be in place, and tile work is being installed albeit covered up with brown paper.

While I heard it may not open on time, I'm trying to be optimistic. It's summer lol.

[Porter]

On 6/28/2018 at 10:41 AM, LTA1992 said:

I just went through a could nights ago. Turnstiles are installed, air ducts seem to be in place, and tile work is being installed albeit covered up with brown paper.

While I heard it may not open on time, I'm trying to be optimistic. It's summer lol.

If they could just manage to open it before the first snowfall, that would be great. I get that the elevator to street level next to the PAC won't be finished for a while, but the station is perfectly capable of operating without it. The two plaza staircases and mall portals are perfectly sufficient.

[Porter]

Quote

One morning this spring, Byford visited a reconstruction project: the Cortlandt Street station on the 1 line, which was destroyed in the September 11th terrorist attacks. The station is scheduled to reopen in October, fourteen years after work began.

Byford, wearing a hard hat and a high-visibility vest, toured the site with a project foreman, climbing makeshift ladders, asking detailed questions about engineering sign-offs and subcontractors. Byford wanted to know where he could help. His attention was directed to street level, where an elevator had not yet been installed. Apparently, there was a turf dispute about its placement, and the Port Authority still needed to pour the foundation.

“I will take this up immediately,” Byford said. “I don’t like to go public, but for this, if necessary, I will. I want that f**king foundation poured.”

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/07/09/can-andy-byford-save-the-subways

[Porter]

A peep, finally:

https://nypost.com/2018/08/24/subway-station-destroyed-on-9-11-finally-ready-to-reopen/

[Around the Horn]

Moving this over from the Subway Random Thoughts Thread:

On 8/24/2018 at 4:02 PM, Union Tpke said:

There has to be a reputable source, and there has to be a discussion. They might add Cortlandt Street signs in front of the WTC signs.

I actually got a good look at the signs because my train went through there pretty slowly today and it appears that they're actually made of black tiles and white tiles in the shapes of the letters (like the mosaics on the Brighton Line). It looks pretty permanent to me.

[NoHacksJustKhaks]

26 minutes ago, Around the Horn said:

It looks pretty permanent to me.

We'll have to wait until it's opening to confirm this. No doubt many people may still refer to this station as "Cortlandt St-WTC".

[Porter]

Per the article I just posted, it will definitely have "World Trade Center" in the name; it's really a question of whether or not "Cortlandt [Street]" will be prepended.

My opinion is that if they want to call the station simply "World Trade Center" with no extra baggage, then they should also drop the Cortlandt name from the BMT station for symmetry. Then you'll have WTC for (E), (1), and (R)(W)—a bit more unified. I'd personally prefer keeping the Cortlandt name all around for historical preservation, but let's not kid ourselves, the eponymous street is pretty irrelevant in this century, especially compared to the highly relevant WTC.

It's funny, I actually thought that they'd go in the other direction and drop the "World Trade Center" suffix, keeping only "Cortlandt Street," since that's the only name that was grayed out in the maps and route listings. I feel both relieved and confused.

Edited August 26, 2018 by Porter

[Gotham Bus Co.]

9 hours ago, Porter said:

Per the article I just posted, it will definitely have "World Trade Center" in the name; it's really a question of whether or not "Cortlandt [Street]" will be prepended.

My opinion is that if they want to call the station simply "World Trade Center" with no extra baggage, then they should also drop the Cortlandt name from the BMT station for symmetry. Then you'll have WTC for (E), (1), and (R)(W)—a bit more unified. I'd personally prefer keeping the Cortlandt name all around for historical preservation, but let's not kid ourselves, the eponymous street is pretty irrelevant in this century, especially compared to the highly relevant WTC.

It's funny, I actually thought that they'd go in the other direction and drop the "World Trade Center" suffix, keeping only "Cortlandt Street," since that's the only name that was grayed out in the maps and route listings. I feel both relieved and confused.

 

I remember when competing groups of 9/11 victims' families, each claiming to speak for all victims' families, insisted on differing approaches to rebuilding...

 

the entire WTC complex should be rebuilt square-inch-for-square-inch, with all tenants required to move back in. Otherwise, the terrorists will win.

 a new complex should be built, incorporating a memorial to all who died that day. Otherwise the terrorists will win.

 the site should remain a hole in the ground forever, with absolutely nothing (especially the subway tunnel) allowed to be built or rebuilt. Otherwise the terrorists will win. 

[bobtehpanda]

1 hour ago, Gotham Bus Co. said:

 

I remember when competing groups of 9/11 victims' families, each claiming to speak for all victims' families, insisted on differing approaches to rebuilding...

 

the entire WTC complex should be rebuilt square-inch-for-square-inch, with all tenants required to move back in. Otherwise, the terrorists will win.

 a new complex should be built, incorporating a memorial to all who died that day. Otherwise the terrorists will win.

 the site should remain a hole in the ground forever, with absolutely nothing (especially the subway tunnel) allowed to be built or rebuilt. Otherwise the terrorists will win. 

I mean, we trashed like five different versions of 1WTC alone, as well as the entire original plan that won the damn competition for it in the first place.

The WTC rebuild is a textbook example of what not to do when building a large government project.

[Lawrence St]

Wasnt there suppose to be two towers built?

[NoHacksJustKhaks]

16 minutes ago, Lawrence St said:

Wasnt there suppose to be two towers built?

If you're talking about 2 WTC, it still is yet to be built (only the foundation is built so far) since IIRC the developers aren't sure about which design they should use to proceed. There was the original 2007 design by Foster and Partners and a 2015 redesign by BIG.  

Edited August 26, 2018 by NoHacksJustKhaks

[Lance]

That was "option 1" that Gotham Bus Co. posted upthread. Oddly enough, or perhaps not so much, the proposal to rebuild the Twin Towers was supported and sponsored by Donald Trump. The winning proposal mentioned by bobtehpanda was supposed to look something like this:

Courtesy: Studio Libeskind

For those interested, here is the evolution of the design of One World Trade:

Courtesy: NY Times

8 minutes ago, NoHacksJustKhaks said:

If you're talking about 2 WTC, it still is yet to be built since IIRC the developers aren't sure about which design they should use to proceed.

That and they cannot get a major tenant to justify another tower in the area. Not when the other buildings of the World Trade Center still have a lot of occupancy. A few years ago, there were rumors that 21st Century Fox would move their headquarters to 2WTC, but with Disney's buyout of all non-News related properties, that plan has since fallen through. Recently, there were discussions that the new Amazon headquarters would be in the lower Manhattan area, possibly at 2WTC as well, but if I recall correctly, should they decide to expand here in New York, they would more likely be in the Hudson Yards area rather than the World Trade Center. That means the future of 2WTC remains undecided and will likely remain an empty lot for the foreseeable future.

[bobtehpanda]

IMO, they should suck it up and make 2WTC residential. All-office in 2018 New York is bound to fail; there is already so much office going up. Heck, even Hudson Yards is mixed-use.

[NoHacksJustKhaks]

9 minutes ago, bobtehpanda said:

IMO, they should suck it up and make 2WTC residential. All-office in 2018 New York is bound to fail; there is already so much office going up. Heck, even Hudson Yards is mixed-use.

Agreed, especially in a dying-popularity region like lower Manhattan where the complex will be built. Most new large projects around the world and America (like Wilshire Grand) are like this anyways.

Really sad to think the  of all things is getting this station done before the Port Authority has any idea of what it's doing.  

Edited August 26, 2018 by NoHacksJustKhaks

[MNR Beacon Line]

15 hours ago, Porter said:

My opinion is that if they want to call the station simply "World Trade Center" with no extra baggage, then they should also drop the Cortlandt name from the BMT station for symmetry. Then you'll have WTC for (E), (1), and (R)(W)—a bit more unified. I'd personally prefer keeping the Cortlandt name all around for historical preservation, but let's not kid ourselves, the eponymous street is pretty irrelevant in this century, especially compared to the highly relevant WTC.

It's funny, I actually thought that they'd go in the other direction and drop the "World Trade Center" suffix, keeping only "Cortlandt Street," since that's the only name that was grayed out in the maps and route listings. I feel both relieved and confused.

Thing is the Cortlandt Street station actually still exists on Cortlandt St, unlike the . If anything having stops named the same thing when they are not complexed is going to be more confusing, especially for tourists. Considering the  stop is going to be the closest subway stop to One WTC (which is what most people think of when they hear WTC), I'm happy with them naming it simply "World Trade Center" and leaving the names for all the other stations alone.

But if it were really up to me, I'd give the whole Chambers St –Park Pl –WTC –Cortlandt St  complex the single name "World Trade Center–Church St" and name the  station "World Trade Center–Greenwich St." You do lose some geographic distinction by eliminating the cross streets from the station names but it separates the WTC stations into 3 neat groups (if you include Fulton St) and makes it clear which in-system transfers are available (and let's be honest, how many people in NYC really have a good grasp of the street names below Houston anyway?).

[Porter]

On 8/26/2018 at 10:16 AM, Gotham Bus Co. said:

 

I remember when competing groups of 9/11 victims' families, each claiming to speak for all victims' families, insisted on differing approaches to rebuilding...

 

the entire WTC complex should be rebuilt square-inch-for-square-inch, with all tenants required to move back in. Otherwise, the terrorists will win.

 a new complex should be built, incorporating a memorial to all who died that day. Otherwise the terrorists will win.

 the site should remain a hole in the ground forever, with absolutely nothing (especially the subway tunnel) allowed to be built or rebuilt. Otherwise the terrorists will win. 

I was definitely in the first camp, but I'm slowly learning to live with the reality of the second. Had the third happened, I'd be down there day and night, rain or shine, demanding the first option.

19 hours ago, MNR Beacon Line said:

Thing is the Cortlandt Street station actually still exists on Cortlandt St, unlike the . If anything having stops named the same thing when they are not complexed is going to be more confusing, especially for tourists. Considering the  stop is going to be the closest subway stop to One WTC (which is what most people think of when they hear WTC), I'm happy with them naming it simply "World Trade Center" and leaving the names for all the other stations alone.

But if it were really up to me, I'd give the whole Chambers St –Park Pl –WTC –Cortlandt St  complex the single name "World Trade Center–Church St" and name the  station "World Trade Center–Greenwich St." You do lose some geographic distinction by eliminating the cross streets from the station names but it separates the WTC stations into 3 neat groups (if you include Fulton St) and makes it clear which in-system transfers are available (and let's be honest, how many people in NYC really have a good grasp of the street names below Houston anyway?).

Well, the does let out right at the new Cortlandt Way, but I get your point. I agree that it would be better to just rename the station "World Trade Center–Church Street" and the as "World Trade Center–Greenwich Street," but there would probably be some resistance (because any change always has resistance, even those for the better). As far as tourists are concerned, the name "World Trade Center" is far more meaningful and helpful than Cortlandt, Church, Greenwich, Park Place, and Chambers combined; "World Trade Center" tells you precisely which corner of Lower Manhattan you're in. These names were minted before the first WTC was built, so I think it's high time to acknowledge the reality that the WTC is the main attraction of those stations. I'd even suggest "Fulton Street–World Trade Center," but that's a bit more of a stretch.

21 hours ago, Vtrain said:

Will there be a free transfer between the 1 train at Cortlandt St/WTC to the E/R/W trains at WTC/Cortlandt St station when completed.

No, but it would be possible to make such an arrangement to mirror the Lexington Avenue situation with the free out-of-system transfer. Possibility aside, why? The already meets with the two stations down at South Ferry/Whitehall, a relatively recent free transfer. To go between the and the , however, might be a benefit, but would such a southerly connection even be in demand? Maybe, but y'all would know better, so please tell me your thoughts.

[Around the Horn]

39 minutes ago, Porter said:

No, but it would be possible to make such an arrangement to mirror the Lexington Avenue situation with the free out-of-system transfer. Possibility aside, why? The already meets with the two stations down at South Ferry/Whitehall, a relatively recent free transfer. To go between the and the , however, might be a benefit, but would such a southerly connection even be in demand? Maybe, but y'all would know better, so please tell me your thoughts.

I don't think the issue here is that there should be a transfer, but that having the  train station named "World Trade Center" (without Cortlandt Street), right next to the existing World Trade Center station on the  almost implies that there is a transfer. 

[P3F]

Here's a video of the southbound side. Most of the black/white signs are covered by tape and paper, but the last one isn't. It is not a normal sign; it is more similar to the signs on the staircases at the SAS stations. The northbound side is much less finished and has no signage so far.

 

[MysteriousBtrain]

I wouldn't be surprised if Cortlandt St reopens with a transfer no matter how useless the transfer is. Kind of like how Cortlandt St got connected to the , I could see at least a passageway to connect to the . And maybe then the entire complex can be renamed World Trade Center with the exception of Chambers Street on the and most likely the as well.

The Fulton transit center would be relatively simple with two NYCT complexes in one place.

Edited August 28, 2018 by MysteriousBtrain

[Porter]

8 hours ago, Around the Horn said:

I don't think the issue here is that there should be a transfer, but that having the  train station named "World Trade Center" (without Cortlandt Street), right next to the existing World Trade Center station on the  almost implies that there is a transfer. 

The Canal Street and stations share a name verbatim yet lack a free transfer between them, although such a connection is currently at the top of my "reasonable wish-list." Basically, sharing identical names without free transfers is fairly unremarkable.

3 hours ago, MysteriousBtrain said:

I could see at least a passageway to connect to the .

Is that physically possible? Explain, please.