|
|
| Re: Second Ave Alignment Change (640820) | |||
 |
|||
| Home > SubChat | |||
|
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ] |
|
||
|
Re: Second Ave Alignment Change |
|
|
Posted by Eric B on Fri Jun 27 19:01:02 2008, in response to Re: Second Ave Alignment Change, posted by Hank Eisenstein on Mon Jun 23 12:15:27 2008. Let alone removing an alternate terminal for any ENY-based service via 6th Ave. (Instead of the impractical idea of merging the V and M). Also, at the last major CB hearing, they also mentioned the extra track as being planned for the event the Bridge ever closes again. Now, when the T starts running, both Q and dimond Q would all have to go to 96th/125th. (and are they going to cut the third track from there too?) So basically, if the north side closes, one of the Bway services would have to be cut altogether, and probably replaced with the M.All because of this budget crunch now. Once they do this, it will be final. It just causes more problems than it solves. They're only thinking about the moment, and not the future. How much funds will this cut even raise? If they want to cut this, then lengthern the platforms in the Eastern Div. and then through routing the V would be more practical. Or, build the connection from Essex to the Second Ave. line. But that would probably be too diruptive (that was apart of Shallow Chrystie, and they're going with Deep Chrystie). (There was actually supposed to be two tracks on the perimeter of 14th St., not one near 42nd. So I'll wonder if they'll cut those too. But then that's if they ever even get down there!) |
|
|
|