|
|
| Re: Second Ave Alignment Change (637196) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 6 of 8 |
||
|
| (638766) | |
Re: Second Ave Alignment Change |
|
|
Posted by Sand Box John on Mon Jun 23 23:31:22 2008, in response to Re: Second Ave Alignment Change, posted by trainsarefun on Mon Jun 23 20:24:52 2008. Keep in mind, though, that this is mostly TBM construction. If MTA decides to narrow the tunnel diameter, even if the tunnel is itself left-justified or right justified, with respect to the 2nd Av median, it could still be prohibitively costly to work the unworked side.The only thing that is TBM construction is tunnels that the trains travel through. The contractor will excavate the station train room out after the TBM has passed. This was how ALL of the station in bed rock were done on WMATA where a TBM was employed to dig the train tunnels. As to the issue of 'left-justified, right justified' I wouldn't take those drawings in slides 4, 5 and 6 in Community Board Eight as gospel as to where the station will be located in relationship to the center line of Second Avenue. The station center lines shown on the plans in slides 4 and 5 are not the same as the center lines shown on the section in slide 6. John in the sand box of Maryland's eastern shore. |
|
|
| (638767) | |
Re: Second Ave Alignment Change |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Buffer on Mon Jun 23 23:32:07 2008, in response to Re: Second Ave Alignment Change, posted by SelkirkTMO on Mon Jun 23 13:21:58 2008. Wow, I almost can't imagine that. I've always paid attention to where my train was goin, even as a kid, but there was always SOME kind of announcement clarifying even if it wasn't that audible. What I find funny is how people at that town-hall conference the MTA held and people who talk about "this broken-down system" and "mass transit in New York SUCKS!" as someone said on that annoying Sliwa-show this morning. I know it ain't perfect even today, but it's just laughable compared to what I've heard went on as recently as 25 years ago. All I have to say is ... HEH! :-) |
|
|
| (638772) | |
Re: Second Ave Alignment Change |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Buffer on Mon Jun 23 23:39:55 2008, in response to Re: Second Ave Alignment Change, posted by SelkirkTMO on Mon Jun 23 16:56:15 2008. No fries. Chip!=) |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (638778) | |
Re: Second Ave Alignment Change |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Tue Jun 24 00:14:25 2008, in response to Re: Second Ave Alignment Change, posted by Terrapin Station on Mon Jun 23 06:53:20 2008. Stop it,Brian.He Can be 'a jerk" sometimes..but so can you..and thats MOST of the time..so instead of preaching to US about how WE shouldn't be responding to HIM..take a page out of your own play book..and learn something. Don't YOU understand THAT? |
|
|
| (638779) | |
Re: Second Ave Alignment Change |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Tue Jun 24 00:15:32 2008, in response to Re: Second Ave Alignment Change, posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Mon Jun 23 19:58:09 2008. 57th was originally built for 8 cars I think ... 10 car trains couldn't go there for either that reason, or some other one. But that's why the B train always was 8 cars since the day it opened. |
|
|
| (638780) | |
Re: Second Ave Alignment Change |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Tue Jun 24 00:17:22 2008, in response to Re: Second Ave Alignment Change, posted by Broadway Buffer on Mon Jun 23 23:32:07 2008. Yep ... since most trains didn't have a PA system, they had a PA system on the platform with those miserable FANON type bullhorns on the ceiling. And they WOULD make announcements on the platform, but nobody listened. Same as it ever was. :)And as to the whiners, at least they have air conditioning now. Heh. |
|
|
| (638782) | |
Re: Second Ave Alignment Change |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Tue Jun 24 00:21:44 2008, in response to Re: Second Ave Alignment Change, posted by SelkirkTMO on Tue Jun 24 00:15:32 2008. The station was certainly always a least 600 long.Perhaps some issue was present with regards to the bumper block position/signalling? Also... Perhaps the West End line was the problem for the B? The platform extensions on the West End don't look that old... |
|
|
| (638784) | |
Second Ave Alignment Change/Suggested Phase 2 extenstion across 125th street |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Tue Jun 24 00:29:12 2008, in response to Re: Second Ave Alignment Change, posted by SMAZ on Mon Jun 23 02:23:31 2008. That I agree with (though I would probably do it as a slightly modified rebuild of the old Bronx part of the 3rd Avenue El), however:If you build the 125th Street crosstown part of the SAS, which as I would do it would terminate at 125th Street from Broadway to 12th Avenue, complete with a transfer to the 1 train, connections to/from the 8th Avenue/CPW/Concourse lines should also be built. Such connections, especially if there is later on a dedicated Bronx branch of the SAS or at least a second terminal available at 126th/2nd would allow for when needed the A/B/C/D lines to be diverted in either direction from the CPW/8th Avenue/Concourse line to the SAS. It would also as I would do it allow 125th/Broadway-12th Avenue to become a terminal for one of the CPW/8th Avenue lines (most likely the B or C train, leaving the CPW line after 110th or 116th Street) as well as an SAS line (and if the C train did terminate at 125th/Broadway, the T could replace the C from 125th to 168th, giving extreme upper manhattan riders a one or at worst an easy two-seat ride to the east side). |
|
|
| (638785) | |
Re: Second Ave Alignment Change |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Tue Jun 24 00:30:26 2008, in response to Re: Second Ave Alignment Change, posted by R30A on Tue Jun 24 00:21:44 2008. That I don't know ... all I remember from back then was that 10 car trains were prohibited from going to 57/6 at the time I was there. Northbound, it was either 59CC or Queens, no substitutions. :)But I don't know *why* ... |
|
|
| (638789) | |
Re: Second Ave Alignment Change |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Tue Jun 24 00:33:33 2008, in response to Re: Second Ave Alignment Change, posted by SelkirkTMO on Tue Jun 24 00:15:32 2008. 57TH/6TH?No...Kirk...! Always 10 car...from day one. But they never ran 10 cars on the B until the West End platform extension program was finished..and even then..they didn't run them cause of the so called car shortage. |
|
|
| (638790) | |
Re: Second Ave Alignment Change |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Tue Jun 24 00:41:15 2008, in response to Re: Second Ave Alignment Change, posted by Broadway Lion on Mon Jun 23 11:30:18 2008. I believe the SAS should continue along it original course..A terminal located at 149TH st/3rd avenue as an temp set up..untill it can be extended along that avenue to at least Fordam Road. That way..at least SOME Bronx service can be provided..and transfers availible to the West Farms subway/El...and the BX55.. |
|
|
| (638791) | |
Re: Second Ave Alignment Change |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Tue Jun 24 00:41:31 2008, in response to Re: Second Ave Alignment Change, posted by Edwards! on Tue Jun 24 00:33:33 2008. Thanks! All I can tell ya is (reason unknown) they would NOT turn a northbound D at 57/6 when I was there, and when I asked, was told "can't be done" ... never got an answer as to WHY. If 59CC was jacked, off to Queens, dump them at Roosevelt or Continental, get turned, go back home. |
|
|
| (638792) | |
Re: Second Ave Alignment Change |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Tue Jun 24 00:42:48 2008, in response to Re: Second Ave Alignment Change, posted by Edwards! on Tue Jun 24 00:41:15 2008. BX55 ... slowly I turn, step by step, inch by inch, yada-yada. :( |
|
|
| (638793) | |
Re: Second Ave Alignment Change |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Tue Jun 24 00:49:10 2008, in response to Re: Second Ave Alignment Change, posted by Sand Box John on Mon Jun 23 23:31:22 2008. Agreed on the drawings. The drawings were made to show the public what is going on. They are not engineering drawings with context. |
|
|
| (638794) | |
Re: Second Ave Alignment Change |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Tue Jun 24 00:51:58 2008, in response to Re: Second Ave Alignment Change, posted by SelkirkTMO on Tue Jun 24 00:30:26 2008. So they lengthened the platform as part of the 63rd st work? Obviously, 8 75' cars platform there now. |
|
|
| (638795) | |
Re: Second Ave Alignment Change |
|
|
Posted by jsun21 on Tue Jun 24 00:57:32 2008, in response to Re: Second Ave Alignment Change, posted by SelkirkTMO on Tue Jun 24 00:41:31 2008. Perhaps turning at 57/6 involves opening a Tower that isn't staffed and the interlocking was/is not slaved to another master tower. Not to mention to change to a terminal theres a need to change configuration so to speak and that means delays to southbound F trains, or F trains going up Broadway. |
|
|
| (638804) | |
Re: Second Ave Alignment Change |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Tue Jun 24 01:13:37 2008, in response to Re: Second Ave Alignment Change, posted by RonInBayside on Tue Jun 24 00:51:58 2008. No it was ALWAYS over 600 ft since 68'.Use to ride to that station whne the KK ran..was PLENTY OF ROOM left between the car and the bumper...more than 200 ft...funny thing about 57/6th...the bumpers were built into the wall structure[sort of how 8th avenue/14th st was]..not like todays mega bumpers built into the trackbed. My father always had a KK train at least twice a week or more..so I hung out with him there more than a few times during the summers..and I can remember One F train being turned there... I don't know..maybe they didnt WANT any D trains there? |
|
|
| (638805) | |
Re: Second Ave Alignment Change |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Tue Jun 24 01:18:55 2008, in response to Re: Second Ave Alignment Change, posted by Edwards! on Tue Jun 24 01:13:37 2008. Thank you. |
|
|
| (638813) | |
Re: Second Ave Alignment Change |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Tue Jun 24 01:37:42 2008, in response to Re: Second Ave Alignment Change, posted by Mitch45 on Mon Jun 23 11:38:29 2008. Of course SAS will never be fully completed. I agree with you 100%. At best, they will have a terminal at 72 or 86. Even that seems to be far out of reach. |
|
|
| (638814) | |
Re: Second Ave Alignment Change |
|
|
Posted by TheGreatOne2k8 on Tue Jun 24 01:38:30 2008, in response to Re: Second Ave Alignment Change, posted by SMAZ on Mon Jun 23 02:23:31 2008. Not completely sufficient, the C/Rs do have to tell people between 3-4 pm to use all available doors, the (D) is like the (4) during certain times it is running local... |
|
|
| (638817) | |
Re: Second Ave Alignment Change |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Tue Jun 24 01:46:20 2008, in response to Re: Second Ave Alignment Change, posted by TheGreatOne2k8 on Tue Jun 24 01:38:30 2008. Not completely sufficient, the C/Rs do have to tell people between 3-4 pm to use all available doors, the (D) is like the (4) during certain times it is running local...That's where a Bronx 3rd Av Subway would help. If that were still insufficient, I also proposed a possible (Y) train that would run like the (B) but switch to the SAS just before or just after Grand St and run down Water St to Hanover Sq. |
|
|
| (638820) | |
Re: Second Ave Alignment Change |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Tue Jun 24 01:50:13 2008, in response to Re: Second Ave Alignment Change, posted by RonInBayside on Mon Jun 23 17:11:33 2008. Never ate them. Sounds good. Did you eat them in a sandwich or eat 'em straight? |
|
|
| (638824) | |
Re: Second Ave Alignment Change |
|
|
Posted by TheGreatOne2k8 on Tue Jun 24 01:59:04 2008, in response to Re: Second Ave Alignment Change, posted by SMAZ on Tue Jun 24 01:46:20 2008. The problem that I described however could be handled with either expanded (B) service, or some extra (D) trains.A Bronx 3 Av Subway would save the MTA fuel costs and relieve overcrowded buses, even worse to come with the proposed Boricua Village at 163 St & 3 Av. Much of the Concourse crowding at that time is either 161/167 or Tremont/Fordham. Concourse connection would be a good backup option if a new tunnel can't be built for some reason (rising costs by the time it would even be proposed). |
|
|
| (638826) | |
Re: Second Ave Alignment Change |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Tue Jun 24 02:08:59 2008, in response to Re: Second Ave Alignment Change, posted by RonInBayside on Tue Jun 24 01:18:55 2008. Simple point of order, since I already posted before ... I don't know WHY, but I *never* got sent to 57 and turned, and was specifically told that "10 cars cannot be done" ... have no doubts as to whatever the length was, actually rode trains in and out of there a few times. I have no idea of WHY they wouldn't allow 10 cars there (QB's and QJ's ended up on 6th Ave too) ... but it was 59CC or Queens ... |
|
|
| (638827) | |
Re: Second Ave Alignment Change |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Tue Jun 24 02:10:33 2008, in response to Re: Second Ave Alignment Change, posted by jsun21 on Tue Jun 24 00:57:32 2008. I have no idea ... hopefully RandyO will spot this (since he's of my vintage) and might know why ... but I asked, was told "can't go there" and asked why ... nobody told me why, just "MOVE it!" :) |
|
|
| (638836) | |
Re: Second Ave Alignment Change |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Tue Jun 24 02:26:42 2008, in response to Re: Second Ave Alignment Change, posted by TheGreatOne2k8 on Tue Jun 24 01:59:04 2008. As said above:If the proposed 3rd Avenue Bronx part of the SAS did get rebuilt, I would look if possible to do that as elevated since that would likely be cheaper to do than tunnelling. |
|
|
| (638837) | |
Re: Second Ave Alignment Change |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Tue Jun 24 02:31:52 2008, in response to Re: Second Ave Alignment Change, posted by RonInBayside on Mon Jun 23 13:05:00 2008. As Ron said:>>True, but then the most important service is Q and T to 125 St. If you have the money, a short turn service is cool.>> Yes, and by the time Phase 2 is built, as noted above should money be available then it should be built all the way across 125th street to a terminal at Broadway-12th Avenue with connections to the 8th Avenue/CPW/Concourse line. |
|
|
| (638840) | |
Re: Second Ave Alignment Change |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Tue Jun 24 02:57:46 2008, in response to Re: Second Ave Alignment Change, posted by Andrew Saucci on Mon Jun 23 20:21:33 2008. 96th St Station/Terminal is supposed to be completed first. If anything we may have a situation like on the (7) extension where the middle stations may just be shells if funding were to run out but the terminals completed. |
|
|
| (638842) | |
Re: Second Ave Alignment Change |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Tue Jun 24 03:17:06 2008, in response to Re: Second Ave Alignment Change, posted by TheGreatOne2k8 on Tue Jun 24 01:59:04 2008. The problem that I described however could be handled with either expanded (B) service, or some extra (D) trains.Indeed. My (Y) train would be nothing more than expanded (B) service with a Lower Manhattan terminal instead of a Brooklyn one. It would save stress on the Manny B too and have a quicker turnaround. It could serve as a stopgap measure until a Bronx TAS (Third Av Subway) could be funded and built. |
|
|
| (638843) | |
Re: Second Ave Alignment Change |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Tue Jun 24 03:17:50 2008, in response to Re: Second Ave Alignment Change, posted by Wallyhorse on Tue Jun 24 02:26:42 2008. If the proposed 3rd Avenue Bronx part of the SAS did get rebuilt, I would look if possible to do that as elevated since that would likely be cheaper to do than tunnelling.That would be political suicide. |
|
|
| (638845) | |
Re: Second Ave Alignment Change |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Tue Jun 24 03:29:18 2008, in response to Re: Second Ave Alignment Change, posted by SMAZ on Tue Jun 24 03:17:50 2008. Not in the Bronx ... we were used to els anyway. If it's quieter than rickety steel, it'd be a WINNER! |
|
|
| (638847) | |
Re: Second Ave Alignment Change |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Tue Jun 24 03:37:15 2008, in response to Re: Second Ave Alignment Change, posted by Russ on Sat Jun 21 12:48:13 2008. And that extension on 125 is almost certainly going to be needed at some point given Columbia is going to be greatly expanding over the next 15 years, and that expansion probably is not going to be enough for the 1 train to handle all by itself. The "Concourse Connection" should also be done since it would allow for greater flexibility, including when needed to send CPW/8th Avenue/Concourse line trains via 2nd avenue downtown or to a second terminal at 126th/2nd (that can later be used as part of an extension to the Bronx). |
|
|
| (638848) | |
Re: Second Ave Alignment Change |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Tue Jun 24 03:59:15 2008, in response to Re: Second Ave Alignment Change, posted by RonInBayside on Sat Jun 21 03:19:59 2008. No:The problem is, real estate taxes suddenly went in the toilet in the middle of what arguably coule become the worst recession in 35 years (1973-'75, which is still considered to be the worst aside from the great depression, some people are even calling this a depression). That's why this has to be done. |
|
|
| (638854) | |
Re: Second Ave Alignment Change |
|
|
Posted by SUBWAYSURF on Tue Jun 24 05:19:15 2008, in response to Re: Second Ave Alignment Change, posted by Terrapin Station on Mon Jun 23 12:24:42 2008. Umm, no surprise there. Oh great obsessed one. |
|
|
| (638858) | |
Re: Second Ave Alignment Change |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Tue Jun 24 06:22:39 2008, in response to Re: Second Ave Alignment Change, posted by Edwards! on Tue Jun 24 00:14:25 2008. Incorrect Edwards. He's is the jerk, and now you're acting like one too. Grow up. |
|
|
| (638860) | |
Re: Second Ave Alignment Change |
|
|
Posted by SUBWAYSURF on Tue Jun 24 06:27:10 2008, in response to Re: Second Ave Alignment Change, posted by Terrapin Station on Mon Jun 23 06:53:20 2008. Still not following your own advice I see. |
|
|
| (638861) | |
Re: Second Ave Alignment Change |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Tue Jun 24 06:27:37 2008, in response to Re: Second Ave Alignment Change, posted by Edwards! on Tue Jun 24 00:14:25 2008. Incorrect Edwards. He's the jerk, and now you're acting like one too. Grow up. |
|
|
| (638862) | |
Re: Second Ave Alignment Change |
|
|
Posted by SUBWAYSURF on Tue Jun 24 06:28:07 2008, in response to Re: Second Ave Alignment Change, posted by Edwards! on Tue Jun 24 00:14:25 2008. Alas, he never will understand it. Until he gets some Windex and cleans that mirror. |
|
|
| (638863) | |
Re: Second Ave Alignment Change |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Tue Jun 24 06:32:57 2008, in response to Re: Second Ave Alignment Change, posted by SMAZ on Tue Jun 24 02:57:46 2008. That would make more sense, especially since 96th Street work is already taking place.As Russ noted upthread, there is now a serious need to get at least the stub part of the line to 96th (and even perhaps to 106th since much of that segment was built previously), and I suspect if anything, Phase 2 will get extended west to 125th and Broadway-12th Avenue because of the expansion of Columbia University that is supposed to happen over the next 15 years. |
|
|
| (638867) | |
Re: Second Ave Alignment Change |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Tue Jun 24 06:43:36 2008, in response to Re: Second Ave Alignment Change, posted by Edwards! on Tue Jun 24 00:14:25 2008. The only jerks here are you, and SUBWAYSURF, and also RonInRENO, whenever one of you goofs gives him material to work with. |
|
|
| (638873) | |
Re: Second Ave Alignment Change |
|
|
Posted by Mr RT on Tue Jun 24 07:04:59 2008, in response to Re: Second Ave Alignment Change, posted by PHXTUSbusfan on Sat Jun 21 01:52:08 2008. Yes a mim of 3 or 4 tracks is what they SHOULD have done :-( |
|
|
| (638879) | |
Re: Second Ave Alignment Change |
|
|
Posted by SUBWAYSURF on Tue Jun 24 07:38:01 2008, in response to Re: Second Ave Alignment Change, posted by Terrapin Station on Tue Jun 24 06:27:37 2008. haha, Now that is rich, you telling someone to grow up.Btw, double post. PS-I finally figured out who you remind me of. One of the characters in the revenge of the nerds movie. |
|
|
| (638880) | |
Re: Second Ave Alignment Change |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Tue Jun 24 07:38:40 2008, in response to Re: Second Ave Alignment Change, posted by SUBWAYSURF on Tue Jun 24 07:38:01 2008. False, it is not a double post. Try again. |
|
|
| (638883) | |
Re: Second Ave Alignment Change |
|
|
Posted by SUBWAYSURF on Tue Jun 24 07:44:25 2008, in response to Re: Second Ave Alignment Change, posted by Terrapin Station on Tue Jun 24 06:43:36 2008. AWWW, you forgot about you're other "pals" Douce man, Forest Glen, selkirk, traindude, lion, Dan Edwards. Their feelings are going to be hurt.PS Ron needs no help from any one you provide him with sufficient material with no help from anyone else. Because you lack the ability to pRACTICE WHAT YOU PREACH. |
|
|
| (638887) | |
Re: Second Ave Alignment Change |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Tue Jun 24 07:48:12 2008, in response to Re: Second Ave Alignment Change, posted by SUBWAYSURF on Tue Jun 24 07:44:25 2008. Incorrect. I meant exactly what I said. Your obsession is blinding you. |
|
|
| (638894) | |
Re: Second Ave Alignment Change |
|
|
Posted by SUBWAYSURF on Tue Jun 24 07:58:02 2008, in response to Re: Second Ave Alignment Change, posted by Terrapin Station on Tue Jun 24 07:48:12 2008. Haha your obsession is definitely blinding you. You didn't even see my Dan Lawrence error. |
|
|
| (638899) | |
Re: Second Ave Alignment Change |
|
|
Posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Tue Jun 24 08:09:14 2008, in response to Re: Second Ave Alignment Change, posted by SelkirkTMO on Tue Jun 24 00:15:32 2008. No, it has a 600-foot platform. A Fred train fits very neatly whether it's an eight-car R-46 or 10-car R-32 consist. |
|
|
| (638900) | |
Re: Second Ave Alignment Change |
|
|
Posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Tue Jun 24 08:12:09 2008, in response to Re: Second Ave Alignment Change, posted by Broadway Buffer on Mon Jun 23 23:32:07 2008. They would always tack on, "We are sorry for the inconvenience. Thank you for your patience and cooperation." |
|
|
| (638902) | |
Re: Second Ave Alignment Change |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Tue Jun 24 08:23:27 2008, in response to Re: Second Ave Alignment Change, posted by SUBWAYSURF on Tue Jun 24 07:58:02 2008. Wow, your obsession is reaching new highs! I must have struck a nerve. I knew you'd have to respond. |
|
|
| (638906) | |
Re: Second Ave Alignment Change |
|
|
Posted by Russ on Tue Jun 24 08:36:15 2008, in response to Re: Second Ave Alignment Change, posted by Wallyhorse on Tue Jun 24 03:59:15 2008. what arguably coule become the worst recession in 35 yearsNot even close. We're not looking at the double digit unemployment and inflation of the Carter years. some people are even calling this a depression 1) We are not yet in a recession, let alone a depression. A recession is defined as 2-7 consecutive quarters of economic contraction. 2) When you get past the 7th quarter and have 8+ consecutive quarters of economic contraction, then you have a depression. The chances of that happening are very slim. 3) Who are these people who are claiming that we are in a depression? |
|
|
|
Page 6 of 8 |
||
