MassTransitHonchkrow Posted February 8, 2017 Share #51 Posted February 8, 2017 They both get good usage. The ends by a large complex and it saves people from schlepping up those steep hills up there. On the map the stations look redundant, but if you use both of them, they both are pretty important.Then I guess that's justification to keep it open. I just think it could be better. Would it be too hard to elevate those tracks? Also, do you think it would be more practical to start SAS p2 as elevated instead of burrowed? ???? Eric Shields | #MassTransitHonchkrow ???? THE Hudson Valley's essential Fare-blazer ???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Via Garibaldi 8 Posted February 8, 2017 Share #52 Posted February 8, 2017 Then I guess that's justification to keep it open. I just think it could be better. Would it be too hard to elevate those tracks? Also, do you think it would be more practical to start SAS p2 as elevated instead of burrowed? Eric Shields | #MassTransitHonchkrow THE Hudson Valley's essential Fare-blazer I'm not so sure that I would extend the . I mean where would you extend it to? Aside from that Harlem is seeing a renaissance, and gentrification means more people. Given the density of the areas covered by the up there, I would leave it alone. The could use some help, but I don't know if it should come from the per se. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MassTransitHonchkrow Posted February 8, 2017 Share #53 Posted February 8, 2017 I'm not so sure that I would extend the . I mean where would you extend it to? Aside from that Harlem is seeing a renaissance, and gentrification means more people. Given the density of the areas covered by the up there, I would leave it alone. The could use some help, but I don't know if it should come from the per se.Raise. Not extend. ???? Eric Shields | #MassTransitHonchkrow ???? THE Hudson Valley's essential Fare-blazer ???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Via Garibaldi 8 Posted February 8, 2017 Share #54 Posted February 8, 2017 Raise. Not extend. Eric Shields | #MassTransitHonchkrow THE Hudson Valley's essential Fare-blazer Ohh... I didn't read the SAS part... It should be underground for sure. Nobody wants elevated subways these days. They're an eyesore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MassTransitHonchkrow Posted February 8, 2017 Share #55 Posted February 8, 2017 Ohh... I didn't read the SAS part... It should be underground for sure. Nobody wants elevated subways these days. They're an eyesore.They don't have to be. They were an eyesore because of the management, not the concept. ???? Eric Shields | #MassTransitHonchkrow ???? THE Hudson Valley's essential Fare-blazer ???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Via Garibaldi 8 Posted February 8, 2017 Share #56 Posted February 8, 2017 They don't have to be. They were an eyesore because of the management, not the concept. Eric Shields | #MassTransitHonchkrow THE Hudson Valley's essential Fare-blazer lol.... I suppose, but I don't see how they could be an improvement in such a concept. You need funding to keep such projects up, and we both know how things are in that area. I look at an area like Kingsbridge... They have been trying for YEARS to make that neighborhood more attractive. The areas west of Broadway with no subway have remained decent and are more expensive, but despite the amount of money that has been poured into making Broadway a shopping destination, it still doesn't draw the crowds that it should, and part of that is due to the elevated line. It is dark and loud and dirty as well. Elevated subway lines seem to invite all of those things and I don't know what could change that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MassTransitHonchkrow Posted February 8, 2017 Share #57 Posted February 8, 2017 lol.... I suppose, but I don't see how they could be an improvement in such a concept. You need funding to keep such projects up, and we both know how things are in that area. I look at an area like Kingsbridge... They have been trying for YEARS to make that neighborhood more attractive. The areas west of Broadway with no subway have remained decent and are more expensive, but despite the amount of money that has been poured into making Broadway a shopping destination, it still doesn't draw the crowds that it should, and part of that is due to the elevated line. It is dark and loud and dirty as well. Elevated subway lines seem to invite all of those things and I don't know what could change that.I'm thinking of something akin to Bath Fitter. Maybe my imagination went too far...? ???? Eric Shields | #MassTransitHonchkrow ???? THE Hudson Valley's essential Fare-blazer ???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trainmaster5 Posted February 9, 2017 Share #58 Posted February 9, 2017 I'm not sure if it's rumor or fact but I remember someone saying that it's against the law to construct elevated lines in New York City. IIRC it was back during the construction of the JFK AirTrain when this was originally brought up. Before the nitpickers jump in let me say this. The AirTrain was a PANY&NJ project funded by Federal funds from airport travelers which was built over a Federal road. The Van Wyck is a federal road so city law is not the rule there. Maybe my memory is somewhat hazy but that's what I remember the argument was about. Carry on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Around the Horn Posted February 9, 2017 Share #59 Posted February 9, 2017 I'm not sure if it's rumor or fact but I remember someone saying that it's against the law to construct elevated lines in New York City. IIRC it was back during the construction of the JFK AirTrain when this was originally brought up. Before the nitpickers jump in let me say this. The AirTrain was a PANY&NJ project funded by Federal funds from airport travelers which was built over a Federal road. The Van Wyck is a federal road so city law is not the rule there. Maybe my memory is somewhat hazy but that's what I remember the argument was about. Carry on. I know of no such law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongLiveRock Posted February 9, 2017 Share #60 Posted February 9, 2017 SAS shouldn't be elevated, because you'd have to rip up a major street for many many years to get the line aboveground. It'd also be hella expensive since the SAS is so far underground, and you'd probably have to skip the 106th Street station. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trainmaster5 Posted February 9, 2017 Share #61 Posted February 9, 2017 I know of no such law. I don't know the law either but the argument was real. Whether the law does exist or not can anyone list any elevated subway, railroad, or highways constructed over a city street since the 1930-40's era ? Just asking because I've seen Els torn down in the city in my lifetime but I don't recall an elevated transit or highway being constructed during that same period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trainmaster5 Posted February 9, 2017 Share #62 Posted February 9, 2017 After reading up on my original contention and asking a few older folks I stand corrected. I was mixing up actions of the original NYC Board of Estimate with established law. That political body, representing city wide interests, decided that Robert Moses wouldn't be allowed to build the elevated Lower Manhattan or elevated Mid Manhattan expressways. The decision was backed by the governor, Rockefeller, and because the Board represented a consensus of NYC government it pretty much eliminated anything being constructed over city streets. The Board included the Borough Presidents so they were against that type of construction anyway. One must also remember that City policy was for the demolition of elevated structures since the days of transit consolidation. I doubt that today's politicians would back any type of elevated construction if it involved work over inhabited areas. Carry on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobtehpanda Posted February 10, 2017 Share #63 Posted February 10, 2017 Elevated track would only really work on a road that is so wide it wouldn't impact much of anyone (Pelham Pkwy comes to mind), or on a corridor that already has some kind of intensive transport use, so it wouldn't be that much worse (AirTrain on the Van Wyck was a good example, potential other candidates would be the LIRR Main Line and the Harlem Line) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Via Garibaldi 8 Posted February 10, 2017 Share #64 Posted February 10, 2017 Elevated track would only really work on a road that is so wide it wouldn't impact much of anyone (Pelham Pkwy comes to mind), or on a corridor that already has some kind of intensive transport use, so it wouldn't be that much worse (AirTrain on the Van Wyck was a good example, potential other candidates would be the LIRR Main Line and the Harlem Line) lol... An elevated line on Pelham Parkway wouldn't fly. All of that greenery would be destroyed. One of the nicer parts of the Bronx too that didn't have an expressway rammed into it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobtehpanda Posted February 10, 2017 Share #65 Posted February 10, 2017 lol... An elevated line on Pelham Parkway wouldn't fly. All of that greenery would be destroyed. One of the nicer parts of the Bronx too that didn't have an expressway rammed into it. I mean over the center roadways, not actually on the park part of it. It's entirely possible to build spacious stations on the footprint of the road itself, and the Queens Blvd viaduct shows that on a big enough road and with thoughtful design, an elevated is not a major problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Via Garibaldi 8 Posted February 10, 2017 Share #66 Posted February 10, 2017 I mean over the center roadways, not actually on the park part of it. It's entirely possible to build spacious stations on the footprint of the road itself, and the Queens Blvd viaduct shows that on a big enough road and with thoughtful design, an elevated is not a major problem. Even so Pelham Parkway itself (the road) is actually charming for that reason. Ramming an elevated line over it is just absurd. It would destory the tranquility that the road offers. I've lived on the outskirts of cities for quite some time and I just think there is something important about keeping green areas green. They should be protected as much as possible. I have some fond memories even living back in Italy where I lived within walking distance to the center of Florence, but lived on the outskirts of the city, and still had good access to transportation. Once you go ramming something like that in, you lose that tranquility and those great views. It isn't just a coincidence that the most desirable parts of the city are in parts that don't have elevated subway lines. The only time we should be building overhead is in cases where the subway simply can't go underground due to issues like marshland or perhaps landfill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MassTransitHonchkrow Posted February 11, 2017 Share #67 Posted February 11, 2017 SAS shouldn't be elevated, because you'd have to rip up a major street for many many years to get the line aboveground. It'd also be hella expensive since the SAS is so far underground, and you'd probably have to skip the 106th Street station. I suggest assembling it in one location and dismantling it to be reassembled in another. The most famous result of this kind of construction is the Statue of Liberty. Survey the street, and begin apportioning to create the least disruption. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MassTransitHonchkrow Posted February 18, 2017 Share #68 Posted February 18, 2017 Elevated track would only really work on a road that is so wide it wouldn't impact much of anyone (Pelham Pkwy comes to mind), or on a corridor that already has some kind of intensive transport use, so it wouldn't be that much worse (AirTrain on the Van Wyck was a good example, potential other candidates would be the LIRR Main Line and the Harlem Line)Elevated lines don't have to look like the ones constructed in the past. I'm thinking of something akin to a streetcar but with elevated rails (masoned, not wood). ???? Eric Shields | #MassTransitHonchkrow ???? THE Hudson Valley's essential Fare-blazer ???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobtehpanda Posted February 18, 2017 Share #69 Posted February 18, 2017 Elevated lines don't have to look like the ones constructed in the past. I'm thinking of something akin to a streetcar but with elevated rails (masoned, not wood). You can put lipstick on a pig. It's still a pig. No one wants to live immediately next to a elevated line no matter what it looks like, hence the stipulation that they have to be in places already spoiled by infrastructure, or on very wide roads. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobtehpanda Posted February 18, 2017 Share #70 Posted February 18, 2017 Even so Pelham Parkway itself (the road) is actually charming for that reason. Ramming an elevated line over it is just absurd. It would destory the tranquility that the road offers. I've lived on the outskirts of cities for quite some time and I just think there is something important about keeping green areas green. They should be protected as much as possible. I have some fond memories even living back in Italy where I lived within walking distance to the center of Florence, but lived on the outskirts of the city, and still had good access to transportation. Once you go ramming something like that in, you lose that tranquility and those great views. It isn't just a coincidence that the most desirable parts of the city are in parts that don't have elevated subway lines. The only time we should be building overhead is in cases where the subway simply can't go underground due to issues like marshland or perhaps landfill. It's possible to design contextual rail lines that belong in parklands, over the existing roadway so that impact is minimized. The following examples are pretty good: Paris Metro Line 6 Berlin's Stadtbahn, which is so well-integrated that there are shops and restaurants integrated into the rail line itself: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MassTransitHonchkrow Posted February 18, 2017 Share #71 Posted February 18, 2017 You can put lipstick on a pig. It's still a pig. No one wants to live immediately next to a elevated line no matter what it looks like, hence the stipulation that they have to be in places already spoiled by infrastructure, or on very wide roads.Maybe I don't mean elevated. Mixed use, like a section of a wide road dedicated to rail. Like a reimagined streetcar but with the durability of the subway, without the ghastliness of elevated rail. Light rail, but with a third rail. ???? Eric Shields | #MassTransitHonchkrow ???? THE Hudson Valley's essential Fare-blazer ???? Maybe I don't mean elevated. Mixed use, like a section of a wide road dedicated to rail. Like a reimagined streetcar but with the durability of the subway, without the ghastliness of elevated rail. Light rail, but with a third rail. ???? Eric Shields | #MassTransitHonchkrow ???? THE Hudson Valley's essential Fare-blazer ???? For instance, Jerome Avenue is sectioned in a way that it's possible. Some tracks from the Bedford Park yard can deviate into that space per se. ???? Eric Shields | #MassTransitHonchkrow ???? THE Hudson Valley's essential Fare-blazer ???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Via Garibaldi 8 Posted February 18, 2017 Share #72 Posted February 18, 2017 It's possible to design contextual rail lines that belong in parklands, over the existing roadway so that impact is minimized. The following examples are pretty good: Paris Metro Line 6 Berlin's Stadtbahn, which is so well-integrated that there are shops and restaurants integrated into the rail line itself: That first pic, you can see graffiti all about and you know what more storefronts mean? More spots for the homeless to camp out. It's been an ongoing problem, especially in Manhattan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RR503 Posted February 18, 2017 Share #73 Posted February 18, 2017 That first pic, you can see graffiti all about and you know what more storefronts mean? More spots for the homeless to camp out. It's been an ongoing problem, especially in Manhattan. WOW that's cynical... To most people, it means economic activity, jobs, and cultural or civic assets. I quite like the way that they fit the shops in. Solutions like that are needed in NY. It's a very crowded city, so finding creative ways to use dead square footage is a good thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.