Jump to content

second ave question...(T)


blkfire765

Recommended Posts

However, that would be a large half-loop. Maybe the (T) going to 207 and the (A) going to Concourse?

 

The (T)'s only job would be to relieve East Side riders off the (4) and (5). While I don't think running the (T) under 125th Dtreet is a bad idea, the sector where help is needed the most is the East Side. I'd say to send the (T) to 168th Street but no further or anywhere else than that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Oy! I guess I really should have stated clearly in my last post that a connection from the Montague Tunnel to the Brooklyn IND would also have to be built. I am assuming it would be cheaper than building a brand new East River tunnel for the (T).

 

 

Then why is there a whole thread about whether or not the current service to the Rockaways and Lefferts Blvd is adequate? That's what my post was in response to and it's also posted in that thread. I also posted it here in response to Grand Concourse's post about how (T) service in Brooklyn would not be redundant. I don't disagree that service between Brooklyn and Manhattan is adequate as is, but if Fulton St IND service from Lower Manhattan to both the Rockaways and Lefferts is indeed inadequate, well, you've got to go through Brooklyn before you can get to Lefferts. Running the (T) to Euclid allows the (C) to go express in Brooklyn and serve Lefferts. The objection Lefferts riders have about extending the (C) there would go away because the (C) would no longer run local with the (T) replacing the (C) as the Fulton St Local. While it would call for running another train between Manhattan and Brooklyn, it's not really about doing that. It's more about improving service to two areas of southern Queens that have long had to deal with "half a service" because the (A) is split between the Rockaways and Lefferts.

 

I do agree that the Bronx and Queens need more subway service. I would not disagree with you on that.

 

Lefferts and Rockaway are in Queens, not Brooklyn.

 

The service is reasonably adequate for those areas, and within the range of what's acceptable. If additional service is to be provided to the Rockaways they'd best be served by a line that doesn't go via IND Fulton as it'd be another lengthy route requiring a lot of trains. Old plans called for a line to come from Roosevelt Avenue upper (the abandoned platform) on Queens Blvd and make its way down to connect to the IND Rockaway Line under Rockaway Blvd. where the abanonded LIRR line is. That would have provided service to a lot of Queens neighborhoods that don't have easily accessible service as it is. Something similar to that with a connection to Queens Blvd. would be interesting many years from now because it also provides an alternate Brooklyn-Queens service besides the (G) which is completely the other way for Rockaway riders.

 

While I'm not saying that would be "the" solution, it would direct some riders away from busy corridors in Brooklyn heights.

 

In my eyes, coming up with a useful extension of SAS and improving Rockaway service (which I still believe is adequate, not good) are two separate issues. SAS is best extended to the Bronx along 3rd and Webster Avenues to provide service to the area of Fordham University.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lefferts and Rockaway are in Queens, not Brooklyn.

 

I know. But to get from Lefferts to Lower Manhattan by train, the most direct route (the (A)) goes through Brooklyn first.

 

The service is reasonably adequate for those areas, and within the range of what's acceptable. If additional service is to be provided to the Rockaways they'd best be served by a line that doesn't go via IND Fulton as it'd be another lengthy route requiring a lot of trains. Old plans called for a line to come from Roosevelt Avenue upper (the abandoned platform) on Queens Blvd and make its way down to connect to the IND Rockaway Line under Rockaway Blvd. where the abanonded LIRR line is. That would have provided service to a lot of Queens neighborhoods that don't have easily accessible service as it is. Something similar to that with a connection to Queens Blvd. would be interesting many years from now because it also provides an alternate Brooklyn-Queens service besides the (G) which is completely the other way for Rockaway riders.

 

While I'm not saying that would be "the" solution, it would direct some riders away from busy corridors in Brooklyn heights.

 

It would serve Queens neighborhoods that are miles from the subway. Although it would provide an alternate route for Rockaways riders, it wouldn't help Lefferts riders. Also, wouldn't this put more people on the already overcrowded Queens Boulevard line?

 

In my eyes, coming up with a useful extension of SAS and improving Rockaway service (which I still believe is adequate, not good) are two separate issues. SAS is best extended to the Bronx along 3rd and Webster Avenues to provide service to the area of Fordham University.

 

Yes. The Arthur Avenue area is becoming more popular and well-known for its restaurants and markets and Fordham University students would have a more affordable, convenient and faster way of getting downtown.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes. The Arthur Avenue area is becoming more popular and well-known for its restaurants and markets and Fordham University students would have a more affordable, convenient and faster way of getting downtown.

 

A song to the choir: That el shouldn't have been torn down in the first place. They could have connected it to the (6) or (2) or something. One of the biggest mistake the TA ever made.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

A song to the choir: That el shouldn't have been torn down in the first place. They could have connected it to the (6) or (2) or something. One of the biggest mistake the TA ever made.
The TA thought they were going to replace the 3rd Av El w/ a subway right away.... which is cheaper to build along 3rd Av; a underground or elevated subway?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I worked over there three years ago, but I never noticed any such curve, but instead was looking at why it would be so hard for them to connect the express tracks to the Livonia instead of the local. (IIRC, it had to do with one of them ending at the wall, while the other goes to the portal).

 

The relay tracks that end at the wall, 2 block and 3 block, are aligned with Pitkin Ave upstairs at street level. M block, which leads to the portal adjacent to Lincoln Terrace park and the tennis courts, would have been the center track on the Livonia (3) line. When the IRT found out they weren't going to get their expansions in Brooklyn okayed they stuck bumper blocks at the walls and one on M block. That's why the bumper block on M block is so far outside on the structure. BTW I found out so much about the area because I lived on the line and rode the trains through there daily. When I came aboard as a C/R many moons ago I worked " The Beast ", New Lots to White Plains Road, for years. That area has always fascinated me, from the time they ran Lo-Vs out there. OK Second Ave posters, sorry to have jumped in with the history lesson. You've got the thread back. I'll sit back and read from this end.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The TA thought they were going to replace the 3rd Av El w/ a subway right away.... which is cheaper to build along 3rd Av; a underground or elevated subway?

 

You also have to take into account other aspects of what's better to build than just the cost itself. I actually don't know what's cheaper, but when it comes to topography and the type of soil you're dealing with, as well as other critical geographic issues, finances are going to have to be looked over for a while. You don't want elevated structure that will sink into the ground; then THAT would be a lot of money to fix!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wasn't there a reason they torn down Third Avenue. I read that the Third Avenue El was torn down because Manhattan voted that the El created noise, didn't receive the service it got in the past, and ruined home life. Though it was 1955 and I believe racism could have been involved. The eastern section of Manhattan had a high Latino population no racism intended. As you know on the NY Times archive its because real estate agents asked for it to be torn down. They had connections to Robert Moses. :mad:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A song to the choir: That el shouldn't have been torn down in the first place. They could have connected it to the (6) or (2) or something. One of the biggest mistake the TA ever made.

 

It WAS connected to the (2) - at the lower level of Gun Hill Road station. Getting rid of it was a mistake, but if it was to stay around longer, it needed big time repairs/upgrades.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder: would it have been more expensive to strenghten the existing el or build a brand new one?

I'm not sure on which one would've been more expensive. A plan at the time, however, would've shifted the 70(8) Third Avenue El to a new ROW alongside Park Avenue (then Penn-Central) and would've reactivated the old NYW & B ROW south of Dyre Avenue (along with stations) for the Second Avenue Subway.

 

At Whitlock Avenue, there would've been a tie-in to the Pelham Bay Line which would've become SAS between Whitlock and Pelham Bay Park.

 

If this had been built along with the (5) extension to Co-Op City, we might have today:

 

(5) Flatbush Avenue or Bowling Green to Co-Op City

 

(6) Brooklyn Bridge to Whitlock Avenue

 

70(8) Alongside Park Avenue in The Bronx

 

(N) Coney Island to East 180th Street or Dyre Avenue via Sea Beach and Second Avenue

 

(V) Whitehall to Pelham Bay Park via Second Avenue

 

At that time (early 1970's) the 70(QB) was a rush hours only train and (V) was the planned letter for the SAS.

 

There also was a supplemental plan to serve Alphabet City directly called the "Avenue C Cuphandle" which would've built a short subway line under Avenue C from East 14th Street (tying into the Fourteenth Street-Canarsie Line) and East Houston Street (tying into the Sixth Avenue IND.).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I always liked the idea of at least the northern part of the (6) line as being used for the B division. But where would the (6) be based from if it were to lose Westchester yard? There doesn't seem to be much room for the (6) anywhere else unless an existing yard were to be expanded or a new yard built just for the (6).

 

As for the (V), you could just have the (W) if it is going via Broadway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the (6) might've shared Westchester Yard, though I'm not 100% sure.

 

One other thing, the SAS of the 70's was planned to start at Whitehall, serving South Ferry and giving Staten Islanders a third option: (1) via Seventh Avenue/Broadway, (R) via Broadway/Seventh Avenue and (V) via Chrystie Street/Second Avenue (plus the (4)/(5) at nearby Bowling Green). If the line had been built, it would've been 14.5 miles long and featured a new subway tunnel from Manhattan to The Bronx.

 

As for that "Avenue C Cuphandle" the proposal was to have a southbound Sixth Avenue IND. service turn off East Houston Street, serve Avenue C, and, using the Fourteenth Street-Canarsie Line tracks, terminate at Eighth Avenue.

 

What we may be receiving now, (T) from Hanover Square to East Harlem-Lexington/Park Avenues with (Q) from East 63d Street is about half of what was planned/started in the 1970's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know. But to get from Lefferts to Lower Manhattan by train, the most direct route (the (A)) goes through Brooklyn first.

 

 

 

It would serve Queens neighborhoods that are miles from the subway. Although it would provide an alternate route for Rockaways riders, it wouldn't help Lefferts riders. Also, wouldn't this put more people on the already overcrowded Queens Boulevard line?

 

 

 

Yes. The Arthur Avenue area is becoming more popular and well-known for its restaurants and markets and Fordham University students would have a more affordable, convenient and faster way of getting downtown.

 

It probably would help Lefferts riders because if the new line has frequent enough service, some trains could be shifted to Lefferts Blvd. A radical idea would be to shift all (A) service to Lefferts Blvd and have the Rockaways served by the new line (there could be a Liberty Avenue station built with a passageway to the Rockaway Blvd station).

You do have a point, that the fact that it connects with the Queens Blvd Line would add a lot of passengers (the problem is that the best way from the Rockaways to Midtown would then be to take the new line to Woodhaven Blvd and transfer to the ®/(V)). If the Queens Super Express connections were to be built, the new line could run on the LIRR tracks and connect to 21st Street-Queensbridge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You do have a point, that the fact that it connects with the Queens Blvd Line would add a lot of passengers (the problem is that the best way from the Rockaways to Midtown would then be to take the new line to Woodhaven Blvd and transfer to the ®/(V)).
I don't think the new line to Woodhaven Blvd would be worth it since the Rockaways riders wouldn't want to give up their one-seat ride to Midtown. Connecting it to the Queens Blvd Super Express would be the best option.

 

About a Second Ave extension to the Bronx, I still say the (T) to 168th or Bedford Park Blvd by connecting the 125th extension at Homeball Alley and the (N) to Co-op City or Throggs Neck. But the (A)(:)(C)(D)(T) trains can't all run towards 145th St at the same time so somethings gotta give.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I remember seeing in a couple of old LIRR ESA contract staging plans a reference to a possible future NYCT yard in the Sunnyside yard area. If you look at google maps at the Sunnyside area, you can see the existing sunnyside yards. The proposed yard would be east of the existing yard, just north of the LIRR tracks between Honeywell, 39th and 43rd streets, inside the north half of the sunnyside loop tracks. This area is currenly a construction staging area for the LIRR ESA project, but it is large enough to house a decently sized yard. The leads to this yard would've run under sunnyside yard and connect to the 63rd St line at 41st and Northern Blvd, where the LIRR is connecting to the new GCT tunnels.

 

I remember reading in the SAS FEIS that existing yard space would not suffice for the new line, and that expanding any of the available yards would be a very daunting task, since it would enroach on other properties. Coney Island could be a possible choice, but it is very far from the line to send trains for regular maintenance. If the (MTA) gets money to complete the line, then they should have part of that go into building a new yard, and I think that sunnyside is not a bad idea.

 

Only problem is that would limit any amtrak or NJT or MNRR or LIRR expansion in that area. As amtrak has hinted at plans of making 2 more parallel north river tunnels from NJ into nyp sometime in the next 35 years, a project in line with high speed service on the various corridors connected to the NEC, as well as MNRR service down the west side line into NYP.

 

The yard could be built underground, or forbid they demolish some vacant structures along 2nd ave and make a new above ground one.

 

- A

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Only problem is that would limit any amtrak or NJT or MNRR or LIRR expansion in that area. As amtrak has hinted at plans of making 2 more parallel north river tunnels from NJ into nyp sometime in the next 35 years, a project in line with high speed service on the various corridors connected to the NEC, as well as MNRR service down the west side line into NYP.

 

The yard could be built underground, or forbid they demolish some vacant structures along 2nd ave and make a new above ground one.

 

- A

 

Why look to expand in such a limited area when you have access to so much land elsewhere? NJT is planning on building new Hudson River tunnels and a new station under 34th street. With those plans is a new storage yard in New Jersey along the new ROW, which would free up space in Sunnyside for Amtrak. If Amtrak wants to bring new service into New York, then there is plenty of space in New Jersey for a new yard. If MNRR were to extend down to NYP, then they would have to build new tunnels and trackage to get into Queens, which there is no space for.

 

The space available in Sunnyside is perfect for a decent sized subway maintenance facility, is pretty close to the line it would serve, and would require minimal construction for a new yard, since it would tie in to existing facilities (63rd St tubes). Manhattan is serious real estate, and it would be too expensive to build new tunnels into the Bronx.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.