2Line1291 Posted February 28, 2011 Share #226 Posted February 28, 2011 Plus it's hard to build el's because eventually it'll have to go underground and Brooklyn is already fully built with till to no space for a transition from el to subway. Now about Utica.... extending the down Utica is the easy part.... but in order to increase the amount of trains to serve Utica Ave, the hard part is redoing Rogers Junction where there is already traffic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roadcruiser1 Posted February 28, 2011 Share #227 Posted February 28, 2011 Then it's time to take down some buildings. I did my homework. About 4 to 5 buildings would have to go to make room for this. Does anyone here approve of this or reject. I am sorry, but sometimes you have to go Robert Moses style no matter what. Listen there is nothing wrong with having one. Even Honolulu just started construction of their Elevated. Recently Dubai, and Delhi constructed their El's. Hell even Vancouver has an El, and it isn't ugly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrainFanatic Posted February 28, 2011 Share #228 Posted February 28, 2011 Honestly Els aren't THAT noisy as some people think Try walking down Mickey Dee Av. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roadcruiser1 Posted February 28, 2011 Share #229 Posted February 28, 2011 I walk down New Utrecht Avenue plenty of times to get to School thank you. I know what an elevated line sounds like, and I also know what the trains sound like when they run by. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrainFanatic Posted February 28, 2011 Share #230 Posted February 28, 2011 Lets be real here, unless you've already lost some hearing, Els are plenty loud and you know it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roadcruiser1 Posted February 28, 2011 Share #231 Posted February 28, 2011 I can already here the complaints about the construction on the Utica Avenue Subway, and I can already imagine the price tag, and the date the line would be completed which would be on 2050 at least. Hell you would have residents complain about drilling noises, and lose business due to the construction. While with an elevated line it would be done in a year, and a half, the price tag for construction is low, and it has been soundproofed, and done beautifully. Plus you guys now have a fast commute. Which sounds better a subway line or an elevated line. Elevated Lines are cheaper, and faster then subways. We want to save money, and cure crowding right. Well we would have to do it fast. You residents can just grow, and get use to the site of the elevated line. It isn't that bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TwoTimer Posted February 28, 2011 Share #232 Posted February 28, 2011 Plus it's hard to build el's because eventually it'll have to go underground and Brooklyn is already fully built with till to no space for a transition from el to subway. Now about Utica.... extending the down Utica is the easy part.... but in order to increase the amount of trains to serve Utica Ave, the hard part is redoing Rogers Junction where there is already traffic. May not have to. all currently run the same amount of trains during the day (8 minute headway), albeit the has the fewest trains during the rush of the group. Since the would have to go to New Lots, a new set of switches south of Utica would have to go in. The train headways during the rush might just be enough and one wouldn't have to do a thing. While the buses are packed yes, its not like having an empty 510' 10-car train runnin every 6 mins or so during the rush. You may need a handful of fewer (4)s during the rush as well since Utica will only be a transfer point not a terminal, that huge throng of people letting express trains go by at Utica so they can get a seat on the next one won't be there anymore unless a pulls in alongside. The only change would be overnight service on the in Brooklyn, either as a shuttle or a full-line service. For a shuttle service a new diamond set of switches north of Franklin (not interfering with the junction) could go in so the Nevins spur is not clogged up (remember one cannot use every lil piece of track in the system for revenue service like many of you think). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roadcruiser1 Posted February 28, 2011 Share #233 Posted February 28, 2011 What are you talk about. The sound level at maximum on an elevated line is only 88 dB. Which isn't enough to cause hearing loss. It's only as loud as a hair dryer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fresh Pond Posted February 28, 2011 Share #234 Posted February 28, 2011 Lets be real here, unless you've already lost some hearing, Els are plenty loud and you know it. To the average railfan it isn't Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrainFanatic Posted February 28, 2011 Share #235 Posted February 28, 2011 To the average railfan it isn't I'm starting to think it's true... As for Roadcruiser, try walking under the Culver during the rush from Ditmas to Av I. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fresh Pond Posted February 28, 2011 Share #236 Posted February 28, 2011 I'm starting to think it's true... As for Roadcruiser, try walking under the Culver during the rush from Ditmas to Av I. Or directly under Myrtle Av-Bway when trains are all running at once...even I cringe at the sounds of those trains making those turns Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grand Concourse Posted February 28, 2011 Share #237 Posted February 28, 2011 Then it's time to take down some buildings. I did my homework. About 4 to 5 buildings would have to go to make room for this. Does anyone here approve of this or reject. I am sorry, but sometimes you have to go Robert Moses style no matter what. Listen there is nothing wrong with having one. Even Honolulu just started construction of their Elevated. Recently Dubai, and Delhi constructed their El's. Hell even Vancouver has an El, and it isn't ugly.While I'm sure there are areas of empty lots, I seriously doubt you can just "take down some buildings" like that. Again, other places are not NYC. Over there they either don't have the might to block projects or where they are they don't have viable alternatives like buses and cars like NYC does. So don't think their situation is the same as ours. = As for Utica Av, I was kinda thinking about it being a branch from the Fulton IND line. Of course a 3rd line would be needed, but I don't really think they need to extend either the or line down Utica. Before the city went bankrupt, the IND had plans to have such a branch and the station is set up for such 'expansions'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
7LineFan Posted February 28, 2011 Share #238 Posted February 28, 2011 Then it's time to take down some buildings. Well you sure suggested that idea easily enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2Line1291 Posted February 28, 2011 Share #239 Posted February 28, 2011 While I'm sure there are areas of empty lots, I seriously doubt you can just "take down some buildings" like that. Again, other places are not NYC. Over there they either don't have the might to block projects or where they are they don't have viable alternatives like buses and cars like NYC does. So don't think their situation is the same as ours. = As for Utica Av, I was kinda thinking about it being a branch from the Fulton IND line. Of course a 3rd line would be needed, but I don't really think they need to extend either the or line down Utica. Before the city went bankrupt, the IND had plans to have such a branch and the station is set up for such 'expansions'. The sad thing about the Fulton Line is it's limited only to an 8th Ave train. But by time Utica line branched off the IND Fulton, Fulton would also be connected to the 2nd Av Line... who knows what's gonna happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trainmaster5 Posted February 28, 2011 Share #240 Posted February 28, 2011 While I'm sure there are areas of empty lots, I seriously doubt you can just "take down some buildings" like that. Again, other places are not NYC. Over there they either don't have the might to block projects or where they are they don't have viable alternatives like buses and cars like NYC does. So don't think their situation is the same as ours. = As for Utica Av, I was kinda thinking about it being a branch from the Fulton IND line. Of course a 3rd line would be needed, but I don't really think they need to extend either the or line down Utica. Before the city went bankrupt, the IND had plans to have such a branch and the station is set up for such 'expansions'. If a line were to be built in phases like SAS this would be the best course to take IMO. No direct connections in the beginning but a line with a transfer to the IND and at Fulton St and a transfer to the IRT and at Eastern Parkway. If a connection were to built at a later date I think it should be to the IND although it would be easier to to use the IRT because of the existing bellmouths at the Utica-Eastern Parkway station. NO EL NECESSARY. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vistausss Posted February 28, 2011 Share #241 Posted February 28, 2011 That is why the southern section of Nostrand Avenue was suppose to be an el back in 1939. So was Utica Avenue, but I think their water table is less then Flatbush Avenue's. There is less water in Utica. Why do you think the IND Second System proposed a subway to Utica? If it wasn't for the crisis, then Utica had a subway right now. So that means they have less water. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roadcruiser1 Posted February 28, 2011 Share #242 Posted February 28, 2011 Can't if you look it up the Utica Avenue Line was suppose to elevate at Avenue J. Why is it?. The water level is high. As I explained the area from Nostrand Avenue to Utica Avenue from the point of Avenue J which includes Flatbush Avenue used to be a swamp. The water level in the soil is much too wet to support any tunnel structure. If you look it up even the southern section of the proposed Nostrand Avenue Line was suppose to elevate due to the water there. There can't be a tunnel structure south of Avenue J. You can only have an elevated line, and don't even think about Flatbush Avenue, because that was where the river that carried the swamp water used to be. It has too high of a water table to even have a subway line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grand Concourse Posted March 1, 2011 Share #243 Posted March 1, 2011 The sad thing about the Fulton Line is it's limited only to an 8th Ave train. But by time Utica line branched off the IND Fulton, Fulton would also be connected to the 2nd Av Line... who knows what's gonna happen. Well since this is a fantasy thread, I have wondered about if they were to connect the Lower level of City Hall BMT to Court St. So say they bring the back, it could run from Astoria to hopefully KP [via Utica and Flatbush Av]. I still think the SAS should be connected to the Montague tunnel and run down 4th Av and replace the as the full time line to 95th St. The could be the part time line to Bay Pkwy on the West End line and terminate at 9th Av middays. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roadcruiser1 Posted March 1, 2011 Share #244 Posted March 1, 2011 Can't the lower level of City Hall would if extended run right into the IRT tunnels down farther south. Won't be possible for anything here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NX Express Posted March 1, 2011 Share #245 Posted March 1, 2011 I just skipped the last three pages because of RC1's incessant el foaming... I think all we need is to maybe convert the to B Div and the capacity issues there will be partially solved. Maybe choose a 4-Day Thanksgiving weekend and shuttle-bus the line (with buses from all over the city and LI). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grand Concourse Posted March 1, 2011 Share #246 Posted March 1, 2011 Big issue is the Steinway tubes. Those need to be replaced first then they can make the conversions on the Flushing line. Not too sure about the Manhattan end if they are wide enough. That could be tough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NX Express Posted March 1, 2011 Share #247 Posted March 1, 2011 Big issue is the Steinway tubes. Those need to be replaced first then they can make the conversions on the Flushing line. Not too sure about the Manhattan end if they are wide enough. That could be tough. They could be replaced with a new tube, as all the modern IRT new cars have had to be adapted to the tube anyway. It was designed for trolleys, not subways. And yes, I know how much that costs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grand Concourse Posted March 1, 2011 Share #248 Posted March 1, 2011 Don't get me wrong: I'm in favor of such of a conversion. There's so much longer they have to make cars accomodate those tunnels before enough is enough and they need to just build a replacement for them. OTOH: you could split the Flushing line at QBP and have the Manhattan end served by a 'shuttle'. The other part of the line could be connected to Broadway [needing a lower level crossover. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NX Express Posted March 1, 2011 Share #249 Posted March 1, 2011 Don't get me wrong: I'm in favor of such of a conversion. There's so much longer they have to make cars accomodate those tunnels before enough is enough and they need to just build a replacement for them. OTOH: you could split the Flushing line at QBP and have the Manhattan end served by a 'shuttle'. The other part of the line could be connected to Broadway [needing a lower level crossover. And Astoria would be cut off, as the 60 St Tubes would be over capacity.:confused: My suggestion: Build a separate tube, then over a weekend do a switchover. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
East New York Posted March 1, 2011 Author Share #250 Posted March 1, 2011 Well since this is a fantasy thread, I have wondered about if they were to connect the Lower level of City Hall BMT to Court St. So say they bring the back, it could run from Astoria to hopefully KP [via Utica and Flatbush Av]. I still think the SAS should be connected to the Montague tunnel and run down 4th Av and replace the as the full time line to 95th St. The could be the part time line to Bay Pkwy on the West End line and terminate at 9th Av middays. This isn't a fantasy thread GC. This is about the viability, and the need for a Utica Avenue subway line. If the TA ever decides to make another line, this will be it. The project has been on and off the table since 1913. Most recently in 2008. Either way, the TA and DOT still need to address the Utica Av issues. B44 SBS is hardly going to do anything to help ease overcrowding. Word is the TA is attempting to revive the Utica Line research as the economy strengthens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.