Eric Posted February 22, 2011 Share #51 Posted February 22, 2011 Most of the plans you all are talking about sound okay, but why do all this extending, and other stuff. That's not going to address the issues. We need a dedicated North-South BMT/IND standard subway line from south Brooklyn to at least LGA Airport. It has been needed for decades just like SAS. Connections are available to every East-West crosstown line. Alright, new plan then. Still starting at... Sheepshead Bay ( Av Y/Bedford Av Av V/Nostrand Av Av U/E 36th St Flatbush Av/Utica Av Flatlands Av Kings Hwy-Foster Av [exits on both sides] Church Av Empire Blvd Eastern Pkwy [then from there] Atlantic Av Broadway/Halsey St Wyckoff Av/Halsey St Cypress Hills St/Myrtle Av Cooper Av 80th St Woodhaven Blvd/Metropolitan Av 71st Av/Continental Av/Forest Hills 67th Av/108th St Corona Park/111th St Roosevelt Av/111th St Northern Blvd/108th St Astoria Blvd/100th St LaGuardia Airport It sure as hell isn't pretty, but it's something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2Line1291 Posted February 22, 2011 Share #52 Posted February 22, 2011 So.... were talking about building a crosstown line similar to the ? If so the new line should be IRT-standards. I see the new line is running under Utica Av. Have the and the new route share the Utica Line... a new crosstown line and increasing flexibility on the Eastern Parkway Line, knocking two birds in one stone Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roadcruiser1 Posted February 22, 2011 Share #53 Posted February 22, 2011 We don't need a subway line just to go to LaGuardia. Just create the LaGuardia Airport , and call it a day. We don't want to spend too much money. Just create something that serves the airport. If we want a subway line to go to LaGuardia Airport it could be the Triboro Rx or something branching off the Second Avenue Subway. For now we are trying to be cheap. Plus we know that the a Brooklyn-Queens Line won't help LaGuardia. People coming of the airplanes need to get to their hotels in Manhattan. If they wanted to go to Brooklyn we would have extended the to LaGuardia a long time ago, but we didn't. Plus the which does almost the same thing has a low ridership. There is a reason why. New Yorkers also want a one seat ride from Queens, and Brooklyn to the Bronx. The can't go into the Bronx. So you need a line like the Triboro Rx. Trouble is we need a ROW or we would be going all over the place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest lance25 Posted February 22, 2011 Share #54 Posted February 22, 2011 You know, not everyone who uses LaGuardia is a tourist going to Manhattan. Just saying... Plus, how in the world would you extend the anywhere? If we're going to be cheap about sending transit to LGA, it would make much more sense to extend the Astoria line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roadcruiser1 Posted February 22, 2011 Share #55 Posted February 22, 2011 Yes we know, but the majority of the people at the airport need to get to Manhattan. Extending or creating something like the to the airport won't help at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tokkemon Posted February 23, 2011 Share #56 Posted February 23, 2011 Yes we know, but the majority of the people at the airport need to get to Manhattan. Extending or creating something like the to the airport won't help at all. Shocker that Transferring is actually possible, eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roadcruiser1 Posted February 23, 2011 Share #57 Posted February 23, 2011 It's shocking that most people from LaGuardia most likely won't. Some of those tourists don't even know the subway system. A crosstown line won't help. A line branching of the Second Avenue Subway would. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trainmaster5 Posted February 23, 2011 Share #58 Posted February 23, 2011 We don't need a subway line just to go to LaGuardia. Just create the LaGuardia Airport , and call it a day. We don't want to spend too much money. Just create something that serves the airport. If we want a subway line to go to LaGuardia Airport it could be the Triboro Rx or something branching off the Second Avenue Subway. For now we are trying to be cheap. Plus we know that the a Brooklyn-Queens Line won't help LaGuardia. People coming of the airplanes need to get to their hotels in Manhattan. If they wanted to go to Brooklyn we would have extended the to LaGuardia a long time ago, but we didn't. Plus the which does almost the same thing has a low ridership. There is a reason why. New Yorkers also want a one seat ride from Queens, and Brooklyn to the Bronx. The can't go into the Bronx. So you need a line like the Triboro Rx. Trouble is we need a ROW or we would be going all over the place. I think the ,,,(, and ARE 1 seat rides from Brooklyn to the Bronx, aren't they? Maybe you would like the to run from Lefferts or the Rockaways to the Bronx too ? Then it's all covered. And cheap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roadcruiser1 Posted February 23, 2011 Share #59 Posted February 23, 2011 They want the service without having to go through Manhattan Island. Maybe you can focus on finding a cheap way to send the into the Bronx. Well it is a fantasy thread where you can speak your ideas. So don't get pissed, but the cheapest extension I can think of for the is sending it back to the IND Queens Boulevard Line, but then it would just jam the , and . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
East New York Posted February 23, 2011 Author Share #60 Posted February 23, 2011 We don't need a subway line just to go to LaGuardia. Just create the LaGuardia Airport , and call it a day. We don't want to spend too much money. Just create something that serves the airport. If we want a subway line to go to LaGuardia Airport it could be the Triboro Rx or something branching off the Second Avenue Subway. For now we are trying to be cheap. Plus we know that the a Brooklyn-Queens Line won't help LaGuardia. People coming of the airplanes need to get to their hotels in Manhattan. If they wanted to go to Brooklyn we would have extended the to LaGuardia a long time ago, but we didn't. Plus the which does almost the same thing has a low ridership. There is a reason why. New Yorkers also want a one seat ride from Queens, and Brooklyn to the Bronx. The can't go into the Bronx. So you need a line like the Triboro Rx. Trouble is we need a ROW or we would be going all over the place. LGA is NOT the focus of this line. Central Brooklyn and Queens are. LGA would be the bonus extension north of the Flushing line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roadcruiser1 Posted February 23, 2011 Share #61 Posted February 23, 2011 Then create the Triboro Rx. The ROW to it exist. You could have transfers connecting to it from the Utica, and Nostrand Avenue Line. There is nothing wrong with transferring. Just have it branch off the section owned by CSX, and have it run under it's own ROW to the Bronx. The problem would be solved. The LaGuardia Airport , extension of the current Astoria Line, or a Second Avenue Subway service would serve LaGuardia. The would be extended down to Dyker Heights, and connect to the Triboro Rx, and run on to the Bronx to increase ridership. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fresh Pond Posted February 23, 2011 Share #62 Posted February 23, 2011 Or how about a line from Kings Plz, then turns off to Utica Av and just go straight up that? I don't care how far north it goes but the main focus is Utica Av/Malcolm X. Blvd. Build it to IND/BMT standards, no branching off some existing line or no ridiculous extension, sort of like how the is gonna be I'm just saying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tokkemon Posted February 23, 2011 Share #63 Posted February 23, 2011 The Triboro RX is a stupid idea. Clearly whoever came up with it didn't understand how train tracks actually work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roadcruiser1 Posted February 23, 2011 Share #64 Posted February 23, 2011 No not really the entire Triboro Rx line can handle 6 tracks. Currently only 2 tracks are used. You can have 4 tracks converted to subway service so it isn't really a bad idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TwoTimer Posted February 23, 2011 Share #65 Posted February 23, 2011 Other than the Triboro RX, we dwelve more and more into fantasyland Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tokkemon Posted February 23, 2011 Share #66 Posted February 23, 2011 No not really the entire Triboro Rx line can handle 6 tracks. Currently only 2 tracks are used. You can have 4 tracks converted to subway service so it isn't really a bad idea. So who's gonna pay for creating all the stations and rehabbing the entire line? That would be billions right there. Not to mention that you can't put the Subway on the New York Connecting Railroad without a separate level. Again, many billions. You actually expect to put subway lines on one of the most traveled pieces of railroad in the nation for a line that doesn't even go into Manhattan?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roadcruiser1 Posted February 23, 2011 Share #67 Posted February 23, 2011 Well it could be converted into a LIRR passenger line. I mean that is what everybody would expect from the LIRR. I have proposed that it should become an LIRR passenger line once again multiple times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T to Dyre Avenue Posted February 23, 2011 Share #68 Posted February 23, 2011 True, but central Brooklyn is the most congested area in the city. The B46 Utica Av line is the most heavily traveled in the city. That issue needs to be addressed by 2020. Agreed. Crowding on the B46 is a killer. I think a subway under Utica Ave will go a significant way towards addressing that crowding. The best way I can think of doing it would be to have a train that branches off from the train at Utica and Fulton, then runs down Utica Ave till Utica merges with Flatbush Ave. Then the will turn onto Flatbush till Avenue U, where it will terminate at Kings Plaza. I'd put stops at the following locations: Prospect Place Eastern Pkwy (transfer to and trains) Empire Blvd Winthrop St Church Ave Clarendon Rd Foster Ave Kings Hwy Avenue K Avenue N Avenue U/Kings Plaza Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roadcruiser1 Posted February 23, 2011 Share #69 Posted February 23, 2011 I think the people around Utica, and Nostrand also want Manhattan. Why don't we just use the Canarsie Line for the Utica Avenue Line, and extend the Nostrand Line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roadcruiser1 Posted February 23, 2011 Share #70 Posted February 23, 2011 Is the city’s transit too Manhattan-centric? By Benjamin Kabak Over the weekend, I had to travel from Park Slope to Forest Hills. As the crow flies, the trip is approximately eight miles, but to take the subway requires a three-borough, 60-minute trek through Manhattan. For those making the trip, it is a painfully slow reminder of the historical, economic and geographic forces that has turned out transit network toward Manhattan. Now, though a new study from the Center for an Urban Future calls for a reassessment of this focus at a time when the MTA’s megaprojects are decidedly still Manhattan-centric. In a 30-page PDF, released this morning, David Giles and the Center call for an increased attention to job growth outside of Manhattan and urge the city and the MTA to push for a comprehensive interborough bus rapid transit system that better connects workers to jobs. “Commuting to Manhattan’s central business districts has been, and still is, a remarkably easy affair for hundreds of thousands of residents, whose travel options include commuter train, subway, ferry and bus,” the report says. “However, the city has changed dramatically since most of these services were introduced, and more and more residents, particularly lower-income workers, are no longer traveling to Manhattan for work.” If this argument sounds familiar, well, that’s because it is. As I’ve written over the past few years and as the Pratt Center has repeatedly stressed, the DOT/MTA partnership pushing the new Select Bus Service forward suffers from a serious lack of foresight and connectivity. It’s helpful to feed commuters across Fordham Road to the connecting subway routes and the M15 SBS has significantly improved East Side commutes, but the real driver behind a true bus network should be as a complement to subway service. In that sense, the bus network should deliver New Yorkers to job centers. Those who live in the Bronx should find easier and quicker routes to Queens. Those who live in Brooklyn should have easier routes to job centers at SUNY Downstate or JFK Airport. As Giles notes, hospitals, education centers and airports should be the focal points for a well-developed bus network. The report itself relies on job numbers to make its convincing argument. Over the last decade, Manhattan lost over 100,000 jobs while Staten Island, Queens, Brooklyn and the Bronx all saw their employment numbers increase. Furthermore, non-Manhattan commutes grew as well. For instance, Brooklynites heading to Queens increased by 32 percent over the past 20 years, and today, nearly 160,000 commuters cross the Queens/Brooklyn border for work. The numbers are similar from Staten Island and the Bronx as well, and many of these jobs are in sectors that do not rely on a base or office presence in Manhattan. Those trends are projected to continue for the foreseeable future. Meanwhile, despite this job growth, the city’s investment efforts are focused squarely on Manhattan. While East Side Access will improve commutes for Long Islanders, it brings them only to Midtown. The Second Ave. Subway, 7 line extension and Fulton St. hub have only tangential benefits for commuters from Queens, Brooklyn and the Bronx and barely any for those from Staten Island. So what’s the solution? Giles proposes a true bus network. He writes: Fortunately, relatively inexpensive changes to the city’s underperforming bus system, if done right, can plug many of the holes in the city’s existing transit net*work and vastly improve the quality of life of many working poor New Yorkers. The Metropolitan Transit Authority and the New York City Department of Transportation (DOT) have taken tentative steps to improving bus service, but to make a real mark the city and state must think bigger. Legislators need to settle on a sustainable funding stream for the MTA and commit to supporting both small and large-scale improvements to the city’s much-maligned bus system, from el*evated platforms and time-arrival technology to divided bus lanes and attractive stations. The MTA and the DOT should create a Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) system for New York that builds off of those emerging in other cities across the U.S. and around the world: a network of buses that look and function more like subways, with routes that travel between boroughs to facilitate nontraditional commutes. Unfortunately, there are political problems attached to this proposal as well. As we’ve seen along 34th St., extreme NIMBYism makes planning adequate BRT routes difficult, and on a broader scales, buses just aren’t sexy. They don’t have the allure of a new subway line; lower income riders use them; and politicians tend to ignore bus enhancements either by design or by ignorance. Giles’ report should be another part of the bus conversation, and it’s clear that without a better bus network, New York City will not be able to sustain decentralized job growth. During last night’s panel, Joan Byron from the Pratt Center cited many of the numbers in this report as she nearly got into a shouting match with MTA Capital Construction president Michael Horodniceanu over the MTA’s Manhattan-centric capital approach. Clearly, decentralized transit development is an emotional issue for those who have fought for it for decades, and the city is fast approaching a point where it cannot continue to ignore 80 percent of its landmass while investing heavily in the island in the middle. http://secondavenuesagas.com/2011/02/23/is-the-citys-transit-too-manhattan-centric/ http://www.nycfuture.org/images_pdfs/pdfs/BehindtheCurb.pdf Though my opinion is more on the construction of crosstown subway lines, and to construct lines that would avoid Manhattan all together. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest lance25 Posted February 23, 2011 Share #71 Posted February 23, 2011 Canarsie is at capacity and doesn't need any more trains running on that line and Nostrand feeds into Lexington and Seventh Avenue, both lines which are nearing capacity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T to Dyre Avenue Posted February 23, 2011 Share #72 Posted February 23, 2011 The thing is, the doesn't run anywhere near Utica Avenue. And much of its riders have to transfer once in Manhattan because they don't work within walking distance of 14th Street. A service via 8th Avenue is a more direct route to Midtown and Lower Manhattan. I also wouldn't suggest branching a line off of the Canarsie Line because that line has only two tracks. That means if you build a branch off the line, you run into the issue of having to cut existing service. That won't sit well with the line's current riders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roadcruiser1 Posted February 23, 2011 Share #73 Posted February 23, 2011 Yeah, but the Cranberry Tunnel can't handle another train besides the current , and . Also can you guys please look at the PDF, and go to page five. If you look closely you can see that Bronx residents don't work in Manhattan they work in Queens, and Brooklyn. So if we want to increase the (G)'s ridership it would be viable to send the into the Bronx via Randall's Island. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest lance25 Posted February 23, 2011 Share #74 Posted February 23, 2011 Not again with the . The doesn't need to go to the Bronx, Manhattan, Staten Island, New Jersey or L.A. The only place that line needs to go is Forest Hills-71 Av. BTW, if you look at the document entirely, you'd see that it's recommending more bus routes to travel between the outer boroughs, not subway lines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fresh Pond Posted February 23, 2011 Share #75 Posted February 23, 2011 Wirelessly posted via (BlackBerry8520/5.0.0.900 Profile/MIDP-2.1 Configuration/CLDC-1.1 VendorID/100) I think the people around Utica, and Nostrand also want Manhattan. Why don't we just use the Canarsie Line for the Utica Avenue Line, and extend the Nostrand Line. For the simple reason that the is the B division equivalent of the Lex. Its at capacity and still getting more packed. CBTC only added maybe 1 or 2 ectra trains but that didn't really help at all. And like it was mentioned already, branching off the will be a disaster cuz its only 2 tracks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.