Subwayfan12 Posted December 10, 2012 Share #1 Posted December 10, 2012 With the exception of the , I think there should be another IRT line that serves Queens. It could be like: Bronx-Queens, Bronx-Manhattan-Queens, Manhattan-Queens(different terminals from the ) or maybe even Bronx-Manhattan-Brooklyn-Queens(via IRT New Lots line, touching the tip of Ozone Park). What do you guys think?. Just a simple statement agreeing or disagreeing. Save the bashing for your therapist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Metro CSW Posted December 10, 2012 Share #2 Posted December 10, 2012 Yeah...... (And don't quote me on this) I think the and are good enough alone. #Nobashingintended.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanTheTransitMan Posted December 10, 2012 Share #3 Posted December 10, 2012 With the exception of the , I think there should be another IRT line that serves Queens. It could be like: Bronx-Queens, Bronx-Manhattan-Queens, Manhattan-Queens(different terminals from the ) or maybe even Bronx-Manhattan-Brooklyn-Queens(via IRT New Lots line, touching the tip of Ozone Park). What do you guys think?. Just a simple statement agreeing or disagreeing. Save the bashing for your therapist There actually was supposed to be more IRT service in Queens, the 7 was supposed to terminate at two locations: Bell Blvd. in bayside and College point. Funding for the project never went through. To answer your question no I don't think there should be more IRT service in Queens. The subway cars on the IRT cannot hold as many passengers as cars on the IND and BMT lines. That is why you will never see any new subway line built to IRT specs. Period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LTA1992 Posted December 10, 2012 Share #4 Posted December 10, 2012 With the exception of the , I think there should be another IRT line that serves Queens. It could be like: Bronx-Queens, Bronx-Manhattan-Queens, Manhattan-Queens(different terminals from the ) or maybe even Bronx-Manhattan-Brooklyn-Queens(via IRT New Lots line, touching the tip of Ozone Park). What do you guys think?. Just a simple statement agreeing or disagreeing. Save the bashing for your therapist The IRT was more focused on Manhattan and The Bronx. Just like the BMT was more focused on Brooklyn and Queens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kamen Rider Posted December 10, 2012 Share #5 Posted December 10, 2012 The only reason the flushing line exists is Belmont bough the francise to finish the Stienway tubes. he was going to keep the trolleys, but the city wouldn't let him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drag0nflamez Posted December 10, 2012 Share #6 Posted December 10, 2012 The only reason the flushing line exists is Belmont bough the francise to finish the Stienway tubes. he was going to keep the trolleys, but the city wouldn't let him. And because you would otherwise have an unused tube, just lying around, that didn't quite fit BMT cars, the IRT was the obvious choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TwoTimer Posted December 10, 2012 Share #7 Posted December 10, 2012 Also, hindsight being 20/20, the tunnel should have been widened to fit BMT cars and some of the overcrowding seen on the line would have never occured (at capacity instead of over capacity at rush hour) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RollOver Posted December 10, 2012 Share #8 Posted December 10, 2012 All I can say is that you have other lines from the B Division already in Queens: the . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Threxx Posted December 10, 2012 Share #9 Posted December 10, 2012 Why the heck do we need a new IRT line in Queens? Focus on expanding current service, not building new trunks everywhere.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eric B Posted December 10, 2012 Share #10 Posted December 10, 2012 The IRT looked at picking up the part of what became the Crosstown line (Lafayette), and that could have extended to Queens. Also, if they ever had decided to extend Livonia, though I've never heard of anything like that. Otherwise, southern Queens was basically an extension of Brooklyn, so would be covered by the Brooklyn system (BRT), and northern Queens is closer to Manhattan and the Bronx, so it was easier to extend the Manhattan/Bronx system there. It should be pointed out that Astoria was originally "another" IRT line in Queens (original #8) as well, but of course, that was picked up by the BMT. At first, it was all IRT subway and el, then the joint service with the BMT shuttles were added, then then it was given over completely to the BMT, because it was easier to operate that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peacemak3r Posted December 10, 2012 Share #11 Posted December 10, 2012 Why the heck do we need a new IRT line in Queens? Focus on expanding current service, not building new trunks everywhere.... The topic title wasn't really intended on proposing a new IRT line at all. It looks as if he were asking why the IRT, besides the , expand to the Queens borough. Though inside the post, it looked like he was pushing for that type of discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grand Concourse Posted December 10, 2012 Share #12 Posted December 10, 2012 Also, hindsight being 20/20, the tunnel should have been widened to fit BMT cars and some of the overcrowding seen on the line would have never occured (at capacity instead of over capacity at rush hour) Yeah even now, aren't there restrictions on how fast to run the train thru that tunnel? How much longer are they going to keep restricting trains to accommodate the tunnel? If they have new tubes there, they could have a B division line running and 10 60' car trains instead of 11 51' car trains. (Though I keep forgetting if the Manhattan segment can handle B div trains as well as the extension to the Javits center.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RollOver Posted December 10, 2012 Share #13 Posted December 10, 2012 Whoops. I also forget to add the on my previous post in this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subwayfan12 Posted December 11, 2012 Author Share #14 Posted December 11, 2012 Is the too much as an IRT in Queens? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanTheTransitMan Posted December 11, 2012 Share #15 Posted December 11, 2012 Why the heck do we need a new IRT line in Queens? Focus on expanding current service, not building new trunks everywhere.... Well if massive funding ever does become available it would be wise to invest it in some entirely new subway lines. Maybe use the original IND second system plans as a base, and see what would be cost effective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minato ku Posted December 11, 2012 Share #16 Posted December 11, 2012 The lack of IRT lines in the Queens is maybe due to the population of this borough in the past, it was far less populated back then. Most of the IRT development have been before the 1930's. In 1930 the Queens had only 1 million while Brooklyn was 2.5 million and the Bronx 1.3 million but in a smaller area. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kamen Rider Posted December 11, 2012 Share #17 Posted December 11, 2012 No, it's infact the other way around. there are pictures of the Flushing line runing through basicly nothing. Roosevelt ave only exists for the El to follow it. http://gis.nyc.gov/doitt/nycitymap/ this is an offical city map program that incudles ariel shots from 1924, you can see the flushing line open as far as Corona, and there being large, empty spaces around it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eric B Posted December 11, 2012 Share #18 Posted December 11, 2012 WOW! Where did they get those from? (1924 and 1951) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kamen Rider Posted December 11, 2012 Share #19 Posted December 11, 2012 A very low flying plane. I find it funny the 1924 is clearer than 1954 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.