Jump to content
Attention: In order to reply to messages, create topics, have access to other features of the community you must sign up for an account.
Sign in to follow this  
DailyDose

Fantasy map lovers... Here's a little gem for you.

Recommended Posts

Here's some information on this map. This map is based on a modified version of the '68 Program for Action. You'll note the inclusion of an extended Nostrand Ave line as well as a new line branching off the Eastern Pkwy line at Utica Ave. The original proposal called for the Nostrand Ave line to be extended along Flatbush Ave to Kings Plaza. There's also that Avenue C loop that popped up in this version of the Program.

 

Secondly, it's based on the idea of an all-letter subway system. Single letters that is. There would still be two distinct divisions, but the IRT lines would be lettered as well. There's also considerable route consolidation. Note how several lines have multiple branches. This is probably the main reason why this map never saw the light of day. It'd be way too confusing with those different simultaneous terminals, some of which aren't even close.

 

Oddly enough, this map does not include phase 2 of Chrystie St, which is the Jamaica/6th Avenue connection.

Edited by Lance
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fascinating stuff!

I love the little O line shuttle! A lot of these lines don't make sense, but, ya know, whatever!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah the Avenue C loop... I had no idea this little proposal even existed in the MTA Plan For Action until this thread was posted! Still do not see the point of it though, why would the MTA want to build a loop like that if 14th Street and Houston Street are only 3 blocks from each other? 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To give Alphabet City a subway?

Indeed I tried in vain to come up with a good way to route subway down there. Its such a weird place geographically that no logical subway route works. Illogical ones, on the other hand...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems that the MTA was more focused on downtown Manhattan back then in their plan for action, I've picked up on that as well. In this map if you click here, it shows a proposal which is an extension of the LIRR from Atlantic Avenue over the Manhattan Bridge (!!!) to a new terminal in downtown Manhattan. Drastically different plans from the current ESA plan for LIRR Grand Central access. 


That sounds insane, because can the Manhattan Bridge structurally even handle that kind of traffic from the LIRR and the BMT with the Christie Street Connection to the IND and a connection to the SAS? I previously thought the IND Second System was grandiose enough but this MTA proposal takes the cake. Wow.. The Manhattan Bridge will sway and cave in with that kind of traffic lol!

Edited by realizm
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To give Alphabet City a subway?

 

Indeed I tried in vain to come up with a good way to route subway down there. Its such a weird place geographically that no logical subway route works. Illogical ones, on the other hand...

I've seen proposals or ideas to either have the 2nd Ave Subway turn eastward at or around 14th St, then turn south onto one of the lettered avenues to better serve Alphabet City, the East Village and the Lower East Side or to build SAS Phase 3 as planned with a branch line going down one of those avenues. But to do that would require re-studying Phase 3 and I'm not sure the MTA wants to do that, much less actually build the SAS below 63rd St.

 

It seems that the MTA was more focused on downtown Manhattan back then in their plan for action, I've picked up on that as well. In this map if you click here, it shows a proposal which is an extension of the LIRR from Atlantic Avenue over the Manhattan Bridge (!!!) to a new terminal in downtown Manhattan. Drastically different plans from the current ESA plan for LIRR Grand Central access. 

 

That sounds insane, because can the Manhattan Bridge structurally even handle that kind of traffic from the LIRR and the BMT with the Christie Street Connection to the IND and a connection to the SAS? I previously thought the IND Second System was grandiose enough but this MTA proposal takes the cake. Wow.. The Manhattan Bridge will sway and cave in with that kind of traffic lol!

Yeah, the Manhattan Bridge had enough trouble dealing with the service it already had, especially because the north tracks always had more service than the south, except during the north side shutdowns of 1986-88 and 2001-04 and the current bridge service pattern. Putting all that service on the bridge would have caused it to fall into the East River.

 

Now if they had proposed connecting the LIRR to the Montague St Tunnel, well, that would have been a more realistic, if not doable, plan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've seen proposals or ideas to either have the 2nd Ave Subway turn eastward at or around 14th St, then turn south onto one of the lettered avenues to better serve Alphabet City, the East Village and the Lower East Side or to build SAS Phase 3 as planned with a branch line going down one of those avenues. But to do that would require re-studying Phase 3 and I'm not sure the MTA wants to do that, much less actually build the SAS below 63rd St.

 

Yeah, the Manhattan Bridge had enough trouble dealing with the service it already had, especially because the north tracks always had more service than the south, except during the north side shutdowns of 1986-88 and 2001-04 and the current bridge service pattern. Putting all that service on the bridge would have caused it to fall into the East River.

 

Now if they had proposed connecting the LIRR to the Montague St Tunnel, well, that would have been a more realistic, if not doable, plan.

 

I just cant see the LIRR running over the bridge, seriously I was like 'wtf?' when I first saw these maps from the MTA. The suspension cables will snap under the weight almost. If anything the offset of weight will throw the Manhattan Bridge off balance from an engineering POV certain to cause structural damage.

 

In fact that was the problem from the time you mentioned when the NYDOT was carrying out the work in the 1980s, thats exactly what happened because then the Christie Street Connection was out for the count and cars were running only on one side of the bridge. They should have known better than to try and propose running rapid transit and railroad cars on the same bridge at once.

 

Yeah whatever the MTA civil engineers and system planners in the late 1960's were on what must have been some really good flower power like stuff for them to trip out so hard with such a laughably impossible proposal!

Edited by realizm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems that the MTA was more focused on downtown Manhattan back then in their plan for action, I've picked up on that as well. In this map if you click here, it shows a proposal which is an extension of the LIRR from Atlantic Avenue over the Manhattan Bridge (!!!) to a new terminal in downtown Manhattan. Drastically different plans from the current ESA plan for LIRR Grand Central access. 

 

That sounds insane, because can the Manhattan Bridge structurally even handle that kind of traffic from the LIRR and the BMT with the Christie Street Connection to the IND and a connection to the SAS? I previously thought the IND Second System was grandiose enough but this MTA proposal takes the cake. Wow.. The Manhattan Bridge will sway and cave in with that kind of traffic lol!

 

There was a plan to turn the Long Island Railroad into a very frequent subway-style operation running out to Roosevelt Field. If the 1968 Plan For Action went through, you would see a two track extension to a station around GCT as well as a Downtown extension of the LIRR (although the second was for a "second phase", so who even knows what the alignment would've been by the time they got around to building it - this was the '60s, when plans were more easily thrown about and the EPA didn't exist).

 

The 1963 study which became the basis of the first incarnation of East Side Access explored building either a two-track or one-track balloon loop station via the 63rd St tunnels and the Madison Yard (and in one version of the balloon loop, the balloon loop went south and connected back to the East River Tunnels). There was also a note that extension south into Downtown could be studied at a later date. Had that actually gone through, we could potentially deal with an East Side LIRR two-track loop from Jamaica to Sunnyside, GCT, Downtown, Atlantic, and back to Jamaica, which would've explained where exactly the two tracks for the Queens Blvd Bypass would've come from.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was a plan to turn the Long Island Railroad into a very frequent subway-style operation running out to Roosevelt Field. If the 1968 Plan For Action went through, you would see a two track extension to a station around GCT as well as a Downtown extension of the LIRR (although the second was for a "second phase", so who even knows what the alignment would've been by the time they got around to building it - this was the '60s, when plans were more easily thrown about and the EPA didn't exist).

 

The 1963 study which became the basis of the first incarnation of East Side Access explored building either a two-track or one-track balloon loop station via the 63rd St tunnels and the Madison Yard (and in one version of the balloon loop, the balloon loop went south and connected back to the East River Tunnels). There was also a note that extension south into Downtown could be studied at a later date. Had that actually gone through, we could potentially deal with an East Side LIRR two-track loop from Jamaica to Sunnyside, GCT, Downtown, Atlantic, and back to Jamaica, which would've explained where exactly the two tracks for the Queens Blvd Bypass would've come from.

 

I get it, so that explains the proposals for the Queens Bvld Bypass and Bronx/Second Avenue Line Access using the MNRR and the LIRR (Which sounds much more feasible if it wasnt for current FRA regulations in effect today).

 

It makes much more sense now. I was picturing literal M7 railcars going over the bridge! Not happening!

Edited by realizm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I get it, so that explains the proposals for the Queens Bvld Bypass and Bronx/Second Avenue Line Access using the MNRR and the LIRR (Which sounds much more feasible if it wasnt for current FRA regulations in effect today).

 

It makes much more sense now. I was picturing literal M7 railcars going over the bridge! Not happening!

 

I'm not entirely sure about what would've happened with MNRR, since they didn't come into existence as an MTA organization til the '80s.

 

Keep in mind that in 1968, all the private railroads were failing, and ridership on all railroads was declining to the point where we thought the current Penn Station would work just fine as a commuter terminal for decades into the future. They might just not have cared about the commuter railroads at that point.

Edited by bobtehpanda
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ugh. Brain fart. Yes you are correct on the MNRR they acquired the said ROWs in 1983, should have done the background reading before the initial response.

 

But now that I think about it, the R44 was designed to travel at very high speeds in anticipation of the Second Avenue Subway as it was planned to be built back then. It makes sense since the MTA had plans to acquire the former New York Central Harlem line and parts of the LIRR for the SAS and IND QBL bypass.

 

As for its spacial dimensions of the R44, I will have to dismiss that as an oversight on the part of the designers as 75 foot cars will not decrease station dwell times but thats another story I guess.

 

But yeah it makes one wonder sometimes what the MTA had in mind when designing the R44 aside from the SAS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ugh. Brain fart. Yes you are correct on the MNRR they acquired the said ROWs in 1983, should have done the background reading before the initial response.

 

But now that I think about it, the R44 was designed to travel at very high speeds in anticipation of the Second Avenue Subway as it was planned to be built back then. It makes sense since the MTA had plans to acquire the former New York Central Harlem line and parts of the LIRR for the SAS and IND QBL bypass.

 

As for its spacial dimensions of the R44, I will have to dismiss that as an oversight on the part of the designers as 75 foot cars will not decrease station dwell times but thats another story I guess.

 

But yeah it makes one wonder sometimes what the MTA had in mind when designing the R44 aside from the SAS.

 

It was designed for ATO compatability, and prior to the fiscal crisis the MTA had very high hopes. Then the fiscal crisis and deferred maintenance destroyed the MTA's dreams, and now we have the overly cautious agency we have today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was designed for ATO compatability, and prior to the fiscal crisis the MTA had very high hopes. Then the fiscal crisis and deferred maintenance destroyed the MTA's dreams, and now we have the overly cautious agency we have today.

 

Particularly now since the QBL derailment I would imagine, as well as past accidents such as the Union Square wreck also the one in Williamsburg on the BMT Eastern Division. Timers everywhere, and the phasing out of field shunting to name a few results from these massive accidents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How could they "still" neglect Staten Island in 1968 when the MTA was created in 1968?

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How could they "still" neglect Staten Island in 1968 when the MTA was created in 1968?

To his credit though, I think he meant to say "transit planners." How could the transit planners still be neglecting Staten Island? Clearly, the BMT had plans to extend to Staten Island, but future plans for Staten Island were an afterthought—after all of the other boroughs had been considered first.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's the same problem today as it was many years ago: how to get there and the costs involved. With the other boroughs, as with any potential extension, a lot of money would've been required. For Staten Island, it needed some serious dough just to get there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To his credit though, I think he meant to say "transit planners." How could the transit planners still be neglecting Staten Island? Clearly, the BMT had plans to extend to Staten Island, but future plans for Staten Island were an afterthought—after all of the other boroughs had been considered first.

 

I mean, to be fairly honest, it is in an awful geographic location relative to the rest of the city.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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