Department of Subways - Proposals/Ideas

[Lance]

Which if I ever got to build the Myrtle-Brighton line, it would include a transfer point to the and service as a second Brooklyn-Queens crosstown.

 

This would be a "Black " train that would start at Metropolitan and run on the existing Myrtle El to a rebuilt upper level of Myrtle Avenue, then on a short, rebuilt stretch of the old Myrtle El that would include a rebuilt Sumner Avenue station and a stop with a transfer to the at Beford-Nostrand, then onto the existing Franklin Avenue Shuttle line, absorbing that line and having it rebuilt to two tracks and 480' or 600' stations and then running as the full-time Brighton local to Coney Island (while the becomes the full-time Brighton express to Brighton Beach and the becomes a second Brighton Local to Coney Island).

Ugh!!! You don't quit, do you? You're never going to sell a rebuild of the lower Myrtle elevated in any way shape or form.

[Union Tpke]

Nobody wants a f***ing el outside their windows, and that's why many els in the past were destroyed...

I am nowhere near the majority, BUT I SURE WOULD LIKE IT. 

HOW ABOUT us railfans buy the area around there so there wouldn't be any NIMBYs there.

[MTA Dude]

I am nowhere near the majority, BUT I SURE WOULD LIKE IT. 

HOW ABOUT us railfans buy the area around there so there wouldn't be any NIMBYs there.

 

I like els by my house as much as the next person, but this proposal serves no real purpose. It will literally carry one or two regular passangers and a few railfans each day. ain't spending a couple million dollars to run this sh*t.

[Union Tpke]

I like els by my house as much as the next person, but this proposal serves no real purpose. It will literally carry one or two regular passangers and a few railfans each day. ain't spending a couple million dollars to run this sh*t.

it was a joke.

[Javier]

This is why the EL's were destroyed in the first place, because it just makes people mad for whenever a train comes by and shakes the house and makes a lot of noise. My GF lives in Astoria and she is crazy about the El by her house.

[CenSin]

I'm not sure how Brighton would be connected to Crosstown (and please don't refer to Vanshnookenraggen's fantasy map), but there was a plan connecting it to a branch from the Bushwick trunk line which roughly follows the current Myrtle Avenue line from Knickerbocker Avenue to Wyckoff Avenue before continuing down Central Avenue and joining the LIRR Montauk branch at 79 Place to the (currently unused) Rockaway branch. This connection would presumably replace the Myrtle Avenue line, or relegate it to a shuttle service while enabling a route that connects Kensington, Park Slope, Bedford–Stuyvesant, Bushwick, Ridgewood, Woodhaven, Ozone Park, and the Rockaways.

 

The IND left no provision for a connection from south of Bedford–Nostrand Avenues. And if it did, and the track map we're looking at is what it is, then I have no idea what the planners were thinking. With only three tracks and no station shell over or under Bedford–Nostrand Avenues, it's obvious that the IND did not intend for another line to tangle with the Crosstown at the hip.

[P3F]

The shuttle runs single tracked in most places anyway, it could terminate at Bedford/Nostrand on the center track without issues.

[CenSin]

The shuttle runs single tracked in most places anyway, it could terminate at Bedford/Nostrand on the center track without issues.

It wasn't single-tracked when the Crosstown line was being built. In fact, Mayor Hylan disapproved of the original plan, which was to connect the southern end of the Crosstown line to Franklin Avenue. That's why we have a Crosstown line that purposely bends in the wrong places to make it difficult to engineer such a connection. And given the way the rest of the system was built, do you really think the IND would half-ass a connection by making it single-tracked?

[LTA1992]

Quoting Panda-kun:

 

The IRT and BMT built lines without going massively over-budget through already developed areas (see: BMT Broadway Line, BMT Nassau Line).

 

It was ridiculously over engineered. Forest Hills and 179th St are the best terminals we have in the system. They also cost a crapton of money to build. So did the massive flying junctions along 53rd, by Hoyt-Schermerhorn and at West 4 St. We also sank a crapton of money into building an express line directly around and under an existing subway line at 6th Avenue, when it probably would've been cheaper to move the entire thing to 5th Avenue (and it wouldn't have cost as much or impacted ridership - after all, 8th Av was a block west of the former 9th Av El.

 

The IND was a massive failure from a cost/effectiveness point of view. We put in a lot of crap for overly rosy assumptions about what could be built in the future, decided that good transfer connections were only important after we built everything already, and certain routings were changed for no good reason at all (the Crosstown Line was originally supposed to connect to the Franklin Shuttle). Most of the corridors built already had plans for them dating to the Dual Contracts, and had we just stuck with that model New York would have been significantly better off.

------------------------------

The money for the IRT and BRT extensions under the Dual Systems Contracts was allocated before the first World War. That's why they were built without going over budget. And a lot of the IRT and BRT went through largely  undeveloped areas initially. The Flushing Line itself went through literal farmland. It was so empty that former Mayor William J. Gaynor questioned why it should even be built. The answer was simple. In order to encourage development across the city, rapid transit should be built through undeveloped areas. 

 

That is where the Phase One IND fails. Aside from the Queens Boulevard Line, almost all of the IND traveled through areas served by rapid transit instead of going through areas not served. The public was generally satisfied, except for the Concourse Line where community groups and Borough officials lamented the fact that they lost the 4th track and the lack of a direct downtown routing. In terms of design, it is only natural that subway construction techniques would advance, and that advancement that you call "over-engineering" is what set the IND apart from the IRT and BRT which were, by that time, were beginning to show both their age and the limiting character of their construction. In a time where rapid transit was extremely popular, flying junctions were a nice investment because they nearly doubled the speed a train can take over a junction. Passenger convenience within the Peoples Subway. Those massive junctions also increased service flexibility, which in itself, sets this entire system apart from the rest of the world.

 

The 6th Avenue express tracks were a component of the 1945 plan for SAS which included the original proposal for the Chrystie Street Connection. The express tracks added extra capacity to the line in order to absorb the extra trains that would be coming up the line. 57th Street was built for those two purposes as well. 8th Avenue is a block east of 9th Avenue because it was technically easier. The area was and still is less developed than Midtown. 5th Avenue is a high class street. That alone would have made the project more expensive than just building under the H&M and 6th Avenue "L". Also,

 

The INDs failure is attributed, once again, to going through already developed areas that were served by existing rapid transit. It therefore lost much needed support from real estate and merchant organizations. The fact that it was being built in a time of extreme inflation didn't help matters. The fact that the Phase 1 IND was even completed, albeit slightly different than originally proposed, is nothing short of a miracle. 

 

The IND was not the only system to plan for the future. The IRT and BRT did as well. The transfer connections would have likely come afterward anyway aside form key intersections. Remember, the systems weren't unified until 1940 and that was ONLY because the City threatened [The Private Operators] to take back the city-built sections of their subways leaving the IRT and BMT with systems "so fragmented that they won't even recognize them". 

 

The Crosstown Line was originally proposed in 1878 as part of the original plans of the Brooklyn "L"s as an extension of the CI&BB Railroad. But religious groups rejected the line rigorously until the plan was dropped after the Dual Systems were signed.[Trivia Note: Cadman Plaza is named after Reverend Parks Cadman, a guy who led the opposition of the Crosstown "L" during it's proposal as part of the Dual Systems Contracts. The park itself being in the former location of the Sands Street train shed] The BOTs original plans for the Crosstown Subway had it running as a spur from the 6th Avenue Line at 23rd Street, running south to Fulton Street in the area of Borough Hall, then back to Manhattan. It was opposed by former Brooklyn Borough President Guider who claimed that John Delaney "did not know his territory very well". Shocked by Hylans support of Guider, Delaney was compelled to revise the plans into the Crosstown Line as we know it today. The line was slightly re-tooled after construction began to include a provision for a spur to the South Queens Trunk Line at Bedford-Nostrand.

 

Most of the corridors planned dated before the Dual Systems. The Lafayette Avenue Loop Line was part of the Tri-Borough plan of 1905. William McAdoo, creator of the Hudson and Manhattan Railroad (Now known as PATH), wanted to operate into Brooklyn proposing what he called the Independent Subway. His wanting to expand into Brooklyn is what compelled the IRT and BRT into offering bids to operate lines that became those in the Dual Systems.

 

Also, only routes built under the Dual Systems Contracts were the ONLY lines approved by the Board of Estimate for construction. From my research, the only routes that people wanted to be a part of the Dual Systems, but never made it, was Utica Avenue and the Flushing Line extension. But public opposition from community groups in those areas restricted them. There was no Lafayette Avenue line proposed at all for the Dual Systems. The 8th Avenue and Concourse lines were a part of expansion plans drafted by Daniel L. Turner for the NYS Transit Commission. The SAS was preceded by a First Avenue Subway that was proposed to run form Lower Manhattan to Crotona Park, That line was supported heavily by commercial groups in Manhattan, most notably Samuel J. Bloomingdale. I hope you guys know who that man is. In fact, the first SAS plan for the IND created in part because East Side groups felt shafted in the IND planning process. The new East Side line could have also built on 3rd Avenue, but it was deemed too close to the Lex. They even proposed building a new street between 2nd and 3rd Avenues, but land acquisition costs were too high as well as the costs of creating a new street.

 

There are many more factors for why things happen and my years of research make me more understanding about why we are where we are today. That includes the reasoning of the men responsible. The urge to find the most factual of answers helps a lot. I recommend it.

Edited January 22, 2015 by LTA1992

[Wallyhorse]

I'm not sure how Brighton would be connected to Crosstown (and please don't refer to Vanshnookenraggen's fantasy map), but there was a plan connecting it to a branch from the Bushwick trunk line which roughly follows the current Myrtle Avenue line from Knickerbocker Avenue to Wyckoff Avenue before continuing down Central Avenue and joining the LIRR Montauk branch at 79 Place to the (currently unused) Rockaway branch. This connection would presumably replace the Myrtle Avenue line, or relegate it to a shuttle service while enabling a route that connects Kensington, Park Slope, Bedford–Stuyvesant, Bushwick, Ridgewood, Woodhaven, Ozone Park, and the Rockaways.

 

The IND left no provision for a connection from south of Bedford–Nostrand Avenues. And if it did, and the track map we're looking at is what it is, then I have no idea what the planners were thinking. With only three tracks and no station shell over or under Bedford–Nostrand Avenues, it's obvious that the IND did not intend for another line to tangle with the Crosstown at the hip.

As I would do it, it would NOT be connected.  This would be a new line using a relatively short stretch of new elevated tracks to connect to two EXISTING elevated lines AND absorb a fully-rebuilt Franklin Avenue shuttle.

 

Oh, and as I would do it, you will still have on weekdays a one-seat local ride on Brighton to Manhattan, just on the as it and the would swap Brooklyn terminals and Brighton tracks.  You could even have the operate on weekends to Coney Island in this scenario, at least during the summer.

 

Mine would also have provisions for a connection to the Broadway-Brooklyn line, so in an emergency for example trains can use that to get to Manhattan and the 6th Avenue line and the can also in an emergency run via 6th Avenue that way.

 

I suspect this line would be very popular since it would have transfers to a host of other lines.

Edited January 22, 2015 by Wallyhorse

[P3F]

The Brighton Express needs to go to Manhattan. Otherwise you're dumping all those people in Brooklyn, overcrowding other lines.

[CenSin]

As I would do it, it would NOT be connected.  This would be a new line using a relatively short stretch of new elevated tracks to connect to two EXISTING elevated lines AND absorb a fully-rebuilt Franklin Avenue shuttle.

 

Oh, and as I would do it, you will still have on weekdays a one-seat local ride on Brighton to Manhattan, just on the as it and the would swap Brooklyn terminals and Brighton tracks.  You could even have the operate on weekends to Coney Island in this scenario, at least during the summer.

 

Mine would also have provisions for a connection to the Broadway-Brooklyn line, so in an emergency for example trains can use that to get to Manhattan and the 6th Avenue line and the can also in an emergency run via 6th Avenue that way.

 

I suspect this line would be very popular since it would have transfers to a host of other lines.

A line going up Franklin Avenue above the street surface has practically one path to go without disrupting too many properties:

• North via Franklin Avenue to Wallabout Street
• Northwest via Wythe Avenue to Brooklyn–Queens Expressway
• North via Brooklyn–Queens Expressway to Broadway
• West via South 5 Street to the Williamsburg Bridge Plaza where it connects with the Williamsburg Bridge tracks

Stations would be placed at:

• Fulton Street–Atlantic Avenue which is basically the current station made into an island platform and extended south to Atlantic Avenue
• Lafayette Avenue which spans Lafayette Avenue and Greene Avenue
• Myrtle–Willoughby Avenues which spans Myrtle Avenue and Willoughby Avenue
• Flushing Avenue whose northern end starts just shy of Wallabout Street
• Bedford Avenue whose platforms are centered on Bedford Avenue
• Broadway–Marcy Avenue which spans (from north to south) Broadway, South 9 Street, Division Street, and Marcy Avenue with a transfer passage to the Broadway line at the northern end of the platform and an exit to Marcy Avenue at the southern end of the platform

[Armandito]

I'm not sure how Brighton would be connected to Crosstown (and please don't refer to Vanshnookenraggen's fantasy map), but there was a plan connecting it to a branch from the Bushwick trunk line which roughly follows the current Myrtle Avenue line from Knickerbocker Avenue to Wyckoff Avenue before continuing down Central Avenue and joining the LIRR Montauk branch at 79 Place to the (currently unused) Rockaway branch. This connection would presumably replace the Myrtle Avenue line, or relegate it to a shuttle service while enabling a route that connects Kensington, Park Slope, Bedford–Stuyvesant, Bushwick, Ridgewood, Woodhaven, Ozone Park, and the Rockaways.

 

The IND left no provision for a connection from south of Bedford–Nostrand Avenues. And if it did, and the track map we're looking at is what it is, then I have no idea what the planners were thinking. With only three tracks and no station shell over or under Bedford–Nostrand Avenues, it's obvious that the IND did not intend for another line to tangle with the Crosstown at the hip.

Why don't you want to refer to those fantasy maps? Edited January 22, 2015 by lara8710

[Javier]

I have this one by a long shot:

Extend the to LGA.

[bobtehpanda]

 

Quoting Panda-kun:

 

The IRT and BMT built lines without going massively over-budget through already developed areas (see: BMT Broadway Line, BMT Nassau Line).

 

It was ridiculously over engineered. Forest Hills and 179th St are the best terminals we have in the system. They also cost a crapton of money to build. So did the massive flying junctions along 53rd, by Hoyt-Schermerhorn and at West 4 St. We also sank a crapton of money into building an express line directly around and under an existing subway line at 6th Avenue, when it probably would've been cheaper to move the entire thing to 5th Avenue (and it wouldn't have cost as much or impacted ridership - after all, 8th Av was a block west of the former 9th Av El.

 

The IND was a massive failure from a cost/effectiveness point of view. We put in a lot of crap for overly rosy assumptions about what could be built in the future, decided that good transfer connections were only important after we built everything already, and certain routings were changed for no good reason at all (the Crosstown Line was originally supposed to connect to the Franklin Shuttle). Most of the corridors built already had plans for them dating to the Dual Contracts, and had we just stuck with that model New York would have been significantly better off.

------------------------------

The money for the IRT and BRT extensions under the Dual Systems Contracts was allocated before the first World War. That's why they were built without going over budget. And a lot of the IRT and BRT went through largely  undeveloped areas initially. The Flushing Line itself went through literal farmland. It was so empty that former Mayor William J. Gaynor questioned why it should even be built. The answer was simple. In order to encourage development across the city, rapid transit should be built through undeveloped areas. 

 

That is where the Phase One IND fails. Aside from the Queens Boulevard Line, almost all of the IND traveled through areas served by rapid transit instead of going through areas not served. The public was generally satisfied, except for the Concourse Line where community groups and Borough officials lamented the fact that they lost the 4th track and the lack of a direct downtown routing. In terms of design, it is only natural that subway construction techniques would advance, and that advancement that you call "over-engineering" is what set the IND apart from the IRT and BRT which were, by that time, were beginning to show both their age and the limiting character of their construction. In a time where rapid transit was extremely popular, flying junctions were a nice investment because they nearly doubled the speed a train can take over a junction. Passenger convenience within the Peoples Subway. Those massive junctions also increased service flexibility, which in itself, sets this entire system apart from the rest of the world.

 

The problem with what you're saying is that by the 40s, basically all of the City as we know it today was already developed. The undeveloped areas were at the very fringes of the city, so to build only in "undeveloped" areas would either require developing our parks or or developing stub end subways out in the burbs that don't connect to anything. By this logic, we should never build subways again, because all of the city is developed so it wouldn't be financially viable.

 

I'm not saying flying junctions are a bad thing, but to ignore that they are ridiculously expensive and dismiss costs out of hand as highly situational is very callous, considering that all the most expensive rail projects in the world on a per-kilometer basis are occurring within Manhattan (SAS, East Side Access, 7 Line Extension).

 

Also, to say that the IND First System was built during a time of "great inflation" is factually incorrect. The First System was opened from 1932-1940, in the midst of the Great Depression, at a time of severe deflation: inflation went down to as low as -10% during this period, and never rose above 3%. That costs rose during a period of severe deflation should be an indicator of how out of whack expenses for the construction were.

 

Building the 6th Av Line under 5th would not have cost more money unless they were taking large amounts of property (which, given the width of Fifth Av, would be wholly unnecessary in the wealthy portions of 5th Av). Modern experience from the IND to the Big Dig and Seattle's stalled highway tunnel has taught us that building around active infrastructure is much more expensive than avoiding it entirely. In fact, isn't that the reason the City bought out the El and tore it down before construction, just to make IND construction cheaper?

 

It is true that the Crosstown El was opposed, but that was mostly because it was an El, not that it was rapid transit altogether (or the upper half of the Crosstown Line wouldn't have been built. Nothing precluded the IND or the Dual Contracts from later constructing the same route except underground for the majority or all of its length. The current alignment of the Crosstown is poor at actually being a crosstown because it combines two okay alignments into one half-baked plan.

[CenSin]

Why don't you want to refer to those fantasy maps?

I'm only talking about that specific fantasy map. It's his own take on what the IND intended. I.M.H.O., it's very unlike the IND to connect just a single-track bridge between two lines. To his credit, he did mention that it should be built with 2 tracks in mind with provisions for the second one, but you can see that the IND left no bellmouth or other provision for such a connection on the Crosstown line itself. It's just mere storage track, and other places where storage tracks exist strongly suggest that it's the intended use. Take a look at 34 Street–Penn Station, 72 Street, Queens Plaza, 4 Avenue–9 Street, or Clinton–Washington Avenues, and tell me how that was planned to be used for a possible connection to another line. They're all just storage tracks, and there are plenty more examples of it on the IRT and BMT lines as well.

[bobtehpanda]

What would be the feasibility of constructing an additional 2 tracks next to, or using the yard leads into 207th to extend the to Fordham Rd?

[Armandito]

What would be the feasibility of constructing an additional 2 tracks next to, or using the yard leads into 207th to extend the to Fordham Rd?

Extending the into the Bronx is out of the question. Why not just create a new subway service of its own? Edited January 22, 2015 by lara8710

[bobtehpanda]

Extending the into the Bronx is out of the question. Why not just create a new subway service of its own?

 

It doesn't mean necessarily extending (A)s to the Bronx, let alone every single to the Bronx (I would only extend Lefferts trains). Technically, extending the up is possible, since the and already share tracks, so congestion wouldn't be a pressing issue.

 

A tunnel already exists to connect to the at Dyckman to the river at the yard. Building a new tunnel in a geologically challenging area would be very expensive, and any such new line would require yard access anyways.

Edited January 22, 2015 by bobtehpanda

[Lance]

I'm only talking about that specific fantasy map. It's his own take on what the IND intended. I.M.H.O., it's very unlike the IND to connect just a single-track bridge between two lines. To his credit, he did mention that it should be built with 2 tracks in mind with provisions for the second one, but you can see that the IND left no bellmouth or other provision for such a connection on the Crosstown line itself. It's just mere storage track, and other places where storage tracks exist strongly suggest that it's the intended use. Take a look at 34 Street–Penn Station, 72 Street, Queens Plaza, 4 Avenue–9 Street, or Clinton–Washington Avenues, and tell me how that was planned to be used for a possible connection to another line. They're all just storage tracks, and there are plenty more examples of it on the IRT and BMT lines as well.

The three-track section from Bedford-Nostrand southward was more likely than not simply meant to facilitate train layups for a short-turn service, kind of like Whitehall St. However, as you mentioned, the four-tracked section just north of the station was meant to be a connection between the Crosstown and the Myrtle/Central Ave line.

[TrainFanInfinity]

I have this one by a long shot:

Extend the to LGA.

 

Okay. The and the sound like reasonable routes to extend to the airport. But the ? How would you "extend" the to the airport? Heck, the airport doesn't need that much service in general. If anything, the should be extended eastward to help out with those very overcrowded bus services that run along it.

[cl94]

But the ? How would you "extend" the to the airport? Heck, the airport doesn't need that much service in general. If anything, the should be extended eastward to help out with those very overcrowded bus services that run along it.

 

Have the split south of Citi Field, possibly via the yard leads, and run over the GCP, basically replicating Cuomo's AirTrain "plan". Issue with that is that there's not enough relay capacity in Manhattan.

[Union Tpke]

Have the split south of Citi Field, possibly via the yard leads, and run over the GCP, basically replicating Cuomo's AirTrain "plan". Issue with that is that there's not enough relay capacity in Manhattan.

the trail tracks after 34th could solve the problem.

[CenSin]

Have the split south of Citi Field, possibly via the yard leads, and run over the GCP, basically replicating Cuomo's AirTrain "plan". Issue with that is that there's not enough relay capacity in Manhattan.

Never.

 

This kind of screw-up is going to be more-or-less permanent. It'd be akin to building a loopy, serpentine highway to somewhere important. Then with the highway in use, they'd never tear it down. And with the highway continuing to exist, they'd never build an alternative.

[MTA Dude]

It doesn't mean necessarily extending (A)s to the Bronx, let alone every single to the Bronx (I would only extend Lefferts trains). Technically, extending the up is possible, since the and already share tracks, so congestion wouldn't be a pressing issue.

 

A tunnel already exists to connect to the at Dyckman to the river at the yard. Building a new tunnel in a geologically challenging area would be very expensive, and any such new line would require yard access anyways.

 

I really doubt will ever be extended (besides the to Lefferts). The is the longest line in the city, and when running local late nights, screws up the entire thing with delays. You wanna extend the ? Fine, but the results won't be pretty. Extend the past the ? Makes no sense at all.