Department of Subways - Proposals/Ideas

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Why? The total number of commuters using the complex wouldn't come close to the totals at other stations in the city.

But if you are going to argue this "not being the best idea" because you feel some people might want more "options" and might not want to walk, then I will counter by saying the walking would be minimal......the new station would be put in between where the two are now.

 

Also, don't make assumptions about people, even on the internet. Trust me, I know the neighborhood EXTREMELY well.

As do I... I was born and raised in Brooklyn and well aware that Cortelyou is used more than Beverly, but let's not make it sound like Beverly doesn't have its fair share of riders now.  That station can get crowded as well at times and as I said before, what is okay right now may not be okay down the road.  I would not support taking away two stations to build one station when it is said that the subway system's ridership will continue to grow significantly as time goes on, and this is in the near future. Kensington has been a desirable neighborhood for some time, and this hasn't changed much in the economic downturn so population growth will and has continued there, which will likely correlate to more riders at both stations along the .

Edited January 17, 2013 by Via Garibaldi 8

[Brooklyn]

Ok, you were born and raised in BROOKLYN.

 

But what about this particular neighborhood where the stations are?After all, that's what this is about...

 

When was the last time you were on Beverly Road? Cortelyou Rd? When was the last time you were at the stations?

 

My point is this: What makes you think a new station would be "overcrowded"? My counter is that there are stations in Brooklyn (and in the city) that already see more people than would this consolidated station. Also, why wouldn't this new station accommodate these people, even accounting for population growth? You're assuming that the new station wouldn't be able to handle the traffic--and I want to know why...this doesn't make sense.

[Brooklyn]

A larger point I am making is that the conditions at Cortelyou (especially) can get somewhat dangerous on the platform during rush hours. The platform is narrow and there are only two stairways leading up to the token booth There is always a wait to get up those stairs when there's a lot of people. There is also no real room for people to get down the stairs god forbid if they want to catch a train.

 

It's the same at Beverly...

 

Maybe a new station can be built that is a little less hazardous....

[Via Garibaldi 8]

A larger point I am making is that the conditions at Cortelyou (especially) can get somewhat dangerous on the platform during rush hours. The platform is narrow and there are only two stairways leading up to the token booth There is always a wait to get up those stairs when there's a lot of people. There is also no real room for people to get down the stairs god forbid if they want to catch a train.

 

It's the same at Beverly...

 

Maybe a new station can be built that is a little less hazardous....

I'm aware of this as well because I've used both stations quite a bit...I don't see how the new station could necessarily address the issue, but I do agree that it is a problem.  I've been in that situation myself over there multiple times and it is quite annoying, but then again, these two stations aren't unique to this problem.

 

Ok, you were born and raised in BROOKLYN.

 

But what about this particular neighborhood where the stations are?After all, that's what this is about...

 

When was the last time you were on Beverly Road? Cortelyou Rd? When was the last time you were at the stations?

 

My point is this: What makes you think a new station would be "overcrowded"? My counter is that there are stations in Brooklyn (and in the city) that already see more people than would this consolidated station. Also, why wouldn't this new station accommodate these people, even accounting for population growth? You're assuming that the new station wouldn't be able to handle the traffic--and I want to know why...this doesn't make sense.

For starters I've been riding the since I was a teenager growing up in Sheepshead Bay and even though I live in Riverdale I am in Brooklyn regularly all over. I travel a lot via public transportation, so I'm very aware of the problems at both stations as I have frequented that area as well and used to live nearby in Midwood so the has been my subway line for many years.  As to why the new station couldn't accommodate these people I think about how both stations have narrow platforms and such and I'm just not sure how putting a subway station in between them can somehow address that based on the cutout on the in that segment of the line.  The only way I could see them having more room on the platforms is by expanding the cutout in that area which would require going further into the actual walls themselves.  I don't think the construction costs is worth it in the long run given the overall population growth in the area and along the in general.  Ideally you would demo both stations which last I checked costs money and then build a brand new station which knowing the they are always over budget with these projects, so in short it would not be cheap.

Edited January 17, 2013 by Via Garibaldi 8

[Metro CSW]

Possibly, but he didn't give that as a reason--unless you are the other poster.

 

Now you would have to give me an explanation of why having a yard above the tunnel would completely prevent a station to be put there.

Well since you asked....

 

Safety and construction cost comes to mine. Not to mention the actually yard and that parking lot at 5 Avenue is directly over the tunnel. Plus the Protective Lining Cooperation and Tony Marble & Garnite Supply Stores are right next to the yard along with other establishments around 39 Street, which block any chance of a possible entrance location to be built. Ninth Avenue is working out just fine, despite the 10% deceasing rider entries. Just let the B35 and B70 accomodate the riders between 36 Street & 9 Avenue Stations and keep the line commute the way it is.

 

Yeah, I grew in Brooklyn too, I should know this stuff.

Edited January 17, 2013 by Metro CSW

[TwoTimer]

There is also a bus depot at the far end of the yard as well if I remember right which goes another block.  This isn't Allerton Av where one is really just putting a station and entrances over the street itself (a thruspan and el underneath) and eating away a handful of backyard on the south side of Allerton (there's nothing there on the north side).  Back to the west end, there is also a switch in the middle of that tunnel that would have to go somewhere that is often used to allow work trains to wrong rail south from 36th and north from 9Av.

 

A better arugment might be given for the Sea Beach between 59th and 8 Av, as there is actually open space (not tunnel, but open cut and some residential above 6Av (i think its 6th).

Edited January 17, 2013 by TwoTimer

[Metro CSW]

There is also a bus depot at the far end of the yard as well if I remember right which goes another block. This isn't Allerton Av where one is really just putting a station and entrances over the street itself (a thruspan and el underneath) and eating away a handful of backyard on the south side of Allerton (there's nothing there on the north side).  Back to the west end, there is also a switch in the middle of that tunnel that would have to go somewhere that is often used to allow work trains to wrong rail south from 36th and north from 9Av.

Yeah, of course.

 

How did I missed the Jackie Gleason Depot.

 

Anyways, Thank you, sir.

Edited January 17, 2013 by Metro CSW

[Vistausss]

@Brooklyn: So a new terminal for the isn't a new station? Who says I was talking about Norwood? Norwood is just clearly unfit as a terminal and it should be built somewhere else as a terminal. So yes, that fits the title of 'new station'.

 

And ofc, the other argument is the yard above what you are proposing.

[Brooklyn]

Better....

 

I am actually being given PHYSICAL and concrete reasons why the stations might not work along with evidence to back it up.

 

This is much better than "it would cost too much" or other nonsense that some posters use to shut others down.

 

If someone is going to say 'it costs too much', then I guess this whole thread would be shut down then, and pretty much most of the forum.

 

The very least a poster can do (who claims this) is actually put down evidence showing the actual numbers.

 

Thanks for taking the time to present some actual evidence to back up your assertions.

 

I now agree that a station on the at 7th av might not work, but not for the reason given by the OP "Don't do X, do Y instead".

 

Again, I am not trying to be an A-hole....I just want some substantial discussion taking place....too people want to shut others down and not have any compelling arguments or evidence behind them.

 

Also, sometimes I want to hear from the poster who is making the argument and give them a chance to respond.

 

 

 

There is also a bus depot at the far end of the yard as well if I remember right which goes another block.  This isn't Allerton Av where one is really just putting a station and entrances over the street itself (a thruspan and el underneath) and eating away a handful of backyard on the south side of Allerton (there's nothing there on the north side).  Back to the west end, there is also a switch in the middle of that tunnel that would have to go somewhere that is often used to allow work trains to wrong rail south from 36th and north from 9Av.

 

A better arugment might be given for the Sea Beach between 59th and 8 Av, as there is actually open space (not tunnel, but open cut and some residential above 6Av (i think its 6th).

 

There is also a bus depot at the far end of the yard as well if I remember right which goes another block.  This isn't Allerton Av where one is really just putting a station and entrances over the street itself (a thruspan and el underneath) and eating away a handful of backyard on the south side of Allerton (there's nothing there on the north side).  Back to the west end, there is also a switch in the middle of that tunnel that would have to go somewhere that is often used to allow work trains to wrong rail south from 36th and north from 9Av.

 

A better arugment might be given for the Sea Beach between 59th and 8 Av, as there is actually open space (not tunnel, but open cut and some residential above 6Av (i think its 6th).

 

 

I never claimed that.

 

 

 

@Brooklyn: So a new terminal for the isn't a new station? Who says I was talking about Norwood? Norwood is just clearly unfit as a terminal and it should be built somewhere else as a terminal. So yes, that fits the title of 'new station'.

 

And ofc, the other argument is the yard above what you are proposing.

Edited January 17, 2013 by Brooklyn

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Better....

 

I am actually being given PHYSICAL and concrete reasons why the stations might not work along with evidence to back it up.

 

This is much better than "it would cost too much" or other nonsense that some posters use to shut others down.

 

If someone is going to say 'it costs too much', then I guess this whole thread would be shut down then, and pretty much most of the forum.

 

The very least a poster can do (who claims this) is actually put down evidence showing the actual numbers.

 

Thanks for taking the time to present some actual evidence to back up your assertions.

 

Again, I am not trying to be an A-hole....I just want some substantial discussion taking place....too people want to shut others down and not have any compelling arguments or evidence behind them.

Well I'm sorry but while I'm for new stations, the simply does not have the funding to build new stations just because when we have tons of stations particularly in the outerboroughs and in Upper Manhattan that are in dire need of repair, so pardon me for objecting to what may be unnecessary construction costs that could be used for stations that need to be rehabbed.

[Brooklyn]

Well I'm sorry but while I'm for new stations, the simply does not have the funding to build new stations just because when we have tons of stations particularly in the outerboroughs and in Upper Manhattan that are in dire need of repair, so pardon me for objecting to what may be unnecessary construction costs that could be used for stations that need to be rehabbed.

 

VG8,

 

Pardon me, but these is where I am confused.

 

This thread is about New Stations to be put on existing lines....

 

Why would you come on a thread devoted to such only to turn around and say that you want it, but the MTA doesn't have the money?

 

What purpose does a comment like that serve?

 

To top it off, you are using the same Don't do x, do y instead business....

 

I am puzzled, actually.

 

You know these are called red herrings, right?

 

You're changing the topic.....

Edited January 17, 2013 by Brooklyn

[Brooklyn]

Again, it's one thing to say that the station you suggest can't be put there because of physical and geographical reasons--and that's perfectly legit.

 

Another counter is an analysis of population: one can say that the new station would hardly attract ridership.

 

These are legitimate counters.....

 

It's quite another to say, no, the MTA doesn't have the money or they should spend it on something else.

 

Do you see the difference?

 

The first two directly respond to the topic and the particular station suggested.

The last one DOESN'T and changes the topic to funding, priorities, etc, things that are OUTSIDE the scope of the thread (and the forum for that matter).

 

Am I making sense?

Edited January 17, 2013 by Brooklyn

[Via Garibaldi 8]

VG8,

 

Pardon me, but these is where I am confused.

 

This thread is about New Stations to be put on existing lines....

 

Why would you come on a thread devoted to such only to turn around and say that you want it, but the MTA doesn't have the money?

 

What purpose does a comment like that serve?

 

To top it off, you are using the same Don't do x, do y instead business....

 

I am puzzled, actually.

 

You know these are called red herrings, right?

 

You're changing the topic.....

 

 

Again, it's one thing to say that the station you suggest can't be put there because of physical and geographical reasons--and that's perfectly legit.

 

Another counter is an analysis of population: one can say that the new station would hardly attract ridership.

 

These are legitimate counters.....

 

It's quite another to say, no, the MTA doesn't have the money or they should spend it on something else.

 

Do you see the difference?

 

The first two directly respond to the topic and the particular station suggested.

The last one DOESN'T and changes the topic to funding, priorities, etc, things that are OUTSIDE the scope of the thread (and the forum for that matter).

 

Am I making sense?

I'm not changing the topic at all.  The fact is we need new stations, no question about it because we must accommodate a growing ridership base. However, that doesn't mean that I'm going to sit back and support throwing new stations here and there just for the hell of it like proposing having a 39th street station on the line when we already have the Times Square Station with entrances going down to 40th & 7th. I'm simply saying that the new stations need to be practical and cost needs to be considered because the fact of the matter is the stations can't be created out of thin air. The money has to come from some where.  Am I making sense?  Otherwise, we can propose having new stations anywhere and as far as I'm concerned it would just become another fantasy thread.

Edited January 17, 2013 by Via Garibaldi 8

[Brooklyn]

Using existing track layouts, where around the system would you put new stations that never had them before?

 

One place I can think of is Allerton Av on the line. Still some good distance from Gun Hill and while NIMBYish it would make yet another alternate Co-op station (along with Baychester/Pelham/Gun Hill)

This was the first post and thread starter.

 

I'm not changing the topic at all.  The fact is we need new stations, no question about it because we must accommodate a growing ridership base. However, that doesn't mean that I'm going to sit back and support throwing new stations here and there just for the hell of it like proposing having a 39th street station on the line when we already have the Times Square Station with entrances going down to 40th & 7th. I'm simply saying that the new stations need to be practical and cost needs to be considered because the fact of the matter is the stations can't be created out of thin air. The money has to come from some where.  Am I making sense?  Otherwise, we can propose having new stations anywhere and as far as I'm concerned it would just become another fantasy thread.

 

Sure you're making sense...and you are still following the red herring you created.

 

You are ascribing things to ME that are incorrect. You bring up the station on the line, but that was not what I said.

 

If you are going to say "it's too expensive", why participate? The thread starter says nothing about that. It was a rather simple and straightforward topic starter.

 

No one is proposing new stations everywhere...I certainly did not. I had what I believe to be solid reasons for the ones I proposed.  I even withdrew one of them after a couple posters gave ME EVIDENCE why that station wouldn't work--they referenced geography.

 

That's my point.

 

They countered me with geographical and physical observations while you countered me with "it's too expensive".

 

Even if you wish people to take the trail of your red herring and bring up MONEY, at least come to the table with some actual figures supporting your contention.

 

My comment still stands.

 

PS...two of my proposals involved being RID of two stations--even if I were to follow your lead about money, wouldn't this save the MTA money in the long run?

Edited January 17, 2013 by Brooklyn

[Metro CSW]

Damn it, CulverExpress. You just had to bump this thread!

[Vistausss]

@Brooklyn: And to avoid getting NIMBYs about how ugly those abandoned stations look, they have to get torn down. And what does that cost? Less than building a new station but it still adds up.

[Brooklyn]

@Brooklyn: And to avoid getting NIMBYs about how ugly those abandoned stations look, they have to get torn down. And what does that cost? Less than building a new station but it still adds up.

 

I am sure....

 

I am also of what the topic is of this thread too and how some people are going off that.

 

I don't post often here, but I will say that some posters seem to frequently distract and point threads in other directions with red herrings and such, and I wanted to point that out.

 

If a thread is posted for a specific purpose, I really don't see what the purpose is of someone coming on it and saying "it's too expensive or do this instead or whatever" to try to derail an otherwise on-topic discussion.

 

That's like going into a boxing match, wondering why two guys are in the middle of the ring with gloves punching each other and then screaming that the boxers should stop boxing and do something else. Again, I really don't see how this is useful or appropriate for that matter.

 

A thread was started, and responses (which were totally on topic) were given, only to be responded to by some as too expensive or that the MTA should do something else.

 

Those two responses are very common here.

 

I won't press my case anymore.

Edited January 17, 2013 by Brooklyn

[Via Garibaldi 8]

This was the first post and thread starter.

 

 

Sure you're making sense...and you are still following the red herring you created.

 

You are ascribing things to ME that are incorrect. You bring up the station on the line, but that was not what I said.

 

If you are going to say "it's too expensive", why participate? The thread starter says nothing about that. It was a rather simple and straightforward topic starter.

 

No one is proposing new stations everywhere...I certainly did not. I had what I believe to be solid reasons for the ones I proposed.  I even withdrew one of them after a couple posters gave ME EVIDENCE why that station wouldn't work--they referenced geography.

 

That's my point.

 

They countered me with geographical and physical observations while you countered me with "it's too expensive".

 

Even if you wish people to take the trail of your red herring and bring up MONEY, at least come to the table with some actual figures supporting your contention.

 

My comment still stands.

 

PS...two of my proposals involved being RID of two stations--even if I were to follow your lead about money, wouldn't this save the MTA money in the long run?

I'm sorry but a few posters in here have made ridiculous suggestions like that "new" train station on 39th street... In any event, the only thing I questioned from your proposal was tearing down two stations and building one and I think it's a pretty good objection.  It seems as if your argument for building one station in between the two is simply to enlarge the platforms and create more exits... Well if that's the case then why not just rehab the two current stations rather than destroying two beautiful stations overall and then building a brand new one in between the old two stations??

 

As for your idea of demolishing two stations saving the in the long run, what would be your premise for coming to this conclusion?

 

I honestly don't see how we can talk about building new stations without considering the cost to build them, whether the original poster mentioned it or not, not unless this is supposed to be a "Fantasy thread" and if that is the case then I don't want to be bothered discussing fantasies.

Edited January 17, 2013 by Via Garibaldi 8

[Brooklyn]

I'm sorry but a few posters in here have made ridiculous suggestions like that "new" train station on 39th street... In any event, the only thing I questioned from your proposal was tearing down two stations and building one and I think it's a pretty good objection.  It seems as if your argument for building one station in between the two is simply to enlarge the platforms and create more exits... Well if that's the case then why not just rehab the two current stations rather than destroying two beautiful stations overall and then building a brand new one in between the old two stations??

 

As for your idea of demolishing two stations saving the in the long run, what would be your premise for coming to this conclusion?

 

I honestly don't see how we can talk about building new stations without considering the cost to build them, whether the original poster mentioned it or not, not unless this is supposed to be a "Fantasy thread" and if that is the case then I don't want to be bothered discussing fantasies.

Ok, then respond TO THEM....I am not responsible for what they said. I am responsible for what I said. The same way I responded directly TO YOU.

 

That wasn't the only thing you questioned....we've been at it for a couple hours now.

 

I have other reasons for why I want the stations built. But my point is you pointing to MONEY and dismissing the suggestions based on that.

 

If that's your attitude, then pretty much most of this site and its threads should be dismissed by you. I really don't see why you're here then. That's my point. You can't come on a thread which was created to talk about NEW STATIONS and then say "well, it costs too much". That makes NO SENSE. Talking about new stations is the point.

 

In addition you keep making these monetary arguments yet can't seem to even give any figures or cost-analysis backing them up.

 

The only reason why I brought up the "saving money" argument was to somewhat back you off.....my core argument was about the purpose of you commenting on money in a thread like this.

Edited January 17, 2013 by Brooklyn

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Ok, then respond TO THEM....I am not responsible for what they said. I am responsible for what I said. The same way I responded directly TO YOU.

 

That wasn't the only thing you questioned....we've been at it for a couple hours now.

 

I have other reasons for why I want the stations built. But my point is you pointing to MONEY and dismissing the suggestions based on that.

 

If that's your attitude, then pretty much most of this site and its threads should be dismissed by you. I really don't see why you're here then. That's my point. You can't come on a thread which was created to talk about NEW STATIONS and then say "well, it costs too much". That makes NO SENSE. Talking about new stations is the point.

 

In addition you keep making these monetary arguments yet can't seem to even give any figures or cost-analysis backing them up.

 

The only reason why I brought up the "saving money" argument was to somewhat back you off.....my core argument was about the purpose of you commenting on money in a thread like this.

So then what in the heck are proposing the new station for then? Just for the hell of it???  You say you have other reasons for building this new station aside from the larger platform and exits so let's hear them then.  Now you're going to sit here and tell me that my sole objection was due to monetary reasons which is total BS.  So is this a fantasy thread or are we having a real discussion here?

Edited January 17, 2013 by Via Garibaldi 8

[Brooklyn]

So then what in the heck are proposing the new station for then? Just for the hell of it???  You say you have other reasons for building this new station aside from the larger platform and exists so let's hear them then.  Now you're going to sit here and tell me that my sole objection was due to monetary reasons which is total BS.  So is this a fantasy thread or are we having a real discussion here?

 

Because that's the topic of this thread.

 

I guess that's kind of what's done on this forum, you know, responding to thread topics.....right??? Or am I wrong?

[Brooklyn]

Also, if "it's too expensive" why would my explanations matter?

 

Why would this thread matter? Or much of the forum for that matter?

 

 

How can someone even argue with you saying that?

 

Again, may I please ask why you're here?

Edited January 17, 2013 by Brooklyn

[Quill Depot]

I personally do not find 39th Street on 7th Avenue that bad...

 

- About the transfer, it is for 7th Avenue riders

- It extremely benefits 7th Avenue riders and the crowd in the vicinity

- About that "There are too many stops on the 7th Avenue Local", by the way, those stops are used much (18th Street...)

If 18th can work, 39th can.

Edited January 17, 2013 by Quill Depot

[Quill Depot]

Delete, double post

Edited January 17, 2013 by Quill Depot

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Also, if "it's too expensive" why would my explanations matter?

 

Why would this thread matter? Or much of the forum for that matter?

 

 

How can someone even argue with you saying that?

 

Again, may I please ask why you're here?

LOL... I asked you to clarify and further elaborate on your proposal... Nothing more, nothing less. Can you do that or not?  It seems your issue is you think we just propose new stations and no one can question you on the logistics of it.  Quite frankly I still would like clarification on if this is supposed to be a fantasy thread or what.  If that's the case then fine I won't bother.  

Edited January 17, 2013 by Via Garibaldi 8