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.
EE Broadway Local

Department of Subways - Proposals/Ideas

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, engineerboy6561 said:

Comments are above in blue.

i'm happy that you Partially Agree and Partially Disagree, I respect your opinion and i understand.

Ok I Will Keep (J) just from Broad Street to Rosedale-Hook Creek Blvd and (Z) from Chambers Street to Rosedale since Chambers Street supposed to be a Giant Hub like Coney Island.

Also for the (A), you're Right. I Was just kidding. it is impossible to extend to Reads Lane.

For the Cambria Heights, Back in the 40's during WW2 there was a Plan to Extend to Cambria Heights via an extension of the subway under Pitkin Avenue, also there was a myth claim that 76th Street Station had existed and it was sealed off. The Fulton St subway should be extended from Euclid Ave along Pitkin Ave to Linden Blvd as a 4 track subway. Where the extension meets the Rockaways branch a new connection will be built so that express trains from the Fulton St subway can run to the Rockaways. The Fulton St Extension will continue east under Linden Blvd as 3 tracks for rush hour express service out to 235th St and Cross Island Parkway. The existing Liberty Ave elevated structure will then be torn down. 2nd Ave service would then run along the Fulton St subway and extension into either the Rockaways or further east to South Jamaica.

Here are the Links:

https://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/21/nyregion/tunnel-vision-next-stop-twilight-zone-a-k-a-76th-st-station.html

http://secondavenuesagas.com/2011/10/19/the-underground-mysteries-76th-street/

https://untappedcities.com/2015/08/31/searching-for-the-lost-76th-street-subway-station-the-roswell-of-the-nyc-subway-photos/

About the (G) and the (K), it would rather prefer building Flushing Trunk Line, would be built parallel to Queens Plaza with 2 tracks serving Manhattan trains and 2 tracks serving a rerouted IND Crosstown G Line. The actual subway would be constructed underneath the Sunnyside railroad yards which is owned by the MTA. A second station would be built at Queens Plaza serving the Flushing Trunk Line with a free transfer to the Queens Blvd Line. The tracks under 37th Ave will be the first section of a super-express subway out to the Rockaways and will go as far as Broadway-Roosevelt Ave. After Roosevelt Ave the super-express line will head south along 78th St until it reaches the Long Island Railroad tracks at which point it will surface and run to the Rockaways along the abandoned LIRR Rockaways Line. There was a Plan back in the 60's plan of building a super-express line parallel to the Queens Blvd line along the LIRR Main line. The advantage to such a line would be a much quicker trip for commuters coming from further out in Queens. Any expansion into eastern Queens needs to deal with the long distance from Manhattan. Also there were plans called for various ways to connect the far off peninsula to the system; one connected the Rockaways via both the Queens Blvd line at Roosevelt Ave and a new trunk line through northern Brooklyn, a later plan called for express service from the Rockaways to connect to the Queens Blvd line at Forest Hills. This version would branch off from the super-express line at Rego Park and follow the abandoned right-of-way south through Forest Hills, Parkside, and Woodhaven where it would connect to the existing subway service to the Rockaways. This connection would slash the time it takes for riders to get to Midtown by bypassing downtown Brooklyn and downtown Manhattan.

for the (F), same thing about the Cambria Heights that i explained, After WW2, The subway was planned to be expanded eastward as development but the subway only made it one more station. The area is now densely populated and home to many transit dependent commuters. A 2 track extension from 179th St along Hillside Ave to Springfield Blvd in Queens Village is one of the better plans for subway expansion. At Springfield Blvd the line could continue along Hillside Ave to Floral Park-Little Neck Pkwy or could turn south along Braddock Ave, terminating at Jamaica Ave in Bellerose.

for the (J) and the (Z), They should be the line extended to Rosedale as there is not that much demand for Subway service in Southeast Queens (trains to arrive every 10 minutes at Peak Hours and every 15 to 20 minutes at Off Peak Hours), while the (E) is extended to Queens Village-Springfield Blvd.

as for the (M) and (R), the extension is possible, existing tunnels would be to extend the local train (M) and (R) from Forest Hills to Kew Gardens and into a new tunnel under Union Turnpike out to Floral Park. it would bring service from the Queens Boulevard line to the transit deserts of Pomonok, Floral Park, Bellerose, Hollis and Fresh Meadows in Central Queens. Also the (A) is Super Longer than the (R) running from 207th Street to Far Rockaway.

for the (T), I was refering to Broadway-125th Street.

for the (4), there are Plans to extend into Utica Avenue even Bill De Blasio support that Plan, which aims to improve transit, reduce emissions, and fight poverty. Since April 2019 planning was resumed when New York City Transit joined city agencies in launching the Utica Avenue Transit Improvement Study. The study will look into a subway extension, improved bus rapid transit, and a new light rail line.

Link for the Utica Avenue Subway:

https://www.ny1.com/nyc/all-boroughs/transit/2019/04/06/utica-avenue-subway-extension-mta-to-study-if-it-is-worth-pursuing

For the (9), There are Plans to Extend the (9) to Gowanus

http://secondavenuesagas.com/2016/09/16/the-9-train-lives-in-red-hook/

These Extensions i've mentioned is needed because These new services would substantially reduce commute times for New Yorkers and improve access to neighborhoods, which means more choices for jobs and housing. Expansion of the mostly underground subway system would reduce the number of surface transit trips and ease traffic congestion, providing more space for repurposing of roadways for pedestrians, bikers, and goods transporters. There are also opportunities for more redevelopment around stations, in some cases short-term, and others in the future. Finally, these improvements would substantially improve access to major open spaces, such as Alley Pond Park and Floyd Bennett Field. Large parts of Queens are not on the subway system—although many of these neighborhoods have Long Island Rail Road stations. Ridership is very low at these stops because service is infrequent and expensive. A more frequent subway-like service at these stations—and adds eight new stations in Elmhurst, Corona, Rego Park, Rochdale, Laurelton, and South Jamaica are needed.

Sources:

http://fourthplan.org/action/new-subways

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems unlikely that the MTA will consider any extension project until the Second Avenue line is complete. That is their main focus. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, transitfan111 said:

It seems unlikely that the MTA will consider any extension project until the Second Avenue line is complete. That is their main focus. 

True

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

DeBlasio’s support for a Utica Avenue extension is very disappointingly tepid, at best. Certainly more so now versus his first term as mayor. It’s really such a shame on his part. 

Though I really would like to see the MTA’s upcoming study soon and I do hope it will produce some positive results.

Edited by T to Dyre Avenue

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

DeBlasio’s support for a Utica Avenue extension is very disappointingly tepid, at best. Certainly more so now versus his first term as mayor. It’s really such a shame on his part. 

Though I really would like to see the MTA’s upcoming study soon and I do hope it will produce some positive results.

I live a few blocks from Utica Avenue near the southern end of the line and I do hope there are  good results of this study. Hopefully they can rebuild Rogers Junction to support additional capacity as well.

However, nothing should be built unless the (MTA) goes through some serious construction and cost reforms to ensure that the cost of building a new subway (or an elevated) is not more than two times more expensive than similar projects occurring in similar cities overseas. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, JeremiahC99 said:

Hopefully they can rebuild Rogers Junction to support additional capacity as well.

That's only one limiter.

Good luck turning more than 18 trains at Flatbush Avenue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
34 minutes ago, Lex said:

That's only one limiter.

Good luck turning more than 18 trains at Flatbush Avenue.

And that too. They also need to fix Flatbush by adding relay tracks (and a accompanying double crossover) south of the station, and equipping the station with a new cross under to get access between the platforms. This way, with these new relay tracks, track 2 would be exit only and track 3 would be for trains entering service. This is similar to the situation at Broad Street (J)/(Z) station. The current double crossover north of station would no longer be needed.

Either way, between the Utica extension, Rogers Junction, and Flatbush Avenue reconfiguration, honestly shouldn't be constructing anything new until some serious costs and construction reform is needed so that large scale projects DO NOT become 7 times more expensive than other similar projects elsewhere, and construction does not take too damn long. It’s really getting irritating to not see any efficiency in construction to keep costs down and construction time short all because the corrupt unions want their employees working and the contractors want money.

Edited by JeremiahC99

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Lex said:

That's only one limiter.

Good luck turning more than 18 trains at Flatbush Avenue.

Why would you need to do that...?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, RR503 said:

Why would you need to do that...?

It's not really an issue on weekends, but on weekdays, loads of people are riding, and 18 peak trains are just barely enough to handle Nostrand Avenue service. (The (5) picks up the better part of its ridership along just that stretch, while most who take the (2) transfer at Franklin Avenue, thereby balancing the loads. For what it's worth, the (2) still retains some number of passengers.)

Perhaps a proper extension would help. After all, Nostrand Avenue still has untapped potential.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Lex said:

It's not really an issue on weekends, but on weekdays, loads of people are riding, and 18 peak trains are just barely enough to handle Nostrand Avenue service. (The (5) picks up the better part of its ridership along just that stretch, while most who take the (2) transfer at Franklin Avenue, thereby balancing the loads. For what it's worth, the (2) still retains some number of passengers.)

Perhaps a proper extension would help. After all, Nostrand Avenue still has untapped potential.

This is exactly why a 5 to Utica Avenue will never work. Franklin Avenue will never be able to handle the number of passengers on the platforms.

People keep talking about Rogers Junction, yet they know nothing about that area.

Flatbush terminal is the bigger problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
10 minutes ago, transitfan111 said:

This is exactly why a 5 to Utica Avenue will never work. Franklin Avenue will never be able to handle the number of passengers on the platforms.

People keep talking about Rogers Junction, yet they know nothing about that area.

Flatbush terminal is the bigger problem.

Yes, because a terminal on one branch is a bigger issue than a junction that handles all of the IRT express lines. If it's such a problem then add tail tracks (a la Broad) and call it a day.

 It is true that riders will have to transfer at Franklin, but given optimization you wouldn't be waiting long... riders would much rather prefer sitting on a platform for 2-3 mins to transfer than sitting in a tunnel. 

Edited by R68OnBroadway
accidentally deleted a part
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Lex said:

It's not really an issue on weekends, but on weekdays, loads of people are riding, and 18 peak trains are just barely enough to handle Nostrand Avenue service. (The (5) picks up the better part of its ridership along just that stretch, while most who take the (2) transfer at Franklin Avenue, thereby balancing the loads. For what it's worth, the (2) still retains some number of passengers.)

Perhaps a proper extension would help. After all, Nostrand Avenue still has untapped potential.

Nostrand could certainly take more tph, but it isn’t like those trains arrive at Franklin crushloaded, either. There’s room to grow with current capacity. Certainly something to be looked at in the long run, though, especially if Utica isn’t built. 

The reason I question whether or not it’s an impediment to doing things to Rogers is essentially what R68 said above — this is just one branch. A well operated Utica and NL could definitely pick up slack. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, R68OnBroadway said:

Yes, because a terminal on one branch is a bigger issue than a junction that handles all of the IRT express lines. If it's such a problem then add tail tracks (a la Broad) and call it a day.

How about you take a visit to Flatbush Av to take a look at the station. The rebuild will be more trouble than what it's worth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, RR503 said:

Nostrand could certainly take more tph, but it isn’t like those trains arrive at Franklin crushloaded, either. There’s room to grow with current capacity. Certainly something to be looked at in the long run, though, especially if Utica isn’t built. 

The reason I question whether or not it’s an impediment to doing things to Rogers is essentially what R68 said above — this is just one branch. A well operated Utica and NL could definitely pick up slack. 

Problem is, Utica already has more trains than it really needs (not so much for the (4) in this regard, but altogether, yes).

For clarity, I never indicated that one would preclude the other, just that improvements at one would do little with the other remaining poorly designed for its purposes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/4/2019 at 6:44 PM, JeremiahC99 said:

And that too. They also need to fix Flatbush by adding relay tracks (and a accompanying double crossover) south of the station, and equipping the station with a new cross under to get access between the platforms. This way, with these new relay tracks, track 2 would be exit only and track 3 would be for trains entering service. This is similar to the situation at Broad Street (J)/(Z) station. The current double crossover north of station would no longer be needed.

Either way, between the Utica extension, Rogers Junction, and Flatbush Avenue reconfiguration, honestly shouldn't be constructing anything new until some serious costs and construction reform is needed so that large scale projects DO NOT become 7 times more expensive than other similar projects elsewhere, and construction does not take too damn long. It’s really getting irritating to not see any efficiency in construction to keep costs down and construction time short all because the corrupt unions want their employees working and the contractors want money.

Agreed that Flatbush needs to be fixed. Relay tracks and a crossover south of the station would be a step in the right direction. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

Agreed that Flatbush needs to be fixed. Relay tracks and a crossover south of the station would be a step in the right direction. 

Totally, considering that I am a daily user of the station. I cannot tell you how many times I’ve been stuck between Newkirk and Flatbush writing for far too long waiting for trains to leave. It just can’t handle today’s capacity. Maybe we need 4 relay tracks south of the station for better efficiency.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, JeremiahC99 said:

Totally, considering that I am a daily user of the station. I cannot tell you how many times I’ve been stuck between Newkirk and Flatbush writing for far too long waiting for trains to leave. It just can’t handle today’s capacity. Maybe we need 4 relay tracks south of the station for better efficiency.

Because buildings don't need foundations...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Lex said:

Because buildings don't need foundations...

That’s in an ideal world. However, with that in mind, maybe two relay tracks can be fine as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, MysteriousBtrain said:

How about you take a visit to Flatbush Av to take a look at the station. The rebuild will be more trouble than what it's worth.

Provided you widen the entry/exit areas to compensate for the loss of that middle space, you’d be fine...you’d probably even be able to cut back some of the really narrow area at the north end. 

1 hour ago, Lex said:

Because buildings don't need foundations...

A 4 track ROW w/o platforms wouldn’t even bring you to the lot line. Nostrand is 80’ wide. Whether or not spending on a 4 track relay yard is a good use of resources, though, is a very good question. As you increase tracks at a turnaround point, your efficiency usually decreases — 179 and the like have them more for storage purposes. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, RR503 said:

A 4 track ROW w/o platforms wouldn’t even bring you to the lot line. Nostrand is 80’ wide. Whether or not spending on a 4 track relay yard is a good use of resources, though, is a very good question. As you increase tracks at a turnaround point, your efficiency usually decreases — 179 and the like have them more for storage purposes. 

Even disregarding how much space would be needed (or how else it would affect foundations), I honestly don't see the use in extending the line just far enough for storage and relays (in a pinch), as there's still much more that could possibly be served.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, MysteriousBtrain said:

How about you take a visit to Flatbush Av to take a look at the station. The rebuild will be more trouble than what it's worth.

This isn't totally impossible, they planned to do this in the '70s and '80s (before the Archer Av Subway and 63 St tunnel blew up the capital budget)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Lex said:

Even disregarding how much space would be needed (or how else it would affect foundations), I honestly don't see the use in extending the line just far enough for storage and relays (in a pinch), as there's still much more that could possibly be served.

It's the difference between what was costed at a few hundred million vs possibly a billion and change.

Any new station is going to need surface property takings. That was a huge line item for Second Avenue, where the zoning had been put in place for several decades to include provisions for subway stations and ventilation in new development. Property prices are lower in Brooklyn, but there hasn't been equivalent preparation.

  • Upvote 1

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.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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