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  
46Dover

Call for 3 extension to Linden Blvd

Recommended Posts

Most stations in the system have a quarter mile or a third of a mile in between them from the end of one platform to the beginning to the other. Using the Google Earth ruler, which is rather precise, if you assumed that the halfway point of the proposed Linden Blvd station was exactly in the middle of Linden Blvd, then it would still be about a quarter mile. Using that same assumption and now assuming that the end of the Flatlands station is in the middle of Flatlands Avenue, the distance would actually be longer than the distances (platform end to platform beginning) between Rockaway to Junius, Pennsylvania and Van Siclen, and Van Siclen to New Lots, which are about 900 to 1000 feet. The new stations would have a distance roughly equivalent to those on, let's say, the Astoria line.

Edited by GojiMet86

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

to the one who suggested reactivating court street where the transit museum is, where would the museum go if the train comes through?

Simple. The Transit Museum will stay at Court Street. Reactiviating that station would be quite useless. The station is just blocks away from Hoyt-Schemerhorn, and there a ton of other lines in Downtown Brooklyn. The short-lived shuttle between Hoyt-Schemerhorn and Court proved just that (low passenger usage, short distance between stations). So in other words, no to reactivating Court Street as a passenger stop, it's better as a museum.

Most stations in the system have a quarter mile or a third of a mile in between them from the end of one platform to the beginning to the other. Using the Google Earth ruler, which is rather precise, if you assumed that the halfway point of the proposed Linden Blvd station was exactly in the middle of Linden Blvd, then it would still be about a quarter mile. Using that same assumption and now assuming that the end of the Flatlands station is in the middle of Flatlands Avenue, the distance would actually be longer than the distances (platform end to platform beginning) between Rockaway to Junius, Pennsylvania and Van Siclen, and Van Siclen to New Lots, which are about 900 to 1000 feet. The new stations would have a distance roughly equivalent to those on, let's say, the Astoria line.

So in other words, the extension could be passing by the yard, then underground, maybe we could have a station at Flatlands Avenue before the shopping mall down ahead or maybe just be like the (7) train extension, and continue straight to the Gateway Center. Edited by TheNewYorkElevated

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Simple. The Transit Museum will stay at Court Street. Reactiviating that station would be quite useless. The station is just blocks away from Hoyt-Schemerhorn, and there a ton of other lines in Downtown Brooklyn. The short-lived shuttle between Hoyt-Schemerhorn and Court proved just that (low passenger usage, short distance between stations). So in other words, no to reactivating Court Street as a passenger stop, it's better as a museum. So in other words, the extension could be passing by the yard, then underground, maybe we could have a station at Flatlands Avenue before the shopping mall down ahead or maybe just be like the (7) train extension, and continue straight to the Gateway Center.

Break the tracks off right before Boerum Place (Transit Museum) S curve on to State street downgrade under the bay.With that said it's going to be a undertaking on the Manhattan side going under/over the Joralemon and Montague tubes plus SF station. If you clear them deep on the Manhattan side the grade coming in Brooklyn is going to be killer .Steinway's wouldn't have anything on this.

Edited by RailRunRob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Break the tracks off right before Boerum Place (Transit Museum) S curve on to State street downgrade under the bay.With that said it's going to be a undertaking on the Manhattan side going under/over the Joralemon and Montague tubes plus SF station. If you clear them deep on the Manhattan side the grade coming in Brooklyn is going to be killer .Steinway's wouldn't have anything on this.

Can't forget new SF. The SF loops sit at the top closest to the street, followed by Joralemon under that, then Montague, and new SF under all of that.you gonna have a grade somewhere in the double digits lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can't forget new SF. The SF loops sit at the top closest to the street, followed by Joralemon under that, then Montague, and new SF under all of that.you gonna have a grade somewhere in the double digits lol.

Yep that's actually the South ferry I was thinking about has to be at least 60 feet down. At that point doesn't matter if you bypass Court street station or not still going to have to cross the other tubes. The only other way is if the tube curves and hugs the waterline for abit and keeps it's depth kinda like Roosevelt Island. Both the Montague and Joralemon tubes this close to the waterline are beginning their grade's upward towards Manhattan. Plus with the slight curve you'd miss the New SF altogether. With a curve on to Water Street. Not sure what it looks like  geologically in that area for a station at Hanover Square at depth.  This would be quite the engineering feat that's forsure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or you could build a bridge.

A politically unpalatable solution, perhaps, but a springboard towards future service expansion. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or you could build a bridge.

A politically unpalatable solution, perhaps, but a springboard towards future service expansion. 

Unpalatable may be the word of the day. Beyond appeal infrastructure wise how would you connect it to the underground network once in Manhattan space is becoming more sparse by the year with the building boom also where would you create a portal in Brooklyn Heights for that matter as well?

Edited by RailRunRob
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would rather see the (3) extended into Queens. Serving J.F.K. Airport, and the southeastern areas of New York City is more important than a one station extension into a former swamp.

 

Also you have to remember that the areas south of Brooklyn College along with most of the Utica Avenue area was former swampland also. That was why the original proposals showed them as being elevated for the Nostrand Avenue Line south of Brooklyn College, and for the whole Utica Avenue Line as well. The water table is extremely high there. Similar to that of south Florida.

 

Modern tunneling methods could help, but judging from the recent works of the (MTA) into high water table areas such as South Ferry along with 34th Street you might as well build an elevated line.

Edited by Roadcruiser1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Simple. The Transit Museum will stay at Court Street. Reactiviating that station would be quite useless. The station is just blocks away from Hoyt-Schemerhorn, and there a ton of other lines in Downtown Brooklyn. The short-lived shuttle between Hoyt-Schemerhorn and Court proved just that (low passenger usage, short distance between stations). So in other words, no to reactivating Court Street as a passenger stop, it's better as a museum. So in other words, the extension could be passing by the yard, then underground, maybe we could have a station at Flatlands Avenue before the shopping mall down ahead or maybe just be like the (7) train extension, and continue straight to the Gateway Center.

 

Any extension to Flatlands is going to have to be elevated because of the high water table and the flood zone risk.

 

Or you could build a bridge.

A politically unpalatable solution, perhaps, but a springboard towards future service expansion. 

 

A bridge across New York Harbor is not happening, because it would be too expensive and there's no feasible way to do it.

 

I would rather see the (3) extended into Queens. Serving J.F.K. Airport, and the southeastern areas of New York City is more important than a one station extension into a former swamp.

 

Also you have to remember that the areas south of Brooklyn College along with most of the Utica Avenue area was former swampland also. That was why the original proposals showed them as being elevated for the Nostrand Avenue Line south of Brooklyn College, and for the whole Utica Avenue Line as well. The water table is extremely high there. Similar to that of south Florida.

 

Modern tunneling methods could help, but judging from the recent works of the (MTA) into high water table areas such as South Ferry along with 34th Street you might as well build an elevated line.

 

There is no need for the (3) to go to Queens. The (3) is already all local heading towards New Lots Av; no one is going to take such a slow train when a bus to Jamaica and the (E), or a bus to Jamaica, the (J) and (A) is going to be much faster.

 

Also, what is this obsession with "serving the airport"? The airport is already served by transit; because of the layout of JFK extending the subway is not a good idea.

Edited by bobtehpanda
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would rather see the (3) extended into Queens. Serving J.F.K. Airport, and the southeastern areas of New York City is more important than a one station extension into a former swamp.

 

Also you have to remember that the areas south of Brooklyn College along with most of the Utica Avenue area was former swampland also. That was why the original proposals showed them as being elevated for the Nostrand Avenue Line south of Brooklyn College, and for the whole Utica Avenue Line as well. The water table is extremely high there. Similar to that of south Florida.

 

Modern tunneling methods could help, but judging from the recent works of the (MTA) into high water table areas such as South Ferry along with 34th Street you might as well build an elevated line.

 

this is an example of an idea from a foamer, not a realistic or even necessary route.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

to the one who suggested reactivating court street where the transit museum is, where would the museum go if the train comes through?

Watch someone suggest Bergen Street Lower Level or 9th Avenue Lower Level.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The other platforms at E 180 St could be enclosed.

Weren't expecting that, were you?

????

Edited by Jcb

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The other platforms at E 180 St could be enclosed.

Weren't expecting that, were you?

 

 

B division cars would have no access.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

B division cars would have no access.

Shave back one of the platforms.

 

East 180th makes a lot of sense because the area below the platforms could hold static displays of full size buses along with exhibits and a bigger computer lab (and maybe room for a standalone OpenBVE area?).

 

EDIT: had to read it again... You're right. The B division cars wouldn't be able to run from the museum. They'd have to be trucked...

Edited by Around the Horn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's stopping the MTA from extending the 4 from Utica Avenue down to New Lots Avenue full time? I feel that would help the area much better than moving the 3 down to Linden, which I can't picture as a working terminal.

Edited by NY1635

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's stopping the MTA from extending the 4 from Utica Avenue down to New Lots Avenue full time? I feel that would help the area much better than moving the 3 down to Linden, which I can't picture as a working terminal.

 

I think it's because of ridership on the New Lots branch and the (4) runs more frequently (rush hour) than the (3) does. Having grew up on both lines, I don't think there's a need for the (4) to be extended down to New Lots 24/7.

Edited by RollOver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The bellmouths for the Utica Avenue Line connect to the local tracks, so the (3) would run via Utica, and the (4) would run to New Lots, or hopefully Linden Blvd by then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And it can only be the local track:

 

25126485936_9b1403ffe8_c.jpgIMG_5099 by GojiMet86, on Flickr

That bellmouth looks uncomfortably close to the platform. The switch is going to have to start right where the train stops like at 36 Street/4 Avenue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

  

 

You hit the nail on the head. I'm surprised that we have so many posters who overlooked the obvious obstacle while appearing to champion the destruction of somebody's  neighborhood for so little gain.I thought I'd see a response like yours within the first 5 posts. When I lived in the neighborhood and worked out of Livonia Yard my idea to benefit the neighborhood's transit options was to expand the yard to increase train storage options during peak hours.At that time all I could see was the obvious decline around the yard where the adjacent streets became a wide open dumping area with no NYPD or sanitation police enforcement. I did know about some of the planned improvements but I never really connected all the dots. Instead the downward decline of the neighborhood was stopped, new housing was built to the south/southeast of the yard, the mall was constructed at the extreme southern edge and the B84 bus service was introduced recently. IMO that's the best outcome for that area. No destruction of private property, no upheaval of the residents and the B84

service can be increased if warranted. I think there are many more pressing transport needs then this idea. Just my opinion. Carry on.

 

I didn't realized it, but the B84 is the (3) train extension......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IRT-Rogers-640x336.jpg

IRT-Utica-Nostrand-614x640.jpg

Nice, but those stations along Utica Ave should be designed with the exits at the end, not in the middle. Especially at Winthrop(Rutland) and Church(Snyder).... Edited by SubBus
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice, but those stations along Utica Ave should be designed with the exits at the end, not in the middle. Especially at Winthrop(Rutland) and Church(Snyder)....

 

I agree with you but I just took this map from Vanshnookenraggen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IRT-Rogers-640x336.jpg

IRT-Utica-Nostrand-614x640.jpg

The people in that area are not gonna agree to having a subway yard in their neighborhood. Bad enough they aren't too fond of Flatbush depot.

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.