Union Tpke Posted March 31, 2016 Share #76 Posted March 31, 2016 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. you could have a tiny extension for a yard at Floyd Bennett Field Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobtehpanda Posted April 1, 2016 Share #77 Posted April 1, 2016 you could have a tiny extension for a yard at Floyd Bennett Field State law requires that every acre of parkland used must be replaced by an acre of parkland nearby. So unless the MTA has some land lying around near the area to give away, it ain't happenin. Floyd Bennett Field is also under the National Park Service, so I don't think they would go along with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Union Tpke Posted April 1, 2016 Share #78 Posted April 1, 2016 https://www.google.com/maps/place/2835+Flatbush+Ave,+Brooklyn,+NY+11234/@40.6015154,-73.9139635,17z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m2!3m1!1s0x89c2431358127661:0xa11ace048d36abe How about here? https://www.google.com/maps/place/2835+Flatbush+Ave,+Brooklyn,+NY+11234/@40.6015154,-73.9139635,17z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m2!3m1!1s0x89c2431358127661:0xa11ace048d36abe How about here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobtehpanda Posted April 2, 2016 Share #79 Posted April 2, 2016 https://www.google.com/maps/place/2835+Flatbush+Ave,+Brooklyn,+NY+11234/@40.6015154,-73.9139635,17z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m2!3m1!1s0x89c2431358127661:0xa11ace048d36abe How about here? https://www.google.com/maps/place/2835+Flatbush+Ave,+Brooklyn,+NY+11234/@40.6015154,-73.9139635,17z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m2!3m1!1s0x89c2431358127661:0xa11ace048d36abe How about here? I mean, I guess? Granted, it's private property, but it's probably popular since there aren't that many marinas or boathouses in the first place, so people would oppose it. In general, this area is bad for a yard since it's a high risk flood zone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P3F Posted April 2, 2016 Share #80 Posted April 2, 2016 An even worse idea is extending the line to the Rockaways and building a yard in one of the many nearby vacant spaces. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
46Dover Posted April 2, 2016 Author Share #81 Posted April 2, 2016 I mean, I guess? Granted, it's private property, but it's probably popular since there aren't that many marinas or boathouses in the first place, so people would oppose it. In general, this area is bad for a yard since it's a high risk flood zone. And God forbid we have another Superstorm Sandy.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wallyhorse Posted April 5, 2016 Share #82 Posted April 5, 2016 I would rather see the 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 into high water table areas such as South Ferry along with 34th Street you might as well build an elevated line. It would definitely have to be elevated. My thinking would be if possible to continue the New Lots line along New Lots itself to where that ends at Logan Street (with stops at Shepard Avenue and Logan Street-Blake Avenue where you have a major school complex), then over to Sutter Avenue and across Sutter Avenue until it reached Pitkin (with stops at Euclid Avenue, Lincoln Avenue-Eldert Lane and 79th-80th Street) before continuing on Pitkin (with stops at 87th Street and Cross Bay Boulevard) before then going on new trackage built above the existing Rockaway tracks of the with stops above the existing stations at North Conduit (and possibly also Aqueduct Racetrack) and a terminal at Howard Beach (the terminal being four tracks). This could be done where the and both operate full-time to Howard Beach in this scenario and provide alternatives to the (and obviously transfers to the at the last two stations noted). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CenSin Posted April 5, 2016 Share #83 Posted April 5, 2016 It’s going to need a third track. Airport passengers wouldn’t be too happy if a track just failed and there was no backup to keep them moving. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wallyhorse Posted April 5, 2016 Share #84 Posted April 5, 2016 It’s going to need a third track. Airport passengers wouldn’t be too happy if a track just failed and there was no backup to keep them moving. Definitely: From what I saw on Google Earth, there definitely can be a third track built on that entire segment (tunnel portal past Utica Avenue-New Lots on the current line) and maybe done where for instance perhaps Junius Street is re-done as an "express" stations (in the case of Junius Street moving the station so it has a more direct connection to the ) that can also be short-turn points when needed. That can be three tracks until New Lots (unless you can somehow rebuild New Lots to be a three-track, two island platform station as well) and then after New Lots back to three tracks to where it would go above the existing Rockaway tracks on the and from there expand to four tracks for the final segment to Howard Beach (as noted, that station for the and would be a four-track station). If that were done with Junius Street (and possibly New Lots) converted to express stations (and other stops after that TBD also made into "express" stations (Cross Bay Boulevard would likely be one of the express stations after New Lots), you could have the actually be peak-direction express (which depending might actually be the reverse direction of the normal for those going to the airport), One change from what I originally wrote: The line should shift to Dumont Avenue and then Fountain Avenue (with the stop at Blake Avenue) as Fountain Avenue is wider than Logan Street with other stops after that as noted in the other post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I love Trains99 Posted April 17, 2016 Share #85 Posted April 17, 2016 Extending the towards Gateway Mall will require (as what others are saying in this topic) demolishing of homes and apartments in the area. How can the MTA convert the Livonia Yard into a station? I mean where the exits going to be placed? If that's the case the residents in Gateway can use the B84 to get to New Lots. I don't think the Livonia yard would get any ridership if it become a station. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Threxx Posted April 17, 2016 Share #86 Posted April 17, 2016 Extending the towards Gateway Mall will require (as what others are saying in this topic) demolishing of homes and apartments in the area. How can the MTA convert the Livonia Yard into a station? I mean where the exits going to be placed? If that's the case the residents in Gateway can use the B84 to get to New Lots. I don't think the Livonia yard would get any ridership if it become a station. https://www.google.com/maps/@40.6636645,-73.8789898,3a,75y,358.09h,90t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s_tzIlWBxgyTbiY0mJFX4bg!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3D_tzIlWBxgyTbiY0mJFX4bg%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D358.55359%26pitch%3D0!7i13312!8i6656 Exit goes right here, under where the yard is. If you want to know how it can be done, look at Harlem-148th Street. It's 100% doable and cost-effective, and the mere fact that the B84 route exists shows that there is ridership demand in the area. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GojiMet86 Posted April 17, 2016 Share #87 Posted April 17, 2016 Get rid of one track. and the two tracks on the sides become the tracks for revenue service. The space of that one track becomes the platform. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trainmaster5 Posted April 21, 2016 Share #88 Posted April 21, 2016 Wasn't this thread about extending the to Linden Blvd? Somehow we ventured into a to Gateway Center conversation. Then it begat an el over Linwood St to the mall. I remember pointing out that an el running past homes down there was a no-go IMO for various reasons but some people thought otherwise. I was at Gateway Mall Saturday night with some friends and brought up this idea with some people who are still residents unlike myself. Three of us don't pay for transit, 2 retirees and 1 NYPD, while the others use the B6 or B20 buses for the most part when they don't drive. The couple who live closest to the mall on Flatlands and Elton are adamant about any el construction to the mall. They want the proposed one family housing stock completed for the obvious reason. Private ownership usually raises property values and usually means increased police presence in the area. We are all aware of the shaky underpinning of much of the development in the area, including Spring Creek Towers and my old apartment complex. That's why all of the new construction, including the mall, is low level. When I tried to explain the Linwood Street routing for the proposed el that I read in this thread they raised the same objections I did plus one I completely overlooked. We drove from the mall and back 3 times making the Vandalia-Flatlands-Fountain loop each time. Even if an el was to be built along Linwood St from New Lots Yard southward it can't reach the Gateway Mall because of the zoning and construction already underway and planned. Linwood St dead ends just below Flatlands Avenue! Are we really going to build an el over and through the new housing being added to the tax rolls? NYC is about $$$$. When the Gateway Mall was proposed and built it was located for the auto user. We all looked at the public transportation issue and concluded that the developers weren't interested in the local community at all. Not even as employees or consumers. Why do you think the eastern anchor of the mall was the Home Depot? It wasn't for the apartment dwellers who were the predominant residents when the mall was constructed. The B83 and Q8 were deemed sufficient eventually. The more important element, IMO, is the new residents north of the mall. Private housing with auto parking. Parkway access "around the corner" so to speak. The B84 was created for those residents of the new housing that don't drive. The B6, B20, and BM5 are also in the area. It's my opinion that an el being built down to Gateway is a pipe dream. It's more a wish than a necessity. Carry on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.