Jump to content

NYC's overgrown population. Will the subway be able to handle it?


Javier

Recommended Posts

I don't support getting rid of conductors in any way shape or form.  They did that with the SIR and it led to TONS of riff-raff riding and people farebeating.  I would only support such a system if security could be maintained, and there was a secure way of knowing that EVERYONE that got on paid.  Metro-North is a premium ride and I would like to maintain a civilized, clean ride. There's already enough bums riding the subways as it is using them as their personal bathroom.  We don't need that on the commuter lines too.  I'm sure that riders in other suburban areas of the city along with those in Westchester and areas such as Greenwich agree with me.

 

SIR is also free if you're not going to St. George or the station right after it, though. In Europe they can do this and it's fine, it's not as if New York has a significantly higher crime rate or worse vagrancy (see: Paris, Berlin)

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 112
  • Created
  • Last Reply

SIR is also free if you're not going to St. George or the station right after it, though. In Europe they can do this and it's fine, it's not as if New York has a significantly higher crime rate or worse vagrancy (see: Paris, Berlin)

New York City has a homeless problem that is worsening though despite the de Blasio administration trying to report otherwise.  Real estate prices in Paris and Berlin are also increasing as is the case in most of Western Europe (save perhaps Portugal, Spain and Greece since their economies are in the tanks), but those cities don't have a subway system that is open 24/7, and crime has been increasing underground.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When the Metro-North cut fares in CT, the resulting ridership rise created more than enough revenue to replace it.

 

It should also be noted that Paris specifically does not use conductors on its commuter rails; everything is done using SBS style proof-of-payment. If you were to switch the LIRR or the Metro-North over to that system (for at least the frequent commuter lines), you would pretty much get enough cost savings to justify lower fares.

The RER doesn't have conductors or even a need proof of payment because you get in the same way you get in on the Bus, Metro, or Tram. Tap your Navigo and go.

 

I don't support getting rid of conductors in any way shape or form.  They did that with the SIR and it led to TONS of riff-raff riding and people farebeating.  I would only support such a system if security could be maintained, and there was a secure way of knowing that EVERYONE that got on paid.  Metro-North is a premium ride and I would like to maintain a civilized, clean ride. There's already enough bums riding the subways as it is using them as their personal bathroom, along with the endless stream of panhandlers and obnoxious performers and kids that "ain't selling no candy for no basketball team". <_<   We don't need that on the commuter lines too.  I'm sure that riders in other suburban areas of the city along with those in Westchester and Connecticut would agree with me, and there is no way in hell that would go along with lowering the fares to the cost of a subway ride, nor should they.  $2.75 is more than reasonable for a subway ride, and if that isn't good enough and people want a faster commute, they should pay accordingly for it. I do however support transfers to and from MNRR to the bus or subway.  That makes sense, but I would not lower the fare too much.  If anything, lower them back to what they were before the 4% increase.  

Really? Because I used to ride the SIR often and there was quite a bit of order.

 

Now, they COULD lower the fares if they wanted to. But it would need to wait until after the MetroCard replacement arrives. Just like the RER, you build fare arrays at stations and riders will need to tap in and tap out. The distance based structure can remain. With the lack of most conductors (At this point, you'll only need one or two and just for doors as fares would definitely be paid) or a need to print tickets, there would be a cost savings. Thus facilitating a drop in the fare within the city. I mean, I'm sure it's more complicated than I'm making it, but not that much. You don't need to be a genius in transit payment to think of a viable solution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't support getting rid of conductors in any way shape or form.  They did that with the SIR and it led to TONS of riff-raff riding and people farebeating.  I would only support such a system if security could be maintained, and there was a secure way of knowing that EVERYONE that got on paid.  Metro-North is a premium ride and I would like to maintain a civilized, clean ride. There's already enough bums riding the subways as it is using them as their personal bathroom, along with the endless stream of panhandlers and obnoxious performers and kids that "ain't selling no candy for no basketball team". <_<   We don't need that on the commuter lines too.  I'm sure that riders in other suburban areas of the city along with those in Westchester and Connecticut would agree with me, and there is no way in hell that would go along with lowering the fares to the cost of a subway ride, nor should they.  $2.75 is more than reasonable for a subway ride, and if that isn't good enough and people want a faster commute, they should pay accordingly for it. I do however support transfers to and from MNRR to the bus or subway.  That makes sense, but I would not lower the fare too much.  If anything, lower them back to what they were before the 4% increase.  

 

The flip-side to this is that there are low-income neighborhoods throughout the city that are starving for easier public transportation. Residents in these neighborhoods are often minutes away from underused commuter rail stations but end up taking long bus rides to their nearest subway stations to have a more affordable commute. Many of them work less than five days a week and have no need for a monthly pass, so paying $8-10 for a one-way peak ticket is outrageous. To them, MTA commuter rail is as elitist as the proposed gondola system that would connect coastal Williamsburg to Manhattan. 

 

Introducing an equal or comparable intra-city fare to the subway would increase the amount of LIRR/MNRR trains that run within the city limits and, inversely, allow more trains in the suburbs to run express to their city terminals. Conductors should remain on trains outside of the five boroughs, and instituting a new fare-payment system for commuter rail within the city may allow conductors to stay on board.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The flip-side to this is that there are low-income neighborhoods throughout the city that are starving for easier public transportation. Residents in these neighborhoods are often minutes away from underused commuter rail stations but end up taking long bus rides to their nearest subway stations to have a more affordable commute. Many of them work less than five days a week and have no need for a monthly pass, so paying $8-10 for a one-way peak ticket is outrageous. To them, MTA commuter rail is as elitist as the proposed gondola system that would connect coastal Williamsburg to Manhattan. 

 

Introducing an equal or comparable intra-city fare to the subway would increase the amount of LIRR/MNRR trains that run within the city limits and, inversely, allow more trains in the suburbs to run express to their city terminals. Maybe instituting a different fare-payment system for commuter rail within the city would allow conductors to stay on board and maintain a level of safety/security.

Yes, but MNRR for example has argued that it can't compete with the frequencies of the subway in many areas of the Bronx, and therefore, there would only be select stations where it could attract ridership from low income neighborhoods that you described (i.e. reverse commutes to say Westchester from the South Bronx).  Additionally, having LIRR and MNRR operate as if they were a subway could have severe consequences.  MNRR has a high on-time performance in part because they don't have to run that many trains, but adding so much capacity would certainly strain the system.  

 

It isn't as if the two commuter railroads don't have their own problems.  MNRR for example barely has enough trains to make service, and we've seen what has happened with the LIRR.  I think a significant investment would have to be made in buying more cars and upgrading signals and other infrastructure to ensure that both railroads could meet the demand.  I think the city isn't looking at the big picture.  They're trying to push this as being a cheap solution that is far from it.  

 

Finally, both MNRR and LIRR's primary function is to serve people in the suburbs and in suburban areas of NYC, and that's what they do, as we are their primary ridership base.  There are quite a few neighborhoods here in the city that get good LIRR and MNRR service (Douglaston, Little Neck and Riverdale come to mind) and those are all affluent, upper class neighborhoods that are more like their suburban neighbors to the east (in the case of Queens) or the north (in the case of Riverdale with the rivertowns like Dobbs Ferry, Hastings-on-Hudson, Irvington and parts of Tarrytown).  Meanwhile, it's the poor neighborhoods that tend to have low frequencies.  Melrose in the South Bronx for example gets trains every two hours in some cases.  The South Bronx by Yankee Stadium, along with University Heights and Morris Heights on the Hudson Line only get hourly service on weekends, while Riverdale (both the Spuyten Duyvil and Riverdale stations) gets service every 30 minutes with a few exceptions, but the service levels are right in line with Westchester on the Hudson Line.    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's face it.  Subways are expensive to build and they destroy the fabric of neighborhoods.  The Upper East Side along Second Avenue will take YEARS to come back to what it was (if ever), and many small businesses have been lost in this mess.  I used to frequent that area a lot in from the upper 70's to the 80's after stopping at Agata & Valentina on 1st and 79th, and I can say that I haven't been over there for brunch, lunch, dinner or anything of the sort in some time, but I do know that several restaurants that I used to frequent have shuttered.  Libertà comes to mind.  I knew the owner (great Sicilian guy) who put out a good product and it was a shame to see that establishment go.  Small businesses are the fabric of our economy.  It's easy to yell hey, those people can do something else, or hey the people uprooted can move elsewhere, but that's easier said than done, and we have seen how transportation projects have literally destroyed entire communities (a lot of the Bronx comes to mind when the Cross Bronx Expressway was build) and the Bronx still hasn't recovered from that.  You had white flight on another level and landlords burning their buildings down to collect insurance money since no one was renting in their properties.  I sincerely think that we need to look outside of the box and look at other alternatives to move people.  For all of the hype, I don't think SAS will make that much of an impact on reducing overcrowding on the (4)(5)(6) because so far it hasn't been well thought out.  The placement of stops makes no sense and only serve to put more people out of their way.  How did they come to the conclusion of those stops anyway?  I understand the point of not having express stops, but still.  

 

LOL... Where did you get the idea that the (MTA) decided to build SAS "quickly"?  You clearly need to read up on that project and how long it has taken to get it revived.

 

Not true. The UES has changed dramatically even in the past 20 years, and not necessarily for the better...although it has at least remained "safe."

 

Mark my words, within 6 months to a year of the 2nd Avenue line opening, that land will be highly valued again...new business startups (heavy on coffee shops, bars, and diners etc.) will spring up left and right, and more highrises will spring up to ensure the subway is adequately overcrowded again as developers try to get another piece of the pie. Any temporary decrease in property values or that sort of thing will skyrocket back up once the construction is wrapped up and the line open.

 

The only area of the UES that is depressed is the area on first avenue between 92nd and 96th St. And the only reason that continues to be so is the presence of housing projects in the area. The subway does not contribute to "blight" on the UES...68/77/86/96 are all perfectly viable areas that skew commercial (or in 77th case, the hospital), but they are far from havens for crime and other stupidity.

 

Expanding the subway does not have the effect you are referring to, particularly within an already good neighborhood. It only has had that effect historically when it directly links a good neighborhood to a nearby bad one, or when it's added to an already bad one.

 

Government could easily contribute towards system expansion by changing the way things are done. Stop catering to developers, and in order for them to get their pet megaprojects greenlit, they need to contribute towards a general "infrastructure" fund that supports upzoning and the costs associated with it. Then that money goes to transit, power grid, water mains, etc. instead of tax breaks for them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not true. The UES has changed dramatically even in the past 20 years, and not necessarily for the better...although it has at least remained "safe."

 

Mark my words, within 6 months to a year of the 2nd Avenue line opening, that land will be highly valued again...new business startups (heavy on coffee shops, bars, and diners etc.) will spring up left and right, and more highrises will spring up to ensure the subway is adequately overcrowded again as developers try to get another piece of the pie. Any temporary decrease in property values or that sort of thing will skyrocket back up once the construction is wrapped up and the line open.

 

The only area of the UES that is depressed is the area on first avenue between 92nd and 96th St. And the only reason that continues to be so is the presence of housing projects in the area. The subway does not contribute to "blight" on the UES...68/77/86/96 are all perfectly viable areas that skew commercial (or in 77th case, the hospital), but they are far from havens for crime and other stupidity.

 

Expanding the subway does not have the effect you are referring to, particularly within an already good neighborhood. It only has had that effect historically when it directly links a good neighborhood to a nearby bad one, or when it's added to an already bad one.

 

Government could easily contribute towards system expansion by changing the way things are done. Stop catering to developers, and in order for them to get their pet megaprojects greenlit, they need to contribute towards a general "infrastructure" fund that supports upzoning and the costs associated with it. Then that money goes to transit, power grid, water mains, etc. instead of tax breaks for them.

Absolutely on all fronts.

 

Sure, some businesses had issues during SAS construction, but many that closed likely were in a position where the slightest dropback in business would have spelled trouble for them anyway.  There already has been a huge amount of buildup on the UES in recent years and SAS construction is only going to accelerate that.  The housing project you speak of on 1st Avenue between 92nd and 96th never made that area that bad anyway and that are also has been built up considerably in recent years.   The UES was never a bad area to begin with and some of the "bad" areas have actually been also built up in recent years with more to come.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not true. The UES has changed dramatically even in the past 20 years, and not necessarily for the better...although it has at least remained "safe."

 

Mark my words, within 6 months to a year of the 2nd Avenue line opening, that land will be highly valued again...new business startups (heavy on coffee shops, bars, and diners etc.) will spring up left and right, and more highrises will spring up to ensure the subway is adequately overcrowded again as developers try to get another piece of the pie. Any temporary decrease in property values or that sort of thing will skyrocket back up once the construction is wrapped up and the line open.

 

The only area of the UES that is depressed is the area on first avenue between 92nd and 96th St. And the only reason that continues to be so is the presence of housing projects in the area. The subway does not contribute to "blight" on the UES...68/77/86/96 are all perfectly viable areas that skew commercial (or in 77th case, the hospital), but they are far from havens for crime and other stupidity.

 

Expanding the subway does not have the effect you are referring to, particularly within an already good neighborhood. It only has had that effect historically when it directly links a good neighborhood to a nearby bad one, or when it's added to an already bad one.

 

Government could easily contribute towards system expansion by changing the way things are done. Stop catering to developers, and in order for them to get their pet megaprojects greenlit, they need to contribute towards a general "infrastructure" fund that supports upzoning and the costs associated with it. Then that money goes to transit, power grid, water mains, etc. instead of tax breaks for them.

Well supposedly that was going to happen years ago, and now you have some parts of Brooklyn that are more expensive than the Upper East Side, so I'd say the jury is still out on that one, though I do agree to some extent that there will be some changes and land will certainly become much more expensive in the surrounding areas near the SAS.  However, the Upper East Side is very politically powerful and vocal.  There have been quite a few projects that the developers wanted to do more with, but community opposition stood in the way, so I wouldn't be so fast to talk about the area changing very quickly.  The Upper East Side has changed to some degree, but there are too many people with money and political clout for the developers to just steamroll in, and those folks like the current "boring" UES.  You also have quite a bit of the neighborhood that is part of the historical district, which makes upzoning difficult.  Now the areas by the subway may be less exempt, as they aren't nearly as posh as Madison, Park and 5th where most of the wealth of the UES is, but depending on how far south and east you go, then you hit areas of Yorkville by the water which can be expensive, and then you have areas around Sutton Place, which are also quite affluent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^EXACTLY THE PROBLEM ON LEX.

 

People just try to jam themselves in the train when the doors open instead of waiting for people to get out.

 

What do you mean "Exactly the problem on the Lex". Has it not occurred to you that it is the SOLE East Side subway? The Lex would not be what it is today if there was another subway on that side of the island.

 

Crowding is not the issue. People are overpopulated in subway because they are in a rush. NYC is very quick so everyone is trying to dash in. 

And you. Crowding is the issue. This is a city that has seen a growth over the past 20 years that has put a large strain on the subway. The system has not expanded enough to adequetly sustain that growth. People are moving into areas served by subways and are crowding more and more people into already overtaxed lines.

 

I've been thinking. It goes back to something Mr. Moerdler in regards to ADA, as well as the fact that New york City build most of its subway without Federal aid. If we are to get a substancial increase in new extensions and lines, I think that the Federal Government should pay for half (since the new stations would all need to be ADA compliant), with the City and State each paying half of the remainder. Easier said than done, but it is a thought that's been floating around my brain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What do you mean "Exactly the problem on the Lex". Has it not occurred to you that it is the SOLE East Side subway? The Lex would not be what it is today if there was another subway on that side of the island.

 

And you. Crowding is the issue. This is a city that has seen a growth over the past 20 years that has put a large strain on the subway. The system has not expanded enough to adequetly sustain that growth. People are moving into areas served by subways and are crowding more and more people into already overtaxed lines.

 

I've been thinking. It goes back to something Mr. Moerdler in regards to ADA, as well as the fact that New york City build most of its subway without Federal aid. If we are to get a substancial increase in new extensions and lines, I think that the Federal Government should pay for half (since the new stations would all need to be ADA compliant), with the City and State each paying half of the remainder. Easier said than done, but it is a thought that's been floating around my brain.

 

The federal government already does basically foot half if you come up to it with a local match. The issue is that New York's subways cost so much that they suck up all available funding capacity at all levels of government. The State cannot afford to issue more debt; the City should really not, considering the past; and the federal government cannot even begin to agree on a sustainable way to fund infrastructure.

 

The Americans with Disabilities Act has nothing to do with federal money. It works the same way the Civil Rights Act does.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is my list of must need projects to keep up with growth.

 

Good List.

.

I think a 125th short shuttle would have a tremendous effect for upper Manhattan/Bronx travelers. That is something IMO should have been built a long time ago. That way you can get better distribution of passengers and more options if a line goes out. I would want a 5-6 stop two tracked (S) train that connected to all lines on 125th st and maybe terminated either in the Bronx at maybe 3rd Av/149th st or even in Manhattan at 2nd av and 116th to give that developing area a train stop. 

 

Something like this would be really sweet and extremely useful. 

 

But also, I think at least some of the subway crowding issues have to do with the regional rail systems (LIRR, NJT and Metro North) not doing enough.

 

For the life of me, I never understood why Metro North doesn't have a station at Park and 57th st....So many Metro North travelers get off at Grand Central only to take the Lex Line to either 51 or 59th streets--you have a HUGE job center in Midtown East, and that has been the case for decades. 

 

I think this alone would take a decent amount of strain off the Lex line, particularly during rush hours. 

 

I might be pushing it, but I think a station at 86th st would probably be helpful too. But one around 57th st to me is a no-brainer.

 

I also never understood why NJT and LIRR don't stop on the East Side---the tracks run through it ....Makes no sense to me. There could at least be a stop on Madison or even 3rd av.

 

But let me ask you something: Can you elaborate on the PATH extension from Newport? What would that look like?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

and lets introduce light rail and try transit oriented development, hell we have so much abandoned rails you have jagoffs trying to highline it all

 

We don't need TOD specifically. All of New York is one giant TOD.

 

In other cities where your average building is either a McMansion with a separate garage or a strip mall, TOD is something new and exciting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good List.

.

I think a 125th short shuttle would have a tremendous effect for upper Manhattan/Bronx travelers. That is something IMO should have been built a long time ago. That way you can get better distribution of passengers and more options if a line goes out. I would want a 5-6 stop two tracked (S) train that connected to all lines on 125th st and maybe terminated either in the Bronx at maybe 3rd Av/149th st or even in Manhattan at 2nd av and 116th to give that developing area a train stop. 

 

Something like this would be really sweet and extremely useful. 

 

But also, I think at least some of the subway crowding issues have to do with the regional rail systems (LIRR, NJT and Metro North) not doing enough.

 

For the life of me, I never understood why Metro North doesn't have a station at Park and 57th st....So many Metro North travelers get off at Grand Central only to take the Lex Line to either 51 or 59th streets--you have a HUGE job center in Midtown East, and that has been the case for decades. 

 

I think this alone would take a decent amount of strain off the Lex line, particularly during rush hours. 

 

I might be pushing it, but I think a station at 86th st would probably be helpful too. But one around 57th st to me is a no-brainer.

 

I also never understood why NJT and LIRR don't stop on the East Side---the tracks run through it ....Makes no sense to me. There could at least be a stop on Madison or even 3rd av.

 

But let me ask you something: Can you elaborate on the PATH extension from Newport? What would that look like?

Don't think a Eastside station (East River Tubes) would be a easy feat.. Here's what comes to mind as issues.. The length of the platform's LIRR platform's are well over 1,000 Ft..  You have 21 Tracks that file into 4 tracks east of 7 Ave then begin a downgrade under the East River. No level stretch of great length for a station. As for the Metro North as with Penn you have 2 dozen tracks converging a few blocks south wouldn't that create a bottleneck with a Station @57th?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good List.

.

I think a 125th short shuttle would have a tremendous effect for upper Manhattan/Bronx travelers. That is something IMO should have been built a long time ago. That way you can get better distribution of passengers and more options if a line goes out. I would want a 5-6 stop two tracked (S) train that connected to all lines on 125th st and maybe terminated either in the Bronx at maybe 3rd Av/149th st or even in Manhattan at 2nd av and 116th to give that developing area a train stop. 

 

Something like this would be really sweet and extremely useful. 

 

But also, I think at least some of the subway crowding issues have to do with the regional rail systems (LIRR, NJT and Metro North) not doing enough.

 

For the life of me, I never understood why Metro North doesn't have a station at Park and 57th st....So many Metro North travelers get off at Grand Central only to take the Lex Line to either 51 or 59th streets--you have a HUGE job center in Midtown East, and that has been the case for decades. 

 

I think this alone would take a decent amount of strain off the Lex line, particularly during rush hours. 

 

I might be pushing it, but I think a station at 86th st would probably be helpful too. But one around 57th st to me is a no-brainer.

 

I also never understood why NJT and LIRR don't stop on the East Side---the tracks run through it ....Makes no sense to me. There could at least be a stop on Madison or even 3rd av.

 

But let me ask you something: Can you elaborate on the PATH extension from Newport? What would that look like?

First, the 57th Street idea is impossible.  It's one reason why Grand Central I believe actually has entrances to the platforms as far north as 49th Street.

 

I brought up 86th Street in the past for Metro-North and I believe at one time there actually was a station there, but such would be too small and would disrupt the flow.

 

The 125th Street short shuttle could have been done by only tearing down the 3rd Avenue El to 125 but then build such across 125th Street to a terminal at Broadway (keeping the Bronx portion that would have had to have been rebuilt in the 70s but today would have been helpful).  I have proposed in the past having a 125th Street extension of Phase 2, possibly with a connection to the 8th Avenue and Concourse lines at St. Nicholas Avenue that would give operational flexibility when needed (i.e.: Allowing the (A) and (D) in particular when needed to use the SAS to run to where they can join the (F) on the 6th Avenue line when necessary for example). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good List.

.

I think a 125th short shuttle would have a tremendous effect for upper Manhattan/Bronx travelers. That is something IMO should have been built a long time ago. That way you can get better distribution of passengers and more options if a line goes out. I would want a 5-6 stop two tracked (S) train that connected to all lines on 125th st and maybe terminated either in the Bronx at maybe 3rd Av/149th st or even in Manhattan at 2nd av and 116th to give that developing area a train stop. 

 

Something like this would be really sweet and extremely useful. 

 

But also, I think at least some of the subway crowding issues have to do with the regional rail systems (LIRR, NJT and Metro North) not doing enough.

 

For the life of me, I never understood why Metro North doesn't have a station at Park and 57th st....So many Metro North travelers get off at Grand Central only to take the Lex Line to either 51 or 59th streets--you have a HUGE job center in Midtown East, and that has been the case for decades. 

 

I think this alone would take a decent amount of strain off the Lex line, particularly during rush hours. 

 

I might be pushing it, but I think a station at 86th st would probably be helpful too. But one around 57th st to me is a no-brainer.

 

I also never understood why NJT and LIRR don't stop on the East Side---the tracks run through it ....Makes no sense to me. There could at least be a stop on Madison or even 3rd av.

 

But let me ask you something: Can you elaborate on the PATH extension from Newport? What would that look like?

 

The issue with having an intermediate station at Park is that the trains are really not designed for rapid, on/off egress, which is what you need for a lot of intermediate stops. Go ask BART what happens when you don't have enough doors.

 

That being said, 86th St would be nice. Midtown East is a bit too close to Grand Central.

 

Here is my list of must need projects to keep up with growth.

SUBWAY

A full length SAS 2 Tracks the whole way. Reasonable.

A 125th Street Crosstown, and a line running via the Park Avenue ROW in the Bronx. 

A Fordham Road – Pelham Parkway Line.

A Queens Bypass Line.

An extension of the IND Queens Boulevard Line to Springfield Boulevard. I'm going to assume Springfield/Hillside, so this is good.

The Triboro Rx.

An extension of the IND Archer Avenue Line via the Atlantic Branch ROW to Laurelton.

The reactivation of the Rockaway Beach Line.

An extension of the IRT Nostrand Avenue Line to Kings Highway.

A Tenth Avenue Line as an extension of the BMT Canarsie Line. The FWS has no capacity issues.

A third track on the BMT Jamaica El.

A connection between the IND Crosstown Line and the BMT Franklin Avenue Line. I honestly think that this idea is a little meh; in the end you get a little stub line that goes to one more place, and it doesn't fix the fundamental issues with the Crosstown Line.

An extension of the BMT Astoria Line to LaGuardia Airport.

An extension of the IRT Pelham Line to Co-Op City.

A Utica Avenue Line branching off the SAS at about 8th Street going on Grand Avenue in Brooklyn before going on Bushwick Avenue and Utica Avenue to Avenue U.

An extension of the IRT Flushing Line to College Point. The bus service is fine, and the part of College Point you actually want to serve would require a weird fish-hook routing to get to.

A track connection between the IND Eighth Avenue Line at WTC and the BMT Broadway Line at Cortlandt Street. Unnecessary

Instead of building Phase 4, the SAS would be connected to the BMT Nassau Street Line and the Manhattan Bridge North Tracks. Hugely disruptive, not that much benefit since DeKalb is already congested

A new junction at Broadway – Lafayette would be built to reconnect the express tracks to the center tracks at Second Avenue. These tracks would continue under the East River to meet up with the SAS tracks in Williamsburg. Really unnecessary - a second pair of tunnels from SAS to Williamsburg and upgrades to the L should provide enough capacity.

A Bushwick – LIE Line would branch off at Montrose, running via the Bushwick Branch, Flushing Avenue and the LIE to Douglaston Parkway. Hugely unnecessary

This line would be 4 tracks until Main Street.

A 101st Street Storage Yard and a ConEd storage Yard would be built. Jamaica Yard would be expanded.

 

REGIONAL RAIL

In general, aside from Third Track and Ronkonkoma double track, extending commuter rail is not worth it because of how little ridership it generates relative to cost. Electrification would be nice.

 

In NYC the fare would be .50 to .75 above the subway fare. There would be free transfers from the Regional Rail to the subway. Way too low.

Additional stations in Manhattan and in NYC would be added, such as 14th Street Union Square, WTC, South Ferry.

The most important new station would be a complex at Madison Avenue and 34th Street. A station here was originally part of the plan for the Pennsy to get into New York. A transfer between the GCT and Penn lines would be available here, as well as a transfer to the (6) and the Herald Square station. Determined to be unfeasible as part of studies for both ESA and ARC.

 

Comments in bold.

 

Let's keep the fantasy proposals in the thread for the actual fantasy proposals, alright? Threads have gotten locked over this crap.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, the 57th Street idea is impossible.  It's one reason why Grand Central I believe actually has entrances to the platforms as far north as 49th Street.

 

It can't, the tracks are still too spread out at that location for there to be any way to reasonably hold a platform suitable for service. There is an emergency exit at 59th St. approximately one car long, and even then, not all tracks platform to it. Because many of the tracks are merging/diverging, space doesn't exist between tracks to put any kind of platform either. Not to mention the logistical nightmare of crippling service into or out of GCT just to get a station ready.

 

86th is completely unfeasible since anything that resembles commercial or industrial will never be greenlit on Park Avenue. It's like trying to build through Central Park.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fair enough...but my point is that the subways are picking up too much slack for the commuter railroads, and this contributes to at least SOME of the problems. All I was doing was presenting some solutions that I felt were practical. 

 

When the commuter railroads skip two MAJOR job centers in Midtown East and Downtown Manhattan, I think that's problematic. It's not as if these areas just became job centers--they've been that way for a very long time.

 

The LIRR going to Grand Central will address some of that, but then again, this is simply going to invite more issues for the Lex Line.

 

Now, someone mentioned that there are entrances to Grand Central at 49th st. Can they be opened?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fair enough...but my point is that the subways are picking up too much slack for the commuter railroads, and this contributes to at least SOME of the problems. All I was doing was presenting some solutions that I felt were practical. 

 

When the commuter railroads skip two MAJOR job centers in Midtown East and Downtown Manhattan, I think that's problematic. It's not as if these areas just became job centers--they've been that way for a very long time.

 

The LIRR going to Grand Central will address some of that, but then again, this is simply going to invite more issues for the Lex Line.

 

Now, someone mentioned that there are entrances to Grand Central at 49th st. Can they be opened?

What would opening more entrances to Grand Central do? There's already a plethora of entrances as it is.  The JP Morgan entrance on Madison and 47th is an example, along with a few others near Park Avenue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

86th is completely unfeasible since anything that resembles commercial or industrial will never be greenlit on Park Avenue. It's like trying to build through Central Park.

Funny thing you should mention 86th Street. Once upon a time, there was a station at 86th Street, along with ones at 110th Street, 72nd Street and 59th Street, the latter of which has been converted into an emergency exit. They all were closed around the turn of the century presumably because of a lack of patronage. Of course, with both the 2nd and 3rd Avenue elevated lines were around at the time, that may have played a part in their abandonment. That and they were likely low-use stations with platforms long enough for a couple of cars at most.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know how the mta will keep up with the increase ridership.. Still trying to see how they going to transport people to manhattan during L shutdown only solution is the stretch busses from Bedford over williamsburg

We have to maximize what we have. Reactivate and covert ROW's rethinking the Subway and Regional Rail and how they work together fare's transfers, interoperability.. routes.. Infrastructure investment and building is like steering and turning a ship. It'll be a generation or two before MTA even get's close to catching up and that's if we start investing now. However there are ways to mitigate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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