Via Garibaldi 8 Posted August 10, 2016 Share #76 Posted August 10, 2016 What does Marine Park have to do with a Utica Avenue subway? Sent from my iPod touch using NYC Transit Forums mobile app Read the title of thread... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RailRunRob Posted August 10, 2016 Share #77 Posted August 10, 2016 Read the title of thread... Don't worry Marine Park is safe from the outside invaders for now. My point and this time a little less wordie. Younger People like Transit more investment and expansion in future. Also, the News might have gotten the information wrong they did say the and after all. So don't worry to much Sport! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beelinefan Posted August 10, 2016 Share #78 Posted August 10, 2016 The MTA should focus on getting the 2nd ave subway open and getting all of the existing issues fixed before planning a new line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Union Tpke Posted August 10, 2016 Share #79 Posted August 10, 2016 The MTA should focus on getting the 2nd ave subway open and getting all of the existing issues fixed before planning a new line. I disagree. Multiple projects should be done at once. Otherwise the system won't expand at all. This could be done if the city chipped in to finance it like the Hudson Yards extension was done. This would be a good next step to make. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RailRunRob Posted August 10, 2016 Share #80 Posted August 10, 2016 I disagree. Multiple projects should be done at once. Otherwise the system won't expand at all. This could be done if the city chipped in to finance it like the Hudson Yards extension was done. This would be a good next step to make. Be interesting to see what the cost of construction is outside of Manhattan. The Airtrain was what? 2 Billion for 8 miles? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Around the Horn Posted August 10, 2016 Share #81 Posted August 10, 2016 I think so Sent from my iPod touch using NYC Transit Forums mobile app Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TransitJusticeForAll Posted August 10, 2016 Share #82 Posted August 10, 2016 7 Buses and a possible subway extension to Marine Park? This shoud involve the Utica Ave subway. Yes or No? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LTA1992 Posted August 10, 2016 Share #83 Posted August 10, 2016 I disagree. Multiple projects should be done at once. Otherwise the system won't expand at all. This could be done if the city chipped in to finance it like the Hudson Yards extension was done. This would be a good next step to make.What I think is needed is a public-private funding partnership with a middleman to do the talking. If real estate interest chipped in like they did back in the day, along with the city itself, who knows what could be done. I mean, people like to throw in the monetary aspects of such projects but do you really think this city had the funds to give what could equate to somewhere between 100 and 150 Billion in 2016 dollars to subway construction? They did what they needed to to get it done. Yes unions weren't a thing and work rules were lax, but I think with proper design and planning as well as a proper investment of money, we could get new subways at a faster rate. Sent from my N9132 using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RailRunRob Posted August 10, 2016 Share #84 Posted August 10, 2016 7 Buses and a possible subway extension to Marine Park? This shoud involve the Utica Ave subway. Yes or No? The only point of the line that would touch Marine Park is Avenue U, Avenue N/Utica is located in Georgetown then Flatlands and then East Flatbush up to Crown Heights. So not sure why Marine Park is the focal point. Utica Ave Line it would be. What I think is needed is a public-private funding partnership with a middleman to do the talking. If real estate interest chipped in like they did back in the day, along with the city itself, who knows what could be done. I mean, people like to throw in the monetary aspects of such projects but do you really think this city had the funds to give what could equate to somewhere between 100 and 150 Billion in 2016 dollars to subway construction? They did what they needed to to get it done. Yes unions weren't a thing and work rules were lax, but I think with proper design and planning as well as a proper investment of money, we could get new subways at a faster rate. Sent from my N9132 using Tapatalk That's the key! Reality honestly is one of the factors that put a strain on the system. With additional housing stock and riders. They should help to add more bandwidth. Helps them in the long run as well for more development. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LTA1992 Posted August 11, 2016 Share #85 Posted August 11, 2016 The only point of the line that would touch Marine Park is Avenue U, Avenue N/Utica is located in Georgetown then Flatlands and then East Flatbush up to Crown Heights. So not sure why Marine Park is the focal point. Utica Ave Line it would be. That's the key! Reality honestly is one of the factors that put a strain on the system. With additional housing stock and riders. They should help to add more bandwidth. Helps them in the long run as well for more development. While I do not approve of it as a direct connection to the Eastern Parkway line. HOWEVER. If provisions were made to prepare for a northern extension in order to connect to a new Manhattan Trunk of B Division standards, then my opinion will change. Sent from my N9132 using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RailRunRob Posted August 11, 2016 Share #86 Posted August 11, 2016 While I do not approve of it as a direct connection to the Eastern Parkway line. HOWEVER. If provisions were made to prepare for a northern extension in order to connect to a new Manhattan Trunk of B Division standards, then my opinion will change. Sent from my N9132 using Tapatalk Indeed.. I wonder if the line could even if the Eastern Parkway Line could handle the extra trains without a complete rebuild of Rogers JCT? It's about four miles from Eastern Parkway to Ave U how many extra trains would be needed to maintain maximum headways on the ? plus the few extras on the to New Lots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Around the Horn Posted August 11, 2016 Share #87 Posted August 11, 2016 As long as the frequencies of the and remain the same, I see no reason why the Eastern Pkwy line couldn't handle a Utica Avenue extension Sent from my iPod touch using NYC Transit Forums mobile app Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LTA1992 Posted August 11, 2016 Share #88 Posted August 11, 2016 As long as the frequencies of the and remain the same, I see no reason why the Eastern Pkwy line couldn't handle a Utica Avenue extension Sent from my iPod touch using NYC Transit Forums mobile app My gripe is that you are bringing more people into already overtaxed lines instead if creating a more direct, and quicker, route to Williamsburg and Manhattan. However capacity has been a concern since the first Utica Avenue-Eastern Pkwy proposal popped up in 1909. Sent from my N9132 using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Around the Horn Posted August 11, 2016 Share #89 Posted August 11, 2016 I do agree with your suggestion that the IRT serves as a temporary service along Utica until such a tunnel could be built connecting it to the B division network. Sent from my iPod touch using NYC Transit Forums mobile app Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobtehpanda Posted August 11, 2016 Share #90 Posted August 11, 2016 What I think is needed is a public-private funding partnership with a middleman to do the talking. If real estate interest chipped in like they did back in the day, along with the city itself, who knows what could be done. I mean, people like to throw in the monetary aspects of such projects but do you really think this city had the funds to give what could equate to somewhere between 100 and 150 Billion in 2016 dollars to subway construction? They did what they needed to to get it done. Yes unions weren't a thing and work rules were lax, but I think with proper design and planning as well as a proper investment of money, we could get new subways at a faster rate. Sent from my N9132 using Tapatalk The City spent, what, $2B on the 7 Line Extension? Take all the funding streams that were going to that, put in an application for federal funds, and we now have $4B, before we even start mentioning the state. Very true.. they figured that out well over 100 years ago crossing under both the Thames and The Seine. But without monetary motivation when have you known people to take on what's hard? The road less traveled? If an elevated is cheaper you know 7 out 10 times that's the route taken. This is, of course, assuming we find a way to go aboveground that doesn't require either taking over expensive property, a community resource, a couple of road lanes, or something or other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CenSin Posted August 11, 2016 Share #91 Posted August 11, 2016 This is, of course, assuming we find a way to go aboveground that doesn't require either taking over expensive property, a community resource, a couple of road lanes, or something or other. With the safety requirements now, even though a train may be about 10-feet wide with a 1-foot margin for wayside equipment, the structure would have to be padded to something like 15 feet for each track for the safety of track workers. That would easily take up 3 lanes worth of space from the road. Utica Avenue has 4 lanes from Eastern Parkway going south, 5 lanes from Carroll Street, 6 lanes from Crown Street all the way down to Flatbush Avenue. Flatbush Avenue itself has about 11 to 12 lanes in that area. From Nostrand Avenue to Utica Avenue, Flatbush Avenue has 5~6 lanes worth of space. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RailRunRob Posted August 12, 2016 Share #92 Posted August 12, 2016 With the safety requirements now, even though a train may be about 10-feet wide with a 1-foot margin for wayside equipment, the structure would have to be padded to something like 15 feet for each track for the safety of track workers. That would easily take up 3 lanes worth of space from the road. Utica Avenue has 4 lanes from Eastern Parkway going south, 5 lanes from Carroll Street, 6 lanes from Crown Street all the way down to Flatbush Avenue. Flatbush Avenue itself has about 11 to 12 lanes in that area. From Nostrand Avenue to Utica Avenue, Flatbush Avenue has 5~6 lanes worth of space. With 6 lanes it may be possible to create maybe a center island might fit a bit better into the surrounding area? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CenSin Posted August 12, 2016 Share #93 Posted August 12, 2016 With 6 lanes it may be possible to create maybe a center island might fit a bit better into the surrounding area? The problem is the portal. It will be about 600 feet from underground to elevated (rising 2 levels) unless the ramp going up can take advantage of the road ramping down to reduce the ramp length. Where can 600 feet of 3 parallel lanes be spared to install this ramp? Once the structure is elevated, even 20th century technology (most of the elevated lines that currently exist in New York City) would be good enough to avoid taking up lanes. The legs of the elevated would simply be installed on the sidewalk or right over the dividing lines for the lanes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobtehpanda Posted August 12, 2016 Share #94 Posted August 12, 2016 The problem is the portal. It will be about 600 feet from underground to elevated (rising 2 levels) unless the ramp going up can take advantage of the road ramping down to reduce the ramp length. Where can 600 feet of 3 parallel lanes be spared to install this ramp? Once the structure is elevated, even 20th century technology (most of the elevated lines that currently exist in New York City) would be good enough to avoid taking up lanes. The legs of the elevated would simply be installed on the sidewalk or right over the dividing lines for the lanes. I don't know about that. Note that the elevated structure in those pictures is on an eight lane highway with shoulders. Not only does Utica have less lanes, I would imagine its road lanes are narrower than the Van Wyck's as well. With the exception of roads as wide as highways, I doubt we will see a brand new, purpose built el in our lifetimes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HenryB Posted August 12, 2016 Share #95 Posted August 12, 2016 In addition to Utica ave subway, I wonder it is good or not to branch off Canarsie via LIRR Bay Ridge Branch to Kings Highway, or even to Brooklyn college. That could provide some extra transfer options Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Around the Horn Posted August 12, 2016 Share #96 Posted August 12, 2016 An to Brooklyn College or even all the way to the Brooklyn Army Terminal does sound like a good idea. Sent from my iPod touch using NYC Transit Forums mobile app Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RailRunRob Posted August 12, 2016 Share #97 Posted August 12, 2016 The problem is the portal. It will be about 600 feet from underground to elevated (rising 2 levels) unless the ramp going up can take advantage of the road ramping down to reduce the ramp length. Where can 600 feet of 3 parallel lanes be spared to install this ramp? Once the structure is elevated, even 20th century technology (most of the elevated lines that currently exist in New York City) would be good enough to avoid taking up lanes. The legs of the elevated would simply be installed on the sidewalk or right over the dividing lines for the lanes. Two possible locations Just south of East New York Ave and the other Around Kings Highway I said before. Marked them both. Can't you clear 13ft in 600'-700' feet? at 2-2.5%? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RailRunRob Posted August 12, 2016 Share #98 Posted August 12, 2016 I don't know about that. Note that the elevated structure in those pictures is on an eight lane highway with shoulders. Not only does Utica have less lanes, I would imagine its road lanes are narrower than the Van Wyck's as well. With the exception of roads as wide as highways, I doubt we will see a brand new, purpose built el in our lifetimes. Possible I don't have the measurements for the width of Utica. Just throwing the idea out there. I see if I can get the exacts via Sandborn or something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RailRunRob Posted August 12, 2016 Share #99 Posted August 12, 2016 I know I'm nerding out but here's a track map to go with the Portal options if anyone cares. Trust me my wife is happy I'm sharing this with you guys and not her plus I figured out how to link photos . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MysteriousBtrain Posted August 12, 2016 Share #100 Posted August 12, 2016 I know I'm nerding out but here's a track map to go with the Portal options if anyone cares. Trust me my wife is happy I'm sharing this with you guys and not her plus I figured out how to link photos . Interesting but if this plan was to be used today, there would be almost no place to put a portal in use. The only way one can easily instert a portal is around the original LIRR right of way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.