MTA looking into a subway line to Marine Park

[Union Tpke]

Phase 1: IRT, Eastern Parkway to Kings Hwy.

Phase 2: Nostrand Junction rebuild

Phase 3A: IRT, Eastern Pkwy to Kings Plaza

Phase 3B: Nostrand extension to Av U.

Phase 4A: IRT, Montrose Av to Kings Plaza via Myrtle Av

Phase 4B: SAS to Montrose Av via pocket tracks from 21st to 9th Sts.

 

Depending on which order phase 4A and 4B is, by the time it's done you could have a line from either the Bronx or 125 to Kings Plaza.

 

why is Phase 4A IRT? Would you have a shuttle?

[cl94]

This is not really the case... at that point in time, most of the boroughs were already developed because of the parkways, so there was no compelling real estate reason to do so.

 

 

The IND suffered from over-engineering. For example, the West 4 St complex provides great flexibility, but at what cost? How much of the real estate of that middle mezzanine is heavily used?

 

If we had committed to a Dual Contracts style system, things would've turned out for the better, since most of the IND was just repackaged Dual Contracts-era stuff anyways.

 

The IND was killed more by Robert Moses than anything else.

 

As far as the Utica Avenue bellmouths, they're on the local tracks. The express tracks were supposed to continue down Eastern Parkway. Of course, they could just redo the supports slightly and make the express tracks go directly to New Lots. I'm not too familiar with the area, but I think it would be possible.

[LTA1992]

This is not really the case... at that point in time, most of the boroughs were already developed because of the parkways, so there was no compelling real estate reason to do so.

 

 

The IND suffered from over-engineering. For example, the West 4 St complex provides great flexibility, but at what cost? How much of the real estate of that middle mezzanine is heavily used?

 

If we had committed to a Dual Contracts style system, things would've turned out for the better, since most of the IND was just repackaged Dual Contracts-era stuff anyways.

Most of the city was developed? Have you seen old pictures of the Queens Boulevard area when the IND was being constructed? As it was the only IND line to go through relatively undeveloped and/or low density land, it caused an explosion of development. The areas that most Second Phase line s would have served were similar in their character. To think that means you need to brush up on your history. So my point still stands. West 4th Street was meant to be one of two main transfer points within the IND (the other being South 4th Street). It was never meant to be a station for large loads of entering and exiting passengers. The same could be said for DeKalb Avenue.

 

Sent from my N9132 using Tapatalk

[Javier]

Yawn, call me when they actually start fixing this.

I mean making this.

[Caelestor]

And we would get FASTrack-like shutdowns of entire lines during weekends and middays due to lack of flexibility.

 

I don't think it would be that severe. Instead, there would be a lot of multi-track lines, though the subway would be a lot more complicated. For instance, in place of the 8 Ave line would be two additional West Side lines: an extension of the BMT Broadway express tracks up CPW and Adam Clayton Powell Blvd in Harlem to the Polo Grounds, and an Amsterdam Ave line running via 8 Ave south of Columbus Circle. The 8 Ave proposal is really interesting: the and the would effectively be combined together, and the Lenox Ave Line would be diverted to Amsterdam Ave to relieve congestion on the IRT. Of note is that none of the new lines would be built under existing elevated lines due to cost concerns, something that the IND did with the 6 Ave and Fulton St lines.

 

 

Most of the city was developed? Have you seen old pictures of the Queens Boulevard area when the IND was being constructed? As it was the only IND line to go through relatively undeveloped and/or low density land, it caused an explosion of development. The areas that most Second Phase line s would have served were similar in their character. To think that means you need to brush up on your history. So my point still stands. West 4th Street was meant to be one of two main transfer points within the IND (the other being South 4th Street). It was never meant to be a station for large loads of entering and exiting passengers. The same could be said for DeKalb Avenue.

 

Sent from my N9132 using Tapatalk

 

The IRT developed Manhattan and the Bronx, and the BMT developed Brooklyn. In hindsight, the IND should have focused more on Queens instead of expensive subway construction under existing elevated lines, namely 6 Ave and Fulton St. Personally, 6 Ave, which was way too overcomplicated to build, should have been shelved in favor of a SAS trunk line or a 6-track Queens Blvd line to support all the extensions proposed in the Second System.

 

As for West 4 St, the middle mezzanine probably doesn't need to be there; riders would probably benefit by only having to walk one flight of stairs to transfer.

[LTA1992]

 

The IRT developed Manhattan and the Bronx, and the BMT developed Brooklyn. In hindsight, the IND should have focused more on Queens instead of expensive subway construction under existing elevated lines, namely 6 Ave and Fulton St. Personally, 6 Ave, which was way too overcomplicated to build, should have been shelved in favor of a SAS trunk line or a 6-track Queens Blvd line to support all the extensions proposed in the Second System.

 

As for West 4 St, the middle mezzanine probably doesn't need to be there; riders would probably benefit by only having to walk one flight of stairs to transfer.

I was referring to Queens. This is what I was talking about when I mentioned Real Estate interests not backing the IND. The lines were heading into areas that would not make one of the most vocal groups regarding transit issues money.

 

On the topic of 6th Avenue. Remember, it was built with direct connections to the Second Avenue and South Queens Trunk Lines in mind. The connection to SAS in the north. The Express Tracks would have fed the South Queens Trunk on the southern end. Had world history gone differently, we would have seen Sixth Avenue utilize it's full capacity much sooner.

 

When it comes to West 4th Street. Remember, it was the heard of the first IND phase and was meant to be the main transfer point. That middle mezzanine exists for that flexibility in regards to transfers. Secondly, directly south if the station, the tunnel is three levels, so I actually think that worked out perfectly.

 

Sent from my N9132 using Tapatalk

[Lance]

I'm gone a week and this thread balloons to 16 pages. Alas, that's what happens when you have more pressing issues to contend with.

 

Since a lot of things have been discussed in this thread, I'll touch upon them in more broad terms than addressing them in a quote-by-quote basis. I see a lot of the early discussion revolves around the relative age of the residents in the area. The idea that people's opinions are irrelevant based on their age is quite ludicrous. Everyone has the right to voice their opinion, even if it's not in your favor. This only becomes a problem when people become obstructionists simply for the sake of being so.

 

Another thing I've noticed is that there is the belief that any line down Utica Avenue must be elevated after a certain point because of the water table. I believe bobthepanda stated this idea is also really silly. This is 2016, not 1920. In this day and age, it's quite possible to build a subway line with enough waterproofing even if it falls beneath the water table in the area.

 

On a similar vein, building any kind of elevated line is a non-starter. I know people here like to mention they are cheaper than subways, but the fact remains that people will not put up with any new elevated line. They haven't since the 1920s. For instance, let's look at the Crosstown line. I'm not sure if most people here are aware, but the original plan called for an elevated line connecting from Queensboro Plaza to the Franklin Ave line. Residents along the proposed route were so against the idea that they felt no line was better than an elevated one. And that remained the case until the IND eventually proposed and built their version. You can make an el look as pretty as you want; to most, it's still an el.

 

Regarding the idea of simply extending the Nostrand Ave line down Flatbush Avenue, while helpful to people in Kings Plaza, it really doesn't solve the problem at hand, which is the current congestion problem along Utica Avenue. That's part of the reason why the MTA revised its Program for Action to include two lines running down Nostrand Avenue and Utica Avenue as opposed to the original plan for the Flatbush Avenue extension.

 

On the subject of the extension itself, I can understand where opponents of this are coming from. The MTA has quite PR problem when it comes to large-scale construction projects. Looking at how the Second Ave subway has been a mangled mess over the past decade or so, most residents will look at this and say they don't want to deal with those kinds of problems. The biggest problem the agency has is it would have to convince residents that a line down Utica Avenue will not become Second Avenue part deux. On the flip side, there is obviously demand for such a route given how busy the Utica Avenue corridor is and the fact that such a line has always been under consideration by whatever agency ran the subways at the time.

[cl94]

Plus, if they build the line deep enough, water table is a moot point. Just use a tunneling shield or freeze the soil with liquid nitrogen (yes, that is done). Utica Avenue is a nightmare and a line down Nostrand would still be clogged by the Nostrand Junction mess. If a Utica line is built, they could send 2 lines down that, 1 to New Lots, and 1 to Nostrand, eliminating the switching nightmare because, if an express went to New Lots, nothing would have to cross paths.

[CenSin]

If a Utica line is built, they could send 2 lines down that, 1 to New Lots, and 1 to Nostrand, eliminating the switching nightmare because, if an express went to New Lots, nothing would have to cross paths.

That’s brilliant. to East Flatbush (since it runs 24/7 already), and to Marine Park (with the being part-time), and to East New York. The Crown Heights–Utica Avenue junction will still need redoing to make the operation smoother, but it is much less disruptive than redoing the Franklin Avenue junction which puts the entire Eastern Parkway line out of service east of Franklin Avenue.

[cl94]

That’s brilliant. to East Flatbush (since it runs 24/7 already), and to Marine Park (with the being part-time), and to East New York. The Crown Heights–Utica Avenue junction will still need redoing to make the operation smoother, but it is much less disruptive than redoing the Franklin Avenue junction which puts the entire Eastern Parkway line out of service east of Franklin Avenue.

 

As I said previously, I'm not too familiar with exact geometry, but if the relay track at Utica is re-purposed as the new Manhattan-bound track (with a merge added at the New Lots end, possibly on the ramp up) and a switch is pushed through on each level before the turnout, it should be quite simple, far easier than most of the projects undertaken in the system's history. The work would be minor enough to keep trains running and, if the tracks connecting the express to New Lots are put in first, they could take the local track OOS at Utica on nights/weekends for construction at the bellmouths. Granted, if stuff isn't timed properly, the merge could get dicey, but it wouldn't be much different from what the does at World Trade Center or the at Queens Plaza.

[Around the Horn]

Yeah. All you have to do is connect track 4 to track M (the relay). As long as the bellmouth for a Utica Avenue line is before the crossover, New Lots Avenue bound trains can use the pre existing crossover after the station, without fouling up the Kings Plaza bound trains

 

 

Sent from my iPod touch using NYC Transit Forums mobile app

[RailRunRob]

That’s brilliant. to East Flatbush (since it runs 24/7 already), and to Marine Park (with the being part-time), and to East New York. The Crown Heights–Utica Avenue junction will still need redoing to make the operation smoother, but it is much less disruptive than redoing the Franklin Avenue junction which puts the entire Eastern Parkway line out of service east of Franklin Avenue.

So the would local after Franklin?

If not wouldn't it be a bottleneck at Utica? With switching from the local? True it would be a little less disruptive. Managing traffic in station and not disrupting both tracks.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CenSin]

So the would local after Franklin?

If not wouldn't it be a bottleneck at Utica? With switching from the local? True it would be a little less disruptive. Managing traffic in station and not disrupting both tracks.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It would switch at Crown Heights–Utica Avenue.

[cl94]

It would switch at Utica. You'd need to build at least one crossover in addition to connecting M track to one of the locals to avoid a bottleneck. The one thing you don't want is the , , and sharing a track. If New Lots-bound used M track, to switch from express to local, you'd need to build a crossover downstairs connecting the tracks south of Utica (shouldn't be a problem, as there's a space under where M track connects to the upper level tracks). If the bellmouths are west of the existing crossover, you'd need to add one west of the station upstairs and connect M track to the Manhattan-bound local on the ramp west of Sutter.

 

Ideally, they'd try and schedule things so a and a arrive around the same time, minimizing the conflicts.

 

Now I'm curious where exactly those bellmouths are. Looking at where the eastern stairs and elevator are, they'd have to be pretty close to the station and I'm not sure a crossover could fit in there.

[RailRunRob]

It would switch at Crown Heights–Utica Avenue.

There would still be delays possibly even at Utica.   A northbound coming into Rogers Jct causes the most backup. So I kinda get it. Are you mitigating this with switching capabilities at Utica?  Kinda the lesser of two evils?  Did I mock this correctly?

 

 

[GojiMet86]

IMG_5099 by GojiMet86, on Flick

[Jchambers2120]

Ehh, excuse me being obtuse lol. Why are some of you suggesting sending the 5 train down the new hypothetical route?Would the 2 being the only route serving Flatbush suffice because I thought the point of the 5 going to Brooklyn was to help out the 2.

 

If anything reading some of the most recent posts it seems like if this line were built and the 3 & 4 trains swapped terminals those extra 5's that are scheduled to terminate at Utica would go on with the 4 to New Lots and those rush hour 2's that end/start at New Lots would cease operation and become Flatbush trains.

 

Though things seem to be getting better for the MTA financially and they're taking a new initiative to rebuild/improve their network I highly doubt this new line will ever be built. 

[cl94]

There would still be delays possibly even at Utica.   A northbound coming into Rogers Jct causes the most backup. So I kinda get it. Are you mitigating this with switching capabilities at Utica?  Kinda the lesser of two evils?  Did I mock this correctly?

 

 

 

Nice mockups and that is what I was thinking. While the possibility of delays still exists, it would be similar to what happens on QBL at Queens Plaza where the changes tracks or the at Canal and removing the from the picture would reduce the mess a bit.

 

Ehh, excuse me being obtuse lol. Why are some of you suggesting sending the 5 train down the new hypothetical route?Would the 2 being the only route serving Flatbush suffice because I thought the point of the 5 going to Brooklyn was to help out the 2.

 

If anything reading some of the most recent posts it seems like if this line were built and the 3 & 4 trains swapped terminals those extra 5's that are scheduled to terminate at Utica would go on with the 4 to New Lots and those rush hour 2's that end/start at New Lots would cease operation and become Flatbush trains.

 

Though things seem to be getting better for the MTA financially and they're taking a new initiative to rebuild/improve their network I highly doubt this new line will ever be built. 

 

The thought of the going down Utica would be to reduce the mess at Rogers Junction. As it is, the SB has to switch to the local before going onto the Nostrand line. This causes delays back to Manhattan on a daily basis. Staggering the junction would reduce the conflict potential. If 2 lines went down Utica, which would theoretically be a busier corridor, the bus lines to Flatbush could be rerouted, thus taking some of the traffic off of Nostrand. It would certainly be a lesser of 2 evils situation, but it is a relatively cheap fix in the hypothetical scenario where a Utica line is built, as they would only have to build 2 crossovers in locations where only columns exist. Any delay reduction might be useful and it would likely prevent F-ups on the down there. It certainly isn't great, but it would be better than keeping Rogers as-is.

[Around the Horn]

There would still be delays possibly even at Utica.   A northbound coming into Rogers Jct causes the most backup. So I kinda get it. Are you mitigating this with switching capabilities at Utica?  Kinda the lesser of two evils?  Did I mock this correctly?

 

 

 

In the southbound diagram, the would stop on the express track switching after the station. The and would indeed stop on the local track, with the switching west of the station.

[RailRunRob]

Nice mockups and that is what I was thinking. While the possibility of delays still exists, it would be similar to what happens on QBL at Queens Plaza where the changes tracks or the at Canal and removing the from the picture would reduce the mess a bit.

 

 

The thought of the going down Utica would be to reduce the mess at Rogers Junction. As it is, the SB has to switch to the local before going onto the Nostrand line. This causes delays back to Manhattan on a daily basis. Staggering the junction would reduce the conflict potential. If 2 lines went down Utica, which would theoretically be a busier corridor, the bus lines to Flatbush could be rerouted, thus taking some of the traffic off of Nostrand. It would certainly be a lesser of 2 evils situation, but it is a relatively cheap fix in the hypothetical scenario where a Utica line is built, as they would only have to build 2 crossovers in locations where only columns exist. Any delay reduction might be useful and it would likely prevent F-ups on the down there. It certainly isn't great, but it would be better than keeping Rogers as-is.

I could see a scenario in the future where the is cut from Nostrand altogether  to optimize switching, speed, and capacity. With ridership growing I can't think of anything else short term. I live between Frankin and Brooklyn Museum stations  I use Franklin more for the Lex I always see people switch from the to when they both pull in every day so I'm not sure how much it would hurt the Nostrand Ave segment eastside riders. I guess the other question if we cut the from Nostrand where do we send it or end it?  Utica? Can Utica turn more trains? Can we send the to NewLots end the at Utica? Do we cut back to Bowling Green which I doubt with ridership at an all-time high?  The long-term question 40-50 years down the road is can ISIM/CBTC balance the need for rebuilding Rogers Junction? Always wondered why they build the line this way having extensions in mind you'd think the Express would take the trips to Southern Brooklyn and this wasn't the original phases for the IRT like 142nd Junction which maybe I could understand. Flying junctions were the big thing with the IND so maybe they didn't see the need at the time also could have been the restrictions with building on Eastern Parkway itself.

In the southbound diagram, the would stop on the express track switching after the station. The and would indeed stop on the local track, with the switching west of the station.

Cool, I got it right then. Always get confused with Southbound and Eastbound in Brooklyn. Would a train leaving Kingston Ave be considered  Southbound or EastBound?  Northbound or Westbound? 

[Jchambers2120]

 

 

The thought of the going down Utica would be to reduce the mess at Rogers Junction. As it is, the SB has to switch to the local before going onto the Nostrand line. This causes delays back to Manhattan on a daily basis. Staggering the junction would reduce the conflict potential. If 2 lines went down Utica, which would theoretically be a busier corridor, the bus lines to Flatbush could be rerouted, thus taking some of the traffic off of Nostrand. It would certainly be a lesser of 2 evils situation, but it is a relatively cheap fix in the hypothetical scenario where a Utica line is built, as they would only have to build 2 crossovers in locations where only columns exist. Any delay reduction might be useful and it would likely prevent F-ups on the down there. It certainly isn't great, but it would be better than keeping Rogers as-is.

 

Ah ok, thanks for the clarification. 

[cl94]

I could see a scenario in the future where the is cut from Nostrand altogether  to optimize switching, speed, and capacity. With ridership growing I can't think of anything else short term. I live between Frankin and Brooklyn Museum stations  I use Franklin more for the Lex I always see people switch from the to when they both pull in every day so I'm not sure how much it would hurt the Nostrand Ave segment eastside riders.

 

Cool, I got it right then. Always get confused with Southbound and Eastbound in Brooklyn. Would a train leaving Kingston Ave be considered  Southbound or EastBound?  Northbound or Westbound? 

 

South in Brooklyn is away from Manhattan. This includes the entire Jamaica line, which is railroad south heading east toward Parsons/Archer. North in the Bronx is self-explanatory, north in Queens is away from Manhattan excluding the , , and Jamaica/Myrtle. (Edit: railroads generally only have 2 directions. In the Subway, those are north/south.)

 

My grandfather used to live near Grand Army Plaza, so I'm pretty familiar with the mess in that area. Nostrand is the choke point of the entire IRT, but it needs 2 services as things stand because of the bus transfers boosting ridership. Theoretically, a Utica line could take away the need for 2 services down Nostrand, as the transfers would be at the Utica line. If I'm reading things correctly, Flatbush/Brooklyn College is the 6th busiest station complex in Brooklyn, almost certainly because of bus transfers. Utica on the is the 4th busiest for the same reason. If that is the case, a Utica line would remove the need for the to go down Nostrand entirely, but the Utica line would probably need 2 services to handle the transfers. If designed properly, it could have a 3-4 track terminal to reduce delays (or possibly even have a multi-track balloon loop, but with straight platforms).

[RailRunRob]

South in Brooklyn is away from Manhattan. This includes the entire Jamaica line, which is railroad south heading east toward Parsons/Archer. North in the Bronx is self-explanatory, north in Queens is away from Manhattan excluding the , , and Jamaica/Myrtle. (Edit: railroads generally only have 2 directions. In the Subway, those are north/south.)

 

My grandfather used to live near Grand Army Plaza, so I'm pretty familiar with the mess in that area. Nostrand is the choke point of the entire IRT, but it needs 2 services as things stand because of the bus transfers boosting ridership. Theoretically, a Utica line could take away the need for 2 services down Nostrand, as the transfers would be at the Utica line. If I'm reading things correctly, Flatbush/Brooklyn College is the 6th busiest station complex in Brooklyn, almost certainly because of bus transfers. Utica on the is the 4th busiest for the same reason. If that is the case, a Utica line would remove the need for the to go down Nostrand entirely, but the Utica line would probably need 2 services to handle the transfers. If designed properly, it could have a 3-4 track terminal to reduce delays (or possibly even have a multi-track balloon loop, but with straight platforms).

Gotcha!!. On the vacation from the office this week time on my hands for once. Here's my rough design of what a possible rebuild of Rogers JCT could look like. Still verifying the datasets for the area hasn't been easy finding it. I figured if anyone's going to find stuff I'm missing it'll be here so open fire. Maybe over the weekend I can pull it into the AutoCAD and get some renderings. I also think a minor config could be widening the tunnel at the point have to merge in and then back out.. and locking to Nostrand.  If the Utica Ave line doesn't happen.

 

[cl94]

Biggest problem is that you'd have to suspend express service during reconstruction. A poor man's solution if Nostrand is the line extended south would be to install a crossover immediately north of Nostrand Avenue . The would run local from here east to New Lots and the would head down Nostrand at all times. As the traffic is on Utica and access to both sides of Manhattan from Utica would be nice, this is not preferable, but it is a possibility.

 

Long story short, Rogers isn't being reconstructed unless a bypass of the area is built, whether it be in the form of the RX or another new line.

[RailRunRob]

Biggest problem is that you'd have to suspend express service during reconstruction. A poor man's solution if Nostrand is the line extended south would be to install a crossover immediately north of Nostrand Avenue . The would run local from here east to New Lots and the would head down Nostrand at all times. As the traffic is on Utica and access to both sides of Manhattan from Utica would be nice, this is not preferable, but it is a possibility.

 

Long story short, Rogers isn't being reconstructed unless a bypass of the area is built, whether it be in the form of the RX or another new line.

Yep that kinda what I had in mind the with Poorman's version. It's funny what led to even try to figure out how to reconfigure the junction. I was reading about the MTA 1968 plans and saw the Rogers Jct upgrade. After trying to find drafts with on luck got me itching to try a layout on my own. What was there plan to offset service? Did they figure this out or was this just hot air and lipservice?

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk