AECOM Proposes Subway Extension to Red Hook as Part of Development Project

[Jdog14]

Why not have an extension of the instead?

The would be extended via the Montague Tunnel, and before Court Street there would be a turnoff at Hicks Street.

A new tunnel under the East River would not be necessary.

Screen Shot 2016-09-14 at 7.23.45 PM by spicker613, on Flickr

 

From a capacity standpoint I would disagree. You have the sharing tracks with the through out Manhattan and then the in the tubes to Astoria. If it comes to the point where they have to increase service there won't be much flexibility (see the situation north of 42nd St now)

[Around the Horn]

From a capacity standpoint I would disagree. You have the sharing tracks with the through out Manhattan and then the in the tubes to Astoria. If it comes to the point where they have to increase service there won't be much flexibility (see the situation north of 42nd St now)

Good point. The currently does not share any tracks with any other services, outside of the late nights.

 

Rush hours, there are trains every 3-5 minutes. If we split them into 's and 's evenly, that's a train to Red Hook, every 6-10 minutes. That's a total of 24 TPH,with 12 TPH and 12 TPH.

 

If we up it to 30TPH, we could then have 15 TPH and 15 TPH. That's a train to Red Hook every 4 minutes.

 

The will never give you a train every four minutes to Red Hook.

[bobtehpanda]

You know, I'm surprised that no one here has talked about the fact that the current residents of Red Hook are probably not too happy about the fact that 45m sqft of new housing is just going to be plopped into their neighborhood without any prior consultation, subway be damned. Sure, they can say that they're organizing meetings after the fact, but a 60 page plus report looks pretty solid and decided on to me.

[Around the Horn]

You know, I'm surprised that no one here has talked about the fact that the current residents of Red Hook are probably not too happy about the fact that 45m sqft of new housing is just going to be plopped into their neighborhood without any prior consultation, subway be damned. Sure, they can say that they're organizing meetings after the fact, but a 60 page plus report looks pretty solid and decided on to me.

Well, this the subway side of the forums, so I was focusing more on the proposed subway when I made the thread.

 

I do think there are issues with portions of the framework, particularly the inland development they are planning and I hope the two parties can come to a consensus. I do like their plans for the waterfront (that Atlantic Basin area looks amazing) and the fact that they are planning so much affordable housing.

[RailRunRob]

You know, I'm surprised that no one here has talked about the fact that the current residents of Red Hook are probably not too happy about the fact that 45m sqft of new housing is just going to be plopped into their neighborhood without any prior consultation, subway be damned. Sure, they can say that they're organizing meetings after the fact, but a 60 page plus report looks pretty solid and decided on to me.

I agree it's very thorough wouldn't be surprised if it was in the works for a decade. Red Hook as always had a stigma issue with blight from Mobs in the 40s to drug capital in the 1980s and 90s. I think it's still there with the natives. You'd really have to live in the area to understand the charm and a good portion of them are implants from other places. so it may be hard for the masses to understand .I wonder if even organizing would be able to stop the impending storm? They'd have to full on pull a Jane Jacobs and even then there's going to be so much money swirling around this project it's probably futile.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[P3F]

I wonder how many of the current residents of Red Hook use the Ikea Ferry to commute to Manhattan.

[T to Dyre Avenue]

From a capacity standpoint I would disagree. You have the sharing tracks with the through out Manhattan and then the in the tubes to Astoria. If it comes to the point where they have to increase service there won't be much flexibility (see the situation north of 42nd St now)

Good point. The currently does not share any tracks with any other services, outside of the late nights.

 

Rush hours, there are trains every 3-5 minutes. If we split them into 's and 's evenly, that's a train to Red Hook, every 6-10 minutes. That's a total of 24 TPH,with 12 TPH and 12 TPH.

 

If we up it to 30TPH, we could then have 15 TPH and 15 TPH. That's a train to Red Hook every 4 minutes.

 

The will never give you a train every four minutes to Red Hook.

I'll agree on that. More frequent service is a major thing the smaller A-Division lines have over their counterparts in the larger B-Division. Not to mention that the would be in the same situation as the pre-1987 was, where it would be a long way off from the nearest storage or maintenance yard. At least the world be able to use the same yard as the , just like it did before it was discontinued. Or 207th St Yard if there isn't enough storage space at 240th St Yard. The could also have a centrally located stop in Battery Park City, because it will likely have to run under there in order to safely clear all the other East River subway tunnels and the Brooklyn-Battery Tunnel.

[Around the Horn]

The could also have a centrally located stop in Battery Park City, because it will likely have to run under there in order to safely clear all the other East River subway tunnels and the Brooklyn-Battery Tunnel.

That's yet another good idea, and I hope it is considered.

 

 

I'll agree on that. More frequent service is a major thing the smaller A-Division lines have over their counterparts in the larger B-Division.

Later in the evening, I'm going to try to do some capacity calculations, to see if my theory holds up...

[Union Tpke]

trains can turn at 215th Street if there is more demand for service between there and 137th Street. They can go onto the center track, and reverse onto the downtown track.

[Around the Horn]

Okay folks, quick calculations here, re vs :

 

For the sake of this comparison, I am going to use the R142A's capacity figures for the , since the R62A's capacity figures are hard to find and I am going to use the R160's capacity figures for the .

 

A ten car train of R142A's holds 1,832 people and a ten car train of R160's holds 2,004 people.

 

Assuming we use the current timetable with trains split evenly between the and , there would be 12 TPH in the rush.

 

That's 21,984 passengers per hour at peak times.

 

Then using the hypothetical I raised, of 30TPH up from the previous 24TPH, there would be 15 TPH. That's 27,480 passengers per hour at peak times.

 

Switching gears over to the , it is expected to return this November with 6 TPH. That's 12,024 passengers per hour at peak times.

 

If we modestly bump this up to 8 TPH, we now have 16,032 passengers per hour.

 

For comparison's sake, in order to carry the same amount of passengers as the first scenario, we would need 11 TPH.

 

To carry the same amount of people as the second scenario, we would need 14 TPH.

 

I do think the 7th Avenue line can handle 30TPH on the local tracks. I don't think Broadway can handle 14 TPH in addition to the and north of 42nd.

[Wallyhorse]

Okay folks, quick calculations here, re 9 vs W:

 

For the sake of this comparison, I am going to use the R142A's capacity figures for the 9, since the R62A's capacity figures are hard to find and I am going to use the R160's capacity figures for the W.

 

A ten car train of R142A's holds 1,832 people and a ten car train of R160's holds 2,004 people.

 

Assuming we use the current timetable with trains split evenly between the and , there would be 12 TPH in the rush.

 

That's 21,984 passengers per hour at peak times.

 

Then using the hypothetical I raised, of 30TPH up from the previous 24TPH, there would be 15 TPH. That's 27,480 passengers per hour at peak times.

 

Switching gears over to the , it is expected to return this November with 6 TPH. That's 12,024 passengers per hour at peak times.

 

If we modestly bump this up to 8 TPH, we now have 16,032 passengers per hour.

 

For comparison's sake, in order to carry the same amount of passengers as the first scenario, we would need 11 TPH.

 

To carry the same amount of people as the second scenario, we would need 14 TPH.

 

I do think the 7th Avenue line can handle 30TPH on the local tracks. I don't think Broadway can handle 14 TPH in addition to the and north of 42nd.

The one way you could make it work with the is if you returned the to its pre-1987 routing where it went 95th-Astroria with the running express via 63rd and joining the QB line at 36th.  This would mean the would be the sole local stopping at Queens Plaza along Queens Boulevard.  That in turn might require the to return to running along QB as well will in this scenario the and all running to 179 and the and to Astoria.  

[T to Dyre Avenue]

But then, both the and would be a long way off from a maintenance or storage yard, whereas the would use 240th St Yard, same as the . And there would no longer be a direct transfer from the Queens Blvd Line to the and trains at Lex/59th St with the loss of the on QB and the rerouting of the via 63rd. Sorry, but the OOS transfer to deep-level Lex/63rd is not and will not be sufficient.

[RailRunRob]

I'll agree on that. More frequent service is a major thing the smaller A-Division lines have over their counterparts in the larger B-Division. Not to mention that the would be in the same situation as the pre-1987 was, where it would be a long way off from the nearest storage or maintenance yard. At least the world be able to use the same yard as the , just like it did before it was discontinued. Or 207th St Yard if there isn't enough storage space at 240th St Yard. The could also have a centrally located stop in Battery Park City, because it will likely have to run under there in order to safely clear all the other East River subway tunnels and the Brooklyn-Battery Tunnel.

 

Don't think it would have to clear the BBT at all..  Turn right just south of Rector street clear the tunnel approach before the portal left onto Washington straddle the I495 approach with a downgrade before the tunnel portal and the Park.. clear the FDR/Westside Hwy tunnel which is just a few feet underground. then your home free. All east of West street no other subway crossings affected.

[Around the Horn]

Don't think it would have to clear the BBT at all.. Turn right just south of Rector street clear the tunnel approach before the portal left onto Washington straddle the I495 approach with a downgrade before the tunnel portal and the Park.. clear the FDR/Westside Hwy tunnel which is just a few feet underground. then your home free. All east of West street no other subway crossings affected.

I like the idea of merging at Cortlandt Street actually. You could have the and split just south of Cortlandt, and include a station in Battery Park City at Thames Street, either under West Street or under Battery Place.

 

The "junction" could be located under Liberty Street and the could turn under either West Street or South End Avenue at Rector Place.

[RailRunRob]

I like the idea of merging at Cortlandt Street actually. You could have the and split just south of Cortlandt, and include a station in Battery Park City at Thames Street, either under West Street or under Battery Place.

 

The "junction" could be located under Liberty Street and the could turn under either West Street or South End Avenue at Rector Place.

 Would this be affected by Ground Zero in any way? I could see them politically not wanting to touch anything there.  What about the PATH? I guess another question would be how deep would the station in Battery Park have to be to get solid footing and the disruption to the area I have friends that live the area might a bit of opposition there's some money down there. Not a bad plan tho just asking about the other dimensions that would have an effect. 

[GojiMet86]

Crazy idea, but what about extending the all the way down the West Side and making that the Red Hook subway?

[RailRunRob]

Crazy idea, but what about extending the all the way down the West Side and making that the Red Hook subway?

Although it would have to be built in stages and would cost quite a bit not that crazy of an idea. What's your route how would you get it downtown? Via Hudson? Similar out to ninth Avenue elevated? Greenwich?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Although it would have to be built in stages and would cost quite a bit not that crazy of an idea. What's your route how would you get it downtown? Via Hudson? Similar to the ninth Avenue elevated? Greenwich?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Around the Horn]

Crazy idea, but what about extending the all the way down the West Side and making that the Red Hook subway?

You could have the go down Washington Street the entire way, but I honestly don't see a need for the train south of the Chelsea Market or Gansevoort Street, at the most.

[Around the Horn]

Okay folks, quick calculations here, re vs :

 

For the sake of this comparison, I am going to use the R142A's capacity figures for the , since the R62A's capacity figures are hard to find and I am going to use the R160's capacity figures for the .

 

A ten car train of R142A's holds 1,832 people and a ten car train of R160's holds 2,004 people.

 

Assuming we use the current timetable with trains split evenly between the and , there would be 12 TPH in the rush.

 

That's 21,984 passengers per hour at peak times.

 

Then using the hypothetical I raised, of 30TPH up from the previous 24TPH, there would be 15 TPH. That's 27,480 passengers per hour at peak times.

 

Switching gears over to the , it is expected to return this November with 6 TPH. That's 12,024 passengers per hour at peak times.

 

If we modestly bump this up to 8 TPH, we now have 16,032 passengers per hour.

 

For comparison's sake, in order to carry the same amount of passengers as the first scenario, we would need 11 TPH.

 

To carry the same amount of people as the second scenario, we would need 14 TPH.

 

I do think the 7th Avenue line can handle 30TPH on the local tracks. I don't think Broadway can handle 14 TPH in addition to the and north of 42nd.

As a semi-update to this post, I looked up an old 1/9 timetable, and found this one from 2003 (http://web.archive.org/web/20030629083556/http://mta.info/nyct/service/pdf/t1cur.pdf). It shows a combined frequency of 3-5 minutes and a train frequency of 6-9 minutes, which is actually lower than the current service. There were 20 TPH combined and 10 TPH each.

 

As for frequencies for this iteration of the train, I would propose an even split between and trains. In the rush hours, there would be a train every 4 minutes, middays a train every 8-10, and evenings a train every 10-12 minutes. On the weekends, there would be a train every 8-10 minutes.

 

This works out to:

-Rush hours: 15TPH, 27,480 passengers an hour

-Middays: 7.5 TPH, 13,740 passengers per hour

-Evenings: 6 TPH, 10,992 passengers per hour

-Weekends: 7.5 TPH, 13,740 passengers per hour

-Nights: 3TPH, 5,496 passengers per hour

 

I'd be interested to see what ideas you guys have.

[CenSin]

You could have the go down Washington Street the entire way, but I honestly don't see a need for the train south of the Chelsea Market or Gansevoort Street, at the most.

If the meets the , that’s good enough. Such a connection would be plenty useful for all sorts of trips—especially those involving Williamsburg and the far west side of Manhattan. A Washington–Christopher Streets station complex might be useful for a connection to the PATH. Governor Christie can pay for all of the Flushing Line south of 14 Street if he wants it. Heck, New Jersey could pay for the all the way to World Trade Center with intervening stations at Washington–Spring–Canal Streets and Greenwich–Franklin Street (they are both 10 blocks apart from the adjacent stations). Maybe after he foots the bill for New York City construction, he’ll regret cancelling the ARC.

[CenSin]

AECOM just dropped more information today, in AMNY and released their study

(http://www.aecom.com/swbrooklyn/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/SW-Brooklyn-Study.pdf)

 

Things of note:

-They are in fact aware that South Ferry station would have to be reconfigured to add a connection to an underwater tunnel and are calling for the revival of the train.

 

"Only this time the 9 would branch off the 1 train at Rector Street to serve three new stations in the Red Hook area — one at the Atlantic Basin and another on Lorraine Street near the Red Hook Houses — as well as a connection to the MTA’s F, G and R trains at a new Fourth Avenue and Tenth Street station."

 

-They are now saying as many as 49,000 housing units.

 

-"In each proposal, much of the new residential property would be built Port Authority-owned, or what the firm considers “vacant or underutilized.” A quarter of all new housing would be designated as affordable units, which could make way for at most about 14,300 affordable units in the area."

 

The Port Authority, The City and the MTA all seem interested in the project and are "looking forward to hearing more about [the subway extension], especially details regarding funding. "

 

http://www.amny.com/transit/1-train-extension-into-red-hook-pitched-by-engineering-firm-aecom-1.12311506

The alignment of the subway could be improved. It would better serve the community if it weren’t so close to the water front—because you can’t serve the water. The alignment would also be more efficient if it were not making sharp turns. The Atlantic Basin stop should be moved more inland, connecting with the BQX, to make it more accessible to more of the neighborhood to the east. The Red Hook station—I understand—needs to be where it is in order to provide service to the area jutting out of Brooklyn without going out of the way to serve the peninsula-like protrusion. Since most of the land there will be redeveloped anyway, there should be no problem cutting across blocks diagonally to create a more direct path with gentler curves (very IND-like). The extension to 4 Avenue–9 Street should be built for the possibility of taking over the Crosstown Line’s express and/or local tracks, merging at 7 Avenue; this also means that the entire right-of-way from Manhattan to Brooklyn must be BMT-width for a future takeover by an extension of—let’s say—the .

[Around the Horn]

The alignment of the subway could be improved. It would better serve the community if it weren’t so close to the water front—because you can’t serve the water. The alignment would also be more efficient if it were not making sharp turns. The Atlantic Basin stop should be moved more inland, connecting with the BQX, to make it more accessible to more of the neighborhood to the east. The Red Hook station—I understand—needs to be where it is in order to provide service to the area jutting out of Brooklyn without going out of the way to serve the peninsula-like protrusion. Since most of the land there will be redeveloped anyway, there should be no problem cutting across blocks diagonally to create a more direct path with gentler curves (very IND-like). The extension to 4 Avenue–9 Street should be built for the possibility of taking over the Crosstown Line’s express and/or local tracks, merging at 7 Avenue; this also means that the entire right-of-way from Manhattan to Brooklyn must be BMT-width for a future takeover by an extension of—let’s say—the .

I have no problem with the location of the Atlantic Basin station, but I do agree that the path between there and Red Hook station could be better. Allowing for B division trains should be a given.

[CenSin]

I have no problem with the location of the Atlantic Basin station, but I do agree that the path between there and Red Hook station could be better. Allowing for B division trains should be a given.

Moving the station locations nearer to the more expensive waterfront areas keeps seedier elements away, so I’m not going to put up much of a fight about it. If anything, it increases the efficiency of the right-of-way if it ends up cutting diagonally across blocks; refer to your hypotenuse formula for the proof.

 

 

 

Good question if I had to look at it objectively id have to take into consideration current headways, capacity and maybe even length differences between routes.

How many more trains can you fit on the Local on 7th/Bway per hour?

The extension would be somewhere around 3.5 miles from Rector to 4th Ave (1.6) from the line spilt to Atlantic Basin.

Ending the at 137th would leave almost 6 miles to the to cover solo. Could this create uneven headways or delays? What's ridership north of 137th vs south could the commandeer a train or two per hour from the and short turn at 137th to fill in a gap to Brooklyn while staying under capacity?

What's the setup at 137th? Is it capable of handling and turning 5 or more trains per hour? If ran to 242nd could it handle 7-8 more trains per hour there? If so how would the extra 3 miles on the south end of the effect headways and scheduling in Riverdale?

umm, quite a few variables and dimensions . But 137th could be a strong maybe.

Since the ridership tapers down further towards the north, the should probably end at some terminal in Manhattan. Going by ridership and track configuration, the 137 Street–City College station indeed seems ideal; the 168 Street–Washington Heights station has the highest ridership north of 96 Street, but it has only 2 tracks.

 

I’m not sure how difficult the engineering would be, but they could possibly replace the local tracks by installing island platforms over it, and then move the local tracks to where the side platforms used to be. That would give the a single-track terminal (like the at 145 Street) with extra trains running to Van Cortlandt Park–242 Street during rush hours to avoid congestion. The yard tracks end just south of the station, and could be modified for revenue service. The current local tracks would become the new yard tracks after the conversion.

[CenSin]

I’m not sure how difficult the engineering would be, but they could possibly replace the local tracks by installing island platforms over it, and then move the local tracks to where the side platforms used to be. That would give the a single-track terminal (like the at 145 Street) with extra trains running to Van Cortlandt Park–242 Street during rush hours to avoid congestion. The yard tracks end just south of the station, and could be modified for revenue service. The current local tracks would become the new yard tracks after the conversion.

This refers to the 145 Street station and the yard just south of it, by the way.

I have no problem with the location of the Atlantic Basin station, but I do agree that the path between there and Red Hook station could be better. Allowing for B division trains should be a given.

They might even be able to do cut-and-cover for the entire segment in Red Hook if they can work on all of the land at once and integrate necessary ventilation infrastructure into the buildings above the tunnels. It would also be possible to build an underground yard in Red Hook by putting all the yard tracks under the streets and buildings.

[Around the Horn]

This refers to the 145 Street station and the yard just south of it, by the way.

They might even be able to do cut-and-cover for the entire segment in Red Hook if they can work on all of the land at once and integrate necessary ventilation infrastructure into the buildings above the tunnels. It would also be possible to build an underground yard in Red Hook by putting all the yard tracks under the streets and buildings.

Agreed on all counts. I want to see some tail tracks stretching under 10 Street from 4th Avenue to 6th Avenue a la Hudson Yards. Maybe later on they could add a Park Slope station at 7th Avenue.