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

[RailRunRob]

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.

 

 

 

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.

Another question I'd have to ask in the 137th vs 242nd questions is ridership projections? Upper Manhattan I'm sure as with other area's is seeing growth. How does that look over the next 5-10 years? Sure you're adding a few more trains and calling them (9)'s you'd also have to take a few trains from the as well I'd take so essentially you'd be short turning a few trains that might otherwise serve upper Manhattan and The Bronx? Correct me if I'm off. I guess before we even get too technical what would we have to add or subtract from the Current  service to effectively add a new line . More cars ect? It's a little different than old now not as simple as changing a rollsign. Somebodies going to lose or gain something. What are you guys thinking on that front?      

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.

 

 

 

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.

Also, 168th would be a bit on the difficult side to modify 

[GojiMet86]

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

 

Manhattan Routing:

Down 11th Avenue and then down West Street all the way, assuming it's feasible. Then under the Battery Park and just about parallel to the Brooklyn Battery Park Tunnel to Brooklyn.

 

Manhattan Stops at

23rd Street

14th Street-Chelsea Market

12th Street (Maybe)

Christopher Street

Canal Street

West Street-BMCC

World Trade Center

Battery Place (Maybe)

 

Brooklyn Routing:

I can't tell from where they propose the station to be, so I'll say the enters on Commerce or Seabring. Then it makes a turn unto Richards Street, where it would continue until making a turn in between Sullivan and Wolcott Streets unto Wolcott/Lorraine.  When it reaches the Gowanus Canal, it would make a turn northeast and then east under the Culver line until 4th Avenue.

 

Brooklyn Stops:

Atlantic Basin, where AECOM proposes it. If not, then I would have the subway on Seabring and have the first Brooklyn stop on Richards and Delavan.

Red Hook on Lorraine Street, in between Otsego and Columbia Streets. If the first stop would be at Delavan, then Red Hook would be between Columbia and Hicks.

4th Avenue right beneath the Culver line.

 

 

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.

 

Dyckman Street could be that terminal. Have the trains run on the middle track up to 207th Street and turn back.

[Around the Horn]

Yeah, At this point, I'm considering Dyckman Street, 137th, 215th or 242nd.

[Union Tpke]

In terms of the schedule, this should be more useful as it shows all trips, and several trips already terminate at 137th and 215th. The current ones at 215th go onto the center track and layup at 238th.

http://boerumhillscott.com/transit/LineTrips.php

[Around the Horn]

Ah thanks. I was looking for that. Is there an old / timetable on there?

[RailRunRob]

Manhattan Routing:

Down 11th Avenue and then down West Street all the way, assuming it's feasible. Then under the Battery Park and just about parallel to the Brooklyn Battery Park Tunnel to Brooklyn.

 

Manhattan Stops at

23rd Street

14th Street-Chelsea Market

12th Street (Maybe)

Christopher Street

Canal Street

West Street-BMCC

World Trade Center

Battery Place (Maybe)

 

Brooklyn Routing:

I can't tell from where they propose the station to be, so I'll say the enters on Commerce or Seabring. Then it makes a turn unto Richards Street, where it would continue until making a turn in between Sullivan and Wolcott Streets unto Wolcott/Lorraine.  When it reaches the Gowanus Canal, it would make a turn northeast and then east under the Culver line until 4th Avenue.

 

Brooklyn Stops:

Atlantic Basin, where AECOM proposes it. If not, then I would have the subway on Seabring and have the first Brooklyn stop on Richards and Delavan.

Red Hook on Lorraine Street, in between Otsego and Columbia Streets. If the first stop would be at Delavan, then Red Hook would be between Columbia and Hicks.

4th Avenue right beneath the Culver line.

 

 

 

Dyckman Street could be that terminal. Have the trains run on the middle track up to 207th Street and turn back.

West street could be feasible my gut is it'd have to maintain depth if that route was taken. Would be a heck of an undertaking for launch area's keeping the water out. The Hudson in this neck of the woods is maybe 40 feet deep. I think it has to be 35ft ish for shipping lanes. Just have to get under everything. A lot of work tho.

[Union Tpke]

Ah thanks. I was looking for that. Is there an old / timetable on there?

 

This website did not exist then and I don't think it keeps records like that.

Here is the April 2004 https://web.archive.org/web/20050521121534/http://www.mta.info/nyct/service/pdf/t1cur.pdf, andthe May 2005 https://web.archive.org/web/20051028013235/http://mta.info/nyct/service/pdf/t1cur.pdf.

 

For fun, there is this.

 Makes All Stops

 Discontinued 

 

 

Effective Tue, May 31 

 

 trains replace  trains and make all stops between the 137 Street and 242 Street stations. 

 

There is no reduction in subway service along this line as a result of this change.Most customers will benefit from faster overall travel times. Service will be as frequent as it was when the  operated. 

 

We continually evaluate service and ridership on all lines in order to provide the most efficient, comfortable, and safe transit service possible.

[RailRunRob]

In terms of the schedule, this should be more useful as it shows all trips, and several trips already terminate at 137th and 215th. The current ones at 215th go onto the center track and layup at 238th.

http://boerumhillscott.com/transit/LineTrips.php

Right, but these are Yard trips after correct? There not returning service trips how fast you can get a crew on and reverse trains is also super important from a management and logistics standpoint.  So I'd ask which of these stations can turn trains at an acceptable rate or can be configured to at least?. Crew. Signaling etc.

[CenSin]

Another question I'd have to ask in the 137th vs 242nd questions is ridership projections? Upper Manhattan I'm sure as with other area's is seeing growth. How does that look over the next 5-10 years? Sure you're adding a few more trains and calling them (9)'s you'd also have to take a few trains from the as well I'd take so essentially you'd be short turning a few trains that might otherwise serve upper Manhattan and The Bronx? Correct me if I'm off. I guess before we even get too technical what would we have to add or subtract from the Current  service to effectively add a new line . More cars ect? It's a little different than old now not as simple as changing a rollsign. Somebodies going to lose or gain something. What are you guys thinking on that front?

Haven’t really studied future projections, but the Flushing Line really shows how the end of the line can be busy, even though the rule-of-thumb is that the ends are less used than the middle. The way the Red is run in Washington DC reflects the latter.

 

Also, 168th would be a bit on the difficult side to modify

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

[CenSin]

Dyckman Street could be that terminal. Have the trains run on the middle track up to 207th Street and turn back.

Add another track to the side of the northbound platform at Dyckman Street. Since the station is mostly above ground, expanding it wouldn’t be difficult. The could terminate on the current northbound track. The would use the new outer track. Currently, the middle track starts further north than where it could start. The ironworks for the middle track extends all the way down to the curve, and so the middle track should be extended there utilizing the same switch configuration as it currently does. The new northbound track would continue independently over a new structure before merging into the old northbound local track at the location where the current middle track begins. I believe this is all possible since there is ample room for such an expansion, and the only things disturbed as a result would be parking spaces next to the station and along the new local track.

 

ASCII art:

<< NORTH                                    Dyckman St
           /——————————————————————————————————————————\
——————————————————————————————————————————\ [‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾] \
————————————————————<                      \——————————————————————
——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————
                                            [‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾]

The purpose of giving a dedicated turning track to the is to add more terminal capacity so that the current can maintain its service levels while squeezing in an extra ten trains for 30 TPH. The trains that currently stop short of the Bronx can become (9)s as well giving Red Hook about 5 minutes between trains or an average wait of 2.5 minutes at the peak.

[RailRunRob]

Add another track to the side of the northbound platform at Dyckman Street. Since the station is mostly above ground, expanding it wouldn’t be difficult. The could terminate on the current northbound track. The would use the new outer track. Currently, the middle track starts further north than where it could start. The ironworks for the middle track extends all the way down to the curve, and so the middle track should be extended there utilizing the same switch configuration as it currently does. The new northbound track would continue independently over a new structure before merging into the old northbound local track at the location where the current middle track begins. I believe this is all possible since there is ample room for such an expansion, and the only things disturbed as a result would be parking spaces next to the station and along the new local track.

 

ASCII art:

<< NORTH                                    Dyckman St
           /——————————————————————————————————————————\
——————————————————————————————————————————\ [‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾] \
————————————————————<                      \——————————————————————
——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————
                                            [‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾]

The purpose of giving a dedicated turning track to the is to add more terminal capacity so that the current can maintain its service levels while squeezing in an extra ten trains for 30 TPH. The trains that currently stop short of the Bronx can become (9)s as well giving Red Hook about 5 minutes between trains or an average wait of 2.5 minutes at the peak.

Okay,  you'd peaked my interest. Solid.. The only places I'd try to poke holes is whether the 7/Bway local can accommodate 30 TPH? And do you see this slowing Northbound service? Especially at peak with backups? I'm thinking more a 9TH-Smith type scenario . But the plan overall seems feasible.   

[Around the Horn]

Okay, you'd peaked my interest. Solid.. The only places I'd try to poke holes is whether the 7/Bway local can accommodate 30 TPH? And do you see this slowing Northbound service? Especially at peak with backups? I'm thinking more a 9TH-Smith type scenario . But the plan overall seems feasible.

Broadway-7th Avenue can definitely handle 30 TPH. The only question is can it handle half of them short turning and keep the other half on schedule?

[CenSin]

Okay,  you'd peaked my interest. Solid.. The only places I'd try to poke holes is whether the 7/Bway local can accommodate 30 TPH? And do you see this slowing Northbound service? Especially at peak with backups? I'm thinking more a 9TH-Smith type scenario . But the plan overall seems feasible.   

It can’t be worse than clearing a train on the same track as through service. With a separate track, the trains can be cleared without getting in the way of through service. The middle track is also long enough that in the case of a back-up, the cleared out trains could go up a station of two up the middle track so that trains can be continuously cleared and queued up along the middle track. Only when the congestion is cleared do the trains return to the downtown platform first-in-last-out from the middle track.

[RailRunRob]

It can’t be worse than clearing a train on the same track as through service. With a separate track, the trains can be cleared without getting in the way of through service. The middle track is also long enough that in the case of a back-up, the cleared out trains could go up a station of two up the middle track so that trains can be continuously cleared and queued up along the middle track. Only when the congestion is cleared do the trains return to the downtown platform first-in-last-out from the middle track.

Ahh, I gotcha. Island set up kinda like 145th? Well, that's all I had. haha, that would work. Problem solved! Feel like I'm brainstorming with my team in the office. I guess a good job would be in order!   

[Around the Horn]

The only question is: are there any staircases blocking a third side track?

 

I'm not familiar with Dyckman.

[RailRunRob]

The only question is: are there any staircases blocking a third side track?

 

I'm not familiar with Dyckman.

Let's see if we see anything.

[Cait Sith]

Personally speaking, I'm all for extensions and such if it's beneficial for more than just one group of people(this proposal is not, in many ways), but in Red Hook's case, you're better off either creating or restoring feeder bus routes that operates to/from subway stations. What was done with the B61/B75/B77 was an absolute travesty and the B57 is unreliable during the rush hours.

Bus routes to/from Smith-9th, Atlantic Avenue or Jay Street would be better in a sense. They may not have as much impact as a subway extension(the subway extension might not even have that much of an impact itself, look at Hudson Yards on the ), but it would serve a better purpose.

That's just my 2 cents. I just think that in some ways, this extension would not be all that beneficial.

[RailRunRob]

Personally speaking, I'm all for extensions and such if it's beneficial for more than just one group of people(this proposal is not, in many ways), but in Red Hook's case, you're better off either creating or restoring feeder bus routes that operates to/from subway stations. What was done with the B61/B75/B77 was an absolute travesty and the B57 is unreliable during the rush hours.

 

Bus routes to/from Smith-9th, Atlantic Avenue or Jay Street would be better in a sense. They may not have as much impact as a subway extension(the subway extension might not even have that much of an impact itself, look at Hudson Yards on the ), but it would serve a better purpose.

That's just my 2 cents. I just think that in some ways, this extension would not be all that beneficial.

In thinking about it and putting it into the context of the project and plans overall I'm not even thinking about Red Hook in its current form coming from that angle I agree with you. But from the standpoint of 45MSQ of new development and spending a million plus on a condo there's nothing enticing or sexy about taking a bus to the train look at Williamsburg. I do understand where you're coming from with current utility but this extension is more to do with selling rentals,sales and get money into the area. Has nothing to do with RedHook of now but the chic sexy Red Hook of 2025.

[Cait Sith]

In thinking about it and putting it into the context of the project and plans overall I'm not even thinking about Red Hook in its current form coming from that angle I agree with you. But from the standpoint of 45MSQ of new development and spending a million plus on a condo there's nothing enticing or sexy about taking a bus to the train look at Williamsburg. I do understand where you're coming from with current utility but this extension is more to do with selling rentals,sales and get money into the area. Has nothing to do with RedHook of now but the chic sexy Red Hook of 2025.

 

My main concern is what would happen when/if all of the developments start. Rent in the surrounding areas will skyrocket and it will push people out. My thing is that this proposal will literally only benefit one group of people, while it would push others out.

 

The entire proposal to me just reeks of one-sided planning.

[Gotham Bus Co.]

If you read the article, with the volume of housing planned AECOM can pay for the subway extension with just tax revenues...

 

I'm still waiting for more details

 

 

The article also says the following:

 

"...however, AECOM acknowledged that other funding sources would be necessary."

 

 

In plain English, AECOM claims only that the development can generate enough revenue to pay for a subway extension. AECOM does not in any way commit to actually paying for its proposed extension. The natural conclusion is that the would pay for the whole thing.

 

The obvious question is this:  What services and/or capital program items would have to be cut to pay for this?

[Around the Horn]

The article also says the following:

 

 

 

In plain English, AECOM claims only that the development can generate enough revenue to pay for a subway extension. AECOM does not in any way commit to actually paying for its proposed extension. The natural conclusion is that the would pay for the whole thing.

 

The obvious question is this: What services and/or capital program items would have to be cut to pay for this?

It could be a TIF like Hudson Yards where the City pays the rest. AECOM does in fact say they would fund up to 45%, in the actual study (which I linked to, and you should read)

[Javier]

Did anyone not see that this would make a train...it's not an extension of the .

[Around the Horn]

Did anyone not see that this would make a train...it's not an extension of the .

Have you been reading the last five pages? We've been talking about the ever since they announced that.

[Cait Sith]

Have you been reading the last five pages? We've been talking about the ever since they announced that.

 

His post is a clear case of someone wanting to post just for the hell of it.

[RailRunRob]

My main concern is what would happen when/if all of the developments start. Rent in the surrounding areas will skyrocket and it will push people out. My thing is that this proposal will literally only benefit one group of people, while it would push others out.

 

The entire proposal to me just reeks of one-sided planning.

You have a point no argument there. What are the City policies on affordable housing? I have to look at this again I don't remember reading anything on it in this proposal. Something would have to go the affordable route in this plan.