Jump to content


Attention: In order to reply to messages, create topics, have access to other features of the community you must sign up for an account.
Sign in to follow this  
LaGuardia Link N Tra

1968 Program for Action Discussion

Recommended Posts

I agree - this is probably one of the cleanest proposals for a relatively small number of relatively high priority changes.

IND Dyre and Pelham lines aren't additions - they're reconstruction of the existing lines. I'm not sure it would be very different to imagine this proposal, versus imagining the proposed Third Avenue replacement as a continuation of the Second Avenue lines, without altering the Pelham and Dyre lines. I would imagine, at the time, that the Pelham and Dyre lines were expected to hit peak ridership sooner than the third avenue line.

Canarsie extensions make some sense given that the line was planned to be reconstructed anyhow - one of the branches is essentially the Bay Ridge Branch proposal frequently discussed here. But I agree they should now be considered a lower priority.

I think that some recent changes might alter this plan in a few ways. Introduction of SBS causes me to consider whether crosstown subways are really much better than frequent SBS with signal priority, compared to the disruptive construction of a midtwon crosstown route and the inconvenience of descending to a bored tunnel vs boarding a bus. What do people think about that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are certainly nice projects in this list. However, you have to keep in mind that this was a plan designed in the New York of 1968, for the New York that they thought would happen. They didn't foresee the crisis of the '70s, the Disney-fication of the City that followed in the '90s and the '00s, or the gentrification of Northern Brooklyn and the waterfront in the '00s and the '10s. There are elements of this plan that would not work in the New York of today, like extending the (L), or hooking the SAS into the over-capacity western section of the (L). Notice also how Manhattan-centric it is, when in reality ever-increasing amounts of people work in the outer boroughs.

It's certainly a useful template, but really we should've started anew with a new plan. The most glaring example of "old stuff that should've been tossed" would be the $12B hole in the ground underneath Grand Central, but it's far too late to stop that trainwreck.

Edited by bobtehpanda

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On a personal note 

I never saw the current 125 Street extension as a priority, its pretty much a waste of money. However I am open to an SAS-Dyre Extension. It's cheaper and more efficient and it replaces a useless shuttle. 3rd and Park Avenues I think are well served, haven't been there to see it myself.

Queens Bypass would definitely help out since I'm a Rego Park Resident and the (E) and (F) are messed up past 71st 

Archer extensions for the (E) and (J) would help out a lot. Current LIRR trains on the Laurelton branch can be rerouted to the St. Albans Branch 

Rogers and 149 Street Junctions need to be rebuilt. That also leads to me agreeing to the fact that the Utica extensionshould be built. Though to be honest, I'm confused on how to fix the Rogers Junction. 

Canarsie reorganization (and I mean reorganizing EVERYTHING about it) should happen which leaves an open door for the TriboroRX. 

Crosstown Lines. We have enough for now.

As for the LIE extension, I would support it and it would have a higher ridership than RBB. But then we'll be left with a problem 

Edited by LGA Link N train

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, bobtehpanda said:

There are certainly nice projects in this list. However, you have to keep in mind that this was a plan designed in the New York of 1968, for the New York that they thought would happen. They didn't foresee the crisis of the '70s, the Disney-fication of the City that followed in the '90s and the '00s, or the gentrification of Northern Brooklyn and the waterfront in the '00s and the '10s. There are elements of this plan that would not work in the New York of today, like extending the (L), or hooking the SAS into the over-capacity western section of the (L). Notice also how Manhattan-centric it is, when in reality ever-increasing amounts of people work in the outer boroughs.

It's certainly a useful template, but really we should've started anew with a new plan. The most glaring example of "old stuff that should've been tossed" would be the $12B hole in the ground underneath Grand Central, but it's far too late to stop that trainwreck.

You are right and we have all noticed. And if you have your own version of this plan then you can share through enmodal.co

I'd like to know your thoughts on it.

Also I think that we should ALL use the 70's and 80's as a learning lesson 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 month isn’t necroposting. The topic, however, is quite old. I’m sure there are plenty of prior threads on this very topic. All this does (closing the thread) is increase the number of threads about this topic.

However, this is a useless post regardless:

6 hours ago, LGA Link N train said:

Well this chat hasn't been touched in a month

 

Edited by CenSin
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't get this fixation with locking threads when you guys feel the conversation is done. If there's no more to be added to a thread, it will simply die off, much as topic conversations do in real life.

On the subject at hand, a lot of the ideas thought up in the '68 PfA, much like the grand proposals of 1929 and '39 and the RPA '96 plan, have been mentioned in various threads over the years, including the stickied Proposals and Ideas thread. There's not much to add here because the ideas have been talked about constantly for years in one form or another. The official plans themselves are little more than grandiose ideas proposed by people with little way of actually funding them beyond hopes and wishes. The real discussion has always lied in the actual lines proposed.

  • Thanks 3
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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