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  
R68OnBroadway

Lack of overpasses/underpasses between directions

Recommended Posts

As we know, many stations were built without crossovers or crossunders between directions, but why hasn't the MTA done something to address the most needed ones (i.e Nostrand (A)(C) , 86th (4)(5)(6) , 125th-Lenox, Marcy, etc.) considering that these are important stations? Also, what about those sections with no underpasses/overpasses (Lenox, several sections of the (1) north of 125th, a large part of Nostrand)? I'd think the MTA would want to add these given it would save the $ on accessibility (an elevator for 86th is planned but for NB local only-why not extend the shaft and add a crossunder to avoid having to dig another shaft) and make the system more tourist friendly and easier to navigate when there are diversions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Same with 135th-Lenox, as well as 110th-Cathedral Pkwy [C.P.W.], where u can crossover the 109th mezzanine from the uptown side to go 110th [downtown platform].

Edited by BMTKateMeltonLine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One station that really needs an underpass is 137th Street - City College (1) because of the frequent service changes which involve (1) trains skipping from 137th Street to 96th Street. (Maybe 145 Street (1) as well) Whenever the MTA does this service change, they tell people to go up to 168th Street and then transfer to a downtown train (or vice versa) which is very slow and which nobody does, and they don’t add shuttle buses either.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@R68OnBroadway, but when it comes to Nostrand Av on the (A)(C) and 86 St on the (4)(5)(6), the lower level tracks are literally just right below the upper level ones. So how would it be physically possible to build a cross-under to allow free transfers between directions on all levels at those stations? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Jemorie said:

@R68OnBroadway, but when it comes to Nostrand Av on the (A)(C) and 86 St on the (4)(5)(6), the lower level tracks are literally just right below the upper level ones. So how would it be physically possible to build a cross-under to allow free transfers between directions on all levels at those stations? 

You could build a crossunder under those platforms.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you're suggesting they just build a connecting passageway underneath the already bi-level subway station? Outside of one-directional reroutes, how often does one need to cross over between directions that such construction would be beneficial? I'm thinking not so much. In terms of reroutes, a better suggestion would be to reprogram the turnstiles to treat reentering at one of these stations as a transfer and not an additional charge. Perhaps they'll be able to do something with the new payment system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/6/2018 at 12:38 PM, R68OnBroadway said:

why not extend the shaft and add a crossunder to avoid having to dig another shaft) and make the system more tourist friendly and easier to navigate when there are diversions.

You'd still need the second elevator, to connect the crossunder back to SB. It doesn't save money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only station I can think of where a new crossunder would be useful is Bergen on Culver. Most — if not all — Manhattan bound (G) riders transfer to the (A)(C) at Hoyt regardless of their destination, as you really have to ride to Smith 9th before you have a convenient crossover to the (F) (Carroll has, but it’s at the extreme end of the platform, a good distance from where the (G) stops). Putting one in at Bergen would allow a convenient connection — and could be done with little construction impact on traffic, as the LL is OOS. 

At the very least, an out of system transfer between sides would be appreciated.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Jemorie said:

@R68OnBroadway, but when it comes to Nostrand Av on the (A)(C) and 86 St on the (4)(5)(6), the lower level tracks are literally just right below the upper level ones. So how would it be physically possible to build a cross-under to allow free transfers between directions on all levels at those stations? 

Actually at Nostrand Ave (A)(C) the express tracks rise to the Mezzanine Level and they extended the platform to the Express Tracks.

I think the express run was originally planned to go from Hoyt-Schemerhorn to Utica Ave (typical IND 5 station bypass-run), but then Nostrand was added in after the fact to connect with the LIRR.

The question is, what's behind the inner walls on the Local tracks, under the express tracks?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/7/2018 at 8:57 AM, Jemorie said:

@R68OnBroadway, but when it comes to Nostrand Av on the (A)(C) and 86 St on the (4)(5)(6), the lower level tracks are literally just right below the upper level ones. So how would it be physically possible to build a cross-under to allow free transfers between directions on all levels at those stations? 

Nostrand Avenue (A)(C) actually does have a crossover, though it's no longer in service. It was part of the closed mezzanine the station has that stretches all the way to Bedford Avenue and, in my opinion, should be reopened. 

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, N6 Limited said:

Actually at Nostrand Ave (A)(C) the express tracks rise to the Mezzanine Level and they extended the platform to the Express Tracks.

I think the express run was originally planned to go from Hoyt-Schemerhorn to Utica Ave (typical IND 5 station bypass-run), but then Nostrand was added in after the fact to connect with the LIRR.

The question is, what's behind the inner walls on the Local tracks, under the express tracks?

Most likely just supports for the express tracks above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, N6 Limited said:

Actually at Nostrand Ave (A)(C) the express tracks rise to the Mezzanine Level and they extended the platform to the Express Tracks.

I think the express run was originally planned to go from Hoyt-Schemerhorn to Utica Ave (typical IND 5 station bypass-run), but then Nostrand was added in after the fact to connect with the LIRR.

The question is, what's behind the inner walls on the Local tracks, under the express tracks?

I already been knew that and my question in response to R68OnBroadway's first post on this thread has nothing to do with that...I said "the lower level tracks are literally right below the upper level ones" as a general statement. I was just asking how would a crossunder or crossover between the upper level and lower level at both Nostrand Av (A)(C) and 86 St (4)(5)(6) respectively would be possible given their current track layout and overall design.

And behind the inner walls on the local tracks downstairs is probably nothing but a full brick wall that supports the express tracks above.

@Cabanamaner, oh. I was baffled at first because the upper level tracks and the mezzanine seem like they're literally right below the street level at Nostrand Av (A)(C) so I assumed that a crossover wouldn't have been possible as well as a crossunder.

Edited by Jemorie
Error. Accidentally clicked the "enter" button without typing my comment in the first place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, RR503 said:

The only station I can think of where a new crossunder would be useful is Bergen on Culver. Most — if not all — Manhattan bound (G) riders transfer to the (A)(C) at Hoyt regardless of their destination, as you really have to ride to Smith 9th before you have a convenient crossover to the (F) (Carroll has, but it’s at the extreme end of the platform, a good distance from where the (G) stops). Putting one in at Bergen would allow a convenient connection — and could be done with little construction impact on traffic, as the LL is OOS. 

At the very least, an out of system transfer between sides would be appreciated.   

The lower level of Bergen will be back in use again in the next few years because (F) express service in Brooklyn will come back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Jemorie said:

I already been knew that and my question in response to R68OnBroadway's first post on this thread has nothing to do with that...I said "the lower level tracks are literally right below the upper level ones" as a general statement. I was just asking how would a crossunder or crossover between the upper level and lower level at both Nostrand Av (A)(C) and 86 St (4)(5)(6) respectively would be possible given their current track layout and overall design.

And behind the inner walls on the local tracks downstairs is probably nothing but a full brick wall that supports the express tracks above.

@Cabanamaner, oh. I was baffled at first because the upper level tracks and the mezzanine seem like they're literally right below the street level at Nostrand Av (A)(C) so I assumed that a crossover wouldn't have been possible as well as a crossunder.

It's really either just unused track or empty trackbed. The station layout is consistent with that of a typical local station but, as stated before, plans changed last minute and the IND decided to have the present-day (A) stop at Nostrand as well but by that time the mezzanine was already built and the trackbed for the intended bypass express tracks were in place. Had the ramping up of the express tracks to the mezzanine-turned-platform level were decided against, we would've seen a simpler crossover design albeit only for (C) trains as per the original IND plans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, ABOGbrooklyn said:

The lower level of Bergen will be back in use again in the next few years because (F) express service in Brooklyn will come back.

Can't count on the MTA to bring back the Bergen Street lower level unfortunately especially after enduring years of being unused which resulted in it being structurally fragile. Unless you plan on getting the surrounding community to pressure TA into restoring the lower level, they'll likely cite expensive costs for rehabilitation (including the need to add elevators in order to bring the complex up to ADA standards) as outweighing the benefits of relieving congestion if (F) express service were to be restored.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, RTSTdrive said:

Can't count on the MTA to bring back the Bergen Street lower level unfortunately especially after enduring years of being unused which resulted in it being structurally fragile. Unless you plan on getting the surrounding community to pressure TA into restoring the lower level, they'll likely cite expensive costs for rehabilitation (including the need to add elevators in order to bring the complex up to ADA standards) as outweighing the benefits of relieving congestion if (F) express service were to be restored.

Structurally fragile? They already run RTO and work trains through the lower level during G.Os, and obviously the upper level must be supported, so you must be referring to the stairs/platforms?

If they can do Enhanced Station Initiative on stations without Elevators ,why can't they do that to Bergen lower level?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, ABOGbrooklyn said:

The lower level of Bergen will be back in use again in the next few years because (F) express service in Brooklyn will come back.

I highly doubt <F> is coming beyond any runs that can't fit on the local tracks because of Canarsie (G) service. My point was that digging a third level down would be easier as there would be no traffic to disrupt with said construction. 

18 hours ago, RTSTdrive said:

Can't count on the MTA to bring back the Bergen Street lower level unfortunately especially after enduring years of being unused which resulted in it being structurally fragile. Unless you plan on getting the surrounding community to pressure TA into restoring the lower level, they'll likely cite expensive costs for rehabilitation (including the need to add elevators in order to bring the complex up to ADA standards) as outweighing the benefits of relieving congestion if (F) express service were to be restored.

Honestly, Bergen lower just need elevators, lights and some wall panels. It's otherwise perfectly sound. If Bergen ever gets ADA, I'd argue that making the LL at least a functional facility would be a worthwhile investment. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, RTSTdrive said:

Can't count on the MTA to bring back the Bergen Street lower level unfortunately especially after enduring years of being unused which resulted in it being structurally fragile. Unless you plan on getting the surrounding community to pressure TA into restoring the lower level, they'll likely cite expensive costs for rehabilitation (including the need to add elevators in order to bring the complex up to ADA standards) as outweighing the benefits of relieving congestion if (F) express service were to be restored.

They likely need to bring that station to ADA standards anyway, so it would be worth doing.

I would have already done this ahead of the impending (L) shutdown, citing the nature of that shutdown that would allow the (F) to be the express to Church Avenue and the (G) to be the local at all times and allow the (G) to run all trains to Church Avenue as part of a plan to encourage riders to as much as possible use the (G) either to the (A)(C) at Hoyt-Schermerhorn OR a new OOS transfer to the (2)(3)(4)(5)(B)(D)(N)(Q)(R) at Atlantic-Barclays.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, RR503 said:

Honestly, Bergen lower just need elevators, lights and some wall panels. It's otherwise perfectly sound. If Bergen ever gets ADA, I'd argue that making the LL at least a functional facility would be a worthwhile investment. 

Absolutely!  As noted in my own comment, I would have done this anyway ahead of the (L) shutdown to get Bergen LL back in order and allow the (F) to use it at all times.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Wallyhorse said:

Absolutely!  As noted in my own comment, I would have done this anyway ahead of the (L) shutdown to get Bergen LL back in order and allow the (F) to use it at all times.

Okay, but why does the (F) need to go down there? Court Square really can't turn more than 15tph, so even if you ran all shutdown (G)s to Church, you'd still have plenty of room on Culver Local for (F)s. I see Bergen lower as a future-proofing investment more than a matter of immediate need. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Every bit of track must be used at all times. - Wallyhorse

My ideas are the best and no one can tell me otherwise. - also Wallyhorse

In regards to an investment in Bergen St, I agree that it's a worthwhile investment. In the event of the return of Culver express service, it would give riders another option besides the Culver local routes. And it's also good for when service is rerouted to the express tracks for construction.

14 hours ago, N6 Limited said:

Structurally fragile? They already run RTO and work trains through the lower level during G.Os, and obviously the upper level must be supported, so you must be referring to the stairs/platforms?

If they can do Enhanced Station Initiative on stations without Elevators ,why can't they do that to Bergen lower level?

Yeah, I don't know what he's talking about. Both levels are structurally sound even after the fire in 1999. The platforms are a hazard to potential riders because they have been left to the elements for decades, even before the equipment room fire.

In theory, they could ESI-rehab the lower level. After all, they're paying $40m to rehab the two Penn Station stops and those are mostly cosmetic upgrades, whereas the entire rehab of Bergen St's lower level is estimated to cost around $75m, an amount that includes full ADA accessibility for the entire station. The major problem preventing this I believe is its potential for use. Transit does not really want to implement express service on the Culver line and even if they do, they do not want to use Bergen St as an express stop. They are likely convinced that since nobody will use that stop, there is no need to invest in bringing it back to full express-local status.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Lance said:

Yeah, I don't know what he's talking about. Both levels are structurally sound even after the fire in 1999. The platforms are a hazard to potential riders because they have been left to the elements for decades, even before the equipment room fire.

In theory, they could ESI-rehab the lower level. After all, they're paying $40m to rehab the two Penn Station stops and those are mostly cosmetic upgrades, whereas the entire rehab of Bergen St's lower level is estimated to cost around $75m, an amount that includes full ADA accessibility for the entire station. The major problem preventing this I believe is its potential for use. Transit does not really want to implement express service on the Culver line and even if they do, they do not want to use Bergen St as an express stop. They are likely convinced that since nobody will use that stop, there is no need to invest in bringing it back to full express-local status.

I'm sure there are (G) riders that would rather connect to the F than the (A)(C) and sometimes there are crazy gaps in (A) (C) service. 

As for transit being convinced that no one will use Bergen St lower level, they were also convinced that the (M) /Broadway Brooklyn line did not need to go to midtown until a "budget crisis" forced their hand, and what a surprise, ridership increased!

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There’s a bit of circularity here. Transit doesn’t want (F) express because the rich/high ridership stations get skipped, partially on account of the absence of Bergen Lower. Thus, because they don’t want (F) express, they don’t feel the investment to renovate Bergen Lower is justified. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, RR503 said:

There’s a bit of circularity here. Transit doesn’t want (F) express because the rich/high ridership stations get skipped, partially on account of the absence of Bergen Lower. Thus, because they don’t want (F) express, they don’t feel the investment to renovate Bergen Lower is justified. 

And exactly why I would look to invest in Bergen lower.  The (M) merger with the (V) showed what can happen and I suspect would happen with a Bergen lower rebuild that is needed anyway.

Were it not for the bottleneck at Broadway-Lafayette, we could re-route the (C) to the Culver express south of West 4th while the (G) and (F) are BOTH Culver locals to Church Avenue, with the (C) becoming the Coney Island service.  Biggest benefit of that Coney Island riders get a one-seat ride to 8th Avenue they don't currently have and Park Slope actually gets more efficient (F) service as the line would be starting much closer to where they are. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What serves Fulton St local? And don't say the (E) because that's a non-starter. Also, turning 20 or so trains per hour at the compact Church Av terminal seems like a disaster waiting to happen.

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.