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  
Union Tpke

Utica Avenue Transit Improvement Study Discussion

Recommended Posts

I'd say that CenSin and the 63 year old quoted in the article are the most realistic folks on the topic.  Just my opinion though.  Carry on .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, yes. But the lady did say she thinks it’ll become a reality “eventually.” She was probably just being nice. On the other hand, when there’s a will, there’s a way. Look how Bloomberg pushed hard for the (7) extension and that became a reality. Though a (4) extension down/alongside Utica would take more than just de Blasio pushing hard for it (which he isn’t, really). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doing something with B46 is the best option. You could use the middle track that is used to store trains as part of the line if you extend the (4) but It would be too much money for that so it's not the best thing to do. Putting 60 foot buses on the Select Bus Service and the local is something that should be done. The MTA should have the B46 SBS go to the Williamsburg Bridge bus terminal. 

Edited by DanTheTransitMan

Share this post


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

The MTA should have the B46 SBS go to the Williamsburg Bridge bus terminal. 

Ridership on the B46 north of DeKalb Avenue is very very light. When they did that SBS study in 2016, 9% of the ridership traveled between DeKalb Avenue and the rest of the route, so it doesn’t even warrant the use of SBS there.

One of my old plans I had for the B46 was to terminate both local and SBS service at DeKalb Avenue. Most riders travel below this point, shortening it would improve reliability to the most amount of riders. In its place, another route would go up Broadway.

As for the subways, a Utica Avenue Subway would be impractical without untangling the Rogers Avenue Junction. Therefore, the best course of action is to add switches on the elevated connecting the middle track with both of the local tracks at East NY Avenue. At this point, the (2) remains on the Nostrand Avenue Line, the (3) goes on the Utica Avenue Line, while the (4) and (5) takes over the New Lots Line, which should be extended to Linden Blvd for better service. Meanwhile, Nostrand Avenue should also get an extension to Kings Hwy to allow for new crosstown bus service to radiate around (rather than feed into) the Flatbush Avenue station.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, JeremiahC99 said:

Ridership on the B46 north of DeKalb Avenue is very very light. When they did that SBS study in 2016, 9% of the ridership traveled between DeKalb Avenue and the rest of the route, so it doesn’t even warrant the use of SBS there.

One of my old plans I had for the B46 was to terminate both local and SBS service at DeKalb Avenue. Most riders travel below this point, shortening it would improve reliability to the most amount of riders. In its place, another route would go up Broadway.

As for the subways, a Utica Avenue Subway would be impractical without untangling the Rogers Avenue Junction. Therefore, the best course of action is to add switches on the elevated connecting the middle track with both of the local tracks at East NY Avenue. At this point, the (2) remains on the Nostrand Avenue Line, the (3) goes on the Utica Avenue Line, while the (4) and (5) takes over the New Lots Line, which should be extended to Linden Blvd for better service. Meanwhile, Nostrand Avenue should also get an extension to Kings Hwy to allow for new crosstown bus service to radiate around (rather than feed into) the Flatbush Avenue station.

Never mind extending the New Lots Line to Linden. It should be extended to Starrett City/Spring Creek to serve that development as well as the shopping mall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/22/2019 at 5:58 PM, T to Dyre Avenue said:

Well, yes. But the lady did say she thinks it’ll become a reality “eventually.” She was probably just being nice. On the other hand, when there’s a will, there’s a way. Look how Bloomberg pushed hard for the (7) extension and that became a reality. Though a (4) extension down/alongside Utica would take more than just de Blasio pushing hard for it (which he isn’t, really). 

Bloomborg was one thing, but DeSleasio doesn't have enough power (clout) to push something like this through.

Share this post


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

Bloomborg was one thing, but DeSleasio doesn't have enough power (clout) to push something like this through.

There's only two more years of BdB, he ain't powerful enough to try and override term limits like Bloomberg did.

The MTA will be nowhere near done with this study in two years, anyways.

  • Thumbs Up 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/28/2019 at 6:59 PM, Italianstallion said:

Never mind extending the New Lots Line to Linden. It should be extended to Starrett City/Spring Creek to serve that development as well as the shopping mall.

As a former resident of the area and a realistic RTO guy I've wondered about extending the Livonia line south toward the mall. The problem as my mentor pointed out many years ago is where do you realign the trackage ? To the housing development or to the mall. Those who propose a stop on Linden Blvd should stop, take a step back, and rethink that idea. Some of my friends look at the posts sometimes and admonish me about some folks proposals. To address this situation let me make this very clear. A stop at Linden Blvd using the existing trackage should never be considered. Livonia Yard is small enough as it is and Linden Blvd is two short blocks from the existing station. Using the yard lead as a guideline it's two train lengths + to Linden. One to Hegeman and one to the overpass at Linden. I walked the length of the yard, all the way to Stanley Avenue, for 20 years for a put-in, layup or both, daily. Walked down to Cozine  as well during part of that time at 2 am before the B6 bus was sent up to New Lots station. Long before the shopping mall was built those of us who worked in that yard and lived south of it realized that there were private homes due south of the yard and on the south side of Cozine Avenue there's an existing housing development where many of us lived. We knew way back then that there was no way for the city and the (MTA) to take that land realistically. That's why the B6, B20, and the B84 bus services are set up the way they are. For forty years the mantra for that area has been east-west bus service toward Rockaway Parkway (L) . Look at the bus forum where some long time posters have pointed out the (MTA) way of thinking. Look how long it took to provide bus service to the mall from Starrett and from the east. We couldn't get one bus, B83 or B20 to run from Broadway Junction along Pennsylvania Avenue to Starrett on the overnights. We were "advised" that those folks transferring from the (A) or (J) at that time of night should transfer to the (L) to Rockaway Parkway for a B6 or now, a B82,  bus heading eastward. Simply put if the (MTA) wouldn't give us one bus do you really think they would take property to extend the Livonia line ? As for the mall itself it was originally thought of as an "auto-centric" destination located off the Belt Parkway, easily accessed by car. When it first opened most of the workforce weren't neighborhood residents but people who arrived by car. The other argument we heard, which had some merit, was that the soil composition in that area was too sandy to support heavy construction. IMO whatever the merits some of these plans have place them next to the SAS phase 3, Utica Avenue extension, and the Queens Bypass and RBB. Conversation pieces. Just my opinion but in my 70 years I've seen more demolition and very little construction from the BOT, NYCTA, (MTA) bloodline. Carry on.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/29/2019 at 11:54 PM, Trainmaster5 said:

As a former resident of the area and a realistic RTO guy I've wondered about extending the Livonia line south toward the mall. The problem as my mentor pointed out many years ago is where do you realign the trackage ? To the housing development or to the mall. Those who propose a stop on Linden Blvd should stop, take a step back, and rethink that idea. Some of my friends look at the posts sometimes and admonish me about some folks proposals. To address this situation let me make this very clear. A stop at Linden Blvd using the existing trackage should never be considered. Livonia Yard is small enough as it is and Linden Blvd is two short blocks from the existing station. Using the yard lead as a guideline it's two train lengths + to Linden. One to Hegeman and one to the overpass at Linden. I walked the length of the yard, all the way to Stanley Avenue, for 20 years for a put-in, layup or both, daily. Walked down to Cozine  as well during part of that time at 2 am before the B6 bus was sent up to New Lots station. Long before the shopping mall was built those of us who worked in that yard and lived south of it realized that there were private homes due south of the yard and on the south side of Cozine Avenue there's an existing housing development where many of us lived. We knew way back then that there was no way for the city and the (MTA) to take that land realistically. That's why the B6, B20, and the B84 bus services are set up the way they are. For forty years the mantra for that area has been east-west bus service toward Rockaway Parkway (L) . Look at the bus forum where some long time posters have pointed out the (MTA) way of thinking. Look how long it took to provide bus service to the mall from Starrett and from the east. We couldn't get one bus, B83 or B20 to run from Broadway Junction along Pennsylvania Avenue to Starrett on the overnights. We were "advised" that those folks transferring from the (A) or (J) at that time of night should transfer to the (L) to Rockaway Parkway for a B6 or now, a B82,  bus heading eastward. Simply put if the (MTA) wouldn't give us one bus do you really think they would take property to extend the Livonia line ? As for the mall itself it was originally thought of as an "auto-centric" destination located off the Belt Parkway, easily accessed by car. When it first opened most of the workforce weren't neighborhood residents but people who arrived by car. The other argument we heard, which had some merit, was that the soil composition in that area was too sandy to support heavy construction. IMO whatever the merits some of these plans have place them next to the SAS phase 3, Utica Avenue extension, and the Queens Bypass and RBB. Conversation pieces. Just my opinion but in my 70 years I've seen more demolition and very little construction from the BOT, NYCTA, (MTA) bloodline. Carry on.

1. While it's not far from the New Lots stop to Linden, it is no closer than from the Van Siclen stop to New Lots.  A station could be built between Linden and Stanley Avenue to the south, allowing connections from the Linden buses and walk-in traffic from the developments south of there. It would also be very convenient to the housing developments due west of there.  

 

2. Not sure why takings would be necessary. An el could be built over Elton Ave. which abuts the yard, straight south into the Gateway Mall. From there, it could swing west through the parking lots (yes, I guess compensation would need to be negotiated with the mall owner), and then over the creek to Spring Creek, terminating at Van Siclen Ave.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Italianstallion said:

1. While it's not far from the New Lots stop to Linden, it is no closer than from the Van Siclen stop to New Lots.  A station could be built between Linden and Stanley Avenue to the south, allowing connections from the Linden buses and walk-in traffic from the developments south of there. It would also be very convenient to the housing developments due west of there.  

 

2. Not sure why takings would be necessary. An el could be built over Elton Ave. which abuts the yard, straight south into the Gateway Mall. From there, it could swing west through the parking lots (yes, I guess compensation would need to be negotiated with the mall owner), and then over the creek to Spring Creek, terminating at Van Siclen Ave.

I see two things in your response that IMO are problematic. The west side of Elton Street has had new one family homes constructed from Hegeman,  past Linden, and down to Stanley Avenue. I'd wager mucho dinero that any politicians proposing an el construction down this corridor would be signing their own death wish,  politically and figuratively. That's without bringing up the underlying problems with the soil, sand underpinning the housing development I used to inhabit down there. That encompasses both sides of Flatlands Avenue  and the south side of Cozine Avenue from Pennsylvania Avenue on eastward. When they tried to go condo with us the environmental issues were exposed that were worse than we thought. FWIW the western portion of the development has even more drastic water seepage and sinking problems. That precluded my idea of swinging a branch of the (L) eastward down Flatlands to the area. We were told that any new subway construction would have to be to B division standards anyway so that's where our employees/residents thoughts were focused. Before we combined that with the height restrictions on the mall buildings themselves.  The restrictions have nothing to do with the flight path into JFK either. The landfill on the southern, eastbound, side of the Belt Parkway stands higher than the mall does. It would appear that the construction factor outweighs the convenience factor in this case.  My opinion.  Carry on. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/11/2019 at 8:23 PM, R68OnBroadway said:

That RPA proposal is half-assed and ridiculous. Nostrand can probably only go to Kings given the water table (unlike Utica there are many residences along the street so an El is unlikely) and that Utica proposal looks like an out-of-towner made it. Why isn't there a stop at Church? Who needs Glenwood when it is next to Kings Highway? Why does it end so abruptly at Flatbush?

At the very minimum I hope they do something like reorganize Rogers to fix the IRT and increase capacity; I would hope the service proposal would look like this:

(2) unchanged

(3) to Flatbush

(4) to New Lots via express

(5) to Utica via local (underground cut and cover stops at Remsen, Church-Linden and Avenue D; elevated stops at Kings Highway, Flatlands-Avenue J, Avenue N and Avenue U-Kings Plaza)

Also, if it could easily be operationally possible, why does express service end at Crown Heights? Is it to reduce crowding on the (4) or something? Is New Lots a poor terminal?

 

So you are saying to send the (5) to Kings Plaza instead of the (4)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Tracks by Utica are very tricky and the switches on the Lower Laver are not the same as upstairs. And sending the (3) to Flatbush will make folks on the Nostrand Avenue Line complain that they will not have an Express train. The (3) would probably be better to go to Kings Plaza since that is already close enough to switch tracks off to the Utica Acenue Line. Yeah it already has New Lots Avenue, but the (4) goes there more often than the (3) during GOHs, Late Nights, and Rush Hours. If you don't know, the (4) comes from New Lots Avenue and goes there during Rush Hours. The (5) comes from New Lots Avenue at 5:48 AM and 7:17 AM. The (2) does as well. But only during the Mornings, about four to five (2) Trains go to New Lots Avenue. Anyway, since the (4) goes to New Lots a lot, then the (4) can go to New Lots Avenue instead of Kings Plaza

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only purpose of doing this study is to pay off some consultant who is owed a political favor. There is absolutely no intention of ever building this line.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, BrooklynBus said:

The only purpose of doing this study is to pay off some consultant who is owed a political favor. There is absolutely no intention of ever building this line.

Thats unfortunate and sad to hear. If only it was the time to elect a political leader who actually CARES and has the intention of building Utica.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/20/2019 at 7:05 PM, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

Thats unfortunate and sad to hear. If only it was the time to elect a political leader who actually CARES and has the intention of building Utica.

In the mean time we can look forward to more cuts on the B46 with the bus redesign.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/20/2019 at 11:17 AM, BrooklynBus said:

The only purpose of doing this study is to pay off some consultant who is owed a political favor. There is absolutely no intention of ever building this line.

Since they chose to study extending the (4)—which is obviously infeasible even to us railfans (never mind the experts)—we already knew they never had the intention to follow through.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/24/2019 at 12:49 PM, Future ENY OP said:

The accuracy of this statement.

They already announced severe service cuts on the B46 with articulated buses. I asked an MTA representative what will happen to the service when articulated buses need to be pulled from service during a bad snowstorm. He jokingly responded that the MTA can control the weather so there are no major snowstorms because he had no answer. He didn’t say they would add buses to compensate for the fewer number of passengers standard buses can carry.

Share this post


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

He jokingly responded that the MTA can control the weather so there are no major snowstorms because he had no answer.

That was a real answer? What was he smoking that made him think that the MTA can control the weather smh?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, BrooklynBus said:

They already announced severe service cuts on the B46 with articulated buses. I asked an MTA representative what will happen to the service when articulated buses need to be pulled from service during a bad snowstorm. He jokingly responded that the MTA can control the weather so there are no major snowstorms because he had no answer. He didn’t say they would add buses to compensate for the fewer number of passengers standard buses can carry.

Um did they not learn their lesson from what happened in the 2018 Blizzard with articulated buses? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, JeremiahC99 said:

That was a real answer? What was he smoking that made him think that the MTA can control the weather smh?

He was joking because people think the MTA is so powerful, they can do anything, so he made a joke about them able to control the weather also. I get where he was coming from, but he should have followed up with a real answer if they have any concern at all for the passengers.

24 minutes ago, Lawrence St said:

Um did they not learn their lesson from what happened in the 2018 Blizzard with articulated buses? 

Apparently not. If you are going to schedule half the service by using articulated buses, you need a contingency plan if those buses can’t run. Then they can’t understand why ridership is declining. Of course it will decline if everyone can’t fit into the buses. They also didn’t learn their lesson when they cut rush hour service in half on the B46 in 1975 because of the budget crisis which started gypsy cabs and ultimately dollar vans stealing bus passengers. 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Finally, an update:

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/6774183/Utica-Ave.pdf

Selected slides:

49524599733_d33312a5a1_h.jpgScreen Shot 2020-02-12 at 6.39.39 AM by Union Turnpike, on Flickr

49525111836_44736ecfa7_h.jpgScreen Shot 2020-02-12 at 6.39.47 AM by Union Turnpike, on Flickr

49525111816_df3ac882a2_h.jpgScreen Shot 2020-02-12 at 6.40.06 AM by Union Turnpike, on Flickr

49524599643_cabbd89465_h.jpgScreen Shot 2020-02-12 at 6.40.52 AM by Union Turnpike, on Flickr

49525111721_ecf549a922_h.jpgScreen Shot 2020-02-12 at 6.41.03 AM by Union Turnpike, on Flickr

https://thecity.nyc/2020/02/utica-ave-subway-extension-dream-gets-a-brooklyn-boost.html?utm_campaign=mailchimp&utm_source=daily&utm_medium=newsletter

UTICA AVE. SUBWAY EXTENSION DREAM GETS A BROOKLYN BOOST
By Jose Martinez and Trone Dowd
 An SBS express bus at Utica Avenue and Fulton Street in Bed-Stuy, on Jan. 29. 2020.
Sign up for “THE CITY Scoop,” our daily newsletter where we send you stories like this first thing in the morning.

The push to extend subway service along busy Utica Avenue in Brooklyn — mused about for more than a century — is now running on two tracks.

Brooklyn Borough President Eric Adams plans to gather a transit task force of residents and community representatives who live near the Utica Avenue corridor to explore potential mass transit upgrades.

“My first goal is to see if we can get a subway line there, an actual in-the-ground subway,” Adams told THE CITY. “But I am open to whatever comes out of this study from the task force.”

The task force comes on top of the MTA’s ongoing $5 million Utica Avenue transit improvements study, which launched last year after Mayor Bill de Blasio pushed for the funds to be tucked into the state agency’s 2015-2019 capital plan.

MTA officials this week began making presentations to Brooklyn community boards about the status of the study, which is set to receive another $5 million infusion via the authority’s proposed 2020-2024 capital plan.

 The study area is bounded by Eastern Parkway to the north, Ralph Avenue to the east, Avenue V to the south and East 40th Street to the west.


A range of potential transit upgrades could be in store for Utica Avenue, according to the MTA, including: extending subway service; building a light rail line; or converting the B46 bus route — the third-busiest in the city — into street-level “bus rapid transit” to provide more frequent service.

The No. 4 line ends at the Utica Avenue stop in Crown Heights, where many riders then have to shift onto buses or so-called dollar vans to travel through subway-less neighborhoods like Flatlands.

“I think getting some more train service on Utica would be a good idea,” said Patrick Weeks, 46, who was waiting for a B46 bus near the Utica Avenue A and C train stop in Bedford-Stuyvesant, which factors in to some concepts for an extension. “The amount of people at this station here, so many of them get off here to take this bus.”

The B46 Local and Select Bus Service carry close to 44,000 riders daily, according to the MTA. But longer buses have been added to the route to increase capacity, while service frequency has been reduced during the evening rush and the midday hours.

“Sometimes, you could be waiting here for a good 30 minutes,” said Emile Jean, 18, as he waited for a B46 bus.


Adams said his task force, whose first meeting is scheduled for March 4, aims to collect input from residents and elected officials in neighborhoods along the Utica Avenue corridor from Bushwick to Canarsie.

“Going from Eastern Parkway down into Avenue V, that whole stretch of real estate is lacking access for transportation,” Adams said.

The MTA study is supposed to identify funding sources for Utica Avenue transit improvements and come up with five “investment packages” for potential upgrades to No. 2, 3, 4 and 5 service along Eastern Parkway.


Despite plans for a subway extension that have existed in some form since 1910, riders said they’re not expecting to see trains along the Utica Avenue soon.

“I don’t think I’ll be alive by the time the MTA makes that happen,” laughed Jimmy Perez, 24.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the climate change models are any indication, the region will be inundated with water within 100 years. Given the MTA’s pace, they’ll finish the study in a decade, put the shovels in, and then cut the work short after flooding becomes a certainty in a few more decades.

  • Confused 1
  • Thumbs Up 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Union Tpke said:

The MTA study is supposed to identify funding sources for Utica Avenue transit improvements and come up with five “investment packages” for potential upgrades to No. 2, 3, 4 and 5 service along Eastern Parkway.

 

I hope one of those investment packages is deinterlining the junction. That way, the post-Utica service pattern can look like this:

NYC_Utica_track.pdf

Also, I’d recommend package 2: extending the Nostrand Avenue Subway south to Kings Hwy. Package 3: new New Lots Line terminal in Livonia Yard and potentially to Flatlands Avenue. Package 4: rebuild 142nd Street Junction and 149th Street merge. Package 5: Rebuild West Farms Square curve. 

This would allow for improvements on the (2)(3)(4)(5) trains.

  • Like 2
  • 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.