Original Expansion Plans Discussion

[RapidoNewLook]

Disregard 

Edited January 22, 2021 by RapidoNewLook

[RapidoNewLook]

16 minutes ago, Vulturious said:

The R39 was a proposed train that was meant for the 3rd Av EL or Myrtle Av EL. I'm not sure on what it was supposed to be running as, by that I mean either A or B division. Regardless, because of those lines being demolished, so was the proposed R39.

Is there any surviving design information (specifications, blueprints,  renderings, etc.) or did it not make it that far in the process?

[Vulturious]

Just now, RapidoNewLook said:

Is there any surviving design information (specifications, blueprints,  renderings, etc.) or did it not make it that far in the process?

Probably something similar to what a Pre-GOH R30 or R33 would've looked like. Again, I do not know whether it was going to be A division or B division. 

[Eric B]

The R39 would be for both Myrtle and 3rd Ave. and thus A Div. sized (since even the B Div. el used A Div. side cars. don't know what they would have done from Central to Metropolitan where it would run with the wider M line cars).

IT would basically be an A Div. version of the R38. If I remember correctly, someone not too long ago somewhere uncovered a diagram of it, or something, though I'm not sure now.

[Vulturious]

3 minutes ago, Eric B said:

The R39 would be for both Myrtle and 3rd Ave. and thus A Div. sized (since even the B Div. el used A Div. side cars. don't know what they would have done from Central to Metropolitan where it would run with the wider M line cars).

IT would basically be an A Div. version of the R38. If I remember correctly, someone not too long ago somewhere uncovered a diagram of it, or something, though I'm not sure now.

They might've just had the train terminate at Myrtle Av-Broadway if I'm going to be completely honest. 

[LGA Link N Train]

@Deucey would anything that was proposed by the Regional Plan Association be counted as an “official” expansion plan or no? 

[Deucey]

39 minutes ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

@Deucey would anything that was proposed by the Regional Plan Association be counted as an “official” expansion plan or no? 

To my mind, it's official if a government agency or reputable organization made a detailed proposal that was adopted and not implemented or considered and rejected by whichever government entity was in charge of the NYC Subway at that time.

So RPA is "yes"; Streetsblog is "no".

[LGA Link N Train]

Alright then. I was revisiting the RPA’s “Save Our Subways” and looked at their proposed expansions, and I’m over here trying to figure out the rationale behind their Bronx “Extension” of the 2nd Avenue Subway or how such a connection would be feasible in the 1st Place. Only conclusion I can reach is that they want to provide a relief line for the . I think many (if not, all) of us on here agree that RPA’s proposals are rather questionable. 

https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/rpa-org/pdfs/RPA-Save-Our-Subways.pdf - Page 62 is where I can find the most detail on an SAS-Grand Concourse Connection. 

 

[T to Dyre Avenue]

5 minutes ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

Alright then. I was revisiting the RPA’s “Save Our Subways” and looked at their proposed expansions, and I’m over here trying to figure out the rationale behind their Bronx “Extension” of the 2nd Avenue Subway or how such a connection would be feasible in the 1st Place. Only conclusion I can reach is that they want to provide a relief line for the . I think many (if not, all) of us on here agree that RPA’s proposals are rather questionable. 

https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/rpa-org/pdfs/RPA-Save-Our-Subways.pdf - Page 62 is where I can find the most detail on an SAS-Grand Concourse Connection. 

 

The proposal to hook the into Concourse, the  to 21st Street and the  via Jewel are definitely questionable. Definitely Jewel, given its residential nature. And why only four stops? The ( H ) proposal isn't too terrible, though maybe it should stay on Northern and not go onto residential streets like 33rd Ave.

[Lex]

11 minutes ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

Alright then. I was revisiting the RPA’s “Save Our Subways” and looked at their proposed expansions, and I’m over here trying to figure out the rationale behind their Bronx “Extension” of the 2nd Avenue Subway or how such a connection would be feasible in the 1st Place. Only conclusion I can reach is that they want to provide a relief line for the . I think many (if not, all) of us on here agree that RPA’s proposals are rather questionable. 

https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/rpa-org/pdfs/RPA-Save-Our-Subways.pdf - Page 62 is where I can find the most detail on an SAS-Grand Concourse Connection. 

 

Look, I'll be the first to say that Concourse shoots itself in both feet and the crotch as an alternative to Jerome, and I don't mind a connection to Concourse if its only revenue use involves shit hitting the fan (it would otherwise be used for non-revenue moves), but I wouldn't dare link Second Avenue to it for regular revenue service, especially when we can restore Third Avenue rapid transit service.

[Vulturious]

4 hours ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

Alright then. I was revisiting the RPA’s “Save Our Subways” and looked at their proposed expansions, and I’m over here trying to figure out the rationale behind their Bronx “Extension” of the 2nd Avenue Subway or how such a connection would be feasible in the 1st Place. Only conclusion I can reach is that they want to provide a relief line for the . I think many (if not, all) of us on here agree that RPA’s proposals are rather questionable. 

https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/rpa-org/pdfs/RPA-Save-Our-Subways.pdf - Page 62 is where I can find the most detail on an SAS-Grand Concourse Connection. 

 

3 hours ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

The proposal to hook the into Concourse, the  to 21st Street and the  via Jewel are definitely questionable. Definitely Jewel, given its residential nature. And why only four stops? The ( H ) proposal isn't too terrible, though maybe it should stay on Northern and not go onto residential streets like 33rd Ave.

3 hours ago, Lex said:

Look, I'll be the first to say that Concourse shoots itself in both feet and the crotch as an alternative to Jerome, and I don't mind a connection to Concourse if its only revenue use involves shit hitting the fan (it would otherwise be used for non-revenue moves), but I wouldn't dare link Second Avenue to it for regular revenue service, especially when we can restore Third Avenue rapid transit service.

In all honesty, if the  were to decide on a Bronx extension that involves the SAS, I wouldn't be surprised if they decided to have trains connected to Concourse last second. It would be much better to create a new subway line into the Bronx running via 3rd Av, if possible at least an elevated line since that would help relieve the work needed to go digging a new subway tunnel. I don't know how doable it is to pull it off now, but service would be able to have better capacity. I also don't mind an extension going west on 125 St to Broadway-125 St or if not possible, having it terminate at St. Nicholas Av-125 St would also work with track connections north of 125 St connecting to that non-revenue service tracks at 135 St on CPW line. This would still be beneficial as if needed, both  and  trains can be rerouted easily from 125 St via SAS towards Grand St and then make normal service towards Coney Island. Personally, the  is already long as is, extending it towards the Bronx while the  goes via 125 St line wouldn't really be beneficial for the  as it is forced to operate further into the Bronx. 

A new Northern Blvd line is going to really help people needing train service. Although, it would be weird as  trains would kinda get shafted here since it has to run through 63 St tunnel. There also looks to be a new station on the express tracks of QBL which is just extra in my opinion and not needed.

The Jewel Av line is indeed very questionable. The  is already long as is and doesn't look to have any yard access anymore and same with the . It is very weird and just probably isn't beneficial at all in terms of service along QBL. 

The Astoria line extension isn't just questionable, it is just straight up dumb to be honest. There could be more benefits of having that line towards LGA instead of going the complete opposite direction. 

The  extension south of 34 St is really a bad idea, it provides some extra service on the West side of Manhattan. I don't know how well it can be pulled off if this were to happen and I'm kinda surprised none of you guys talked about this.

I don't have much to say when it comes to the Utica Av line and Nostrand Av extension. I guess the only downside to this is that the  and  being extended would only mean that  trains need to run more service into Brooklyn which I don't think is a bad thing, but not having at least some form of express service south of Franklin Av feels a bit concerning to me. 

[Bay Ridge Express]

11 minutes ago, Vulturious said:

The  extension south of 34 St is really a bad idea, it provides some extra service on the West side of Manhattan.

What's so particularly bad about that? Though I do think that if something like that were to extend to 14 St, it should have a connection with the . 

[Vulturious]

3 minutes ago, Bay Ridge Express said:

What's so particularly bad about that? Though I do think that if something like that were to extend to 14 St, it should have a connection with the . 

Crap, spelling error. Forgot type "isn't".

[Lex]

47 minutes ago, Vulturious said:

I don't have much to say when it comes to the Utica Av line and Nostrand Av extension. I guess the only downside to this is that the  and  being extended would only mean that  trains need to run more service into Brooklyn which I don't think is a bad thing, but not having at least some form of express service south of Franklin Av feels a bit concerning to me. 

That'll be offset by the service frequency between the two. I'm more concerned about the utter failure to even attempt to capture intermediate ridership (their only proposed intermediate stops are at Kings Highway and Avenue U), as well as trying to end it at Avenue Y, of all streets (instead of Avenue U, Avenue X, Avenue Z, Voorhies Avenue, or being bold and going for Oriental Boulevard).

I'm also against hooking Utica Avenue to Eastern Parkway, which is only partially because the current layout would face the same placement issue that Nostrand Avenue's been plagued with for the last century. If Utica Avenue is really such a priority, then I say to go big or f*ck off (and given the RPA proposal, yeah, it's probably less serious than the Nostrand Avenue proposal, in part because there isn't even an attempt to serve Church Avenue).

[P3F]

2 hours ago, Lex said:

I'm more concerned about the utter failure to even attempt to capture intermediate ridership (their only proposed intermediate stops are at Kings Highway and Avenue U), as well as trying to end it at Avenue Y, of all streets (instead of Avenue U, Avenue X, Avenue Z, Voorhies Avenue, or being bold and going for Oriental Boulevard).

Stops at Avenue U and Avenue Y with nothing in between? That has to be a joke. Let's ignore the large housing complex that could be served by a stop at Avenue X, and instead put a stop next to an auto parts shop and an abandoned 7-Eleven.

 

Ideal stop spacing (in my opinion) would be:

Avenue L (with an exit to Avenue K)

Kings Hwy (with an exit to Marine Pkwy)

Avenue R

Avenue U

Avenue X

Voorhies Av (with an exit to Shore Pkwy)

Oriental Blvd (a pipe dream since the local community probably wouldn't want a subway stop)

[NoHacksJustKhaks]

 

3 hours ago, Vulturious said:

The  extension south of 34 St isn't really a bad idea, it provides some extra service on the West side of Manhattan. I don't know how well it can be pulled off if this were to happen and I'm kinda surprised none of you guys talked about this.

Certainly is a decent way of expanding the   on the west side and linking that developing area up to the rest of the subway network. If the costs can be slimmed on such a project (considering how pricey 34 St was), I don't see why not. 

4 minutes ago, P3F said:

Oriental Blvd (a pipe dream since the local community probably wouldn't want a subway stop)

Pretty much, that area is fine surviving without the subway. Unless it suddenly became populated, I'd see no use in carrying the line that far down anyways .

4 hours ago, Vulturious said:

The Astoria line extension isn't just questionable, it is just straight up dumb to be honest. There could be more benefits of having that line towards LGA instead of going the complete opposite direction. 

 I had to do a double take when I saw that plan. I'm not sure if the population up there uses the subway frequently, but it's still a better use of funds carrying the line to LGA regardless, more useful to more people. I seriously see no reason for carrying the line in that direction, besides possibly extending it further to Randall's Island, helps take some crazies off the M35, lol...

[bobtehpanda]

11 hours ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

Alright then. I was revisiting the RPA’s “Save Our Subways” and looked at their proposed expansions, and I’m over here trying to figure out the rationale behind their Bronx “Extension” of the 2nd Avenue Subway or how such a connection would be feasible in the 1st Place. Only conclusion I can reach is that they want to provide a relief line for the . I think many (if not, all) of us on here agree that RPA’s proposals are rather questionable. 

https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/rpa-org/pdfs/RPA-Save-Our-Subways.pdf - Page 62 is where I can find the most detail on an SAS-Grand Concourse Connection. 

 

The RPA has had questionable plans for at least the past decade.

In the very same paper they propose terminating the in Brooklyn to double service. I don't think I have to tell anybody on this forum that this did not work the first time we tried it and now we have a Transit Museum to show for it.

[Lawrence St]

57 minutes ago, bobtehpanda said:

The RPA has had questionable plans for at least the past decade.

In the very same paper they propose terminating the in Brooklyn to double service. I don't think I have to tell anybody on this forum that this did not work the first time we tried it and now we have a Transit Museum to show for it.

In all fairness, Court St was suppose to connect to a new East River tunnel that would have doubled the capacity of the Fulton Line had it actually gone through.

What doesn't make sense is the odd terminal at Jackson Heights, especially since the terminal bumper blocks is on the west side of the station instead of the east.

[Lex]

10 hours ago, NoHacksJustKhaks said:

Pretty much, that area is fine surviving without the subway. Unless it suddenly became populated, I'd see no use in carrying the line that far down anyways .

Well, KCC is a thing. I think serving as a part-time station could be a reasonable compromise.

Who knows? The residents may actually like it. (Yes, I know, that's wishful thinking. There's no need to say anything.)

10 hours ago, P3F said:

Avenue L (with an exit to Avenue K)

That's not a particularly good idea, as it would have to be a mid-block station in order to cut the distance from one of them down in relation to the other.

I'm having a hard time deciding whether the stop spacing should be more even (Avenue K) or if transfers and coverage should win (Avenue J, then Avenue L).

[Lawrence St]

What was the reasoning behind the Morningside Line? It makes no sense to have a duplicative line right next to CPW, why couldn't they just connect the 57th St/7th Av bellmouths to CPW at 72nd St?

[bobtehpanda]

44 minutes ago, Lawrence St said:

What was the reasoning behind the Morningside Line? It makes no sense to have a duplicative line right next to CPW, why couldn't they just connect the 57th St/7th Av bellmouths to CPW at 72nd St?

two words: super express

that wouldn't have helped much, CPW has four tracks going into four tracks. it's not at train capacity by any means.

Edited January 23, 2021 by bobtehpanda

[Vulturious]

32 minutes ago, Lawrence St said:

What was the reasoning behind the Morningside Line? It makes no sense to have a duplicative line right next to CPW, why couldn't they just connect the 57th St/7th Av bellmouths to CPW at 72nd St?

As cool of an idea it sounds to run a Broadway service on CPW, the line is already (and I think we can all agree with this statement, at least I assume) a hit or miss. I think the only good reason to connect Broadway onto CPW south of 72 St is so that trains can easily be rerouted if necessary. Especially since Broadway and 6 Av can run and hit similar areas. It would be easy to reroute  and  trains if something were to happen.

1 minute ago, bobtehpanda said:

two words: super express

that wouldn't have helped much, CPW has four tracks going into four tracks. it's not at train capacity by any means.

Van did create a track map of proposed ideas by the MTA for their Program for Action plan and also ideas pre-MTA. I am assuming this was something you had in mind.

You can see how tracks on either the express or local can run towards CPW, but they never connect. I am disappointed that this would run along Morningside as it wouldn't have connected towards CPW, but if this were to have happened, I believe the MTA might've eventually added new tunnels and tracks that would've connected to it.

[bobtehpanda]

1 minute ago, Vulturious said:

As cool of an idea it sounds to run a Broadway service on CPW, the line is already (and I think we can all agree with this statement, at least I assume) a hit or miss. I think the only good reason to connect Broadway onto CPW south of 72 St is so that trains can easily be rerouted if necessary. Especially since Broadway and 6 Av can run and hit similar areas. It would be easy to reroute  and  trains if something were to happen.

Van did create a track map of proposed ideas by the MTA for their Program for Action plan and also ideas pre-MTA. I am assuming this was something you had in mind.

You can see how tracks on either the express or local can run towards CPW, but they never connect. I am disappointed that this would run along Morningside as it wouldn't have connected towards CPW, but if this were to have happened, I believe the MTA might've eventually added new tunnels and tracks that would've connected to it.

If I had to guess, the reason why it veers west and the reason why it never has a junction with CPW are one and the same. Central Park is probably the most iconic green space this city has. Construction of CPW itself was very controversial, because people didn't want park impacts, and the double decker design of the CPW line is also a legacy of all of that. The Morningside Heights Line would veer west to impact as little of the park as possible, and simultaneously avoid the various lakes and reservoirs in the center. In addition, a flying junction of any kind would pretty much necessitate lots of tearing up of Central Park in its vicinity.

As far as another reason why a Morningside Heights Line would've been proposed, is because this was in 1929/39. In 1930 and 1940 the population of Manhattan was about 1.8M. Today the population of Manhattan is 1.6M, and this is in far larger and taller buildings. There are a couple of reasons for this; in the 30s and 40s households are bigger, with more children and more multigenerational living (so your grandma, your parents, their children, maybe some aunts and uncles and their families too), and in generally less living space. In fact, on the path of the Morningside Heights Line would be the Frederick Douglass Houses and some other NYCHA property. These were only built in the '50s, but when NYCHA developments were built they generally housed less people than the slums they replaced as intentional policy, because extremely high density was considered to have poor health and social outcomes.

Also, the IND was thinking they could keep building crazy trunk lines to serve Queens and the East Side. This didn't happen, hence what we have now.

[Bay Ridge Express]

19 hours ago, P3F said:

Stops at Avenue U and Avenue Y with nothing in between? That has to be a joke. Let's ignore the large housing complex that could be served by a stop at Avenue X, and instead put a stop next to an auto parts shop and an abandoned 7-Eleven.

There is a shopping center on the other side of the street at Avenue Y, but I agree with you. A stop at Avenue X with an Avenue Y exit would suffice.

[Lex]

1 hour ago, Bay Ridge Express said:

There is a shopping center on the other side of the street at Avenue Y, but I agree with you. A stop at Avenue X with an Avenue Y exit would suffice.

The distance between these two streets is approximately 880 feet. The full platform length would be about 525 feet. In order for this to be remotely feasible, the station would need to be a mid-block station.