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  
metsfan

New crosstown line

Recommended Posts

How about an elevated line that crosses central park that ties together the (1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)(N)(W)(B)(C)(D)? Maybe extend into queens to connect to the (7)? I think elevated lines for the SAS would be a mistake. There is no room where the ROIC tramway runs and you'd have to re-design the entire traffic pattern on several stretches plus having an elevated line 2 blocks away in view of the UN building = mistake.

 

- A

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How about an elevated line that crosses central park that ties together the (1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)(N)(W)(B)(C)(D)? Maybe extend into queens to connect to the (7)? I think elevated lines for the SAS would be a mistake. There is no room where the ROIC tramway runs and you'd have to re-design the entire traffic pattern on several stretches plus having an elevated line 2 blocks away in view of the UN building = mistake.

 

- A

 

That is CRAZY. And the friends of the Park would be MAD AS HELL.

Don't forget, you have the Upper East Side and the Upper West Side on both sides of the park. I'm sure that is NIMBY territory there.

 

THE FOLLOWING IS JUST A DREAM/VISION/NEVER-WILL-HAPPEN PLAN:

Now, talking about the (7), I understand that it is very illogical to be running IRT equipment on trackage that is not even connected to other IRT lines. So I intend on getting rid of the 5th Avenue station on the 42nd Street line, and build turn the line down 5th Avenue, meeting with the IRT 7th Avenue line just before Chambers Street. It will head into Brooklyn taking over the (3) line. Further phases of the 5th Avenue subway will call for a Harlem extension, linking with the Lenox Avenue Line (taking over the (3) line between 135th Street and 148th Street) and converting the entire Jamaica el to IRT standards, linking it with the 5th Avenue subway.

 

I know, this is just a dream.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That is CRAZY. And the friends of the Park would be MAD AS HELL.

Don't forget, you have the Upper East Side and the Upper West Side on both sides of the park. I'm sure that is NIMBY territory there.

 

You could easily make the elevated tracks pretty & scenic for riders in the park, not just a nasty metal snake.

 

NOT THIS!

79568-004-E7E4287B.jpg

 

 

THIS!

1035763_web.jpg

 

 

See whadimean?

 

- A

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the great things about the city's biggest parks, and a key reason that they exist, is that deep within them, you don't know that you're in a city at all.

 

If you are going to have an EL cross it, then you might as well raze it and build condos.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd love to see it as a subway in Manhattan, and then a new EL in the Bronx. They can't say it would kill the aesthetics of the Third Avenue corridor... that area needs new aesthetics.

 

And I hate to sound like a NIMBY...but an elevated across Central Park? The entire point of the park is to have a little bit of nature for once.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'd love to see it as a subway in Manhattan, and then a new EL in the Bronx. They can't say it would kill the aesthetics of the Third Avenue corridor... that area needs new aesthetics.

 

And I hate to sound like a NIMBY...but an elevated across Central Park? The entire point of the park is to have a little bit of nature for once.

 

No that's not sounding like a NIMBY. Central Park is the way it is for a reason, and it should be kept that way. It's a place to get away from the "hustle and bustle" of the city, no matter how much any of us likes public transportation, it includes getting away from public transportation too

 

and to Whoever posted it the upper east side is NIMBY hell, trust me I live there, they're still fighting over where to place entrances at 72nd and 86th for when this thing gets built.

 

But leave Central Park alone...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You could easily make the elevated tracks pretty & scenic for riders in the park, not just a nasty metal snake.

 

NOT THIS!

79568-004-E7E4287B.jpg

 

 

THIS!

1035763_web.jpg

 

 

See whadimean?

 

- A

 

1. Does that look like Central Park to you?

Think about the complaints the NIMBYs will make.

2. You will ruin a whole damn swath of the park, it will be of no sense to even have a park if you are going to run an el through it.

3. How will you tie the el up to the existing infrastructure?

4. MONEY.

 

I'm not saying a scenic ride isn't nice, but the el you're conceiving is not the best way to 1. solve existing transit issues like congestion or 2. provide a leisurely ride that would not affect the wildlife there.

 

This idea is not any better than yours, but:

I previously advocated a subway under 5th avenue. But I am going to put emphasis on a different concept: a monorail running over 5th Avenue. It's sleek, quiet and modern. Gives a scenic ride, eh? Think Sydney Harbour Monorail and you will get the picture. Still, it could be blocked by NIMBYs.

 

To be honest, the fifth ave subway that runs under 5th Avenue, will cause A LOT of screams by the NIMBYs. But it is done to improve the IRT.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and to Whoever posted it the upper east side is NIMBY hell, trust me I live there, they're still fighting over where to place entrances at 72nd and 86th for when this thing gets built.

 

There's quite a bit of room at the northwest corner of 72nd & 2nd for an entrance, but I hear Falk drugs is closing due to it anyhow. Makes no sense...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No that's not sounding like a NIMBY. Central Park is the way it is for a reason, and it should be kept that way. It's a place to get away from the "hustle and bustle" of the city, no matter how much any of us likes public transportation, it includes getting away from public transportation too

 

and to Whoever posted it the upper east side is NIMBY hell, trust me I live there, they're still fighting over where to place entrances at 72nd and 86th for when this thing gets built.

 

But leave Central Park alone...

 

I agree, we all know the Upper East Side is NIMBY nation. And we should not ignore the west side too. They got posh buildings also. They would be mad saying how they can't get a good view of the park. How they have to deal with excessive noise. Man... their noise would soon be louder than the actual el, when it gets down to City Hall.

Don't forget it was the UES that advocated for the Third Ave El's demolition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1. Does that look like Central Park to you?

Think about the complaints the NIMBYs will make.

2. You will ruin a whole damn swath of the park, it will be of no sense to even have a park if you are going to run an el through it.

3. How will you tie the el up to the existing infrastructure?

4. MONEY.

 

I didnt say it looked like central park, i was focusing on the bridge's design.

 

As for ruining a swath, i guess you don't realize that it would likely improve the ambiance of the park with the right design. You could even make it one track on top of the other to reduce the footprint. There are amazing things that can be done today with rail bridges. You don't need to tie it into the existing infrastructure. Simply make a free transfer, or even connect an elevator or 2 from the underground all the way up. As for money, would easily be paid for by the sale to scrap processors of the remaining "old tech" cars, busses, and other stuff (MTA) wants to get rid of plus some federal dollars.

 

mil3698.jpg

PIC-blaine04.JPG

 

On top of a pretty elevated structure you could make the bottom level have 2 inch thick windows & the upper level could have this also & have no exposure to the outside, or you could make a dome of some kind to increase viewing experience. With either you could also have a walkway somewhere to walk across the park or emergency access. Otherwise emergency access would be via stairs attached to the legs of the bridge or inside.

 

- A

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I know there are road and foot bridges in CPK, but the less the better. They were somewhat of a compromise to begin with. To add more...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I didnt say it looked like central park, i was focusing on the bridge's design.

 

As for ruining a swath, i guess you don't realize that it would likely improve the ambiance of the park with the right design. You could even make it one track on top of the other to reduce the footprint. There are amazing things that can be done today with rail bridges. You don't need to tie it into the existing infrastructure. Simply make a free transfer, or even connect an elevator or 2 from the underground all the way up. As for money, would easily be paid for by the sale to scrap processors of the remaining "old tech" cars, busses, and other stuff (MTA) wants to get rid of plus some federal dollars.

 

On top of a pretty elevated structure you could make the bottom level have 2 inch thick windows & the upper level could have this also & have no exposure to the outside, or you could make a dome of some kind to increase viewing experience. With either you could also have a walkway somewhere to walk across the park or emergency access. Otherwise emergency access would be via stairs attached to the legs of the bridge or inside.

 

- A

 

NO.

NO.

NO.

NOT CENTRAL PARK.

I would rather do that along the waterfront. In fact, doesn't that provide a better view?

 

Not going to happen. Too much money to be spent. Too many complaints to be heard. Case closed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, I know there are road and foot bridges in CPK, but the less the better. They were somewhat of a compromise to begin with. To add more...

 

I'm going to move this idea to another thread and let this one get back on the topic of the SAS.

 

- A

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, I know there are road and foot bridges in CPK, but the less the better. They were somewhat of a compromise to begin with. To add more...

 

Yes, there is existing infrastructure in the Park. That is only for improving the people's leisure. And I agree, let us keep the park's nature.

 

Another thing, with such a structure, I am quite concerned about crime. As one may tell from those pictures, there is a degree of obscurity and you would not station the coppers everywhere around the bridge. Certain areas of the park are known for criminal acts (such as the Ramble).

And I know you would respond with marketing or commerical space under the bridge. But let us keep Central Park simple. As an area for the locals and the visitors to enjoy a certain degree of serenity from the city.

Resolved: Let us keep Central Park from unnecessary urban development that may affect the wildlife there and the community members living adjacent to the park.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm going to move this idea to another thread and let this one get back on the topic of the SAS.

 

- A

 

Let me tell you, it will NOT happen in Central Park.

It could happen along the waterfront.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

8 line?

 

"Originally Posted by MTR Admiralty

1. Does that look like Central Park to you?

Think about the complaints the NIMBYs will make.

2. You will ruin a whole damn swath of the park, it will be of no sense to even have a park if you are going to run an el through it.

3. How will you tie the el up to the existing infrastructure?

4. MONEY."

 

 

I didnt say it looked like central park, i was focusing on the bridge's design.

 

As for ruining a swath, i guess you don't realize that it would likely improve the ambiance of the park with the right design. You could even make it one track on top of the other to reduce the footprint. There are amazing things that can be done today with rail bridges. You don't need to tie it into the existing infrastructure. Simply make a free transfer, or even connect an elevator or 2 from the underground all the way up. As for money, would easily be paid for by the sale to scrap processors of the remaining "old tech" cars, busses, and other stuff wants to get rid of plus some federal dollars.

 

PIC-blaine04.JPG

mil3698.jpg

 

On top of a pretty elevated structure you could make the bottom level have 2 inch thick windows & the upper level could have this also & have no exposure to the outside, or you could make a dome of some kind to increase viewing experience. With either you could also have a walkway somewhere to walk across the park or emergency access. Otherwise emergency access would be via stairs attached to the legs of the bridge or inside.

 

- A

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 line?

 

"Originally Posted by MTR Admiralty

1. Does that look like Central Park to you?

Think about the complaints the NIMBYs will make.

2. You will ruin a whole damn swath of the park, it will be of no sense to even have a park if you are going to run an el through it.

3. How will you tie the el up to the existing infrastructure?

4. MONEY."

 

 

I didnt say it looked like central park, i was focusing on the bridge's design.

 

As for ruining a swath, i guess you don't realize that it would likely improve the ambiance of the park with the right design. You could even make it one track on top of the other to reduce the footprint. There are amazing things that can be done today with rail bridges. You don't need to tie it into the existing infrastructure. Simply make a free transfer, or even connect an elevator or 2 from the underground all the way up. As for money, would easily be paid for by the sale to scrap processors of the remaining "old tech" cars, busses, and other stuff wants to get rid of plus some federal dollars.

 

PIC-blaine04.JPG

mil3698.jpg

 

On top of a pretty elevated structure you could make the bottom level have 2 inch thick windows & the upper level could have this also & have no exposure to the outside, or you could make a dome of some kind to increase viewing experience. With either you could also have a walkway somewhere to walk across the park or emergency access. Otherwise emergency access would be via stairs attached to the legs of the bridge or inside.

 

- A

 

I thought you would be creative as to creating a new independent thread for this. I'm afraid you should reply to my replies on the other thread. They're waiting for you ANXIOUSLY.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, there is existing infrastructure in the Park. That is only for improving the people's leisure. And I agree, let us keep the park's nature.

 

Another thing, with such a structure, I am quite concerned about crime. As one may tell from those pictures, there is a degree of obscurity and you would not station the coppers everywhere around the bridge. Certain areas of the park are known for criminal acts (such as the Ramble).

And I know you would respond with marketing or commerical space under the bridge. But let us keep Central Park simple. As an area for the locals and the visitors to enjoy a certain degree of serenity from the city.

Resolved: Let us keep Central Park from unnecessary urban development that may affect the wildlife there and the community members living adjacent to the park.

 

 

I actually would just put cameras in, not commercial space or any of that crap. A beautiful yet modern and high tech stone arch bridge would not look out of place in the park at all. It's just about using your imagination.

 

I would say go under the park, but there's the 1 billion gallons of reservoir water, and the odd ground conditions...

 

Please do not respond to this till i make a new thread and move all the related content there. Just continue on topic. B) My fault for hijacking the topic. Sorry. :D

 

- A

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An elevated line running across Central Park or even in the lower half Manhattan period for that matter is just plain ludicrous. :D

 

I'm sorry but nobody in their right mind would ever even think about building an elevated line stone or steel in that part of Manhattan. This is a terrible idea. Keep is sub underground. No more eyesores please. B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can Central Park even be built upon? I thought it was an historic landmark and therefore couldn't be touched?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Can Central Park even be built upon? I thought it was an historic landmark and therefore couldn't be touched?

 

Sure is Like Soho u can't MOD the store fronts besides Painting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a city owned piece of land they can do whatever they want. I don't think you folks are using your imaginations here. It wouldn't be an eyesore, it wouldn't cause security problems, tons and tons of people would use it, and it wouldn't look remotely like the other elevated stuff in the city. And as for "along the waterfront" which waterfront? why along a waterfront when the point is to go across the city? Do you realize that it wouldn't impact the park at all? If a double track monorail line can go through a park so can a subway track.B)

 

I think you folks keep relating elevated subway to the flushing line etc. It wouldn't be low to the ground or involve pedestrian bridge like in that one photo with one bridge on top of the other, i was referring only to the upper tall arch bridge which is graceful and hardly there. Do you realize how long it takes to get to queens from the west side? It would help take crowding off the (7) as well.:cool:

 

I think also to accompany this project a line should be built to serve the unserved parts of queens & brooklyn giving a more complete solution to the people moving issue. Some new yorkers need to get their heads out of their butts & allow the construction of these lines that would improve life for everyone. NIMBY can like it or move, someone is waiting to move in when they move out. To try and stop sensible progress is foolish & counterproductive. :D

 

 

The subway should be given the chance to be all that it can be, not just part of that. Make it the envy of the world & a model to follow vs outdated & not as useful as it could be.

 

Also, as for the park being for nature, it isnt for nature its for recreation. You want nature go to the zoo or away from the city. It's a 100% man made park engineered from top to bottom. Only thing nature related is that plants are allowed to grow there within reason. Even that is carefully monitored & controlled. Taking up 100-200 square feet max for some support structures isnt going to do anything. :)

 

-A

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's a city owned piece of land they can do whatever they want. I don't think you folks are using your imaginations here. It wouldn't be an eyesore, it wouldn't cause security problems, tons and tons of people would use it, and it wouldn't look remotely like the other elevated stuff in the city. And as for "along the waterfront" which waterfront? why along a waterfront when the point is to go across the city? Do you realize that it wouldn't impact the park at all? If a double track monorail line can go through a park so can a subway track.B)

 

I think you folks keep relating elevated subway to the flushing line etc. It wouldn't be low to the ground or involve pedestrian bridge like in that one photo with one bridge on top of the other, i was referring only to the upper tall arch bridge which is graceful and hardly there. Do you realize how long it takes to get to queens from the west side? It would help take crowding off the (7) as well.:cool:

 

I think also to accompany this project a line should be built to serve the unserved parts of queens & brooklyn giving a more complete solution to the people moving issue. Some new yorkers need to get their heads out of their butts & allow the construction of these lines that would improve life for everyone. NIMBY can like it or move, someone is waiting to move in when they move out. To try and stop sensible progress is foolish & counterproductive. :D

 

 

The subway should be given the chance to be all that it can be, not just part of that. Make it the envy of the world & a model to follow vs outdated & not as useful as it could be.

 

Also, as for the park being for nature, it isnt for nature its for recreation. You want nature go to the zoo or away from the city. It's a 100% man made park engineered from top to bottom. Only thing nature related is that plants are allowed to grow there within reason. Even that is carefully monitored & controlled. Taking up 100-200 square feet max for some support structures isnt going to do anything. :)

 

-A

 

No offence, but this idea is really foamed to hell. Honestly, who would on the East Side Lines, all of a sudden switch to the West Side lines? There aren't that many people. If people want to get from one shore to another, bus or BRT will suffice. A new transit line, especially running through the park, is simply too much.

 

If I have the billions that could be allotted to ruining the park's landscape with a new line that would not improve much the commutes, I would instead devote it to more needy projects, projects that are actually PRODUCTIVE. Say, a set of tunnels running from New Jersey to Penn Station (ARC) or sending the Metro North to Penn Station once the ESA is completed or build the Bronx portions of the SAS. People in East Queens, the Bronx, Southeast Brooklyn and the oft-neglected Staten Island, NIMBY or NOT, need new transit connections. Such remedies would actually relieve congestion and generate more revenue and ridership than some "maverickish" plan of running a new line through Manhattan.

 

No offence once again, do you live in New York City? Or say Manhattan? Do you know the purpose of maintaining Central Park? The area known as Central Park today was saved from rapid development in the 1850's. The people needed clean air and some serenity. It is NOT man made, it is NATURAL, despite certain elements that are engineered by human beings (like the bridges). Other than that, it is NATURAL. It does not belong to New Yorkers, the city government or anything, it belongs to Nature. In fact, the Zoo is more man-made than the Park. They took wild animals from all over the planet and encage them in menageries. How natural is that?

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.