New crosstown line

[metsfan]

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?

 

I really don't need to be lectured on history or anything else by someone who calls an idea to connect the city with an additional high speed crosstown line foamerish. Where do you get this idea that condos will go up if a line simply -goes across- the park? No offense to you, but i could actually design the structure by myself, find suppliers & contractors to build it, and probably do some of the construction myself. Also, aren't you in hong kong? :cool:

 

NYC needs to get its imagination back & stop dragging its feet.

 

I'm going to try and get a map with several ideas for the ROW alignment. One real map & one subway map to show how it would look on there.

 

- A

[metsfan]

The yellow line is all underground.

The blue line is part elevated part underground.

The red line is part elevated part underground.

 

Pale green means tunnel.

Pale blue means elevated structure.

 

Obviously this is a crude and simple graphic but you can get the general idea!

 

 

 

Enjoy!

 

- A

[SubwayGuy]

I really don't need to be lectured on history or anything else by someone who calls an idea to connect the city with an additional high speed crosstown line foamerish. Where do you get this idea that condos will go up if a line simply -goes across- the park? No offense to you, but i could actually design the structure by myself, find suppliers & contractors to build it, and probably do some of the construction myself. Also, aren't you in hong kong? :cool:

 

NYC needs to get its imagination back & stop dragging its feet.

 

I'm going to try and get a map with several ideas for the ROW alignment. One real map & one subway map to show how it would look on there.

 

- A

 

no offense dude but it sounds like everyone's against it but you, I mean hey you can have your opinion it's just you're not going to convince everyone here (myself included) to start building things in Central Park which was designed to be left more or less untouched, and that's coming from a native New Yorker...

[RokuSix]

A tunnel would be much more feasible than an elevated line. Plus, since all the Manhattan lines are underground, a tunnel would make the transfer much easier. The , , , , , and run UNDER the park without a problem.

[metsfan]

The tunnel under the park sounds like a great idea till you realize that water still collects in the ground where the reservoirs used to be. The one big one still left is a billion gallons, so you don't want any tunnels near there. The lawn is fill, don't want any tunnels there. If you want an idea of how water makes stations feel go to exchange place PATH station or roosevelt island station on the .

 

I am just trying to emphasize that this will not be a wall of elevated structure. It would be a totally airy loooong span with one footing in the middle of the park, and one at either side just inside the fence.

 

There are all ready tons of buildings in the park. One of them is the met museum of art, a quite large & imposing building.

 

The line would not run over open area, just the rocky areas obscured by trees from the walking path.

 

A very rough idea:

 

Obviously no people would be under it because it wouldnt be in a part of the park that is open field, but you get a better sense of what i'm thinking.

 

That image is from paris where they have converted an abandoned ROW into a planted walkway & park. Shops and galleries fill the space in the arched areas. B)

 

- A

[MTR Admiralty]

I really don't need to be lectured on history or anything else by someone who calls an idea to connect the city with an additional high speed crosstown line foamerish. Where do you get this idea that condos will go up if a line simply -goes across- the park? No offense to you, but i could actually design the structure by myself, find suppliers & contractors to build it, and probably do some of the construction myself. Also, aren't you in hong kong? :cool:

 

NYC needs to get its imagination back & stop dragging its feet.

 

I'm going to try and get a map with several ideas for the ROW alignment. One real map & one subway map to show how it would look on there.

 

- A

 

By the context of my posts, I'm actually in New York. And I've been living here for a great deal of time here.

As what Eastman said, this is completely ludicrous. And I'll tell you why, RIGHT HERE AND NOW:

1. You do not have a defined alignment. Where does it start? Where does it end? Where will it pass? In order to properly plan a line, the planner must define the alignment and understand how it will affect (both positively and negatively) the existing commuters/residents/workers and potential commuters in the study area.

2. Judging by your indefinite alignment and probably what you said earlier, there is no physical connection to the other NYCT lines. Now, if there is now NYCT connection, this means that a separate yard needs to be built to hold these trains.

3. In my view of foamerism, the planning of subway lines or any other (rapid) transit lines without clear and defined alignments and simply out for his/her amusement rather than the benefit of residents/workers/existing commuters/potential commuters and for their good without adequate/logical planning is called foaming.

4. I believe you should read the RPA's recent plan before embarking on such ludicrous as this. There are maps that show areas that lack subway access, origins/destinations of commuters, subway coverage, express bus coverage... I am sure that you could plan better lines that would help the vast majority instead of blowing nonsense.

5. I am telling you this, I do not condemn a corridor for crosstown travel. But building a rail rapid transit line is too carried off. I should say, we could develop the BRT concept with the M72, M86 and M96 lines. Build high-visibility stations. Enforce bus lanes. Prioritise traffic signals. Have off board collection and more importantly, near subway stations, build a connection somehow that would allow for in-system transfer between bus and subway. It still needs work, but it is FAR less expensive than a new rail line.

6. You have to understand capacity here. After you defined a corridor (I am afraid, you don't even have a defined corridor, as in, which areas are you serving?) you have to select the mode of transport you are planning to use. This is where capacity kicks in. If the corridor will be frequented by small patronage, it needs a small capacity system: most likely an improved bus service or a trolley. (I'm not exactly sure about the figures, but they are an estimation) Now if there is a large patronage, but it much more localised and demands a patronage of 10,000-50,000 persons per hour, the mode of transport required will be: BRT, LRT or a light metro system. That's medium capacity. If the corridor is much needed and would demand a patronage of more than 50,000 persons per hour, the mode of transport required will be: BRT, LRT, subway. That is heavy capacity. What you are trying to conceive is a heavy capacity system. Do you honestly believe, based on your description, that your system will carry say 100,000 per hour? Based on your choice of transport, that is what it seems to suggest. However, the real demand is in between small capacity and medium capacity.

7. I did not, I do not and I will not underestimate your architectural abilities. But common sense tells us, such a system is not needed for your "corridor". If there are lines planned in areas in the outer boroughs, they will probably require elevated sections. I believe you could apply your viaduct concept there.

8. You mentioned productivity and NIMBY. Yes, at times NIMBYs hinder productivity with their selfish opinions. They led to the premature death of the 3rd Ave El. But sometimes, unfortunately, they can be right. When Robert Moses tried to build the Lower Manhattan Expressway, his idea got halted. If it was in place, a motorist could speed from the Holland Tunnel to either the Williamsburg Bridge, emerging onto the Bushwick Expressway or enter the Manhattan Bridge and come onto the BQE. It was never built. Had it been built, it will raise a score of city blocks, displaced thousands. We have horrendous traffic in the Canal Street area. But say if there was such an expressway, a lot of business would move or close down. Productive? No. If your viaduct ever gets built, and there is the same level of ridership, think: will the farebox revenue cover operating costs? Will it be large enough to make a profit? Could it cover maintenance? Trains? Personnel?

9. We all have great ideas when it comes to expansion. But we have to plan carefully, regardless if it gets looked at by the MTA. We have to understand why we are doing it. Who will benefit. Where it would be. How it would be done. If it is just done for self-satisfaction and the fun of it, keep it in your dreams.

[MTR Admiralty]

The yellow line is all underground.

The blue line is part elevated part underground.

The red line is part elevated part underground.

 

Pale green means tunnel.

Pale blue means elevated structure.

 

Obviously this is a crude and simple graphic but you can get the general idea!

 

 

 

Enjoy!

 

- A

 

I really do not see how it will benefit Queens riders. A MAJORITY, not saying ALL, of the riders coming from Queens ride into Midtown or Lower Manhattan. Your lines coming in from Queens, dead end in the Upper West Side. Are we building a tunnel to nowhere, just like how Sarah Palin is trying to build "a bridge to nowhere" in Alaska? I mean come on, I know you want to be a maverick in building through the park. But would it really help people? At most, there would be 3 transfers (4 if the SAS is completed). Meanwhile if a Queens line enters Midtown continuing into Brooklyn thru Lower Manhattan, MULTIPLE transfers are offered.

Like what SubwayGuy said, if you can't convince anyone, why bother?

[MTR Admiralty]

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.

 

I hate to sound like a NIMBY too, a line through (underground or elevated) one of the city's most well known landmarks is plain madness.

[MTR Admiralty]

I am just trying to emphasize that this will not be a wall of elevated structure. It would be a totally airy loooong span with one footing in the middle of the park, and one at either side just inside the fence.

 

There are all ready tons of buildings in the park. One of them is the met museum of art, a quite large & imposing building.

 

The line would not run over open area, just the rocky areas obscured by trees from the walking path.

 

A very rough idea:

 

Obviously no people would be under it because it wouldnt be in a part of the park that is open field, but you get a better sense of what i'm thinking.

 

That image is from paris where they have converted an abandoned ROW into a planted walkway & park. Shops and galleries fill the space in the arched areas. B)

 

- A

 

Seriously MAKE UP YOUR MIND. WHAT DO YOU WANT NOW? First you come with a stone viaduct and now an airy span with a foot in the centre of the park. Then a tunnel. What's next? Locomotives, running on grade, greeting tourists in the Great Lawn? This is just nonsense.

[metsfan]

This is all just a rough idea. I was looking for recommendations to see what might give it a better chance of being a realistic project. If i was looking for should we do it etc i'd make a poll.

 

The booming population of queens and general lack of subway coverage there will require addressing at some point.

 

It could be subway cars, or monorail, or some such. The photos i posted were simply all i could find to emphasize that it would NOT be akin to a spidery web of steel beams effecting a wall across the park, but open and non-view hindering.

 

The technologies available today would blow peoples' minds. Imagine a post tensioned track with -no- supports and no visible clue to how it stays up. Something to prominently boast that NYC is still on top. Something that inspires people. Where else but central park to display the amazing feat of engineering visible to all.

 

We need a way to tie together all the lines without having to go on a HUGE U shape which actually takes a bit of time.

 

If you dont' like my idea of a big shouty mind blowing beautiful piece of engineering in the middle of a big park then lets see what you got.B):cool:

 

I mean my idea was to connect the bway, cpw, lex, sas, astoria and flushing lines and possibly make a big statement in the park along the way...

 

Tunneling under the city is all nice and good but one must remember that sea levels have been rising and storms are seeming to be more intense. I don't think it would be fair to tunnel on the west side anymore because of the underground runoff that wants to get from the higher area of the park to the river. I mean you could get really bold and put the yard right under the remaining space on the west side underneath the bway line since as i remember it isnt very deep right there.... The main problem comes in tunneling through the park which is a geological nightmare. You have filled in areas that collect water bigtime, and you have the schist which pitys the fool.

 

Another member has pointed out that you could follow the roadway cut with an elevated line across the park and make it go underground right next to the Met, giving the Met its first designated subway station (something many tourists and others would love). My main issue would then be avoiding the lex and the sas.

 

The plan i'd prefer would call for elevated line 2 track one on top of the other using cable stay and post tensioning methods clad in stone to effect a "weightless stone arch" across the park, having a tunnel at the east end of the structure where it would pass under 5th ave and have a station right next to 5th ave and the Met. the tunnel could then go towards 1st ave and turn north there to make the smallest jump under the river as possible, POSSIBLY under the north end of roosevelt island providing emergency access to the island but no station. Line would then come out of tunnel and meet up with the astoria line before going farther east and meeting up with the flushing line. You could make the connections to whichever station works best, and possibly add access via a station to LGA before or after meeting with the flushing line.

 

Thoughts?

 

- A

[yearsnowlost]

With the idea of a crosstown line, I looked at the geography and topography of Central Park to see what kind of subway line would best serve the purpose of connecting at least the (© in upper Manhattan.

 

I think that this route would work pretty well to serve that purpose. It connects to the and at their respective 72nd St. stations underground and then emerges as an elevated line that can go on top of the 79th St. Transverse. Then it would go back underground just south of 79th St. with a station there to serve the Met, and could continue to connect to the at 77th St.

 

The pink line is underground, the purple line is the elevated, the black lines are the approximate portals and the station for the Met is right under 79th St. in grey.

 

I think this option better suits the purpose of the said proposed crosstown line without as much interference as something like a huge bridge would. As is pointed out, the technology does exist to ensure that this could be a modern el that could possibly become the new standard in subway technology.

 

N.B. This is just for the Manhattan section, there would be options for continuation up/down the West Side and, of course, into Queens. I haven't really speculated further on that.

[metsfan]

I like that design. You could possibly run and to that station rush only.

 

This crosstown connector line could run IRT equipment to keep stuff small and keep the weight and such down. This would ALSO allow it to be a numbered line. I'd pick 8, since the 9 might come back and never went away on some signs and would fit nicely atop the numbered lines.

 

Now as far as yard area, you could park them under the bway line, allowing workers to easily switch trains if they need to, or without spending any money on more tunneling you could simply put them at corona yard. Or you could do both...

 

Yes, this would allow the TOMC to ride over central park.:cool:

 

- A

[MTR Admiralty]

This is all just a rough idea. I was looking for recommendations to see what might give it a better chance of being a realistic project. If i was looking for should we do it etc i'd make a poll.

 

The booming population of queens and general lack of subway coverage there will require addressing at some point.

 

It could be subway cars, or monorail, or some such. The photos i posted were simply all i could find to emphasize that it would NOT be akin to a spidery web of steel beams effecting a wall across the park, but open and non-view hindering.

 

The technologies available today would blow peoples' minds. Imagine a post tensioned track with -no- supports and no visible clue to how it stays up. Something to prominently boast that NYC is still on top. Something that inspires people. Where else but central park to display the amazing feat of engineering visible to all.

 

We need a way to tie together all the lines without having to go on a HUGE U shape which actually takes a bit of time.

 

If you dont' like my idea of a big shouty mind blowing beautiful piece of engineering in the middle of a big park then lets see what you got.B):cool:

 

I mean my idea was to connect the bway, cpw, lex, sas, astoria and flushing lines and possibly make a big statement in the park along the way...

 

Tunneling under the city is all nice and good but one must remember that sea levels have been rising and storms are seeming to be more intense. I don't think it would be fair to tunnel on the west side anymore because of the underground runoff that wants to get from the higher area of the park to the river. I mean you could get really bold and put the yard right under the remaining space on the west side underneath the bway line since as i remember it isnt very deep right there.... The main problem comes in tunneling through the park which is a geological nightmare. You have filled in areas that collect water bigtime, and you have the schist which pitys the fool.

 

Another member has pointed out that you could follow the roadway cut with an elevated line across the park and make it go underground right next to the Met, giving the Met its first designated subway station (something many tourists and others would love). My main issue would then be avoiding the lex and the sas.

 

The plan i'd prefer would call for elevated line 2 track one on top of the other using cable stay and post tensioning methods clad in stone to effect a "weightless stone arch" across the park, having a tunnel at the east end of the structure where it would pass under 5th ave and have a station right next to 5th ave and the Met. the tunnel could then go towards 1st ave and turn north there to make the smallest jump under the river as possible, POSSIBLY under the north end of roosevelt island providing emergency access to the island but no station. Line would then come out of tunnel and meet up with the astoria line before going farther east and meeting up with the flushing line. You could make the connections to whichever station works best, and possibly add access via a station to LGA before or after meeting with the flushing line.

 

Thoughts?

 

- A

 

Honestly, if you wish to connect the IRT Broadway, the IND Central Park West lines, the Lexington Avenue lines and the Astoria Line as well as the Flushing line, I believe there are better opportunities/alternatives than blowing a tunnel through the Upper West Side and the Upper East Side. I simply propose extending the SAS on a crosstown 125th Street, all tunnel. This will allow an interchange to the IRT Broadway line, the IND 8th Avenue Line, the IRT Lenox Avenue line, the Metro North, the IRT Lexington Line. IN ADDITION, a Queens connection could be built along with the 125th Street alignment. This alignment will continue past Second Avenue, rising as an el adjoining the Triborough Bridge (not built within or on top), it will follow it to Queens, running on viaduct above the Grand Central Parkway to Astoria Boulevard (interchange to Astoria line at 31st Street). It will continue on Astoria Boulevard to where it meets with Northern Boulevard. Past Shea Stadium, it will dive into tunnel, turning under Main Street, terminating at Roosevelt Avenue with provision for future extension.

This extension will probably tunnel under Kissena Boulevard, following its alignment, then under Parsons Blvd to past the IND/BMT Archer Avenue Line, onto the LIRR ROW to Laurelton, Queens.

I am not saying my concept is all that good. However, the reason why this alignment works is that it serves many areas where transit service is needed. Plus it functions as a valuable crosstown line. In addition it relieves the traffic on 125th Street. It provides Astoria, East Elmhurst, Jackson Hts and Flushing with a new corridor. Those Bronx-Queens riders could make some use out of it, instead of taking the Astoria Line to 59th Street to transfer to the Lexington Line, they could simply take the new line to Lexington Avenue before switching to the Pelham, Woodlawn or Dyre. It also allows for a provision for an LGA line, so that LGA could not only have rail access, but DIRECT access. And if the Queens extension is built, Fresh Meadows, Jamaica Estates, Jamaica and a large swath of Southeast Queens would have access. And that all stems from a crosstown line running along 125th Street.

It will be a Division B route as the SAS will run on its Manhattan alignment, sharing tracks with the Queens route. Unless a new yard is built, it will use the CI Yard, thru the Q line.

This crosstown line serves the same purpose as yours, but the fact is, most of the stations in the Manhattan alignment here are express stations. And a lot of them have HEAVY patronage. Your Manhattan alignment is situated in the Park and connects areas where a lot of its car-toting residents would never leave their cars just to take the subway. And even with the Park, your alignment will probably not enjoy as much patronage as my alignment.

And most of the alignment is elevated, so you could apply your "stone arch viaduct" or your "airy span". And great views, eh?

[metsfan]

Too far north, plus i want emergency access at roosevelt island.

 

- A

[MTR Admiralty]

Too far north, plus i want emergency access at roosevelt island.

 

- A

 

Or that you don't like it simply because it doesn't go straight through a park.

I do have plans for the Island.

A service from the SAS could turn under 76th Street, heading into Queens. There will be a station at Roosevelt Island. The line will proceed under 34th Avenue, continuing onto Northern Boulevard. This will connect with the IND Queens Blvd Line and could head straight to Flushing and Bayside. It alleviates crowding on the 7 by delivering a new line into Manhattan that could serve Flushing, Elmhurst, Jackson Hts and Sunnyside. In addition, it feeds directly onto the SAS, so that Queens rider would not have to transfer at Grand Central or 59th Street.

For the Roosevelt Is station, the station is situated in the traffic circle on Main Street north of the Roosevelt Is Bridge. There will be no need to underpin any residential complexes or infrastructure. And it could allow development north of the proposed station.

[MTR Admiralty]

Too far north, plus i want emergency access at roosevelt island.

 

- A

 

And it is not TOO FAR NORTH, it is the logical area for a much needed crosstown line. Think of the socioeconomic conditions of people living within your corridor and my corridor. Think about where they will go. 125th Street is now a boomtown. I suggest that you should look at its growth in terms of population and fiscally. I believe 125th Street was labelled a BID "Business Improvement District" or will be.

If you argue that my alignment is TOO FAR NORTH, I argue that YOUR alignment is TOO FAR TO THE BLOODY SOUTH. The reasons being: NIMBYs will protest such development on the west and east sides of the park, the Metropolitan Museum of Art will complain loudly, there are "crosstown lines" on 63rd, 60th, 53rd and 42nd and my SAS Queens line will run under 76th, which gives no reason why you should build a crosstown line through the seventies and eighties and you have to understand the topography of Central Park and the Upper East and West Sides, a line down 125th is a catalyst for faster economic growth in Harlem, a line down 125th Street could remove about 10%-20% of automobile traffic (along with its pollution) making it more environmentally friendly, it may make the M101 redundant (since the line parallels the bus line) and it connects several express stations and 1 commuter rail station. Furthermore, based on ridership demand, your Manhattan alignment is generally a small capacity system. My Manhattan alignment is more likely a heavy capacity line, and it is in the RPA's plans.

[metsfan]

I say it's too far north because i want it to go across the middle of the park not north of it, then right at the narrowest part of the east river cross over to queens with emergency access to roosevelt island. I don't care what the MTA has planned, this isn't about what they want, it's about what i want.

 

SAS needs to be a straight line allowing fast movement of trains, not having all kinds of weird spurs and serviced sidings. My concept takes away the need for a crosstown line to the north while allowing a station at the Met and reduced unserved line length as well as adding a station on 1st ave and in queens where there is currently only bus service to low income areas next to the river.

 

- A

[MTR Admiralty]

I say it's too far north because i want it to go across the middle of the park not north of it, then right at the narrowest part of the east river cross over to queens with emergency access to roosevelt island. I don't care what the MTA has planned, this isn't about what they want, it's about what i want.

 

SAS needs to be a straight line allowing fast movement of trains, not having all kinds of weird spurs and serviced sidings. My concept takes away the need for a crosstown line to the north while allowing a station at the Met and reduced unserved line length as well as adding a station on 1st ave and in queens where there is currently only bus service to low income areas next to the river.

 

- A

 

It is too far north because you wanted it to go across the middle of the park and not north of it? All of this is about WHAT YOU WANT. Doesn't it sound a bit foamerish and selfish at the same time? What about what people actually want? What people actually need?

WELL TOO BAD, the first two phases will be serviced by the line, which is running on a spur. SO TOO BAD.

It is still small capacity.

Roosevelt Island needs access to Midtown Manhattan, not to the Upper East Side where the commuters would have to transfer again and overload the Lexington line. By having a Queens line to the SAS with a stop at R.I, the Roosevelt Islanders would have secondary access into the Upper East Side, Midtown and the Financial District. This is a win-win situation. Your concept does not take away the concept of implanting a new line at 125th. Does the construction of a new line around the 70s and the 80s reduce inflammatory congestion along 125th Street? Could it provide interchange to express stations and Metro North?

This thread is plain obnoxious and ludicrous. I demand this thread to be closed.

[MTR Admiralty]

SAS needs to be a straight line allowing fast movement of trains, not having all kinds of weird spurs and serviced sidings.

 

- A

 

IMHO, the SAS should be a trunk line with multiple branches branching into the Bronx, Queens and Brooklyn, trying hard to cover as much area that is currently not serviced by subway and to improve the commutes of the general population.

Your selfish scheme is unnecessary and will disrupt the peace of the park.

Resolved, your corridor is not suitable for a new subway line and that the corridor could be used instead to operate BRT. It is just common sense.

The 125th Street corridor is HIGH PRIORITY and has more advantages than your corridor. If both lines cost about the same, my corridor will actually improve the commutes of many deserving citizens.

[R32 3348]

I don't think it would work since it goes through the park. A 125th St. crosstown line would connect to the (Riverdale), (2)/(3) (Harlem + Mid-Bronx), (A)/(:D/©/(D) (Inwood, Wash. Hts., Grand Concourse), and the (4)/(5)/(6) (Pelham Bay Park, Concourse, White Plans Rd.). I know the corridor you're proposing is the same but 125th St. serves as very northern line that would solve the problem of having to go all the way down to 42nd St. to go from the East Side to the West, especially for Riverdale residents. As for Queens, the places you propsoed they would enter Queens don't really enter many useful places or run under popular corridors. Unless you want an Astoria Blvd./Grand Central Pkwy. line...

[SubwayGuy]

I don't think it would work since it goes through the park. A 125th St. crosstown line would connect to the (Riverdale), (2)/(3) (Harlem + Mid-Bronx), (A)/(:D/©/(D) (Inwood, Wash. Hts., Grand Concourse), and the (4)/(5)/(6) (Pelham Bay Park, Concourse, White Plans Rd.). I know the corridor you're proposing is the same but 125th St. serves as very northern line that would solve the problem of having to go all the way down to 42nd St. to go from the East Side to the West, especially for Riverdale residents. As for Queens, the places you propsoed they would enter Queens don't really enter many useful places or run under popular corridors. Unless you want an Astoria Blvd./Grand Central Pkwy. line...

 

Actually what would be cool about the "125th St Shuttle" would be if it went to Randalls and Queens.

 

The only issue with it is getting around all the other tunnels in that area. It would have to go under 3 levels at Lexington Ave (mezz, uptown trains, downtown trains), then would have to go under both Lenox and St. Nick lines, then make a reasonable transfer with the on Broadway a la to at Yankee Stadium or to at Smith 9th.

[metsfan]

Actually what would be cool about the "125th St Shuttle" would be if it went to Randalls and Queens.

 

The only issue with it is getting around all the other tunnels in that area. It would have to go under 3 levels at Lexington Ave (mezz, uptown trains, downtown trains), then would have to go under both Lenox and St. Nick lines, then make a reasonable transfer with the on Broadway a la to at Yankee Stadium or to at Smith 9th.

 

That's why i was saying the middle of the park where it's just not so deep stuff on either side and uncomplicated layout with simple track arrangement.

 

As for going into bx, no. Maybe another line, but not this one!

 

- A

[SubwayGuy]

That's why i was saying the middle of the park where it's just not so deep stuff on either side and uncomplicated layout with simple track arrangement.

 

As for going into bx, no. Maybe another line, but not this one!

 

- A

 

125th is a major cross st though with plenty of attractions and that's why demographically / population wise, it could work...it is also a major stop on every line that would be connected to...

 

Where else would you do it? Everywhere except 103 and 110 (not major cross streets), you'd have to go under three levels of IRT. At 103rd you'd have to go under two levels (mezz, track level), and two at 110th if you factor in the crossunder they'd need to build to make the transfer workable in both directions. Neither of those locations are hotspots unless you live there, either, ridership patterns wouldn't justify building it there.

 

Say you dig it deep and you look for a major cross st. It'd have to be somewhere local and express trains stop, otherwise you put too much strain on the local lines and it's kind of an inconvenient transfer. Well you got 96 is a local stop on the CPW lines and Lex, only lcl/exp on the west side lines. 86 is a cross st and exp on Lex, but local on CPW and west side. 72nd/77th is too residential to justify that sort of line, it's not really a destination unless you live there, and 68/59 are getting close to midtown and you got the trains coming in from queens which can provide crosstown service on 53rd. On the other end 116 is so close you might as well build at 125 because there are more destination spots there.

[metsfan]

unless you live there

 

Exactly.

 

- A

[Radioguy]

As I said in the other thread, you might as well raze the park altogether if you do something like this. There's already too many man made structures within it already.