A Metro-North Extension
I know this is an impossible but maybe one of the greatest ideas to revitalizing Lower Manhattan, Extented Metro North to the WTC, it would cut down communting time and give access to Upstates growing population
Actually, I've had a plan for a while for extending MN downtown. They could extend Grand Central Terminal's CURRENT lower level tracks to tracks 1-5 of Penn Station. Have trains continue that way, then branch off under the West Side Highway. Merge it with an NJT tunnel for an extension of NJT from Hoboken)
That sounds extremely expensive... First off, to extend the 18 tracks from the lower level would require a complete redesign of the lower level to remove the stairs at the end of the tracks. Then you're talking about a deep-cut tunnel bored system to bring those tracks to Penn Station, although you could reduce the number of tracks to 4 probably.
How would those tracks merge into Penn however? Go straight down Park Ave under the 4-5-6 tracks and connect at 34th to the LIRR/Amtrak tubes?
That's not even on anyone's radar right now, there's 5 projects each with an estimated price tag of over $3 Billion.Originally Posted by noik53
NJ Transit Hudson tunnels/34th street station $6 Billion
Cross Harbor Freight tunnel $3-6 Billion
East Side Access project LIRR-Grand Central $6 Billion
LIRR-Lower Manhattan rail access $6 Billion
Second Ave Subway, first segement $3.5 Billion total full build $12 Billion.
Here is my list of those projects in order of importance of my opinion:
SAS
THE(NJT Hudson River tunnel)
Cross Harbor(or some form of a new river/harbor crossing that is compatible with rail freight)
ESA
LIRR Downtown
I only put LIRR downtown as last b/c for LIRR riders to get to the east side from NYP, they have to take TWO subways(or one from FBA), whereas downtown is just ONE subway from both FBA and NYP.
BTW, FBA stands for Flatbush Av(the LIRR Brooklyn terminal)
As for MN to downtown, I only suggested extending the lower level tracks to NYP b/c that was the former ARC(Access to the Regions Core) plan. I should've been more clear. The plan is/was to extend I think only 6 or so tracks, I believe UNDER the subway, and then curve UNDER the existing LIRR/Amtrak tunnels, and continue as a new tunnel to tracks 1-5 of NYP. BTW, tracks 1-5 of NYP are stub end tracks, meaning they have no access to the East River tunnels. They are used only by NJT. Once the trains come in from NJ, they have to either layover there or head BACK to NJ. They can't go to Sunnyside Yard b/c there is no connection from those tracks to the LIRR/Amtrak East River tunnels.
Then, from NYP, branch the tracks off into a new tunnel under the West Side Highway(really West St). They could even use the same tunnel routing from NYP to downtown for LIRR downtown access(they can't use the same tracks though because LIRR and MN have different 3rd rail operations). Then NJT can join in on the fun from Hoboken. The downtown terminal can be built somwhere near Fulton St, as that seems to me like the most logical place for a downtown terminal given the plethora of bus and subway connections.
Sure, all that'd be expensive, but so is every other half baked idea out there(except SAS, that is FAR from half baked). Also, by having NJT run the extension to downtown from Hoboken, that eliminates their need for another Hudson River tunnel, as they could reroute some trains from midtown to downtown.
Last edited by NIMBYkiller; November 13th, 2005 at 02:04 PM.
Seems like it costs billions just to talk about these projects. While they get discussed and partially funded, their cost seems to go up by about the amount spent on appropriations and administration, like a dog chasing its tail.
Maybe if they were discussed less one or two of them might get built.
.
The Bond Passed.
Now Comes the Hard Part:
Actually Building a 2nd Avenue Subway.
New York Times
By SEWELL CHAN
November 14, 2005
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/14/nyregion/14mta.html
As the November election approached, the mayor and other officials urged citizens to support a transportation bond issue that would allow a Second Avenue subway to be built. Planners said the project would work wonders for congestion. New York State voters went to the polls and approved the measure.
That was in 1951.
And it happened again, in 1967.
Thirty-eight years later, the scene was replayed once again on Tuesday, when the state's voters approved, 55 percent to 45 percent, a $2.9 billion borrowing measure that officials had described as essential for the new subway line - a project that has been discussed since 1929.
With $450 million designated for the Second Avenue Subway (and the rest of the money for many other transportation projects), the Metropolitan Transportation Authority hopes to build a first segment, from East 96th to East 63rd Streets, by 2012 or so. But even supporters of the project are not holding their breath.
"It's the most famous thing that's never been built in New York City, so everyone is skeptical and rightly so," said Gene Russianoff, an advocate for subway riders since 1981. "It's much-promised and never delivered."
Mr. Russianoff, a Harvard-trained lawyer who leads the Straphangers Campaign, a project of the New York Public Interest Research Group, is no naif, but he said the project has a better chance of being built than at any time in the past quarter-century.
The project was first proposed just before the start of the Great Depression, as a replacement for the Second Avenue elevated line, which was demolished between 1940 and 1942, and the Third Avenue elevated line, which was taken down in 1955. (Its Bronx segment closed in 1973.)
Money from the 1951 bond measure was diverted to buy new cars, lengthen platforms and maintain the aging system. The proceeds of the 1967 bond act were partly used to begin tunneling under Second Avenue. Digging began in 1972; a few years later, the city became insolvent.
"It had been a long-term project even before we arrived at the scene," said Donald H. Elliott, who was a member of the authority's board from 1968 to 1978. "When the fiscal crisis came, all of those projects were stopped."
Peter S. Kalikow, the authority's chairman since 2001, said he was confident that he would ride on the subway line's maiden voyage. "I'm going to be on the first car, with my senior-citizen MetroCard, waving at everybody as we roll into the stations," said Mr. Kalikow, who is 62.
Mr. Kalikow plans to travel to Washington this month to meet with David Horner, the chief counsel and acting deputy administrator at the Federal Transit Administration, to begin discussions on a "full-funding grant agreement," which will secure a federal contribution to the project. The federal agency has identified the project as a priority.
For now, the authority is focused on building a 2.3-mile segment of the Second Avenue subway, with new stations at 96th, 86th and 72nd Streets and a connection to the existing F line station at 63rd Street and Lexington Avenue. The line would eventually be 8.5 miles and extend to Lower Manhattan.
The first segment would carry 187,000 riders a day if it existed today, according to official estimates. The projected cost for the first segment is $3.8 billion. The authority budgeted $1.05 billion in its capital program for 2000 to 2004 and will have an additional $450 million, from the bond act, in its new program, for 2005 to 2009.
It hopes for a federal contribution of about $1.3 billion. But even if that best-case situation occurs, that leaves about $1 billion to be raised between now and 2012 - the estimated completion date for the first segment.
Privately, officials concede that the first segment might not be completed until 2015. Mr. Kalikow insisted that the 2012 date was still in place, but said that any change would involve public notification.
"As far as I am concerned, my people say they can meet that date and that's what I'll go with," he said. "You'll come to the meetings and see the reports. You won't have to wait until 2012 to see whether we're on time or not."
Robert A. Olmsted, who was a planner for the authority for two decades until his retirement in 1989, is intimately familiar with the project's troubled history but predicted eventual success. "I think we'll get through the first phase," said Mr. Olmsted, who at 81 hopes to ride the line. "From there, we'll see."
The MTA SHOULD NOT BUILD ANYTHING!
That's right. Nothing.
The job of building new subway lines, new stations and all renovations should be PRIVATIZED.
Give the money to one or several private companies (if there any) that will do nothing but plan, develop, design and build.
The MTA's only job should be to just run the damn thing and nothing more.
It's apparent that asking them to do anything beyond that is too much.
If only I was in charge. . .
Nyt
Rail Link to Benefit From Unused 9/11 Aid
By RAYMOND HERNANDEZ
Published: November 17, 2005
WASHINGTON, Nov. 16 - The Senate is set to approve a measure that would allow New York officials to use $2 billion in unused Sept. 11 aid to build a rail link connecting the World Trade Center site to the Long Island Rail Road and Kennedy International Airport, Congressional officials said on Wednesday.
It is the first significant effort by Congress to fulfill a request that New York officials made last year to finance the rail link project with unused parts of a $5 billion tax-incentive package. Washington had approved the package shortly after the terror attack to encourage the construction of office towers, residential buildings and retail shops in Lower Manhattan.
The fate of the rail link project is still uncertain in the House, where conservatives, who are increasingly alarmed about the growing federal deficit, have been averse to redirecting the remaining 9/11 dollars to the rail link project.
A senior Republican aide said last night that it was too early to determine how the House would respond.
Nevertheless, city and state officials said they were encouraged by the developments in the Senate and immediately called on Republican leaders in the House to follow suit, saying that the rail link was a vital part of efforts to rebuild Lower Manhattan.
In a statement, Gov. George E. Pataki, a Republican, urged the House "to act in concert with the Senate and help secure this important funding," arguing that the rail link would help restore "tens of thousands of jobs" lost as a result of the attacks.
Daniel L. Doctoroff, the deputy mayor for economic development, said that getting the money from Washington would ensure that "the federal government keeps its promise to New York to help in the rebuilding after Sept. 11."
To put New York back in the pack of progressive cities where it belongs, this train should be engineered to run at 90 mph or faster.
The commuter trains are engineered to go well over 90, but track improvements are what need to be made. As for the subway, that will NEVER hit those speeds. One because the distances between stations, even on express runs and under the rivers, are too close.
I was reading a post on another thread suggesting light rail around Manhattan, and I thought "that's a great idea!"
To discuss this without going off-topic on that thread, I decided to bring up this idea over here.
The rail line would parallel the waterfronts running along the FDR and Westside Highways. I'm thinking something similar to the JFK Airtrain and the Van Wyck Expresssway in Queens. Of course, exactly where the rails will be running to in relation to the highways (next to, above, underneath or a combination of these) can always be decided later.
Seriously, the idea of light rail going up and down the riverfronts is fantastic for several reasons. First, it would eliminate the need for a Second Ave. subway line or SAS and provide another needed transport line for the Westside where no subways run west of Ninth Ave.
I don't need to go into details of all the benefits this would bring to the Westside as I'm sure everyone already knows. Basically, it'll open up a substantial part of Manhattan (you're talking about 9th, 10th, 11th Ave.'s and beyond, all the way to the waterfront) that has so far been underused because of the lack of subway service.
Secondly, it's reasonable to presume that light rail would be cheaper and quicker to construct than underground subway lines. I do caution that although it'll be cheaper and quicker, it won't necessarily be cheap nor quick since I know that this IS afterall NY (bureacracy, community resistance, lawsuits, funding, eminent domain, etc. will always unfortunately exist).
However, compared to the torturous task of subway building--as evident by the SAS--it should certainly be cheaper and quicker.
Upon further contemplation, I think that in order for this idea to be a complete success, it would have to be fully integrated with the city's subway system.
What I mean is that the light rail lines would somehow have to be connected to the subways. This way, people would be able to transfer to subways just as conveniently as they do now with the subway to subway transfers.
For this, I propose to have for the rail lines--in addition to regular stations--main transfer stations that are situated right over the crosstown lines such as the underground 7 line that it will cross over at around 42nd St.
At these main transfer stations, there would be stairs right at the rail station that will allow the rider to go down and transfer directly to a subway train.
Of course that would not be possible for the Westside since there are no crossing subway lines underground. At that point, I guess we would have to then either bring the rail lines to the subways or vice versa so they can meet at some point.
What do you think? Will it work? Is this a good alternative to the SAS?
It seems like these are the types of ideas that the MTA should explore but aren't. Sadly, the MTA people and the city in general, lack progressive thinking and vision that had once made the city great during the first half of the 20th century.
Great idea, and I agree with all your points except the claim that it would obviate the Second Ave subway. Light rail doesn't have the capacity or the speed to do what SAS should accomplish: swift, high-capacity transport over the length of Manhattan.
Lowest cost would be surface lines. Harnessing technology to give rail priority at all intersections would yield the necessary speed without the costly exertions of tunnels or (shudder) elevated structure.
An expensive component will be wheelchair accessibility.
I don't care what anyone does/says...SAS will always be needed. Build it. Having a light rail line on the FDR will still mean a huge gap between transit services and wont help the Lex nearly as much as SAS will.
As for the west side, extend the 7 to the Javits, then downtown to Fulton St. Also, extend the L to the far west side and extend it up to say 57th St. From 57th St north, have Metro North run some Hudson Line service to NYC via the Empire Connection. Build some stops along the line at 57th st, maybe 72nd st, 125th St, and maybe some other places.
As for one seat rides along the rivers and around Manhattan, let the ferries take care of that. Perhaps the gov't should subsidise them though so the fares aren't so outrageous.
Yes, LRT is cheaper to build, implement, and maintain, but I think that in this scenario, there are better options that, overall, will provide more transit options. Where I could see a good light rail line is:
1. Pier 11 over to WFC Ferry Terminal. It would connect the 2 ferry terminals with inner parts of downtown. Perhaps build it as a loop. From WFC, straight across town to Pier 17, then down South St to Pier 11, along the water and Battery Park up to the WFC terminal, with a stop at the Whitehall Terminal(SI Ferry) as well.
2. From 59th/East River to Pier 79(NY Waterway 38th St ferry terminal). It'd run across town until 12th Av, then down 12th to the ferry terminal. The reason I say start it at the East River is b/c if and when I start Island Transit, and if I do in fact start the ferry division, I want to have a ferry stop at 59th St, or somewhere between 59th and 63rd(the light rail terminal would be at the same location as the ferry stop). Also, if and when I start Island Transit, I am hopping to use the abandonned trolley terminal at 59th/2nd as a bus/trolley terminal.
3. If they can't do a 125th St subway, then a 125th St light rail. And if it is possible, extend it via the Triboro and GCP to LGA, and then down to Flushing Main St LIRR station. Sort of an express version of the M60 that is extended to Flushing.
As for an east side 7 stop, no chance. The tunnel is way to deep and steep from what I'm told to have a station there.
I think light rail in Manhattan will work. Also, I think light rail along 12th Av and the West Side highway would be very nice. Perhaps from a downtown loop(like in #1), up the West Side to 57th St. And perhaps another fom the same loop, up the FDR to about the Willy B, then under/alongside the Willy B to I think 2nd Av(where ever the 1st subway station after the Willy B is).
November 30, 2005
New Subway Cars Promise All Kinds of Information
By SEWELL CHAN
Nicholas Malave, a senior at Pacific High School in Brooklyn, entered a subway car yesterday and let out a cry of delight. This is not something he normally does during his regular trips on the A and J lines.
But those older cars lack what the new R160 subway car has: a Flexible Information and Notice Display, or FIND, with a liquid crystal display screen like the ones in television or computer monitors. The FIND panel will also have light-emitting diodes that will constantly update information about the train's progress.
After each stop, the display will change to show the next 10 stops, along with stops farther along the line. The video screen can be used to show the route symbol (like the letter "N" or "Q") or advertising.
Mr. Malave was one of dozens of curious riders who attended an "open house" sponsored yesterday afternoon by New York City Transit to show off and receive feedback on a five-car test train, a prototype of the R160, the newest generation of subway cars.
Next summer, the test train will be put in use so that engineers and mechanics can conduct technical tests, see how the cars hold up and iron out any problems before the rest of the order - a $952 million contract for 660 cars, awarded in October 2002 - is completed by a joint venture of Kawasaki Rail Car and Alstom Transport.
The cars will be delivered starting in 2007. Although the agency has not decided yet, the new cars may be used on the N or Q lines, which currently use some of the oldest cars in the system.
The test train yesterday was fully functioning, but it was not available to ordinary riders trying to get home. It was parked for five hours at the Hoyt-Schermerhorn station in Downtown Brooklyn.
The R160 is 60 feet long and 85,200 pounds when empty. It comes in two versions: one with a train operator's cab at the end, which can seat 42, and one without the cab, which can seat 44. Except for the new display system, the R160 is almost identical to the R143, which has been in use since 2002 on the L line.
Riders yesterday, told to focus on the FIND panel, were asked questions like, "Do you feel reassured that the train is going to your station?" and "How easy or hard is it to read the words and letters on the sign?"
But riders seemed to be paying less attention to the sign than the rest of the car. Some of them said they did not regularly take the Nos. 2, 4, 5 and 6 lines (which use R142 cars, similar in design to the R143) or the L line and so were not familiar with the latest design.
Asked to compare the new car with the F train that she normally rides, Marķa Romero, 72, a retired nurse's aide from Gravesend, Brooklyn, said, "This is three times more advanced!" Jared M. Skolnick, 34, an Internet marketer from the Upper West Side, said he admired the bright fluorescent lights, since he often took photographs in the subway.
James V. Sears, the agency's senior director of marketing research, said the results of the surveys - along with comments from focus groups convened in 2003 - could be incorporated into the final design of the FIND panel.
Among the transit specialists who crowded the test car yesterday was Masamichi Udagawa of Antenna Design New York. He was partly responsible for the bluish-gray color of the seats on the R142 and future generations. Asked whether he missed the red, orange and yellow seats used in many cars built in the 1970's, he said, "They were good for disco, but not for everyday commuting."
http://www.nycsubway.org/cars/r160.html
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks