Comments on: New York should take its cue from London Transport http://secondavenuesagas.com/2007/07/30/new-york-should-take-its-cue-from-london-transport/ A New York City Subway Blog Wed, 23 May 2012 12:49:17 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: soembody http://secondavenuesagas.com/2007/07/30/new-york-should-take-its-cue-from-london-transport/#comment-7265 soembody Sat, 15 Dec 2007 01:37:32 +0000 http://secondavenuesagas.com/2007/07/30/new-york-should-take-its-cue-from-london-transport/#comment-7265 Sorry for the error but in the & extension, it should be the 7 extension. Sorry for the error but in the & extension, it should be the 7 extension.

]]> By: soembody http://secondavenuesagas.com/2007/07/30/new-york-should-take-its-cue-from-london-transport/#comment-7264 soembody Sat, 15 Dec 2007 01:36:33 +0000 http://secondavenuesagas.com/2007/07/30/new-york-should-take-its-cue-from-london-transport/#comment-7264 I don't think running the A cross-Bronx like that is a good idea. Extending the C north like that isn't a good idea also. Extending the V like that makes it look crooked. It is an upside-down U when the V can be extended like this: Have the V stop at Delancey St, East Broadway, York Street and Jay St. After Jay St, the V shifts to the Fulton Express track and merges with the A. The V runs express until Euclid Av. After Euclid Av, the V stops at Grant Av, 80 St, 88 St and Rockaway Blvd. The V continues to Lefferts Blvd. The A continues to Far Rockway while Rockway Park is served by the shuttle. The G should be extended the way everybody wants it to be with the F running express. The J/Z skip-stop service should be eliminated with running on the express track in a peak-hour mode. The Second Avenue Subway plan is good, but I know how to make it better. The Q service is good, I'm talking about the T. Prepare yourself for this one: The T should have an extra stop at South Ferry to connect with the 1, N and W trains. There should also be a transfer to the 2 and 3 trains at Hanover Square. After South Ferry, the T should run high-speed under the New York Harbor to Staten Island. The first stop in Staten Island should be a station under a rebuilt St. George Terminal (With the SIR Station demolished.) After the St. George Terminal Station, the T rises to ground-level to run on the SIR tracks with fare control booths placed in every station. The & extension should be extended south to 14th St. A free transfer should be built between Hewes St on the J and M lines and Broadway on the G line. The SAS should also be extended west under 125 St with stops at Lenox Av, Manhattan Av and Broadway. The 7 should be extended east to Bell Blvd via Northern Blvd. The Archer Avenue Line should be extended east to Springfield Blvd with the E being local and the J being express. I don’t think running the A cross-Bronx like that is a good idea. Extending the C north like that isn’t a good idea also. Extending the V like that makes it look crooked. It is an upside-down U when the V can be extended like this: Have the V stop at Delancey St, East Broadway, York Street and Jay St. After Jay St, the V shifts to the Fulton Express track and merges with the A. The V runs express until Euclid Av. After Euclid Av, the V stops at Grant Av, 80 St, 88 St and Rockaway Blvd. The V continues to Lefferts Blvd. The A continues to Far Rockway while Rockway Park is served by the shuttle. The G should be extended the way everybody wants it to be with the F running express. The J/Z skip-stop service should be eliminated with running on the express track in a peak-hour mode.

The Second Avenue Subway plan is good, but I know how to make it better. The Q service is good, I’m talking about the T. Prepare yourself for this one: The T should have an extra stop at South Ferry to connect with the 1, N and W trains. There should also be a transfer to the 2 and 3 trains at Hanover Square. After South Ferry, the T should run high-speed under the New York Harbor to Staten Island. The first stop in Staten Island should be a station under a rebuilt St. George Terminal (With the SIR Station demolished.) After the St. George Terminal Station, the T rises to ground-level to run on the SIR tracks with fare control booths placed in every station.

The & extension should be extended south to 14th St. A free transfer should be built between Hewes St on the J and M lines and Broadway on the G line. The SAS should also be extended west under 125 St with stops at Lenox Av, Manhattan Av and Broadway. The 7 should be extended east to Bell Blvd via Northern Blvd. The Archer Avenue Line should be extended east to Springfield Blvd with the E being local and the J being express.

]]> By: Tom Anderson http://secondavenuesagas.com/2007/07/30/new-york-should-take-its-cue-from-london-transport/#comment-5947 Tom Anderson Mon, 03 Dec 2007 18:37:11 +0000 http://secondavenuesagas.com/2007/07/30/new-york-should-take-its-cue-from-london-transport/#comment-5947 As a Londoner, i'm flattered that a New Yorker would advise looking to London for public transport inspiration, but i don't think there's really much we can teach you. The last actual new underground line we opened was the Victoria line, in 1968. Apart; since then, in almost forty years, all we've done is: - reopened the Snow Hill tunnel (part of the Thameslink route you mentioned) in 1988; built in the 19th century, but not used for passengers since 1916 - 'built' the Jubilee line, by taking over a 1930s branch of the Bakerloo line and extending it with 2.5 miles of tunnel from Baker Street (on the edge of the inner city) to Charing Cross (in the middle of the city) in 1979, and then another ten miles out to the City of London (the old financial district) and Docklands (the new financial district) in 1999 - built 19 miles of the Docklands Light Railway on old alignments and new routes through redeveloped areas - built the Channel Tunnel Rail Link, a high-speed route from Kent to London, mostly in tunnel - although we don't have anything except international services on it yet, and won't for years, so it's useless for anything except going to Europe The Jubilee line extension was a pretty big deal, but the other stuff is not hugely impressive. It's had a good bang for its buck, especially the DLR, but it's small fry. The things we haven't done are the major things we desperately need - new lines running east-west and northeast-southwest (or similar), which have been on the drawing board for decades. The east-west line, Crossrail, has now got government approval, but no work has started, and won't for many years yet (until after Thameslink and the bloody Olympics are done). The Thameslink upgrade is grinding forward, but again is mostly minor improvements. Oh, and we've got an extension of the East London line in the works - but that's rather like what i imagine the G train to be like, great if you need it, but not the solution to the city's problems. It's not a lot to show for 40 years. I have no idea what New York has done in the last 40 years, but recently, you've actually broken ground on the Second Avenue Subway, which is your answer to Crossrail. You're going to have trains running on most of it in ten years. We're still going to be arguing about paying for our line then. -- tom As a Londoner, i’m flattered that a New Yorker would advise looking to London for public transport inspiration, but i don’t think there’s really much we can teach you. The last actual new underground line we opened was the Victoria line, in 1968. Apart; since then, in almost forty years, all we’ve done is:

- reopened the Snow Hill tunnel (part of the Thameslink route you mentioned) in 1988; built in the 19th century, but not used for passengers since 1916
- ‘built’ the Jubilee line, by taking over a 1930s branch of the Bakerloo line and extending it with 2.5 miles of tunnel from Baker Street (on the edge of the inner city) to Charing Cross (in the middle of the city) in 1979, and then another ten miles out to the City of London (the old financial district) and Docklands (the new financial district) in 1999
- built 19 miles of the Docklands Light Railway on old alignments and new routes through redeveloped areas
- built the Channel Tunnel Rail Link, a high-speed route from Kent to London, mostly in tunnel – although we don’t have anything except international services on it yet, and won’t for years, so it’s useless for anything except going to Europe

The Jubilee line extension was a pretty big deal, but the other stuff is not hugely impressive. It’s had a good bang for its buck, especially the DLR, but it’s small fry. The things we haven’t done are the major things we desperately need – new lines running east-west and northeast-southwest (or similar), which have been on the drawing board for decades. The east-west line, Crossrail, has now got government approval, but no work has started, and won’t for many years yet (until after Thameslink and the bloody Olympics are done). The Thameslink upgrade is grinding forward, but again is mostly minor improvements. Oh, and we’ve got an extension of the East London line in the works – but that’s rather like what i imagine the G train to be like, great if you need it, but not the solution to the city’s problems. It’s not a lot to show for 40 years.

I have no idea what New York has done in the last 40 years, but recently, you’ve actually broken ground on the Second Avenue Subway, which is your answer to Crossrail. You’re going to have trains running on most of it in ten years. We’re still going to be arguing about paying for our line then.

– tom

]]> By: Angus Grieve-Smith http://secondavenuesagas.com/2007/07/30/new-york-should-take-its-cue-from-london-transport/#comment-1041 Angus Grieve-Smith Wed, 01 Aug 2007 00:48:14 +0000 http://secondavenuesagas.com/2007/07/30/new-york-should-take-its-cue-from-london-transport/#comment-1041 Peter, you make a good point about induced demand and property values, but it's also important to keep perspective on where you create demand. Barrier islands aren't a very good place for housing in general, and they're particularly unsustainable with the threat of rising sea levels. I don't think the government should subsidize any more development in the Rockaways than there already is. On the other hand, instead of building an incompatible light rail system to serve JFK, we should have used the Rockaway Branch to bring subways from the Queens Boulevard line. The Rockaway Branch should be used for something. In regard to the Montauk Branch, as I wrote in the comments to the Streetsblog thread that I linked above, if trains continue to terminate at LIC, then an increase in service won't accomplish much. Better to use the eastbound loop and terminate at the planned Sunnyside station: http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/06/29/triboro-rx-could-provide-more-transit-opportunities/#comment-33397 Peter, you make a good point about induced demand and property values, but it’s also important to keep perspective on where you create demand. Barrier islands aren’t a very good place for housing in general, and they’re particularly unsustainable with the threat of rising sea levels. I don’t think the government should subsidize any more development in the Rockaways than there already is.

On the other hand, instead of building an incompatible light rail system to serve JFK, we should have used the Rockaway Branch to bring subways from the Queens Boulevard line. The Rockaway Branch should be used for something.

In regard to the Montauk Branch, as I wrote in the comments to the Streetsblog thread that I linked above, if trains continue to terminate at LIC, then an increase in service won’t accomplish much. Better to use the eastbound loop and terminate at the planned Sunnyside station:

http://www.streetsblog.org/200.....ment-33397

]]> By: Bowery http://secondavenuesagas.com/2007/07/30/new-york-should-take-its-cue-from-london-transport/#comment-1040 Bowery Tue, 31 Jul 2007 23:15:42 +0000 http://secondavenuesagas.com/2007/07/30/new-york-should-take-its-cue-from-london-transport/#comment-1040 Goddamn Robert Moses Goddamn Robert Moses

]]> By: Marc Shepherd http://secondavenuesagas.com/2007/07/30/new-york-should-take-its-cue-from-london-transport/#comment-1045 Marc Shepherd Tue, 31 Jul 2007 14:20:14 +0000 http://secondavenuesagas.com/2007/07/30/new-york-should-take-its-cue-from-london-transport/#comment-1045 Peter, I agree that transit can help revitalize neighborhoods (which is essentially Bloomberg's argument for the westward extension of the #7 train). And I also agree that existing ROWs should be seriously considered, where there are other criteria that suggest the proposal makes sense. But when I see a fan-fantasy map that proposes tripling service to some of the least-used existing stations in the system, I have to conclude that this is not a thoughtful plan overall. It's just a rail buff drawing multi-colored lines for fun. Peter, I agree that transit can help revitalize neighborhoods (which is essentially Bloomberg’s argument for the westward extension of the #7 train). And I also agree that existing ROWs should be seriously considered, where there are other criteria that suggest the proposal makes sense.

But when I see a fan-fantasy map that proposes tripling service to some of the least-used existing stations in the system, I have to conclude that this is not a thoughtful plan overall. It’s just a rail buff drawing multi-colored lines for fun.

]]> By: peter http://secondavenuesagas.com/2007/07/30/new-york-should-take-its-cue-from-london-transport/#comment-1044 peter Tue, 31 Jul 2007 12:58:39 +0000 http://secondavenuesagas.com/2007/07/30/new-york-should-take-its-cue-from-london-transport/#comment-1044 Angus, et al - Re: use of the Bayridge Branch for transit, I didnt credit RPA or anyone else, for the sake of brevity; Ive seen some plans for both transit & light rail conversion of that alignment, and air rights development of below-grade sections would go a long way toward making it economically feasible. Certainly a look at the Subway map and knowledge of existing non-transit rights of way prompts speculation about which underutilized lines could be integrated into the transit system, and what exiting but separate lines could be connected for better coverage of the region. The LIRR Rego Park-Rockaway Branch is one such opportunity posited in the expansion map, but others, like the Bayridge Freight Branch or the LIRR Montauk Branch were not explored. Use of the former LIRR Rego Park cutoff is technically feasible, but politically impractical due to opposition from neighborhoods through which would travel and, ironically, increase property values if built. The question of whether any new line will serve an existing demand is the wrong question. The Flushing Line was built through an empty landscape and CREATED demand - for residential & commercial development. The LIRR freight-only Montauk Line, a mere few hundred feet from the #7 at Crane St/Davis St. & Skillman Ave in LIC, traverses the dwindling industrial landscape of the Newtown Creek & Maspeth neighborhoods and is the key to revitalizing that part of the City. With few existing residential areas (and thus, voters to oppose it), it bisects one of the largest areas in the City bereft of transit. With the #7 & G at one end, it intersects the M in Middle Village, the ex-LIRR Rego Park-Rockaway Line and the J & Z in Woodhaven, reaching Jamaica Station and the E, J, Z as well as the benighted AirTrain. Rather than railfan fantasy, existing RoWs offer practical ways to extend and expand transit service without financially improbable land acquisition and with relatively minimal construction costs and inconvenience. Angus, et al -
Re: use of the Bayridge Branch for transit, I didnt credit RPA or anyone else, for the sake of brevity; Ive seen some plans for both transit & light rail conversion of that alignment, and air rights development of below-grade sections would go a long way toward making it economically feasible.
Certainly a look at the Subway map and knowledge of existing non-transit rights of way prompts speculation about which underutilized lines could be integrated into the transit system, and what exiting but separate lines could be connected for better coverage of the region.
The LIRR Rego Park-Rockaway Branch is one such opportunity posited in the expansion map, but others, like the Bayridge Freight Branch or the LIRR Montauk Branch were not explored. Use of the former LIRR Rego Park cutoff is technically feasible, but politically impractical due to opposition from neighborhoods through which would travel and, ironically, increase property values if built.
The question of whether any new line will serve an existing demand is the wrong question. The Flushing Line was built through an empty landscape and CREATED demand – for residential & commercial development.
The LIRR freight-only Montauk Line, a mere few hundred feet from the #7 at Crane St/Davis St. & Skillman Ave in LIC, traverses the dwindling industrial landscape of the Newtown Creek & Maspeth neighborhoods and is the key to revitalizing that part of the City. With few existing residential areas (and thus, voters to oppose it), it bisects one of the largest areas in the City bereft of transit. With the #7 & G at one end, it intersects the M in Middle Village, the ex-LIRR Rego Park-Rockaway Line and the J & Z in Woodhaven, reaching Jamaica Station and the E, J, Z as well as the benighted AirTrain.
Rather than railfan fantasy, existing RoWs offer practical ways to extend and expand transit service without financially improbable land acquisition and with relatively minimal construction costs and inconvenience.

]]> By: Marc Shepherd http://secondavenuesagas.com/2007/07/30/new-york-should-take-its-cue-from-london-transport/#comment-1043 Marc Shepherd Tue, 31 Jul 2007 12:35:37 +0000 http://secondavenuesagas.com/2007/07/30/new-york-should-take-its-cue-from-london-transport/#comment-1043 The V extension along the old Rockaway ROW is an old standby for rail buffs, who can't stand to see unused tracks. Trouble is, the stations along the Rockaway peninsula are among the system's least-used. It seems unlikely that the MTA would invest in a proposal that would, in effect, double their level of service. It actually gets worse, because in the fantasy map the C goes full-time to Lefferts, and the A full-time to the Rockaways. So, counting the full-time a and the extended V, the Rockaway Peninsula would get something like 2½ to 3 times the service it has now. To repeat, these are among the least-used stations in the system. The V extension along the old Rockaway ROW is an old standby for rail buffs, who can’t stand to see unused tracks. Trouble is, the stations along the Rockaway peninsula are among the system’s least-used. It seems unlikely that the MTA would invest in a proposal that would, in effect, double their level of service.

It actually gets worse, because in the fantasy map the C goes full-time to Lefferts, and the A full-time to the Rockaways. So, counting the full-time a and the extended V, the Rockaway Peninsula would get something like 2½ to 3 times the service it has now. To repeat, these are among the least-used stations in the system.

]]> By: Angus Grieve-Smith http://secondavenuesagas.com/2007/07/30/new-york-should-take-its-cue-from-london-transport/#comment-1042 Angus Grieve-Smith Tue, 31 Jul 2007 04:26:24 +0000 http://secondavenuesagas.com/2007/07/30/new-york-should-take-its-cue-from-london-transport/#comment-1042 The V extension on the map is the long-advocated restoration of the LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch right of way: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rockaway_Beach_Branch The Thameslink plan you link to is an upgrade. The current Thameslink was completed in 1990 and I took it in 2001; its essential feature is that it connects commuter trains from the north and south of London, allowing through-running and reducing the need for storage yards and cumbersome turn-arounds. In this way it's similar to the Paris RER: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RER What's frustrating is that New York and New Jersey had a chance to create similar through-running systems when planning the Trans-Hudson Express tunnel and the LIRR/Grand Central and Metro-North/Penn Station links. Many of the lines have incompatible electrification systems, but it would certainly be possible to run trains from, say, Montclair to New Canaan without any modifications. Now the plan is to have both the LIRR/Grand Central and the THE tunnels dead-end in deep caverns without any possibility for extension. That's forward thinking for you! Contrast this with Peter Cooper, who incorporated elevator shafts into the plans for Cooper Union because he knew someone would invent elevators sooner or later. Peter (the commenter above) does have an interesting idea. It'd be nice if he gave credit to the RPA folks who have been working on it for years: http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/06/29/triboro-rx-could-provide-more-transit-opportunities/ The V extension on the map is the long-advocated restoration of the LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch right of way:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rockaway_Beach_Branch

The Thameslink plan you link to is an upgrade. The current Thameslink was completed in 1990 and I took it in 2001; its essential feature is that it connects commuter trains from the north and south of London, allowing through-running and reducing the need for storage yards and cumbersome turn-arounds. In this way it’s similar to the Paris RER:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RER

What’s frustrating is that New York and New Jersey had a chance to create similar through-running systems when planning the Trans-Hudson Express tunnel and the LIRR/Grand Central and Metro-North/Penn Station links. Many of the lines have incompatible electrification systems, but it would certainly be possible to run trains from, say, Montclair to New Canaan without any modifications. Now the plan is to have both the LIRR/Grand Central and the THE tunnels dead-end in deep caverns without any possibility for extension. That’s forward thinking for you!

Contrast this with Peter Cooper, who incorporated elevator shafts into the plans for Cooper Union because he knew someone would invent elevators sooner or later.

Peter (the commenter above) does have an interesting idea. It’d be nice if he gave credit to the RPA folks who have been working on it for years:

http://www.streetsblog.org/200.....rtunities/

]]> By: Benjamin Kabak http://secondavenuesagas.com/2007/07/30/new-york-should-take-its-cue-from-london-transport/#comment-1049 Benjamin Kabak Mon, 30 Jul 2007 19:35:19 +0000 http://secondavenuesagas.com/2007/07/30/new-york-should-take-its-cue-from-london-transport/#comment-1049 Marc: I agree with you. Many fan maps aren't based completely in reality. However, the ideas - cross-Bronx service, more Brooklyn-Queens connection, service to LaGuardia, and service further out in the boroughs - are all things that should be implemented. How they are integrated into the current system is up to people with more power than I have (although Peter has an interesting idea up there). Marc: I agree with you. Many fan maps aren’t based completely in reality. However, the ideas – cross-Bronx service, more Brooklyn-Queens connection, service to LaGuardia, and service further out in the boroughs – are all things that should be implemented. How they are integrated into the current system is up to people with more power than I have (although Peter has an interesting idea up there).

]]>