Subway addition idle curiousity

[Vince]

"Bolwerk" <no@way.org2> wrote in message
news:RcCdnbcBJr5H6XLUnZ2dnUVZ_h-dnZ2d@earthlink.com...
> John Haywood wrote:
>> My question is one of pure idle curiosity: if you could personally choose
>> one or two new lines/projects to build for the NYC subway, what would
>> it/they be and why?
>
> My three preferences, in no particular order. All have at least some
> potential to serve under-serviced neighborhoods AND take pressure off the
> crowded parts of the system:
>
> (1) M Train to Midtown from its current eastern terminus. The M is an
> extremely under-utilized service. Meanwhile, there's no practical way to
> Midtown from Bushwick, Ridgewood, and Maspath, except in some cases by way
> of the overcrowded L Train and transferring to the overcrowded Lexington
> Ave. at the overcrowded 14th-Union Square station. This could be
> developed in such a way to take some pressure off both the Queens
> Boulevard services and the 7 Train. For at least part of the route, land
> is so low-density that this might even be pretty cheap to build.
>
> (2) An outer borough semi-loop. Maybe two of them (inner and outer). This
> option has the most potential to reduce automobile traffic, if that's
> possible at all. People would no longer need to drive from The Bronx to
> Queens, and the few who have to go that way by train could relieve the
> Lexington Ave. services a little by taking the new service(s). Service
> The Bronx to Staten Island. Inner option could utilize the underutilized
> IND Cosstown line (G), if necessary.
>
> (3) Bring back the Myrtle Ave. line as an underground service, but have it
> through to go Glendale and then north to Flushing and it would be prepared
> to go to The Bronx (perhaps sharing a 4-track tunnel with the 7). This
> could tie into (2) as an outer loop from The Bronx south. The Myrtle Ave.
> section makes a lot of sense, because Myrtle Ave. is a pretty densely
> populated street with limited transit access.
>

Some years back when TA wanted to do something along those lines with the
old LIRR spur
near Myrtle Ave the residents shut them down fast

[Bolwerk]

Vince wrote:
> "Bolwerk" <no@way.org2> wrote in message
> news:RcCdnbcBJr5H6XLUnZ2dnUVZ_h-dnZ2d@earthlink.com...
>> John Haywood wrote:
>>> My question is one of pure idle curiosity: if you could personally choose
>>> one or two new lines/projects to build for the NYC subway, what would
>>> it/they be and why?
>> My three preferences, in no particular order. All have at least some
>> potential to serve under-serviced neighborhoods AND take pressure off the
>> crowded parts of the system:
>>
>> (1) M Train to Midtown from its current eastern terminus. The M is an
>> extremely under-utilized service. Meanwhile, there's no practical way to
>> Midtown from Bushwick, Ridgewood, and Maspath, except in some cases by way
>> of the overcrowded L Train and transferring to the overcrowded Lexington
>> Ave. at the overcrowded 14th-Union Square station. This could be
>> developed in such a way to take some pressure off both the Queens
>> Boulevard services and the 7 Train. For at least part of the route, land
>> is so low-density that this might even be pretty cheap to build.
>>
>> (2) An outer borough semi-loop. Maybe two of them (inner and outer). This
>> option has the most potential to reduce automobile traffic, if that's
>> possible at all. People would no longer need to drive from The Bronx to
>> Queens, and the few who have to go that way by train could relieve the
>> Lexington Ave. services a little by taking the new service(s). Service
>> The Bronx to Staten Island. Inner option could utilize the underutilized
>> IND Cosstown line (G), if necessary.
>>
>> (3) Bring back the Myrtle Ave. line as an underground service, but have it
>> through to go Glendale and then north to Flushing and it would be prepared
>> to go to The Bronx (perhaps sharing a 4-track tunnel with the 7). This
>> could tie into (2) as an outer loop from The Bronx south. The Myrtle Ave.
>> section makes a lot of sense, because Myrtle Ave. is a pretty densely
>> populated street with limited transit access.
>>
>
> Some years back when TA wanted to do something along those lines with the
> old LIRR spur
> near Myrtle Ave the residents shut them down fast

Yay NIMBYs.

As a society, we should really get our priorities straight. How about a
law saying that no underground railroad can ever be considered an
imposition on a neighborhood? Except for construction time, it's
difficult to see why NIMBYs have anything to complain about. Of course,
nothing stops them from making something up.

[hounslow3]

I'd like to see a project that would have the Subway going beyond NYC
borders, such as the 2 going into Mount Vernon or the A going into Nassau
County from either Lefferts Boulevard or Mott Avenue.

One other possibility would the 7 going under the Hudson into New Jersey.
But I think that pigs would very literally have to fly for that to happen.

[Bolwerk]

Agent_C wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 12:46:01 -0400, Bolwerk <no@way.org2> wrote:
>
>> Cool idea, but isn't the city forbidden to develop Governor's Island
>> residentially? That's why they keep talking about putting parks and
>> colleges on it.
>
> Don't know, but if a good case could be made for residential
> development, I don't see why the zoning regulations could be changed.

I'll look for a URL later (I'm sure Google will quickly confirm or
disprove my claim), but if memory serves part of the agreement between
the feds and the city was that the city could never develop the island
residentially.

[grammatim]

On Apr 23, 1:28*pm, Agent_C <Agent-C-hates-s...@nyc.*******> wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 12:46:01 -0400, Bolwerk <n...@way.org2> wrote:
> >Cool idea, but isn't the city forbidden to develop Governor's Island
> >residentially? *That's why they keep talking about putting parks and
> >colleges on it.
>
> Don't know, but if a good case could be made for residential
> development, I don't see why the zoning regulations could be changed.

Nothing to do with "zoning."

[Bolwerk]

Agent_C wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 12:46:01 -0400, Bolwerk <no@way.org2> wrote:
>
>> Cool idea, but isn't the city forbidden to develop Governor's Island
>> residentially? That's why they keep talking about putting parks and
>> colleges on it.
>
> Don't know, but if a good case could be made for residential
> development, I don't see why the zoning regulations could be changed.

With federal permission, sure.

[Phil Kane]

On Fri, 24 Apr 2009 06:58:27 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote:

>Yet in metropolitan Atlanta (as well as in the SF Bay Area), extending
>the trains to a neighborhood invariably drives up home values and has no
>effect on the crime rate one way or another.

Do not confuse cost with value.
--

"Stand Clear of the Closing Doors, Please"

Phil Kane - Beaverton, OR
PNW Beburg MP 28.0 - OE District

[Bolwerk]

Vince wrote:
> "Bolwerk" <no@way.org2> wrote in message
>> I never looked into it, but
>> more than one person has told me residents in Queens don't want the G
>> because it makes it easy for Bedford-Stuyvesant undesirables (read:
>> blacks) to get to the neighborhood.
>
> Oh please the G or GG went up there for years, anyway thats just as bad as
> the old wife's tale
> of certain lines getting newer cabs first.

I didn't say they were stopping it. I just said supposedly some people
don't want it.

[Vince]

"Bolwerk" <no@way.org2> wrote in message
news:7f-dnTiZI7PZf27UnZ2dnUVZ_qudnZ2d@earthlink.com...
> Vince wrote:
>> "Bolwerk" <no@way.org2> wrote in message
>>> I never looked into it, but more than one person has told me residents
>>> in Queens don't want the G because it makes it easy for
>>> Bedford-Stuyvesant undesirables (read: blacks) to get to the
>>> neighborhood.
>>
>> Oh please the G or GG went up there for years, anyway thats just as bad
>> as the old wife's tale
>> of certain lines getting newer cabs first.
>
> I didn't say they were stopping it. I just said supposedly some people
> don't want it.

Too bad for them this is still America last time I looked.