How would a Subway Line along Utica Avenue Work? | Transit Talk
Vložit
- čas přidán 22. 05. 2024
- In the past, I discussed the MTA's Utica Avenue transit improvement study, where three initial ideas were outlined to improve transit along the corridor. In the end, my thoughts were that a subway line along Utica Avenue would be the best investment to improve transit. But, how in the world would this subway line work? That's the topic of today's video.
Utica Avenue Petition ► www.change.org/p/release-the-...
Black Mind Instagram ► / blackmindorg
Check out the MTA's Utica Study ► new.mta.info/system_moderniza...
MUSIC USED:
Lakey Inspired - Watching The Clouds
MSEC - Gold
Anno Domini Beats - Sunny Days
Subscribe Today! ► / @transittalknyc
NEW EXTRAS Channel! ► / @transittalkextras
Instagram ► / transittalknyc
Discord Server ► / discord
0:00 Introduction
0:42 Petition
1:21 Utica Av Subway Options
2:08 Fulton Street Line - I
4:16 Fulton Street Line - II
5:35 Eastern Parkway Line
7:46 The Best Option
8:30 Conclusion - Auta a dopravní prostředky
I would suggest a futureproof extension Utica.
1. Build Platforms and Tunnels to the wider and longer B-Division Standards even if only A-Division trains will use it. Platforms get permanent gap-fillers installed.
2. Get elevated asap after Utica/Crown Hights. Maybe around Midwood St or Rutland RD.
For the (short section) of tunnel reserves space for 4 tracks so you have to possibility and space to eventually build a completely new line like it was invisioned in the IND 2nd System.
3. Attempt to build the tunnel in cut and cover, modern cut and cover can be done with little surface disturbtion, over here in Germany we build a cut and cover tunnel under the most busy highway interchange in the whole country without disrupting traffic significantly.
4. Build pillars on the elevated section to support the weight of 4 tracks but only build the viaduct with two tracks.
Cut & Cover is the best idea I’ve seen here, elevated will not work, and subways are going to be too expensive. Although, I don’t think a 4-track line would be needed unless you’re somehow planning to get the 5 train to Kings Plaza.
Elevated will be tricky just in terms of finding space for the supporting beams on street-level, underground makes more sense even if it will take longer
@@ianrotheroe2540 its a flood zone
Another idea I had in mind was this;
They could construct the Worth St line in Manhattan. After all that route was supposed to be created like 6 decades ago. See after Canal St(A/C/E) South, they can have the E run via the Worth St line and then onto Brooklyn via South 4th St and then under either Stuyvesant Ave or Malcolm X Blvd. Next onto under Utica Avenue all the way to Kings Plaza. Here’s a few new stations for the E after Canal St;
1. Brooklyn Bridge/City Hall (J/Z, 4,5,6)
2. East Broadway (F)
3. Marcy Ave/South 4th St
4. Union Ave(G)
5. Bushwick Ave
6. Lafayette Ave
7. Gates Ave
8. Fulton St/Utica Avenue(A/C)
9. Eastern Pkwy(3,4)
10. Empire Blvd
11. Clarkson Ave
12. Church Ave
13. Beverly Rd
14. Ave D
15. Farragut Rd(Triboro X line)
16. Flatlands Ave
17. Ave N
18. Fillmore Ave
19. Kings Plaza
That would be too much. Most, if not all the demand is south of Eastern Pkwy and thus, Utica Avenue would be better served by a reroute of the 5 train operating at 15 trains per hour.
Another way would be to do a canal street line via S4th street and have trains go to Utica as an express service making all stops to eastern parkway or have a branch of the broadway line and revive the M myrtle to downtown Brooklyn and beyond.
Right now an IRT branch would suffice. But the Worth St-South 4th St. style trunk line wouldn't be a bad idea by the time the J/M and IRT tunnels between Downtown Brooklyn & Manhattan are at capacity. They should extend the IRT down Utica but build the tunnels to B-division specs to leave the door open for a future trunk line.
I am not extending the (E) into Brooklyn. It is pointless when the (A) and (C) are there, and if you want a line from Manhattan along Utica Avenue, I would just build it from 2nd Avenue Subway, but have it connect with (F) at East Broadway, and continue to Kings Plaza using those Stations.
@@ahmadfrw1 Nobody is. In fact, almost everyone is proposing extending the line as an IRT coming off Eastern Pkwy. It’s practical considering that most ridership on the B46 local and SBS drops off at Eastern Pkwy anyway and north of there a good majority of the remainder get off at Fulton and north of there it’s virtually zero.
The Fulton Street line past Utica already as very low service, it makes more sense to reinforce that line by adding the H to the Rockaway. The best option would be to create a new line using the provisions to connect more of Brooklyn. Even thought the IBX is going to connect a lot of Eastern Brooklyn, but central and Southeast Brooklyn will still be a train dessert. 2 New brooklyn lines would still cost the MTA less than the 2nd line ave. Even though an extensive to South Brooklyn, and extension through Bed-Stuy to Flatlands would be monumental.
My proposal is to have 3 branches of SAS T V Z and the Z train runs on Utica Av and South 4th St
I think the eastern pkwy line is a better branch off too because of the traffic in the rogers ave junction, and plus the ppl from east Flatbush, flatlands and marine pk area needs this. I’m a east Flatbush resident which approves this plan
I have an idea for Rogers: Send the 2 train to New Lots, the 3 down Utica, the 4 to Flatbush via Nostrand Lcl, and the 5 (also to Flatbush), but this time, Nostrand Exp. 3, 4, and 5 trains can make their journeys to New Lots rush hour. Also whenlate night hits, a Utica Avenue shuttle would open.
That would require a complete rebuild of the junction just to make that work unlike having the 2 and 3 to Flatbush and the 4 and 5 go to New Lots and Utica (which requires only two new switches).
Or they can just extend the 4 since Utica is it’s last stop
And I feel like with the b46 already it’s not needed past church ave because it would not make enough money back to support it
@@krisnyc2059The B46 is the third busiest bus route in the city and sees consistently crowds on the buses south of Eastern Pkwy. There is definitely enough support for the whole line to reach Flatbush Avenue and Avenue U via Utica Avenue.
If The NYCTA would have kept up with the system in the 70's and not let the system run down the system would have been up to date and kind of running smooth. Now they want to build all of this project and the longer they plan the more expensive it gets . Make the system safe again and rider ship should slowly start to build up again.
In my fantasy map. I have a 10th Av line and a line goes via the Williamsburg Bridge and onto Utica Av/Malcolm X Blvd at Marcy Av
How long do think this would take to build if a rail option is agreed upon?
I think a subway line running along Utica Avenue should be built as planned in the IND Second System, as a B Division line.
The K and V should both be reinstated, with the V splitting off from the F after Second Avenue, towards South 4th Street meeting up with the K, while the K splits off from the A, C, and E after Canal Street, running along the Worth Street line towards South 4th Street to meet with the V. Both lines will run along Central Avenue before turning towards Malcom X Boulevard, which after Fulton Street becomes Utica Avenue, running as a standard 2-track line, terminating at Avenue U-Kings Plaza.
As for the M, it would have to be rerouted as part of the Second Avenue line.
Honestly, if we have to go with what's present, the Eastern Parkway extension (coupled with detangling Rogers Junction) is it, but really this should just be bundled up into some "Phase One" planning to say the Second Avenue Subway lines just done earlier to address the Malcolm X Blvd/Utica Avenue corridor until the rest of things get settled. Build with B Division standards (larger cars/capacities), quad track where necessary and just do it right the first time versus paying for it in another hundred or so years. Forward thinking planning is critical for this one.
The other reason for this is that I think getting the situation sorted will allow for interesting 4/5 extensions in the east (Gateway Mall? Spring Creek?) as well as allow 2 & 3 service down a Nostrand Avenue extension (popularly to Voorhies Ave, but ideally to Manhattan Beach/Kingsborough Community College). Either way, these corridors need a second look especially with how the populations have been, the incoming IBX which is going to love connections to these lines, and the areas historically asking for better transit options to key places.
The station at Brooklyn College will need to be rebuilt to allow for an expansion of turn back capacity. A 3 track station with 1 island platform and 1 side platform would work.
@@SigmaRho2922No need to do that, since the station can still keep the 2-track configuration as trains don’t need to short turn at Flatbush Avenue.
The 5 will be a good idea 💡 to send the 5 train their
I think you could send the 5 there full time on the Utica Ave line. That way, it would lessen the stress of Rogers junction and lend more of a hand to the 2 line since it will run parallel and not overcrowd Flatbush junction as well. Just make the 5 train run local after Franklin Ave going east.
Well there are deinterlining plans for Itica that point to that direction. With two new switches at Rogers Junction, this could be the pattern:
(2) (3) to Flatbush
(4) Express to Utica Avenue and then local to New Lots Avenue
(5) Stops at Nostrand Avenue and Kingston Avenue, followed by Utica Avenue and then via the Utica Avenue Line to Kings Plaza.
This should allow trains to move fluidly and is better than whatever the MTA has proposed.
@@TheRailLeaguerI think it depends on how the tracks are connected, and whether the trains going to the Utica Avenue Subway would have separate platforms from the current ones at Crown Heights. In my case, I assume that the express tracks would be used for the Utica Ave Subway since the local tracks right-of-way heads directly to the New Lots Line.
@@shadowmamba95The provisions for the line branch off from the local tracks, and as a result, it would be more logical to send the local trains along the Utica Avenue Line and the express trains take over the local tracks to New Lots Avenue.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't there a yard around the 3's northern terminal? Can't they just use that as the yard for 3 trains instead of Livonia?
The yard at the northern terminal can only be used to store trains, and that's it There is no garage in that yard, so trains cannot be inspected, repaired, and maintained there. Livonia Yard is the yard with the garage.
Where can you find that track map with the blue t&v&z?
That is the IND Second System Track Map, by vanshnookenraggen
Where can I find the map that shows at 6:08? Thanks
It is a map that I created using a game called "enmodal". It is a game that lets you make your own maps
I think that instead of these extensions. There should be a new line that terminates at Fulton St since there are already platform’s unused as of yet.
Why do that when an extension of the IRT would work just as well.
Send the (4) down this line so that way the (3) can run to New Lots at all times. The (3) gets screwed during late nights and I think this could help a lot. Put the (4) back on the express track on Eastern Pkwy if capacity is an issue.
6:50 The (3) actually primarily uses Lenox as its main yard as Livonia is too small to be the sole yard. Utica Avenue on the 3/4 is actually two tracks and two levels so inherently it is possible to just extend the terminating tracks to go along that line.
If the (3) doesn’t get enough love, another proposal could also be extending the (3) to Howard Beach-JFK. You can also expand the yard at Livonia so it can accommodate more trains.
Why do that when sending the 3 down Eastern Parkway would be better for train operations and for riders?
In fact, with two new switches at Eastern Parkway, a better plan for riders and train operations would be:
(2) (3) to Flatbush
(4) express to Utica, then local to New Lots Avenue
(5) local to Utica Avenue after Franklin, then via the Utica Avenue Line to Kings Plaza.
@@TheRailLeaguer I think the (2) and (3) need separate routes, likewise with the (4) and (5). That way you have one line that has potential to travel to Queens (hence why I said the 3 since having the 4 operate here would literally make it a nightmare situation like with the A, especially during late nights) because I was proposing an extension on the IRT New Lots Line to Howard Beach-JFK to meet with the A, and I think the (3) is the only line of the 4 that could do it. If you have the 2/5 and 3/4 go separate routes, you can have one IRT 7th Ave and one IRT Lex Ave line connect with South Brooklyn and the other IRT 7th Ave and IRT Lex Ave connect with the Eastern Division.
I also believe the (4) should switch back to the local tracks (and stop at Nostrand and Kingston) so that it can switch over to the curve for the Utica Ave Line, and also I don't think the (4) should just end at Utica after the (2) and (5) split off. Look at it this way, the (5) already needs to switch to the local tracks to get over to the branch line so it's not like there is a problem with interlining here.
I do agree that the (2) (4) and (5) all should meet at Kings Plaza again, and the (2) and (5) head towards South Brooklyn, whereas the (4) would head towards Gateway Center, to meet backup with the (3).
@@B345T1N355Official Not really necessary since with deinterlining (which is what I’m proposing for Utica to work) will still allow for the 2 and 3 to be separate routes.
@@TheRailLeaguer That is true, since by your proposal you could have one route go west while the other goes east. Also thinking about that whole thing, if I'm proposing an extension on New Lots to Howard Beach-JFK, then I think it may be a little redundant having both lines that serve it go into West Manhattan on their trunk line, since the (A) and (3) both go into West Manhattan. It would allow for more trips to have the (4) go there, despite now the (4) serving all 4 boroughs. Then the question is whether or not I'd rather have the (3) or (5) go down with the (2) in Brooklyn.
Maybe you could send the E train to Brooklyn?
What will happen to WTC?
@@Thatgamingdiarysend the w there
@@GUNNERS_GOAT how to you get the W from Astoria to WTC?
@@GUNNERS_GOATL idea
@@GUNNERS_GOATthat’s literally not possible
My Ideas: Add back the V & Brown M. The V goes on Houston St and weaves its way to DeKalb Ave. Then It goes on Malcom X Blvd (Utica Ave) to Kings Plaza. Provisions could be made for V trains to Coney Is.
A Portal for the (V) would be at Houston & 2nd Streets
No. The brown M line won't return. We have a orange M line.
We won’t need an orange M once we Have the IBX, as most (M) Demand is to midtown
@@qiaowani Orange M line will return to forest Hills 71st ave next year after repairing 63 Street tunnel near 21st street queensbridge. The Ibx will uses Light Rail instead of Subway or commuter rail.
I know I’m late for the party but wouldn’t it be a good idea to just send C trains to the Utica Ave line (if it does happen) and have the E go to Euclid/Lefferts Blvd instead?
That would jam the Cranberry Street Tunnel since the two track tunnel is already at capacity. This would also give the entire Utica Avenue Line lower train service.
In contrast, the Eastern Parkway branch has some spare train capacity to go around, and service can be added with the addition of two new switches at Rogers Junction.
@@TheRailLeaguer
This is off topic about whats being discussed (especially since the (MTA) doesn’t have the money and everyone in 2 Broadway and Albany are reactivate towards everything), but what if we’re to swap the alignment of the White Plains Road line and Pelham line near Whitlock Avenue? How much value would we gain from it?
This is an idea where infrastructure would be moved around and what not so I’m going to explain what I mean:
The WPR (2)(5) Line between Sourhern Blvd and East 180th Street would be demolished and replaced with new track that goes straight down Westchester Blvd.
Between East 180th Street and Whitlock Avenue, a new 3 track Structure would be built to connect with the Pelham Line via Sheridan Blvd. The intermediate stops (all local stations) along this new “connection” would be:
• Jennings Street
• 174th Street
• (Maybe) Tremont Avenue.
At Whitlock Avenue, a Transfer station will be built for the (6) and the (2)(5). The (2)(5) Station will be called Sheridan Blvd and will be a 3 Track, 2 Island Platform Station. From this scenario, a Mass potential of Reroutes are possible. The (2) would become the New Pelham Line and the (6) would become the new WPR Line in both Scenarios. Service would remain intact, but run differently.
Scenario 1:
The (2) and (5) become the Pelham Lines with the (5) being the Rush Hour Peak Express Line. The (6) and a new Local (8) Line will handle White Plains Road and Dyre Avenue Respectively.
Scenario 2:
The (2) and (3) Take over the new Pelham Line with the (2) being the Peak Express Line whereas the (5) and (6) become the Lexington Local Lines with the (5) handling Dyre Avenue as it does today. (4) Service under this scenario would be doubled to 30 TPH as to not create any severe service cuts on Lexington. Depending on Whether or not Rogers Junction is deinterlined, (4) service will run to New Lots at all times with half of all trains terminating at Utica.
This idea is kind of out there, especially considering the financial and political situation that the (MTA), the City and the State are in cause of COVID, but hey.... this is the first time in some time that I let my imagination run wild
The 2 would have to be sent down Utica. 2 to Utica, 3 to New Lots. The express tracks at Rogers Junction would have to be sent to Flatbush.
That’s too difficult compared to giving Nostrand the locals, and New Lots the expresses, which would only require 2 new switches.
7:05
148 street yard “am I a joke to you”
Can you talk about the Nostrand Avenue extension next
@@TransitTalkNYC also they should make it elevated and the last stop should be Voorhees Avenue
Following stops after Flatbush Av
Av J
Av M
Kings Highway
Garretson Avenue-Quentin Road
Av U
Av X
Voorhees Avenue
Whew! That Roger's Junction is a damn mess...🤦🏾♂️
What was they thinking back then when they built the Rodgers Junction? Terrible. I grew up in the Livonia (3) Line area so I know.
Lack of long term thinking is what the IRT and the city were thinking.
@@TheRailLeaguer I guess something similar happened with the A and C where between Canal and Hort they share the same tracks.
This makes frequency on thr A pass Rockaway Bl. C R A P. Since there literally not enough room to add more A trains to those branches without screwing over the C.
@@robotx9285 The C Train needs to be cut back to just running between the World Trade Center (WTC) and The Bronx with the D like back in the days, and let the Lefferts A Train take care of the local stops on Fulton St. (Brooklyn) while that Far Rockaway A Trains run Express on Fulton St, so the A Train can have more frequent services in Brooklyn & Queens.. Yes the E Train might be a problem at WTC on Rush Hours with their frequencies and headways, but the MTA can send those 179 St Jamaica, Queens rush hour E Trains to 2nd Ave pass West 4th Street on the switch tracks, making stops at Broadway- Lafayette and then 2nd Ave (Last Stop) to make room for C Trains at WTC on rush hours.
@@robotx9285 Yeah though the city actually had some longer term plans for the Fulton Street Local tracks. Specifically they wanted to connect the tracks to the Second Avenue Subway, with the routes from there providing local service on Fulton Street and todays A and C train using the express tracks to Queens. I actually have a similar proposal.
@@TheRailLeaguer Ya I've been thinking about literally just having the T run via the transit museum, combine with the C during weekdays. Than at all other times it would terminate at Hort Street.
Here’s my plan
(K) 145th street Manhattan - Coney Island Brooklyn
5th Avenue express Utica Avenue express the K train starts at 5th Avenue and then at grand street runs on a new tunnel
(T) 2nd Avenue local Utica Avenue Local Broadway 125th street Manhattan - Kings Highway Brooklyn The (T) t would first run down st mark Avenue or Bergen street than run down all the way to Utica Avenue kings highway
Why not the 5 run to Utica Avenue and 2 and 3 down the EXTENDED nostrand Avenue line and 4 to new lots Avenue to deinterline rogers junction with 3 track on the line and express service and a NEW 13 track yard(one track with train car wash and 4 tracks with storage & car maintenance building) for more storage capacity(I got the idea of 5 to Utica, 4 to new lots, 3 and 2 to nostrand avenue, 3 tracks on Utica line from mystic transit a CZcamsr, he said 2 tracks on the line with 3 track portions but I think it should all be 3 track, I came up with the idea of extending the nostrand avenue line from him and the article you had about it and the Utica Avenue line, I got he idea of a yard from you and my brain came up with the details)will you do videos every Tuesday pleas doo:)=)
Question what the heck does deinterlining has to do with this? One idea I had was to sent the 5 to Utica Avenue with the 4 that gets rid of the merge at nostrand but to me that a entire different story for another time. The case could be made to sent the 7th avenue to Nostrand and Lexington Avenue to new lord and Utica. But if CBTC prove to be successful this topic of deinterong might be moot by then but we see what the future has in store. Feel free to criticize or give your opinions
He talked if you wanted to de interline rogers junction blah, blah, blah,
See, that helps and my plans are good and that’s a fact
@@Amiri_Francis Because without deinterling the Utica Avenue line will be half assed in terms of capacity. Your idea for all 4/5 redirected to Utica Avenue is good.
@@Yardman574 I get what your saying don’t get me wrong. Merges are certainly an issue, but that is an entirely separate problem to the Utica Avenue desert. I'm fully in favor of deinterlining to remove as many merges as possible. But to suggest that we can't extend the subway because of current merges is a pretty dumb excuse if you ask me. Under that logic would you say that we shouldn’t extend 2nd Ave either since the Q merges with the N? Or Grand concourse to co op city cause the D merges with the A/B/N?
@@Amiri_Francis Technically merges and extensions do kinda go hand-in-hand, especially for a high demand corridor like Utica Avenue. When dealing with that, it is ideal to run as much service as you can over there.
If the Utica line were to be built it would have to come off the 6th Ave IND from 2nd Ave through Williamsburg and parallel the BMT J line then turn down Reid Ave or Stuyvesant. The way the upper level at Utica bisecects the Fulton line looks like it goes under Stuyvesant to Utica. This is how it should be done just like the original IND plan.
Problem is that the Chrystie Street Connection prevents that
@@TMC_BC I know. But B1 n B2 track connect to B5 n B6 at 2nd ave.
@@michaelscott7706 I’d rather send the extra capacity down Culver, I don’t think Utica has enough demand for a full trunk yet, and if it does, connecting it to the 2nd Ave Line is a better option.
@@TMC_BC how so? You can still send it via the Williamsburg Bridge up until Myrtle - Bway then turn down Stuyvesant or Reid Avs
@@Moon_Dasher There’s not enough capacity on the Williamsburg Bridge for that, Utica has enough demand to be its own trunk line through Manhattan, not a branch off of a capacity-restricted line.
Transit wise, the Fulton Street line is the better option for Utica Avenue Subway. I would label it (K) and it runs via 6th Avenue which would extend into the Bronx terminating at Bedford Park Blvd. This means (B), (C) and (D) service will be limited to 10 minute headways due to capacity restraints. Utica Avenue will demand B46 SBS to arrive every 4 minutes throughout the day while Subway service is every 10 to 15 minutes.
I say go with Light Rail to replace the B46 SBS as that can be a hybrid, which extends to Long Island City - Queens Plaza.
But for Bus Rapid Transit, that is the B46 SBS.
That’s actually the worst option due to construction difficulties and other constraints. Having the Utica Avenue Line branch off Eastern Pkwy (where B46 bus ridership drops off) is still the better option, more so when doing the deinterlining.
@@TheRailLeaguer Then again, no. If Utica Avenue cannot be an exclusive Subway line linking the (3) and (4) at Eastern Parkway, the (A) and (C) at Fulton Street, the (J), (M) and (Z) at Myrtle Avenue, and the (L) at Bushwick Avenue, which means it will have to feed into the (G) and clog the QBL, or terminate at Queens Plaza where it will link the (7), (N) and (W) at Astoria Avenue with the (E), (M) and (R) at Queens Plaza (which would include connection to LIGHT RAIL to Ozone Park as part of the Rockaway Beach line restoration), then it is pointless to have. The (A) and (C) are the best option to feed into Utica Avenue Subway without interfering with the B46 SBS as most people on the (J) and (Z) lines would transfer at Broadway Junction to (A) and (C) trains anyway.
There's no need for the (3) or (4) to duplicate the (2) and (5) along Utica as they should be distinguished.
I would go with LIGHT RAIL since that is the better option and the better replacement for the B46 SBS. LIGHT RAIL would be a higher capacity than the B46 SBS while a Subway won't generate the needed ridership along Utica Avenue (consider a Subway line with 4 car trains like the Rockaway Park Shuttle running every 15 minutes compared to a LIGHT RAIL every 6 to 7 minutes). B46 SBS using artics will need headways of 3 minutes during Peak Hours and 4 minutes during Middays, Evenings and Weekends. B46 Locals using artics will have to run every 6 minutes at Peak Hours and every 8 minutes at Middays, Evenings and Weekends.
The concept of feeding people into the CBD is very blinding to the reality of situations. Folks who want the Rockaway Beach Rail Line restored are facing a similar concept, while people along the Q44 SBS route still lack a direct Subway line between Jamaica and The Bronx.
@@ahmadfrw1 I’m pretty sure you’re joking as only the Eastern Pkwy link is the best and with just a branch, it’s not pointless or have. I actually live in the area the Utica Avenue Line is to serve and ride the B46. Most of the ridership drops off at Eastern Pkwy, and from there the ridership is virtually zero all the way up Broadway.
Branching off Eastern Pkwy does not make the line duplicative to the Nostrand Avenue Line, but rather makes it distinct from to since it serves a different ridership base and serves different neighborhoods. It will also generate a lot of ridership, and you really shouldn’t consider subway lines like the Rockaway Park Shuttle, as the trains on the Eastern Pkwy branch will be FULL LENGTH.
Also there is no blinding of the situation as even today, most people in the zip codes of 11234 and 11203 still go to Downtown Brooklyn first. Very few are riding into Northern Brooklyn or to Long Island City.
@@ahmadfrw1 I’m starting to think that you’re the one who is blind to reality.
@@TheRailLeaguer I am looking at it like this. There are people in the Marine Park, Flatlands, East Flatbush, Crown Heights and Bedford Stuyvesant areas of Brooklyn who work in the Long Island City, Astoria, Woodside, Jackson Heights area and even LaGuardia Airport. Many of those currently have to take the B46 Local to Broadway - Rutledge, transfer to the (G) train to Court Square for Long Island City, and to continue to Jackson Heights or Woodside, transfer to a (7), (E) or (M) train.
A light rail or 2nd Avenue Subway extension via Utica, would be a better option mainly because both would accomplish connections to Manhattan bound service. The problem with the Subway is that it won't connect with the (G) for service to Long Island City, unless it is a line to Long Island City. LIGHT Rail would as a LIGHT RAIL would terminate at Greenpoint.
Also, considering there's several heavily used East to West bus routes, the neighborhoods of East Flatbush, Marine Park and Flatlands would NIMBY the Utica Avenue line when they can simply ride to Flatbush for the (2) and (5).
Perhaps a light-rail line can be created on Utica Avenue, from Fulton Street or beyond, to Flatbush Avenue (Kings Plaza). This method would be more economical than digging or boring the ground, thus building a subway tunnel (that I would prefer the most), that would be expensive and too timely to complete. Newer subway lines have been built to accommodate B-Division railcars, instead of the narrower A-Division tunnels for such rolling stock. A tunnel under Utica Avenue would have to be constructed as deep as the Roosevelt Avenue Station that is on the 63 Street Line. Tunnel boring would be an expensive job, but it would be the most effective tunnelling method, because the Utica Avenue Station under Eastern Parkway is a bi-level station. May the best method that you and/or Metropolitan Transportation Authority choose be the first one.
There is the option of having the Utica Avenue Line be elevated and having it branch off from the IRT. Yeah there will still be some tunneling, but only for a mile. After that it can transition to an elevated line for the rest of the run.
@@TheRailLeaguer Thank you for tapping or typing to me.
I think the light rail is more ideal. The only thing is that it may cause some congestion at the major cross streets as Church Avenue, and Linden blvd
@@calvinkendrick851 Maybe for the short term as a replacement for the B46 SBS but otherwise long term will always be heavy rail.
@@TheRailLeaguer being that bus rapid transit would cost less and be quicker by just a few adjustments, I’d have to believe they are going to try that first.
The MTA can send 2nd Ave subway trains to run on the Utica Ave Line via Fulton Street Line once the 2nd Ave (T) Line is extended to Brooklyn via Hoyt Station in Downtown Brooklyn. That way the A and C trains can still run as is, east of Utica Ave Station on the Fulton Street Line.
Trying to branch off from the Fulton Line will be a headache for very few benefits and quite frankly, 2nd Avenue service via Fulton would be better off continuing to Euclid Avenue, allowing for the C train to go express to Lefferts and simplifying A train service, increasing Queens service.
If the full 2nd Avenue Subway is completed, I would extend it past Hanover Square to Brooklyn via a new tunnel to the IND Court Street station (as much as I love the Transit Museum it would be converted to service). I would also re-activate the V Train and put it on 2nd Avenue, and have Phase 3 be of SAS be constructed with 4 tracks. The T And V trains would run through the IND Court Street station and along the Fulton Street line until Utica Avenue, where the V would branch off and run down Utica Avenue to Kings Plaza while the T handles local service along the rest of the Fulton Street line to Euclid Avenue.
Under this plan, C trains would run express in Brooklyn, and possibly even be extended to Lefferts Blvd.
that sounds like a pretty smart idea!
@@rafaelmonroyrojas4240 please don’t destroy the transit museum it’s an invincible piece of history
The Fulton st line isn't a good idea.
Running the line from another route from Bushwick would work much better.
Yes, I figured
Pretty much it’s sadly best as a branch of the L unless the myrtle elevated gets revived
No. Light Rail would be better option. Using Heavy Rail can be difficult to use utica avenue line.
This Utica Avenue subway line should be connected to the lighter Fulton Street 8 Av IND subway line instead where the original provisions can be used for the purpose intended. Connecting it to the IRT limits capacity, since both the Lex and 7 Ave lines are currently at overcapacity, and cannot really accommodate too many more trains without the new 2 Avenue Line which can take over the entire Pelham Bay Line, and then the new Utica Av line can have enough room to use the Lex without the Pelham Bay line clogging up same. the IRT Bway 7 Avenue lines also have limited capacity without too much room to maneuver around same.
Actually the provisions at the Utica Avenue station on Fulton Street make it impossible to be used for making a Utica Avenue Subway branch off from there. The provisions at Utica Avenue/Fulton Street meant for a larger 4-track subway project that would serve Norrhern Brooklyn en-route to the Lower East Side, a service which is no longer needed.
For Eastern Pkwy, the capacity for a Utica Avenue Line from Eastern Pkwy is literally right there (whereas the Fulton Street Line is severely under capacity). The line runs a bit under capacity and presents opportunities for added capacity. With two new switches added at Rogers Junction just west of the Nostrand Avenue platform, you could deinterline the Eastern Pkwy Line and have this service pattern:
(2) (3) to Flatbush Avenue
(4) Express to Utica Avenue, then local to New Lots Avenue
(5) switches to the local tracks past Franklin via the new switches, stops at Nostrand, Kingston, and Utica Avenues, then via the new Utica Avenue Line to Kings Plaza.
Assuming no changes to the Flatbush Avenue terminal on the Nostrand Avenue Line, the (2) and (3) would both operate at 10 trains per hour (20 trains combined), and the (4) and (5) would both operate at 15 trains per hour (30 trains combined), that gives 50 trains per hour through Franklin Avenue and 15 trains per hour is ample capacity for the Utica Avenue Line.
@@TheRailLeaguer You can only do so much with your existing 110 plus year old Lex & Bway-7 Ave Lines, since they do NOT have anymore breathing room or capacity, unless you use the original proposal of severing the IRT Pelham Bay Line (which is built to B division standards) and connecting it to the 2 Avenue line to free-up room to be used to feed your new Utica Avenue Line from Eastern Parkway via the Joralemon Street tunnel into same. The Bway-7 Avenue line has some very sharp curves coming and going from the Chambers Street, Park Place and Fulton Street stations which can really slow things down thus limiting capacity as well. Also, Rogers Avenue Junction needs to be torn-up and rebuilt into flying junctions in order to make the Utica Avenue Line IRT possible without additional slow speed congestion at same.
@@robertko5425 The breathing room and capacity is there for the IRT. 15 trains per hour on Utica both ways is actually more than enough to handle demand over there. Nothing more.
In addition, the Utica Avenue IRT is to be served by East Side Lexington Avenue trains, not Broadway-7th Avenue trains. We also do not need to tear up Rogers Junction when we can just add two new switches just west of the Nostrand Avenue platform to allow for deinterlining. The two new switches and the deinterlining adds some extra trains as trains no longer get delayed waiting for each other to get through the junction. You’re going from 44 to about 50 trains through Franklin Avenue, 54 with expansion of the Nostrand Avenue Line (the MTA report also mentions similar numbers). That’s enough capacity for everyone, including those on the Broadway-7th Avenue Line (who will see more consistent service)
@@robertko5425 At least it’s ideal. There’s literally no other feasible option.
@@TheRailLeaguer Again my friend - its all POLITICS, and you nor I will most likely NEVER see the Utica Avenue Subway Line or the Nostrand Avenue Subway Line extension built within our lifetime. Meanwhile China will just keep building more subways and high speed rails throughout their nation unabated to keep their nation well connected, while the US just keeps waging wars around the world, with another 110 billion dollars going to Kyiv (aka Kiev). THIW's.
There are a lot of good ideas on Utica Avenue extension. I would love to see it done. Of course we have to do what can be done. There are always drawbacks to every plan. Those have to be addressed. The Utica Ave extension and a Nostrand Ave extension would be perfect. The area of Flatlands and Marine Park have no subway. It's not fair to depend on Buses alone. People deserve choices. Now the idea of expanding the 2nd avenue subway to Brooklyn well it will be 22nd century before that is finished. They only finished phase one and they're still on phase 2. There are things that take a lot of time. It's time to get rid of these Transit Deserts.
3 has148 st yard
It’s merely a storage yard so theoretically if the 3 were to be deinterlined, it will still have access to the Livonia or even to 239th Street Yard similar to how the M has access to the East New York Yard and the Jamaica Yard. Nothing to worry about.
Also, build a Quad-track system. Not a Double-track. Make it as convenient as possible.
There really isn’t much of a need to make the Utica Avenue Line four tracks, considering the future frequencies and the construction constraints (given that much of the line would be elevated). At this point building the line as two tracks elevated the entire way (except for the northernmost 1 mile) would be more feasible and still convenient.
The plan for a 4 track Utica was made around the time Jamaica Bay was slated to be developed into a massive port and Floyd Bennett Field was to become a major airport. When neither happened the need for having 4 tracks of capacity down Utica died out.
@@TheRailLeaguer I understand.
@@Netbook451 I understand.
Extend the 4 line south
That's not going to be easy. Light rail will extend to Kings Plaza over Heavy rail subway line A-division like the 4 line. Build a subway line is too complex and difficult.
I always say, just branch it off the Broadway (J/M/Z) line
That would be pretty impractical since most Utica Avenue ridership is south of Eastern Parkway, as many people in the 11234 and 11203 zip code are heading to Downtown Brooklyn. Not to mention it would negatively affect train service going to both Metropolitan Avenue and Broadway Junction, increasing travel times for those heading to/from Eastern Brooklyn and Queens while not effectively serving riders in Southeast Brooklyn
It’s also a bit more expensive as well compared to branching it off of the IRT south of Eastern Parkway and building a tunnel portal between Rutland Road and Winthrop Street.
For northern Utica, it would be more advisable to build a two track shuttle from Empire Blvd along Utica Avenue to Malcom X Blvd to DeKalb Avenue. From there, it would turn northeast along DeKalb Avenue to Wyckoff Avenue, connecting with the Canarsie Line and providing a provision for future expansion to Queens.
Step 1. Reroute the G to Utica.
Step 2. Have the G run down Utica ave
Why?
What train going to take of G route 🤔?
That is - an interesting decision.
That's not easy.