Crazy Transit Pitches

vanshnookenraggen said:
Building facilities on a damn that is meant to hold back storm surge seems like tempting fate. Also what people need to understand is that the harbor islands themselves are natures way of reducing the impact of storm surge.
Click to expand...

..just got to build it on the inland side of the dike, van...

...and i think that science and experience say that the islands will contain a pounding from breaking waves, but cant do much about the sea-surface increase that comes with a storm surge. cf. Sandy in New York harbor: the eastern shore of State Island got scraped clean by waves breaking down a long unbroken fetch that extended a thousand miles out into the Atlantic, whereas lower manhattan just got flooded but without any damaging waves (Staten Island and Long Island at the Narrows are set up in a way thats pretty analogous to the Roads between Deer Island and Long Island...) ... and the greatest risk in this area is clearly Hull, which feels about as dense as somerville but with no clearance above sea level....(how to protect / manage that is a different can of worms)

Bottom line (and i know you agree with the need to build the thing Van, but anyway....) We've all seen the edge of the harbor get real wet from run-of-the mill storms (the end of long wharf, columbus park, the basin at the end of jeffries point)...and we've been within 6-18 inches of having water flowing into the blue line multiple times in just the last decade.

All a long way of saying that this seems like the king of the no-brainers to me, and i can't figure out why its not is active design and permitting already...i mean the saved insurance premiums alone could finance the thing...
 
I don't think you can/should relocate port facilities out onto a hypothetical flood barrier. There is no way to get the rail/road infrastructure to support it out there without plowing through already established communities. Even if you did, our ports don't occupy ALL that much land to begin with and are pretty isolated, so the benefits wouldn't be that great.

What I wonder if it could be done would be to relocate all of the tank farms out there. If possible, you:

-Free up hundreds of acres of developable land within spitting distance of downtown.

-Stop tankers coming into the harbor and all the negative externalities associated with that. We haven't had a spill... yet

-Could possibly put the tanks under ground. So instead of constructing the barrier out of fill (where does it come from), it could be primarily be hollow tanks, capped with fill.

-The only infrastructure required to go through Winthrop would be a pipeline. It's basically a straight shot from Orient Heights to the existing tank farms, so the existing distribution network could be retained, with the storage just pushed off site.
 
The only thing you have to put way out there is an LNG pumping station with associated pipelines. For the exact same reason that same thing has been proposed before: keep the terrorism targets out of the inner harbor and out from under the Tobin. Fuel tankers come in every day to Global Petroleum in Eastie. Don't think they've ever had a major spill on the Chelsea River despite that tank farm being there for close to 70 years.


Tanks leaking underground is a bad thing. Same reason home heating oil tanks are no longer allowed to be buried...you don't know they're leaking until the damage is done. Underground leaks even worse when the ground is saturated by water. Above-ground tank farms are the safest. Paint them pretty colors if they're unsightly, but that's kind of the best way to do it.



We don't have a large enough seaport for the floor barrier to be all that big a restriction. This isn't Halifax. Pretty much the biggest ships that come in here are the cruise ships. Harbor could stand to be dredged a little, but we're not exactly going to be getting a lot of PanMax ships at Conley Terminal.
 
Not sure why you would want to move facilities to a place designed to take the full force of any storm hitting Boston, ports came about in the first place because they're protected inlets.

Just put a small service road along the dams and islands and maybe add more recreational facilities for things like summer camps or corporate retreats. There's no need to move the existing port facilities out there, seems like way too much of a pain and risk compared to the small reward of building out a couple new condo towers.
 
bobthebuilder said:
SEA__1275665801_6760.jpg

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/06/06/defending_boston_from_the_sea/
Click to expand...

For the record - I was responding to the 'port facilities' indicated in this image
 
To be fair Boston does have a long history of building port facilities it doesn't need. That's how we got Logan and the SBW!
 
Miscellaneous side-note question: can the Brooklyn Bridge structurally support B Division tracks like the Manhattan or Williamsburg Bridges?
 
I pay for the professional version which isn't too much so I think unlimited but I don't know for sure.
 
Nexis4jersey said:
How much can you put on the New Google maps?
Click to expand...

Like citylover I have the pro version ($5/mo). The free version limits the number of layers you can add, and is missing some other features. I don't know if it restricts the amount of data you can store on the layers that you are given.
 
vanshnookenraggen said:
It used to. They removed the trains when the elevateds where being dismantled and to allow for more cars.
Click to expand...

I did this because I became bored and wanted to find a way to tie almost all potential NYC subway expansion either directly or indirectly to the Second Avenue Subway. I think I only managed about half of it, though.

https://www.google.com/maps/ms?msid=215125331456437635207.000506a4efd6f8723bf6e&msa=0
https://www.google.com/maps/ms?msid=215125331456437635207.000506ae1f032171a61a5&msa=0

I'm not terribly happy with the Morris Av line, so it might change. This should be built in phases, with 3 Av - 138 St being the new northern terminal for Phase 2, Phase 5 being the Brooklyn Bridge Crossing and Utica Avenue, and the rest of the construction happening in any order after that.

New service patterns:
  • B Sixth Avenue Express now runs to Coney Island - Stillwell Av at all times except late nights
  • F Sixth Avenue Local now runs express at all times on the Culver Line north of Church Av and is extended to Coney Island - Stillwell Av during rush hours in the peak direction
  • G Brooklyn-Queens Crosstown Local now runs between Coney Island - Stillwell Av and Forest Hills - 71 Av at all times
  • New H Second Avenue Express service runs at all times on restored BMT Nassau Street Line tracks from Broad Street to Canal Street and on the IND Second Avenue Line express tracks from Houston St to 55 St. At all times except late nights it continues through the 63 St tunnel onto the IND Queens Boulevard Line local tracks to 63 Dr - Rego Park, and the IND Rockaway Line to Howard Beach - JFK Airport.
  • M Sixth Avenue Local service now runs via the IND 63rd Street Line and onto the IND Second Avenue Line local tracks north of 63 St to 3 Av - 138 St at all times except late nights, and the entire IND Third Avenue Line during weekdays.
  • Q Broadway Express service now uses IND Second Avenue Line express tracks north of 63 St to 3 Av - 138 St at all times, and runs to University - Nelson Avs along the IND Morris Avenue Line during weekdays.
  • R Broadway Express service now uses the BMT Broadway Line express tracks north of Canal Street and the BMT Astoria Line tracks at all times except late nights.
  • New T Second Avenue Local service runs at all times over the full length of its route along the IND Utica Avenue Line, the IND Flushing Avenue Line, the IND Second Avenue Line, and the IND Morris Avenue Line.
  • New V Second Avenue Express service runs weekdays only along the BMT Sea Beach Line express tracks, BMT Fourth Avenue Line local tracks, IND Second Avenue Line express tracks, and the IND Third Avenue Line south of Fordham.
  • W Broadway Local service is restored to its former route along the BMT Broadway and BMT Astoria Lines, and now runs at all times except late nights.
 
Fun fact (and something that might simplify your routing) is that when originally built Chambers St station on the J/Z was to connect with the Brooklyn Bridge to create a transit loop via the Williamsburg for the elevated trains. It's why the J/Z subway is so over built. You can read more about it here. It is an interesting thought to imagine that had this connection been built we might still have trains running over the Brooklyn Bridge.

Connecting the 2nd Ave Subway to the Broad St Subway and the Manhattan Bridge (or Williamsburg for that matter) would be a much more affordable option than terminating it at Hanover Sq and open up so many possibilities in terms of new routes.
 
vanshnookenraggen said:
Fun fact (and something that might simplify your routing) is that when originally built Chambers St station on the J/Z was to connect with the Brooklyn Bridge to create a transit loop via the Williamsburg for the elevated trains. It's why the J/Z subway is so over built. You can read more about it here. It is an interesting thought to imagine that had this connection been built we might still have trains running over the Brooklyn Bridge.

Connecting the 2nd Ave Subway to the Broad St Subway and the Manhattan Bridge (or Williamsburg for that matter) would be a much more affordable option than terminating it at Hanover Sq and open up so many possibilities in terms of new routes.
Click to expand...

The "heavy motive power" requirement disclosed in that article has me a little worried about the prospect of connecting to the bridge from Chambers St, and you'd have to reconnect the other track pair at Canal St, but it would massively simplify the routing there.

I'd prefer to see space re-purposed on the Brooklyn Bridge for the connection, because that provides the potential for another pair of services to extend into Brooklyn without compromising frequency on existing services, which is important both for Brooklyn and for ensuring the maximum frequencies possible within the Manhattan trunk lines. If not for that, though, using the Manhattan Bridge would be perfectly acceptable: assuming CBTC, and figuring that the penalty for multiple line merges is about 4 TPH, you can still have 12 TPH each to three branches across the Manhattan Bridge's northern track pair, which is pretty good.

Now, in order to actually make that connection work, the current Phase 4 plan (and parts of Phase 3) for Second Avenue needs to be shitcanned entirely because it among other things completely disregards existing downtown provisions left in anticipation of Second Avenue, including having the Second Avenue track pair level with the Sixth Avenue tracks at Grand St, which would allow for easy switching of T trains from the Montague St-bound outer tracks to the Manhattan Bridge-bound inner tracks south of the station. As things stand, that interchange is going to be a real unwieldy pain in the ass if not impossible.

Fortunately, the current phases 3 and 4 of Second Avenue are never going to be built, so we have some time to correct that error in judgment.
 
If they ever do get around to it I think they will cut back Phase 4 and just connect the 2AS to the Manhattan Bridge at Grand St, or worse, just terminate it there. I honestly think that they are better off having a spur head to Williamsburg as by the time the 2AS ever gets down there the L and the J/M/Z are going to be clogged and a new tunnel will be needed.
 
vanshnookenraggen said:
If they ever do get around to it I think they will cut back Phase 4 and just connect the 2AS to the Manhattan Bridge at Grand St, or worse, just terminate it there. I honestly think that they are better off having a spur head to Williamsburg as by the time the 2AS ever gets down there the L and the J/M/Z are going to be clogged and a new tunnel will be needed.
Click to expand...

I actually didn't really like the idea of crossing into Williamsburg until I started drawing it out on the map.

https://www.google.com/maps/ms?msid=215125331456437635207.000506e8053ed2badece6&msa=0

I guess you could pull D trains off of their existing alignment and send them from Broadway-Lafayette to Houston St, through the tunnel, and on out to Jamaica, plus half of the IND Second Avenue frequency (T trains?). The other half (V trains? I don't know if having the Second Avenue line be the TV line is cool or stupid...) could go to Grand St, interchange with the B there, and assume the vacated D frequencies over the Manhattan Bridge to Coney Island.

Actually, that probably helps pull some traffic out of Queens Boulevard. This could work!
 
The way they built the Chrystie St Cut really complicates any connection. Basically they just dropped the 6th Ave express tracks to connect with the Manhattan Bridge. What this means is that only local trains (F/M) can continue east; what is in operation now is all you can really pull off, F to Coney Island and M to Metropolitan Ave. There would have to be new switch built at Broadway-Lafayette station to allow for this because otherwise you start bunching up trains at W4th St. The irony is that the 6th Ave Subway was built to allow for the express trains to run to Williamsburg but the subway extension was scrapped until they rerouted them via the Chrystie St Cut.

The best way I see it being built out is you take the M past 2nd Ave and connect it with a spur off the 2AS running under 1st St with a new station at, say, Ave B or C. Past that you then have 6th Ave and 2nd Ave trains running out to Williamsburg... somewhere. This brings it back full circle to the scrapped IND Second System which anything approaching that today would be in the tens of billions.

So basically the best case scenario is having 2AS trains terminate at Grand St OR connect to Chambers via an unwieldy connection with the abandoned tail tracks that used to connect to the Manhattan Bridge. It ain't perfect but it's the best affordable option.

If you must send 2AS trains over the Manhattan Bridge then you'd have to route them via the Brighton Beach Line since the B train only really runs rush hour anyway. You could switch the B over to the West End Line for rush hour express or something so that the B/D combo would at least have the same headways along their entire route from the Bronx to Brooklyn. Still not ideal since DeKalb station is already a choke point for BMT trains today.
 
Silver Line/Green Line:

So what about this - the whole thing does hinge on actually digging the tunnel we bailed on for SLIII, but, if we did dig it.....

What about LRT from Dudley to Silver Line Way via Washington, the Pleasant Street portal under Tremont, then tunnel under Essex for Boylston, Chinatown and S Station connection?

Simultaneously, continue the Silver Line BRT, which now can run Chelsea to Dudley along the same shared ROW, but continue the *SL* to Mattapan?

I never really considered how much SLIII would have benefited the T. Not only do you take pressure off of DTX and Park St by capturing OL and GL traffic at Chinatown and Boylston, you also get people off at these same stations who are headed to Green Line west destinations like the LMA.

The added bonus of extending the bus component down to Mattapan is now you've got a one-seat ride to 2 major employment areas, the CBD and airport, for Chelsea, Roxbury, AND Mattapan.

Edit - you'd also take some pressure off the Orange Line as a whole, as well, since a lot of the bus traffic in Roxury and Mattapan terminates at Ruggles but is headed to points downtown...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top