Extending the L not the 7!

[SystemsConsciousness]

Wouldn't it make more sense to extend the L train to 10th Avenue, up tenth avenue to 59 Street, across 59 street to meet the N/R or Q trains than to extend the 7 train to the Javitts center?

After all there are whole manufacturing areas of Chelsea that are now galleries and the L train could provide 10th avenue with a badly needed subway and by extending the line to Queens, it would solve the problem of L train congestion because of the 2 track terminus at 14th and 8th.

Has this ever been considered?

[Jeff Smith]

It's a little late for that; the decision has been made. In any case, I don't think it makes any more sense in that the 7 extension connects from GCT and Times Square, and would be far more utilized in respect to Javits, which is the impetus behind the idea.

As for Chelsea needing service, in a perfect world, you could make the L and 7 a loop (if they are compatible IRT vs. BMT/Independent), but where is the money coming from? They'll be lucky to fully fund the 2nd Av Subway.

[SystemsConsciousness]

Wouldn't it make more sense to extend the L train to 10th Avenue, up tenth avenue to 59 Street, across 59 street to meet the N/R or Q trains than to extend the 7 train to the Javitts center?

After all there are whole manufacturing areas of Chelsea that are now galleries and the L train could provide 10th avenue with a badly needed subway and by extending the line to Queens, it would solve the problem of L train congestion because of the 2 track terminus at 14th and 8th.

Has this ever been considered?

It's a little late for that; the decision has been made. In any case, I don't think it makes any more sense in that the 7 extension connects from GCT and Times Square, and would be far more utilized in respect to Javits, which is the impetus behind the idea.

As for Chelsea needing service, in a perfect world, you could make the L and 7 a loop (if they are compatible IRT vs. BMT/Independent), but where is the money coming from? They'll be lucky to fully fund the 2nd Av Subway.

You're right. Perhaps the best idea is light rail for the west side of Manhattan.

[Jeff Smith]

I always fancied a line on the High Line, but that's pure foam.

[SystemsConsciousness]

Sarge,

I thought about that high line idea as well, but it is great they are making a park out of it rather than tearing it down as our former mayor wanted to do.

Light rail across 14 street, 34 street, 42 Street and up and down the far reaches of Manhattan where there is little subway service would be ideal. But the question of faster fare collection and dedicated ROW would be necessary and could be done with buses as a first step. The nice thing about running light rail on past west street is it could ignore vehicular traffic. The problem that previous proposals got into is that it was not thought about systemically, but rather as 42 street tram or some small piece.

But I doubt there is much political will to do this and because of the nature of deliveries in Manhattan it is somewhat impractical, but it would be fantastic to be able to get across town quickly anywhere in Manhattan.

sC

[Jeff Smith]

I think Light Rail is a very feasible idea for some areas where there isn't duplicative subway service. Chelsea would be one. Years ago they talked about 42nd St, but the 7 extension I think obviated that one. I think Fifth Ave would be another. But we're getting off-topic.

[Wallyhorse]

My thinking on this has been to look at extending the L to at least meet the 7 train at the Javits Center, and perhaps as a four-track line have the 7 also eventually go down 11th avenue to a terminal at 14th street where 10th and 11th avenues start going north. The L and 7 would both in my idea go to the Javits Center, with the L then continuing as I would do with with a stop at 42nd Street and 10th or 11th avenue (at 10th avenue with a transfer to the 7 if a stop is added to the 7 there, then with a stop at most likely 57th street and 10th avenue before continuing up to a terminal at 72nd and Amsterdam Avenue under the present 1/2/3 station.

Another option with the L would be to do what is above, except have the L continue up 11th avenue with stops at 50th and 59th streets on 11th avenue before continuing up West End Avenue with possible stops at 72nd and 86th street before a possible terminal at 96th and Broadway (with a transfer to the 1/2/3 there) OR stopping at 96th and West End (possibly still with a 1/2/3 transfer) and then continuing to the end of West End Avenue with a stop at 106th Street before going under the 1 train to a terminal at 116th Street under the present 1 station there.

[jonnhrr]

Wouldn't there be a compatibility problem connecting the 7 and L as the 7 is IRT width and the L is former BMT so the equipment is wider? Either the 7 loading gage and platforms would have to be widened or the L portion run with A division (IRT) equipment and gap fillers used.

Jon

[SystemsConsciousness]

I think the idea of extending the L up to 59 street to join the Q would be the best. Trains could then come from Queens or from 2nd Ave & 96 Street along 10th or 11 avenue on the L and then across 14 street, while being able to change for the 1ABCD trains at a stop on 59 Street and the 7 at 42 Street (if this is built).

sC

[Kamen Rider]

The idea is to serve the Javits and what ever is going to be build at the wet side yards. which line is closer, the 7 at two blocks over (the existing tunnel ends under 8th ave) and 7 blocks down (41st to 34th)? or the L at two blocks over and a mile up(14th to 34th)? the 7 is closer, which makes the work cheeper and easier and quicker.

[jtunnel]

The geology of 14th Street west of eighth avenue makes expansion of the L difficult and expensive. The southward expansion of the seven line south of the current planed expansion is limited too. The rock is highly fractured, there is serpentine and other relatives of asbestos in the rock. The fractured rock easily conveys ground water (part of the reason for the formation of the serpantinitic type rocks) and the "land" in the area was once swamp, filled in from almost ninth avenue to the current bulkhead. If one did build new subway lines, the cost of running pumps to keep the system dry also has to be taken into account.

Turning the line north at tenth avenue, one also comes into conflict with the Penn Hudson River Tunnels and Lincoln Tunnel tubes. That's part of the reason why the number seven extension was pushed over to eleventh avenue, so that the subway will clear those other tunnels. (The planned Trans-Hudson Tunnel in turn will have to clear the number seven expansion and those other tunnels as well)

Interesting how when the IND was built at 42nd street, the lower level platform was put in place to prevent the IRT 7 from expanding west. That platform and tunnel is now being removed so the 7 can get over to 11th Avenue.

[Wallyhorse]

That is something I thought of, actually:

I didn't realize the geology prevents building a subway on 11th avenue, which in fact was why I originally thought a better use of the old high line would have been to have the 7 use the old high line to what would have been a terminal at 14th-15th streets and 10th avenue.

That said, one thing I would look at adding to the current 7 extention if you can't extend the L uptown would be to build in an option that would later allow for construction of an uptown branch of the 7 train that would go up 10th or 11th avenue with in that scenario stops at 49th street and 57th streets on 10th or 11th avenue before continuing to a new terminal at 72nd and Amsterdam under the current 1/2/3 station.

[abenm613]

I don't know if extending L to the west would make much sense. Possibly it would. But, having my parents living at Bay View Houses in Canarsie (if anyone of you know where it is), my dream is that the L would eventually be extended all the way to Canarsie Pier (or, at least, to Seaview Ave). That would make a perfect sense. But, unfortunately, it doesn't seem much realistic, at least given the way the things are right now.

[Wallyhorse]

I don't know if extending L to the west would make much sense. Possibly it would. But, having my parents living at Bay View Houses in Canarsie (if anyone of you know where it is), my dream is that the L would eventually be extended all the way to Canarsie Pier (or, at least, to Seaview Ave). That would make a perfect sense. But, unfortunately, it doesn't seem much realistic, at least given the way the things are right now.

Among other things, what would have to be done for this to happen is first have the line remain elevated and have the station at East 105th Street (station before Rockaway Parkway) become elevated, and that elevation then continue to a new staion near the current Rockaway Parkway stop (which as you know is at street level). Then you would have to have to figure out how you can have the line remain elevated through there to get to Canarsie Piers.

[abenm613]

I envision it differently. E.105 St should remain the way it is. But the Rockaway Pkwy station should be moved underground, just beneath the existing street-level platform (which would still be used occasionally). Then, a regular underground subway would run for two more stations: Ave M and Seaview Ave (with southern exit next to Canarsie Pier). Of course, this idea does not seem politically easy to even be considered, but from the practical point of view, I believe, sooner or later it should be considered.