Brooklyn – Queens Rapid Transit must go to The Bronx
A rapid transit line from the Bronx’s Co-op City to Brooklyn’s Bay Ridge is a fine idea, but Bay Ridge just to Woodside is one gigantic waste of money, with its purpose far better served by enhanced bus service and extension of the G train on both ends.
Signal improvement on the four track E, F, M, and R line in Queens should allow restoration of G service, eliminating the inconvenient Court Square transfer for riders between Brooklyn and Queens. Extentions to Archer Avenue Jamaica - Coney Island would greatly encourage use.
Select bus service could operate Coney Island and Kings Plaza to Flushing and College Point and from Fort Hamilton and Bay Ridge to Jamaica.
The Bronx is the borough that needs rail service directly to Queens and Brooklyn. And the costs of providing it are hot astronomical if the technology is compatible with that of Amtrak end Metro North.
The new current-collection, control, and propulsion equipment would be identical or very similar to that on Metro North’s New Haven Line equipment.
Metro North’s Bronx and Queens stations would also be served by the Bronx-Queens=Brooklyn rapid=transit trains, and card-readers at exits, as well as entrances would assure proper fare attribution and amounts.
In addition to providing better employment possibilities, this Bronx-Queens-Brooklyn rapid-transit line will give New Haven line riders far easier access to Brooklyn destinations.
What route are you proposing to use between the Bronx and Queens? The Hell Gate bridge? A new under-river tunnel? Or are you proposing a route through Manhatten? There is water between the two boroughs.
The new rapid transit line, as I have stated, must be completely coordinated with Metro North’s Pess Station access project and share Metro North’s tracks across the Hell Gate Bridge. Four tracks, all in Class One condition and electrified at 12,500V 60Hz are certa8inly sufficient for Amtrak, Metro North, Rapid Transit, and freight.
This should also be the rapid transit line extended from Bay Rudge to Tottenville and Arlingto - Port Ivory, Staten Island, with the Bay Ridge - Saint George tunnel available during non-rush hours for freight as well. Ditto the LIRR-owned New York and Atlantic-operated Bay Ridge Branch.
Rapid transit on the Hell Gate Bridge may not be practicable. A third rail installation would lead to potential clearance restrictions. Rapid transit crews would need to be qualified under Metro North rules and motormen may need to be licensed under FRA jurisdiction. Station platforms may also be an issue.
I already stated that the propulsion and control equipment should be the same or similar to Metro North’s New Haven Line. I do not see anty requirement for third rail anywhere between Co-Op City and Bay Ridge. And all tracks woul be compatible for freight operation.
An affordable addition to Metro North’s Penn Station Access Project.
If the line is extended via a freight-and-passenger Bay Ridge - St. George tunnel to Arlington-Port Ivory and Tottenville, existing 3rd rail might be kept St. George - Tottenville.
If operated by the Transit Authority, and not by Metro North or (under contract) by New York and Atlantic, the South Brooklkyn Ry. Transit Authority subsidiary, which does report to the STC and FRA, and whose two diesels get the inspections, would operate this new passenger service.
Thia also has the possibility of converting New Yoirk and Atlantic’s freight operation to primarily electric operation, since much of their freight business is already on LIRR third-rail DC electrified lines. Assuming the Bay Ridge Branch is 60Hz 12,500V, dual-current locomotives would be required. Expensive, but worth it in terms of noise and pollution reduction.
A fair amount of trackage operated by NY&A, including industrial spurs, is not electrified so electrification of freight service isn’t going to happen anytime soon.
Obvikously, any NY&A electric freight locomogives would:
Be built using frames and cabs of retired diesels to save costs. Possibly trucks if modern AC miotors would fit.
Have battery-power for spur-track operation.
Be able to MU with diesels
The primary trackage not electrified sed by NY&A is the Bay Ridge branch itself.
A friend whose life is in the transit industry and whom I respect, replied to my continual campaign on this issue, with “very intersting, but that is what is planned, and that is it.”
Advice accepted: Should I remind him about the Canarsie “L” tunnel closure affair and my seemingly hopeless campaign?
A bit of history:
As a youngster, I wondered why the GG crosstown bran all the way to Forest Hill, and most local Queens passengers were forced to change trains at either Roosevelt Road or Queens Plaza. On eastbound GGs, at these two staions, 75-80% of the passengers changed to E and the E an F trains running through or to Manhattan. Obviously, more people would be served by direct local service to Manhattan, realized soon aftef WWII by the 60th St. Tunnel - Queens Plaza connection and extension of the"R" to Forest Hills, with “N” extended to replace it to Astoria. But this was in addition to continuing the full GG, then G, service.
The answer the original planners of the IND system wold have given me as a yougster wold have been: “Queens - Manhattan riders are captive riders, who generally have no choice but use of public transit, The transfers are “across-the-platform” and timed, not a real inconvenience. But Queens - Brooklyn riders can easily use their personal automobile. They may be a minority of Queens riders, but we must make riding transit as attractive as possible for them.”
The M replacing the G to Forest Hills resulted from capacity and over-capacity on the E, F, and R to Manhattan. I suspect the TA may have lost about 10,000 daily transit riders as they found Brooklyn - Queens commuting by their private cars less of a hastle. Another 10,000 may have switched to riding via Manhattan. The transfer to the shortened G at Court Square is neither “across-the-platform,” nor timed. The F, M, and R all provi
