|
|
| Re: Flip Flopping the 7 and N/Q (1133220) | |||
 |
|||
| Home > SubChat | |||
|
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ] |
|
||
|
Re: Flip Flopping the 7 and N/Q |
|
|
Posted by handbrake on Thu Jan 19 18:26:14 2012, in response to Re: Flip Flopping the 7 and N/Q, posted by Dyre Dan on Thu Jan 19 13:47:45 2012. With 20-20 hindsight, Flushing, as well as the northern Queens corridor would have been better served with a four track subway under the entire length of Northern Blvd, including the line to Ditmars in Astoria, as opposed to the present Flushing Lines physical routing, and construction.It's simple from today's perspective to say the above, however the tree track mentality of the Dual Contracts was built on the elevated railway principle common at the time, and a far less expensive alternative. Aside resolving a dual BRT/IRT tunnel configuration for running subway trains underground, an ideal operation by B Division equipment under NYCT, the northern Queens transit corridor would have been in a better position to carry passengers compared with today's IRT #7 layout. Especially when one considers subway line extensions to the east and north of the present Main Street Flushing business district. Something that today would choke the #7 line. Given the cost of subway construction, even a four track elevated line would have been better than the existing three track elevated mishap into Flushing. The Achilles Heel to any subway line into Flushing of course would still have been the Steinway tunnels. However with the 63rd Street tunnel in place, the tunnel could permitted additional capacity into Manhattan if a Northern Blvd subway line had been built. A Northern Blvd route into Flushing could have even influenced the routing of the existing IND QB route to use QB from its beginning in the vicinity of Thompson Avenue. |
|
|
|