Department of Subways - Proposals/Ideas

[LTA1992]

The cuphandle line was, and I believe still is, estimated to only add one minute of extra travel time.

[bobtehpanda]

The cuphandle line was, and I believe still is, estimated to only add one minute of extra travel time.

 

That's really questionable, considering that the cuphandle configuration would need to make two 90-degree turns, and it would have to accelerate and decelerate from one additional stop. There's also the issue of cost - with the crazy construction costs we have now, is it wise to even consider something that would add more distance?

 

From the Summary Report, which is the only report that contained alternative 1D as a cuphandle alignment:

 

 

Screen 2: Definition and Evaluation of Routing Options. This screening analysis addressed a number of issues related to feasibility and impact. The analysis required refinement in potential routing, alignment, and engineering options for the remaining alternatives. This information was used to evaluate the alternatives against the following criteria:

 

— Total cost (comparing relative cost of same-mode options);

— Average speed;

— Potential for free subway-to-subway transfer;

— Impacts on existing transit system (such as elimination, rerouting, reduction, or increase of existing routes);

— Other service changes required to existing system;

— Use of existing tunnels (this use of existing infrastructure was considered an advantage);

— Engineering complications;

— Unresolved issues (these were either resolved through further analysis or identified as potentially unresolvable);

— Potential for community/public support (based on potential for community-related impacts, such as disruption and traffic congestion);

— Expanded rapid transit area (provision of service to a previously underserved area);

— Ridership (comparison of ridership levels among same-mode options, based on early model results);

— Street/operations impacts (for alternatives once constructed);

— Legal issues (problems in jurisdiction, easements, property takings, etc.);

— Construction impacts;

— Possibility of phased construction (given the potential limitations to available capital funds during construction, alternatives that did not allow for reasonable phasing were eliminated); and

— Schedule for implementation.

 

As a result of this screen, several alternatives were reconfigured and recombined and others were eliminated. Most notably, the full-length Second Avenue Subway with an eastward alignment was reconfigured as a Lower East Side subway shuttle with connections to existing subways and combined with a “North Subway” (new construction along Second Avenue from 125th Street to 63rd Street, where it would connect to the Broadway express tracks) for further analysis.

 

From later in the report:

 

 

The full-length subway option that had a full eastward alignment and/or east-west connection option was eliminated in Screen 2 because of cost-effectiveness and impact factors. The full-length subway without those options and the north subway with Lower East Side subway shuttle (which had been developed in Screen 2) were eliminated in Screen 3 because of high capital and operating cost and high cost factors (cost per hour saved and cost per hour spent in less crowded subway).

Edited April 5, 2015 by bobtehpanda

[Wallyhorse]

This would be how to possibly extend the to the Bronx:

Continuing past its current terminal at Ditmars across 31st Street in Queens and across to Rikers Island before going to The Bronx (via two new bridges) and perhaps joining the Concourse Line (local both directions) with new stops as follows:

20th Avenue (Queens, Elevated)
Hazen Street (Rikers Island via a new bridge, Elevated)
Hillside Avenue (Rikers Island, Elevated)

Food Center Drive (Bronx, Elevated via a new bridge)

Line then goes underground in the area of Halleck Street and continues underground with more new stops as follows:

Hunts Point Avenue (Transfer to )
Westchester Avenue  (Transfer to )

Line then continues to the Concourse Line, joining the Concourse Line EITHER at 161st (Transfer to if so) OR 167th Street and runs at all times to Bedford Park Boulevard (if necessary, the goes back to terminating at 168 instead of BPB).

As part of this, new OOS transfers would be in place between Queens Plaza and Queensboro Plaza AND between 36th Street on the QB Line and 36th Avenue on the Astroria Line so those on the QB line looking to go to the Bronx can do that without having to go through Manhattan.  

Edited April 5, 2015 by Wallyhorse

[Lance]

A few concerns:

 

1. Why is there more than one stop at Rikers? I get why you plopped a stop there (for the staff presumably), but another stop on Hillside seems redundant.

 

2. Why is the line elevated through the Bronx? Use some of that land near and on the Con Ed plant that isn't used by the utility for a portal. That way, you don't need two bridges with steep inclines to meet minimum height requirements.

 

3. Why do you have the line head west and merge with the Concourse line? It's completely unnecessary to have such a meandering route. Again, it seems like you're playing connect the dots with the subway without any regard for customers' travel patterns. For instance, a rider from midtown is going to stick with the D rather than take the roundabout N through Queens if their destination is the Concourse line.

 

4. Also, why add more service to a section of the Bronx that is not exactly starved for transit. You've got that section along 3rd and Webster that's lacking in transit options, along with a relatively large swath southeast of the Pelham line.

Just tossing that out there.

Edited April 5, 2015 by Lance
bullet glitch

[RollOver]

I re-edited my old R32 and R46 swap proposal. I wanted to add more detail and clarification.

 

The A is the only line in the entire subway system where the remaining 240 R32 cars truly belong. In reality, there are 222 R32 cars in regular passenger service, but 12 others are in work service, 2 others are used for the Transit Museum, and the last 2 cars are in police training. So that means, 222 + 12 + 2 + 2 = 240. The rest of the remaining R32s that are in police training or are at the museum should have also been kept for passenger service, and all of those remaining 240 R32 cars should have been 10-cars each so they can all run on the A year round for the remainder of their lives. First, while an 8-car train of 75 footers is the same length as a 10-car train of 60 footers, an 8-car train of 75 footers only have 64 doors on one side, which leads to longer boarding and dwelling time. A 10-car train of 60 footers have 16 additional doors on one side, so 64 + 16 = 80 doors on one side, which leads to lesser boarding and dwelling time. The A is always busy during rush hours, as well as the summer when people are headed towards (and later, returning home from) Rockaway Beach. The C, given that it's basically the shorten version of the system's longest line doing local stops, is better off being entirely R46s (a full 600 feet unit train), because that way, nobody would have to run more for it anymore, as much of the IND stations have their exits at either end of the platforms, and perfectly relieves overcrowding in Manhattan, and won't have its headways increased.

 

Second, keeping the system's oldest cars on the system's longest line would mean no more swapping back and fourth. The B does not need 60 footers, because it's another supplemental part-time line and lightly used. The J does not need the R32s either. If the A were to be 100% R46s and if the R32s were to stay on the C as 8-cars (480 feet units) like the J, that would mean their aging air compressors would have to be alleviated during the summer, and therefore, have to head outdoors on the J. East New York has to focus on the cars they normally maintain and inspect (the remaining 48 R42s, all 216 R143s and all 376 of Alstom's R160A-1s). Therefore, this rules out the remaining R32s, which still have to be maintained and inspected at 207th Street. So even if the R32s were to run on the J, they would have to be taken out of service and deadheading to and from 207th Street if their regular maintenance and inspection schedule is due. The same exact thing goes for the R160A-1s running on the C, as those would have to be taken out of service and deadheading to and from East New York, not to mention that 207th Street can't even maintain any new cars at the moment, as their shop and barn won't be fully upgraded until the R32s finally retire for good. Therefore, this means that the R32 and R160A-1 summer swap would have to increase or decrease back and fourth all the time. As the saying goes, nothing is free and everything costs money. The train crews are still being paid regardless if the train is in passenger service or not-in-passenger service etc.

 

Third, that's why the C and J swap is, without a doubt, a waste. Not only will the train crews be paid to switch the cars back and fourth, but they would also be increasing the mileages - as in - extra mileages in running a train not-in-passenger service to and from a shop where it's normally maintained and inspected. Obviously, both Coney Island and East New York could probably handle any cars they get, but the fact remains that almost every shop in the subway system have only one or two cars assigned for regular maintenance and inspection is to keep costs down. The days of spreading the cars everywhere in the system are done. The goal is to keep things as easy to comprehend as possible. Forget about pleasing every Tom, Dick and Harry who happen to ride the train. Making the C entirely R160A-1s and sending all the remaining R32s to the J does nothing to accomplish that goal. All it would do is create a nuisance because the cars have to be swapped on a regular basis for general maintenance since 207th Street still can't do anything with them for the aforementioned reasons. At the same time, East New York would have to deal with more cars than usual or the R32s get sent back and fourth to/from 207th Street for their regular maintenance and inspection. It's way too much work for every little payoff.

 

Fourth, the R32s do not need to be on the E, F nor R neither. Those three lines are mostly or completely underground, and the cars on both the E and R get outside much less regularly. Almost every of trains on the two aforementioned lines remain underground all day and night long (either in passenger service or layed up in the underground storage yard areas such as the Hillside Avenue branch express tracks or City Hall center/lower level tracks). And the R makes all local stops along its entire route, requiring the doors to open very frequently virtually all the time. The E and F run frequently enough, meaning the R32s wouldn't get much rest at all. Fifth, as I said in my previous proposals (which was about the midday, evening and weekend headways on all lines), the A should be running every 10 minutes (west of Rockaway Boulevard) and 20 minutes (east of Rockaway Boulevard). There's no reason why, in reality, the A is running 9 trains per hour (west of Rockaway Boulevard) and 4 to 5 trains per hour (east of Rockaway Boulevard). The A is hardly ever crowded during middays, evenings, and weekends, except during rush hours and the Rockaway summer beach crowds. Ridership in the Rockaways is vastly low because demand for transit is low. As for Ozone Park, residents prefer abysmal express headways and skipping stops than more frequent local service and making all stops. Even if the C were to extend to/from Lefferts, which makes the A reroute to JFK/Rockaways, riders at Lefferts, 111, and 104 will still get off at Euclid or the junction to wait for the express. And if there's no scheduled across-platform connection between both local and express at the junction, then there's no point whatsoever in waiting for the express if the local is gonna beat out to Hoyt (even before the express comes behind or so). Having the A run much less frequently during the off-peak (like the C does every single day it runs), there would only be little to no problem in having the R32s and R46s mixed on the A all the time. During the daytime hours, send all R32s to/from the Rockaways and all R46s to/from Lefferts. During nights, keep it mixed of R32s and R46s since the A goes to/from Far Rockaway at night. Rush hours may be a different story, however, but I'm not certain off the top of my head.

 

Fifth, if my math and calculations are correct, the A would be running 18 trainsets (like the C always does whenever it runs) during middays, evenings, and weekends as the running time to/from Lefferts is about an hour and 12-14 minutes, and the running time to/from Far Rockaway is about an hour and a half, as well as the headways being 10 minutes (like the C) west of Rockaway Boulevard and 20 minutes east of Rockaway Boulevard. So that means:

 

8 trains to and from Lefferts (all R46)

10 trains to and from Far Rockaway (one trainset made up of R46s and the rest being R32s)

 

So that means half R32s and half R46s. The A has about 48 trains (?) total - half of which are R32s and the other half being R46s. The remaining 48 R42s can remain on the J/Z with no problem at all, and can also run at any given time (just like here in reality). It doesn't have to be just rush hours. Only 9 trains of R32s would run during the off-peak (and about 5 trains of them at night). Also, if my math and calculations are correct, the A runs 10 trainsets at night (5 trains of R32s and 5 trains of R46s, all running to/from Far Rock, while the Lefferts shuttle remains entirely R46s (300 feet unit and OPTO service as needed). All aforementioned cars on the A would be much less out than during rush hour, so I don't see it being much of an issue, as long it's scheduled properly. And, as long as the schedule is adjusted properly at the 207 Street terminal if it's running an additional 5-10 minutes late west of Rockaway Blvd northbound.

 

I'll go into further detail about the car assignment proposal later, tomorrow or some other day. For now, that's it.

[Wallyhorse]

A few concerns:

 

1. Why is there more than one stop at Rikers? I get why you plopped a stop there (for the staff presumably), but another stop on Hillside seems redundant.

 

2. Why is the line elevated through the Bronx? Use some of that land near and on the Con Ed plant that isn't used by the utility for a portal. That way, you don't need two bridges with steep inclines to meet minimum height requirements.

 

3. Why do you have the line head west and merge with the Concourse line? It's completely unnecessary to have such a meandering route. Again, it seems like you're playing connect the dots with the subway without any regard for customers' travel patterns. For instance, a rider from midtown is going to stick with the D rather than take the roundabout N through Queens if their destination is the Concourse line.

 

4. Also, why add more service to a section of the Bronx that is not exactly starved for transit. You've got that section along 3rd and Webster that's lacking in transit options, along with a relatively large swath southeast of the Pelham line.

Just tossing that out there.

Rikers looked big enough to have two stops, but one can do there.

 

The idea is to take pressure off the and in particular by re-directing those looking for the upper and lower ends of midtown on the east side as well as Times Square onto the , plus give the Concourse Line a Broadway option and Queens riders an option if it included a Yankee Stadium Stop to get to Yankee Stadium).

 

If there is a better place for a Portal, then by all means I would put it there.  I was looking at the general area on Google Maps in this case.

[RollOver]

Going by that logic, are you denying that Concourse riders always transfer at HQ from the to the or just walk a block down from 6 Av to Broadway? As said above my previous post, nobody is going to take the that goes from the Bronx to Queens, then Manhattan, while the goes straight to Manhattan and runs express on CPW/6 Av.

[CenSin]

From later in the report:

 

 

The full-length subway option that had a full eastward alignment and/or east-west connection option was eliminated in Screen 2 because of cost-effectiveness and impact factors. The full-length subway without those options and the north subway with Lower East Side subway shuttle (which had been developed in Screen 2) were eliminated in Screen 3 because of high capital and operating cost and high cost factors (cost per hour saved and cost per hour spent in less crowded subway).

 

When cost is the chief complaint, then the problem boils down to the statement: the Lower East Side is not important enough to deserve a subway.

 

 

Rikers looked big enough to have two stops, but one can do there.

 

The idea is to take pressure off the and in particular by re-directing those looking for the upper and lower ends of midtown on the east side as well as Times Square onto the , plus give the Concourse Line a Broadway option and Queens riders an option if it included a Yankee Stadium Stop to get to Yankee Stadium).

 

If there is a better place for a Portal, then by all means I would put it there.  I was looking at the general area on Google Maps in this case.

You get an for efficiency. Any rider with half a brain could see that geometrically, the Lexington Avenue line is the shortest possible route to Midtown Manhattan. Those looking for Times Square would wisely transfer in Manhattan to avoid the scenic detour to Queens. Those looking for the east side would obviously stay on the , , or train. The allure of the is close to 0 for anyone who is already on the , , , , or , and heading to Manhattan. That leaves Rikers Island and the Hunts Point neighborhood, both which are not served by any subway. They would benefit from not having to do a bus-to-subway routine. From there, the obvious direction to go is northeast, covering areas not served by the such as Soundview (the area closer to Classon Point), Castle Hill, and Schuylerville. Those guys don't even have the MetroNorth to turn to unlike the neighborhoods along Webster and 3 Avenues.

[bobtehpanda]

This would be how to possibly extend the to the Bronx:

 

Continuing past its current terminal at Ditmars across 31st Street in Queens and across to Rikers Island before going to The Bronx (via two new bridges) and perhaps joining the Concourse Line (local both directions) with new stops as follows:

 

20th Avenue (Queens, Elevated)

Hazen Street (Rikers Island via a new bridge, Elevated)

Hillside Avenue (Rikers Island, Elevated)

Food Center Drive (Bronx, Elevated via a new bridge)

 

Line then goes underground in the area of Halleck Street and continues underground with more new stops as follows:

 

Hunts Point Avenue (Transfer to )

Westchester Avenue  (Transfer to )

Line then continues to the Concourse Line, joining the Concourse Line EITHER at 161st (Transfer to if so) OR 167th Street and runs at all times to Bedford Park Boulevard (if necessary, the goes back to terminating at 168 instead of BPB).

 

As part of this, new OOS transfers would be in place between Queens Plaza and Queensboro Plaza AND between 36th Street on the QB Line and 36th Avenue on the Astroria Line so those on the QB line looking to go to the Bronx can do that without having to go through Manhattan.  

 

Rikers isn't so busy that you need two stops, and wouldn't that also be kind of a security risk? If you were going to extend the that way, running it up the Bruckner would make more sense.

 

When cost is the chief complaint, then the problem boils down to the statement: the Lower East Side is not important enough to deserve a subway.

 

Realistically speaking, it's out of the way and the neighborhood is fully built out already. You can't just divert trains around to every slightly out-of-the-way dense neighborhood. I personally believe that a light rail running along Chambers, Park Row, East Bway, Essex, and Avenue A to Union Square would be a better way to connect the LES to the rest of Manhattan.

Edited April 5, 2015 by bobtehpanda

[LTA1992]

I wouldn't say the area is fully built out as things can always be demolished and rebuilt. Areas can always get more dense so long as there are proper connections to handle it. We've seen that before. There is no reason that in this city, it cannot happen again.

 

P.S.: I have yet to see anything positive out of you. It's one thing to claim to be realistic. It's another to automatically shoot down 90 percent of what is presented here and in other parts of the forums.

[Wallyhorse]

When cost is the chief complaint, then the problem boils down to the statement: the Lower East Side is not important enough to deserve a subway.

 

 

You get an for efficiency. Any rider with half a brain could see that geometrically, the Lexington Avenue line is the shortest possible route to Midtown Manhattan. Those looking for Times Square would wisely transfer in Manhattan to avoid the scenic detour to Queens. Those looking for the east side would obviously stay on the , , or train. The allure of the is close to 0 for anyone who is already on the , , , , or , and heading to Manhattan. That leaves Rikers Island and the Hunts Point neighborhood, both which are not served by any subway. They would benefit from not having to do a bus-to-subway routine. From there, the obvious direction to go is northeast, covering areas not served by the such as Soundview (the area closer to Classon Point), Castle Hill, and Schuylerville. Those guys don't even have the MetroNorth to turn to unlike the neighborhoods along Webster and 3 Avenues.

Okay, I get an for that one (I was thinking to taking people off the 4/5/6).  But if you are going to have a Queens line go to The Bronx, the would be the logical candidate to do that.

 

Trying this again with the extension to The Bronx, with three stops that are elevated after Ditmars Boulevard via two new bridges:

20th Avenue (Queens)

Hillside Avenue-Rikers Island

Food Service Drive

 

This then goes underground after Food Service Drive with stops as follows:

Spofford Avenue-Hunts Point Food Market

Westchester Avenue (Elder Avenue, Transfer to )

East 180th Street (Transfer to )

Neill Avenue-WilliamsBridge Road

Wilson Avenue-Pelham Parkway (Jacobi Medical Center), where it terminates.

 

This probably would be more useful, especially since it would serve Jacobi Medical Center, which doesn't have any subway service.

 

 

[MTA Dude]

Okay, I get an for that one (I was thinking to taking people off the 4/5/6).  But if you are going to have a Queens line go to The Bronx, the would be the logical candidate to do that.

 

Trying this again with the extension to The Bronx, with three stops that are elevated after Ditmars Boulevard via two new bridges:

20th Avenue (Queens)

Hillside Avenue-Rikers Island

Food Service Drive

 

This then goes underground after Food Service Drive with stops as follows:

Spofford Avenue-Hunts Point Food Market

Westchester Avenue (Elder Avenue, Transfer to )

East 180th Street (Transfer to )

Neill Avenue-WilliamsBridge Road

Wilson Avenue-Pelham Parkway (Jacobi Medical Center), where it terminates.

 

This probably would be more useful, especially since it would serve Jacobi Medical Center, which doesn't have any subway service.

 

 

 

Where is the money and the demand?

[bobtehpanda]

I wouldn't say the area is fully built out as things can always be demolished and rebuilt. Areas can always get more dense so long as there are proper connections to handle it. We've seen that before. There is no reason that in this city, it cannot happen again.

 

P.S.: I have yet to see anything positive out of you. It's one thing to claim to be realistic. It's another to automatically shoot down 90 percent of what is presented here and in other parts of the forums.

 

Other than the fact that zoning is the legal mechanism through which land use is controlled, and how we determine if areas are built out? Places like Williamsburg, Flatbush, ENY are not built out according to zoning. Places like the UWS, LES, and the Village are.

 

Isn't the entire point of posting proposals in public to get critiques, anyways? No one shows up at DOT meetings to say "you guys are doing a good job, keep on going at it!", and no one posts things like "I just love how the MTA gets me to places on time." This is how actual critiquing works. It's not like the majority of the bus proposals are exactly treated gently, either.

[Wallyhorse]

Where is the money and the demand?

Since (in another thread) there were people who have been talking about a new crosstown line to the Bronx, it gave me the idea of extending the to the Bronx via two new bridges that would include a stop at Rikers (that obviously would have to have extra security measures unique to there for obvious reasons).  

 

Obviously, there isn't the money now for it.  I suspect there would be demand for it, especially if it included a stop (in this case, as a terminal) that serves Jacobi Medical Center since there currently is no subway service there.  The repositioned transfers to the and would be to take at least some pressure off mainly the Lexington Avenue line for those looking for midtown (and the Union Square area) as well as those in the Bronx looking for Queens and vice versa, as that to me is an untapped market.

[Lance]

@RollOver: Regarding that long post about the 32s and 46s, there are a couple of things you aren't considering in your idea. Namely, there aren't enough 32s around to shift over to the A. Currently, there are 222 cars available for 22 ten-car sets with two additional cars left over. Now that doesn't include spare factor, which has to be high considering the cars' age. On average, the spare factor for any given car class is around 20 percent. The SF for the 32s is over 30 percent. Ignoring the random five cars left over after I did the math, you're left with 150 cars for the demanding A line. Obviously, the A would still be using 46s along with the 32s. The car requirements would be 184 and 150 respectively. Then you have that pesky C to worry about. Unless you're considering cutting service to the C-line, the line would still need 144 cars to maintain current service. Again, I did the math and the total number of 46s needed for both the A and C would increase to 328, slightly higher than the current requirement of 304 on the A alone. That's why during those previous summer swaps with the 32s and 46s, you'd see the random 42 pop up on the A. With those cars in even worse shape than the 32s, it's probably not the best idea to put them on a more demanding line.

 

I also see you've had the idea of separating the two A branches by car class. Even if the problems mentioned previously weren't an issue, you have to consider the possibility that service can be rerouted at a moment's notice. What happens when a Lefferts trains is rerouted to Far Rockaway and vice-versa? Do you just abandon the interval and turn the train at Euclid Av because it's the wrong train? No because that's stupid and detrimental to overall service.

 

You've got to ask yourself these questions and take these things into consideration.

[LTA1992]

A peek at phase II of my expansion plans. The main pieces of these plans are a new 10th Avenue Subway which will also exist to extend the up to Washington Heights and create a new Bronx crosstown line via Tremont Avenue. A new Northern Boulevard Line in Queens. The Crosstown would be extended across this line and then turn north to run to The Bronx via Flushing. Lastly, a 5th Avenue-SI line making Limited Stops in Brooklyn. In SI, the line would branch into two lines. One via Forest Avenue to South Avenue. Another via Victory to the Mall. Tying all of this together would be a new 57th Street Crosstown Line.

 

 

This is Phase II when combined with Phase I.

 

 

Details for the new phase will be posted tomorrow.

[RollOver]

@RollOver: Regarding that long post about the 32s and 46s, there are a couple of things you aren't considering in your idea. Namely, there aren't enough 32s around to shift over to the A. Currently, there are 222 cars available for 22 ten-car sets with two additional cars left over. Now that doesn't include spare factor, which has to be high considering the cars' age. On average, the spare factor for any given car class is around 20 percent. The SF for the 32s is over 30 percent. Ignoring the random five cars left over after I did the math, you're left with 150 cars for the demanding A line. Obviously, the A would still be using 46s along with the 32s. The car requirements would be 184 and 150 respectively. Then you have that pesky C to worry about. Unless you're considering cutting service to the C-line, the line would still need 144 cars to maintain current service. Again, I did the math and the total number of 46s needed for both the A and C would increase to 328, slightly higher than the current requirement of 304 on the A alone. That's why during those previous summer swaps with the 32s and 46s, you'd see the random 42 pop up on the A. With those cars in even worse shape than the 32s, it's probably not the best idea to put them on a more demanding line.

 

I also see you've had the idea of separating the two A branches by car class. Even if the problems mentioned previously weren't an issue, you have to consider the possibility that service can be rerouted at a moment's notice. What happens when a Lefferts trains is rerouted to Far Rockaway and vice-versa? Do you just abandon the interval and turn the train at Euclid Av because it's the wrong train? No because that's stupid and detrimental to overall service.

 

You've got to ask yourself these questions and take these things into consideration.

 

Fine. I'll try to look at the negative side of my proposals and not just the positive side from now on.

 

At first, I was saying that the retired R32s that are in the museum and are in work service, respectively, they should have been kept for passenger service so that way, 222 + 12 + 4 = 238, and 2 more others should have also been kept too for passenger service, so that's equals to 240 R32 cars total. That also would have meant that during rush hours, 160 out of the 240 R32 cars would be in use, whereas 176 R46 cars would be in use. So the would be using 16 trainsets of R32s and 22 trains of R46s, and the would be using 18 trainsets of R46s. So that means, 176 + 144 + 24 + 232 + 12 = 588 R46 cars in service during rush hours. It would still basically be the same as it is in reality now.

 

And during the off-peak (as I previously suggested), the would be running every 10 minutes (west of Rockaway Blvd) and 20 minutes (east of Rockaway Blvd), meaning it will be running the same exact headways and trainsets like the always does. The goal in having one car class each serve one branch is because so the R32s can get the long fresh air out across Jamaica Bay and through the peninsula (not just the underground express, which requires opening the doors less frequently). Again, this would also mean alot of R32s would be out of service (and on standby as spares, except for the 5 trains on the Rock Park showcases stored at the yard until the AM rush). With off-peak trains running 9 trains of R32s and 9 trains of R46s (slightly less at night on each of the aforementioned two car classes), the R32s (on standby as spares) actually get alot more rest than on the and/or , since the runs 18 trains of R32s in reality no matter what time a day, whereas the would run the less amount of them throughout the whole off-peak periods. Also, virtually off-peak train (the ones out of service and at the same time, on standby) are stored outside at both 207 and Pitkin yards anyway (including the 5 sets at Rock Park yard). This can also allow the R32s get much rest and fresh air too.

 

And the R42s would not have to move anywhere else except the / . And most of the future R179s could be in ten-car sets to replace the R32s on the and the rest of the R179s as eight-car sets can replace the R42s on the / .

Edited April 6, 2015 by RollOver

[S78 via Hylan]

Another thing to consider in your proposal, sometimes the can actually get crowded off-peak, so I'm not sure increasing midday headways would work. Otherwise, your idea isn't terrible.

Edited April 6, 2015 by S78 via Hylan

[RollOver]

Another thing to consider in your proposal, sometimes the can actually get crowded off-peak, so I'm not sure increasing midday headways would work. Otherwise, your idea isn't terrible.

 

I always see its seats all filled up with some standees (as well as the end cars being crowded somewhat). All this mainly occurs in Manhattan and Brooklyn (say like, Columbus Circle, Port Authority Bus Terminal, Penn Station, 14th Street, Jay Street-MetroTech, and Broadway Junction) but hardly ever in Queens. I mean riders can also take the too. I hardly ever see the crowded during the off-peak when many of the Inwood, Washington Heights, Ozone Park, Howard Beach and Rockaway residents are already at the CBDs working or are off from work. I'm keeping the and 's 9 trains per hour midday/evening off-peak frequencies the same as they are, though, but that's only because they connect to many buses at their northernmost ends of their lines (where many riders have half-hour or so commutes before getting on an express train to Manhattan or going back home from Manhattan onto the bus at Jamaica). Short waiting time and every second counts for those riders. Even bobthepanda told me this a couple of months back. I'm also keeping the midday/evening headways on the isolated lines as well as the and the same as they are now (12 trains an hour).

 

On weekends, however, all lines should be equalizes to 10 minute headways (except the , and 42nd Street Shuttle that can still run 12 trains per hour). All the never-ending GOs and flagging affect the lines anyway.

Edited April 6, 2015 by RollOver

[bobtehpanda]

Since (in another thread) there were people who have been talking about a new crosstown line to the Bronx, it gave me the idea of extending the to the Bronx via two new bridges that would include a stop at Rikers (that obviously would have to have extra security measures unique to there for obvious reasons).  

 

Obviously, there isn't the money now for it.  I suspect there would be demand for it, especially if it included a stop (in this case, as a terminal) that serves Jacobi Medical Center since there currently is no subway service there.  The repositioned transfers to the and would be to take at least some pressure off mainly the Lexington Avenue line for those looking for midtown (and the Union Square area) as well as those in the Bronx looking for Queens and vice versa, as that to me is an untapped market.

 

That's not really "crosstown", though. The and aren't that far apart from each other, and there's no evidence of demand from Western Queens to the Bronx like that. In fact, there used to be a bus that ran that route, but it was discontinued.

A peek at phase II of my expansion plans. The main pieces of these plans are a new 10th Avenue Subway which will also exist to extend the up to Washington Heights and create a new Bronx crosstown line via Tremont Avenue. A new Northern Boulevard Line in Queens. The Crosstown would be extended across this line and then turn north to run to The Bronx via Flushing. Lastly, a 5th Avenue-SI line making Limited Stops in Brooklyn. In SI, the line would branch into two lines. One via Forest Avenue to South Avenue. Another via Victory to the Mall. Tying all of this together would be a new 57th Street Crosstown Line.

 

 

 

This is Phase II when combined with Phase I.

 

<really big image files deleted for easier loading>

 

Details for the new phase will be posted tomorrow.

 

Why not just use the North Shore?

[LTA1992]

There's a reason that the S48 and S46 are more trafficked than the S40. The S48 corridor is most optimal as it is the most central in terms of coverage of the North Shore. It also serves a few shopping centers and would do a lot to cut down road traffic during the morning and evening rush hours. I've ridden buses during those times, it's not pretty. I want to serve the maximum amount of people. North Shore restoration would be part of Phase III which is mostly Light Rail to supplement the system. The North Shore, in my vision, would connect and be a part of a Richmond Avenue LRT. 

Edited April 7, 2015 by LTA1992

[Union Tpke]

I propose a large undertaking on the IRT Flushing Line. I would convert the Flushing Line to B Division standards. In the process, a new tunnel would be built under the East River replacing the Steinway Tubes. Platforms would be lengthened to 660 feet. The R188s would be displaced to the Main Line IRT to replace the R62/R62As. New B Division subway cars would be ordered for the . 

I would reroute the via the Crosstown Line after the new tunnel going to 21 Street on the Crosstown coming out after Court Square emerging to an elevated structure over Jackson Avenue merging with the current IRT Flushing Line. Queensboro Plaza would be demolished. A new station would be built above the current IND Queens Plaza station is. A transfer would be established between the two. A new station on the Astoria Line would be built at 21st Street.

[bobtehpanda]

I propose a large undertaking on the IRT Flushing Line. I would convert the Flushing Line to B Division standards. In the process, a new tunnel would be built under the East River replacing the Steinway Tubes. Platforms would be lengthened to 660 feet. The R188s would be displaced to the Main Line IRT to replace the R62/R62As. New B Division subway cars would be ordered for the . 

I would reroute the via the Crosstown Line after the new tunnel going to 21 Street on the Crosstown coming out after Court Square emerging to an elevated structure over Jackson Avenue merging with the current IRT Flushing Line. Queensboro Plaza would be demolished. A new station would be built above the current IND Queens Plaza station is. A transfer would be established between the two. A new station on the Astoria Line would be built at 21st Street.

 

What exactly is the benefit of getting rid of one of the easiest transfer stations in Queens, and replacing it with a transfer that 1. already exists at Jackson Heights, and 2. is going to be a pain in the ass to use?

[bobtehpanda]

Duplicate comment. remove. 

Edited April 7, 2015 by bobtehpanda

[LTA1992]

Here, ladies and gentlemen, is Phase II of my expansion plans. The lines included are the 10th Avenue, 5th Avenue, Forest Avenue, Victory Blvd, Northern Blvd, NBL Bronx Branch, NBL Douglaston Branch, and the Tremont Avenue-Crosstown Line.

---------------------------------------------------------

 

Staten Island is up first as it requires the least explanation.

 

This is an overview of the SI portion. The entire line from Chinatown to SI will be 2-Tracks. I chose Forest Avenue over the North Shore ROW because it's more central. Travelling to the North Shore Line would actually be more time consuming than heading to Forest Avenue. My Phase III will utilize the North Shore Line as Light Rail that connects to Richmond Avenue. 

 

Next up is the Saint George portion. I chose to route the line via St. George so that it provides connections with almost all of the islands buses as well as the SIR. With the advent of these new lines, the SIR would have fare arrays installed at every station since free transfers with the subway could now be achieved.

 

 

The Forest Avenue Line. I tried to space stations as far as possible. The Maple Parkway station exists to serve the shopping plaza there. The same can be said for the Richmond Avenue station. Originally, there was to be a station at Barrett Avenue instead of Jewett as there is a popular commercial district and shopping plaza there. But, Jewett Avenue is not far away and the S66 can serve to feed the line with riders form Port Richmond in the north.

 

 

There is not much explanation that can be had here. Clove Road station connects to the S53 and 61 and 62. Jewwet-Bradley station serves a shopping plaza and is a transfer point for the X12, X42, and S57 which crosses the island on a North-South axis. CSI is just a natural choice.

 

 

Not much explanation needed here.

 

 

Again, no explanation needed.

 

-----------------------------------

Onto Brooklyn. I've come to the conclusion that the only way to provide SI with subway service without overloading 4th Avenue is to build a brand new, limited stop, subway along 5th Avenue. This will not only reduce travel time, but somewhat relieve the 4th Avenue expresses by providing an alternate route to Manhattan while bypassing DeKalb Avenue and still serving Chinatown.

*Disregard the little southern line "extension" at the bottom, that was an error.*

 

This is the section coming from Manhattan. The first stop is Borough Hall where a transfer to the would be available.

 

 

In this screen, I have provided two options for this line. The red line is my preferred route as the entire phase was drawn in red. That would run via Livingston and a station at Hoyt would allow a transfer between this line and the . The IRT and IND would finally have a proper transfer. The Atlantic Avenue is my option two. The transfer would then only be between the .

 

 

As stated before, to reduce travel time for riders coming from Richmond County, the line makes limited stops. Transfers to the 4th Avenue line would be made at 36 Street via a passageway and 59th street. The station would be below the existing one.

 

 

To not make this post too long, the Manhattan and Bronx section will have it's own post. The Queens section will also have it's own post.

Edited April 7, 2015 by LTA1992