Armandito

6 hours ago, Theli11 said:

Or the inverse and the  just doesn't run on weekends. Do you really need a replacement for 96 St Service?

 

I'll bite this one, being extended too far from 2nd Avenue is something I'm against (also who wants service to Wards?). Maybe if the  was extended I'd be fine with it since it's going close to it's current route (via a lower level). Grand Central Parkway/LIE being used as a train roue is questionable, and I'm sure that @engineerboy6561 can clarify if GCP is a right placement for it. [Elevated or not?] I'd rather a 2nd Av route that's straight through 125th St and 3rd Av, Bronx. I think that a separate route can replace the for the Queens route. As for your (P) route, there doesn't need to be a route from 125th St to that part of Queens unless it goes to the airport. (or straight to it via Astoria). Northern Blvd is probably my favorite proposal so far which is a couple pages back (go back ~10 pages for the proposal of the line).
 

@ActiveCity Link to route map: https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?mid=1xxOviuFLs1P8LiFK-DurKk2yPp54nKbV&ll=40.761120935853526%2C-73.88149849999999&z=10

Track map: 

2 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

 

I'm going to disagree here, and say south either on Main St or Kissena/Parsons down to Jamaica. Bayside already has a train line, it's just underutilized and overpriced because it's part of the LIRR, but we shouldn't be spending billions of dollars to fix a fixable political problem.

Central Queens is very dense, has a lot of worthwhile destinations (Queens College, New York Hospital, all those tall towers on Kissena, etc.) and this is a trip that has no rail at all. The existing Q44 and Q25/34 are some of the busiest routes in Queens today.

Main currently has the stronger-ridership bus (the Q44), but Kissena has an easier path getting into Jamaica proper. And a Kissena subway allows you to truncate some routes that use Kissena to get into Flushing proper.

IIRC you did mention about a Kissena subway being best routed as a Queens-Bronx corridor, correct? In my perspective, this could be a better deal than routing it along Northern Boulevard after Flushing.

20 minutes ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

Ahh I see. Thanks for pointing out the part I highlighted in bold. I did intend to keep the line underground as to not interfere with the parkland at a large degree.

Also, seeing that the Kissena Park corridor is one of the Quietest corridors, I see now that it’s not as good of an idea as I thought it was. So with that being the case, I have a question for both you and @Armandito:

If a Northern Blvd Line ended at Flushing-Main Street to provide a transfer with the  and LIRR, where would be the next best place to extend it?
 

 

Along Sanford Avenue and Northern Boulevard to Bayside/Bell Boulevard. Bayside is dense enough to warrant a new subway and is the most direct destination for a Northern Boulevard line.

1 hour ago, R10 2952 said:

I wouldn't count on them taking the  off Broadway or moving it to the local tracks anytime in this century.  The MTA's current service practices, for reasons right or wrong, clearly favor interlined service, as exemplified by the majority of the routes we currently have.  I don't expect it to change anytime soon.

Me neither.

Needlessto say, while the IRT and BMT have the and lines as their own respective routes that don't interline with other services, the IND doesn't have one of its own, partly because this sub-division of the subway was intentionally designed for interlined services right from the start.

5 minutes ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

Backtracking the converstion a bit, I think if a hypothetical Northern Line were built to end at Flushing-Main Street, it could continue down Kissena Blvd and the former Northeast LIRR Line before ening at Springfield along the Horace Harding. (i'm just brainstorming so don't take this as an official proposal)

On the other hand, taking history into account, any potential subway service to Springfield would most likely be an extension of the Queens Boulevard Line beyond the 179 St station, as originally envisioned by urban planners in the 1940s and 1950s.

3 hours ago, Theli11 said:

I do believe that they'll have delivered by this time next year. Of course, there's still the R179s but those are horrible. We're really just waiting for either R179s to come back with adequate service or R211s to go into service. 

It's about time we hoped that would happen. The R211s will be the most luxurious subway cars yet, with open gangways, free Wi-Fi, and USB charging ports for phones so we can all commute in comfort and convenience.

36 minutes ago, Theli11 said:

I really don't think that R46s will last long on the Broadway Express anyways. By the time the R211 comes, the R160s should be going back to the and lines. If you need more cars, put remaining R46s on the . 

We'll have to stretch our patience to the limits unfortunately, because the R211s will be delayed in their deliveries AFAIK.

11 hours ago, Theli11 said:

I only fear that there's going to be less  local service, though that can be solved with  service. Personally, you don't need service on Astoria, if the  is going to run to it and you can have the  go to 96 St. 

I wouldn't be too sure about having two Broadway services going to 96th. IIRC there's a steep grade just where the layup tracks start, and that itself could limit terminal capacity at that station. More importantly, the subpar brakes of the R46 trains that make up the majority of their fleets could mean safety concerns as well, as T/O's are afraid these trains could slip off the top of the grade and careen down the tracks.

UPDATES: New airport symbols on subway and strip maps; resolution increase for strip map

Revised  train maps with relocated stops in Manhattan, plus a new station at 5 Av and 50 St

Subway map:

Track map with Flushing Yard:

Strip map:

For those who favor a extension, wouldn't it be ideal to extend it to Whitestone instead of Bayside? That's another transit desert you have there.

12 minutes ago, bobtehpanda said:

That's fine in a less dense area, but I would imagine that in Midtown with transfers this would put too much passenger load on too few stations, in addition to the whole "less convenient access to destinations" problem.

So what you're saying is, instead of stops at 6th and 8th Avenues, have them at 5th, 7th, and 9th Avenues? In that case, I'd locate the entrances and exits at these locations:

Lexington Av/50 St: at 3 and Lexington Avs (transfer to )

5 Av-Rockefeller Ctr: at 5 and Madison Avs

7 Av/50 St: at 6 and 7 Avs (transfer to )

9 Av: at 8 and 9 Avs (transfer to )

12 minutes ago, bobtehpanda said:

This is very aggressive east-west stop spacing in one of the densest parts of the city with the most jobs. 

Honestly there should probably be 9th, 7th, and 5th stations, which is not all that different from the  . 

Opted for fewer stations with greater catchment areas as opposed to more stations spaced closer together with smaller catchment. These would be the proposed locations for the entrances and exits:

Lexington Av/50 St: at 3 Av and Park Av

6 Av-Rockefeller Ctr: at 5 Av and 6 Av

8 Av: at 8 Av and 9 Av (and 7 Av via transfer passageway)

Clinton-42 St: at 44 St and 42 St

5 minutes ago, Theli11 said:

I think that's a really long passage way for 8th Av, and if any passengers wanted to get to the  they'd have to walk extra. That passageway would be like a slightly better 2nd Av-Grand Central transfer and could be made better with moving the exit to 7th Av. My two cents.

One reason why I opted for a 9 Av exit is because it's already difficult to access any subway line in Midtown west of 8 Av. After all, the walking distance to 9 Av is longer than the distance to Broadway.

9 minutes ago, JeremiahC99 said:

While I do like the idea for a Northern Blvd subway, do you think Eastern Queens along Northern Blvd can be better served by extending the already-existing  train east from its current terminal at Main Street? It's already there, so when that time comes, we can simply extend it east, and just like that, NE Queens has subway service sooner rather than waiting for the rest of the Northern Blvd Line to be built.

The extension would be a 3-track line out to 162nd Street, and then two tracks from 162nd to Bell Blvd. The stops would be as follows: Parsons Blvd, 149th Street, 162nd Street (express), Utopia Pkwy, Francis Lewis Blvd, Bayside-Bell Blvd. At Bell Blvd, Q12 bus service would pick up the slack out to the City Line. At the 162nd Street station, a two track spur would split off and run to a lower level used for relaying trains. For the service pattern, in the peak direction, the  would operate to/from Bell Blvd, while the  would operate express to 162nd Street, and then make the remaining stops to Bell Blvd. In the off-peak, when the  isn't running, the  would serve Bell Blvd. Essentially, the service would be like the  and  to some extent.

 

The remaining part of the Northern Blvd line could remain.

Not a fan of extending the for two reasons. One, that line is already beyond capacity during rush hours, and two, the layout of the entrances at Lippmann Pl will surely make any extension beyond Main St unlikely. Capacity constraints are also why the  and trains can't be extended beyond their respective termini at Jamaica Center and 179 St.

Also, one important purpose of the is to help relieve overcrowding on the rest of the in Queens and Manhattan.

8 minutes ago, Bklyn Bound 2 Local said:

How in the world did you do this?

Photoshop.

1 minute ago, Theli11 said:

I'm assuming that the 8th Av station has a 7th Avenue exit (for the transfers) and the 6th Av station has a 5th Avenue exit, otherwise this is great.

My plans call for the 8 Av station to have an exit to 9 Av with a new transfer passageway to the trains at Broadway and 7 Av.

How the  line would look on the subway map:

(Note that I used an older map because the current one doesn't have enough space to show the route)

Question, does anyone here know a thread where I could get custom-made R142/143 strip maps? It would be nice if I could get one for my line...

18 minutes ago, Reptile said:

Do you think an extension of the and to NJ would be warranted? The would be extended north to 72nd St in order to connect the West Side.

Realistically speaking, the would most likely be extended along Tenth Avenue to around 20-23rd Streets near Chelsea Piers. That part of Manhattan is still relatively isolated from the subway, which means this should be a bigger priority than another expensive tunnel under the Hudson into the Garden State.

10 hours ago, Armandito said:

My revised  track map: 

UPDATE: Reconfigured yard tracks 

8 hours ago, Armandito said:

 14th St - Canarsie Express - Jamaica Local

Northern Terminus: Jamaica Center - 168th St

Southern Terminus: 8th Avenue - 14th Street

Stops

Jamaica Center - 168th St  

Parsons Blvd 

Sutphin Blvd - Archer Ave - JFK  

121st St 

111th St 

104th St 

Woodhaven Blvd 

85th St - Forest Park 

75th St - Elderts Ln 

Forest Park 

Cooper Ave 

Halsey St 

Myrtle - Wyckoffs Avs 

DeKalb Ave* 

Jefferson St* 

Morgan Ave*

Montrose Ave 

Grand St*

Graham Ave* 

Lorimer St 

Bedford Ave 

1st Ave*

3rd Ave* 

14th St - Union Square 

6th Ave  

8th Ave - 14th St 

@Bklyn Bound 2 Local no need for an express on the line. It would be impossible to build express tracks and platforms underneath the existing local-only route... unless you want to shut down the entire line for it to happen.

My revised  track map: 

12 minutes ago, Reptile said:

Very nice but I think it should be routed via Sunnyside Yards, and extend into NJ or down Tenth Ave. Do you think it would be best to have other lines like the on these tracks or should it stay the way the are (no interlining for max TPH)

Since this is likely to be a busy line, I'd rather have it as its own route with no interlining. (Stay tuned as I'm in the process of editing the track map)

3 minutes ago, Theli11 said:

There's also the fact that on 10th Av, there's no other train there. If you put it on 11th Av, you'll build under the train. You also can't extend the that far past 34 St (Note the only extends to 25 St, which heavily limits the station. 

 

If you have the terminate at 42 - 10th Av, it's less building and still does the same job. Connecting to the  and has provisions. It's so much better than the terminal at Hudson Yards. 

I'll be editing the route and track maps soon. Stay tuned 👌

5 minutes ago, Lex said:

That could be rectified by building a station at 10th Avenue.

Honestly, I don't see the value in establishing any transfer of the sort, save for a subway line being built under 10th Avenue south of 34th Street.

You mean, have the terminate at 42 St/10 Av rather than to Hudson Yards like @LaGuardia Link N Tra said?