Brooklyn

A larger point I am making is that the conditions at Cortelyou (especially) can get somewhat dangerous on the platform during rush hours. The platform is narrow and there are only two stairways leading up to the token booth There is always a wait to get up those stairs when there's a lot of people. There is also no real room for people to get down the stairs god forbid if they want to catch a train.

It's the same at Beverly...

Maybe a new station can be built that is a little less hazardous....

Ok, you were born and raised in BROOKLYN.

But what about this particular neighborhood where the stations are?After all, that's what this is about...

When was the last time you were on Beverly Road? Cortelyou Rd? When was the last time you were at the stations?

My point is this: What makes you think a new station would be "overcrowded"? My counter is that there are stations in Brooklyn (and in the city) that already see more people than would this consolidated station. Also, why wouldn't this new station accommodate these people, even accounting for population growth? You're assuming that the new station wouldn't be able to handle the traffic--and I want to know why...this doesn't make sense.

Gee.... I don't know. The 36th Street Yard directly above the tunnel might be just one reason.....

 

Don't you think?

Possibly, but he didn't give that as a reason--unless you are the other poster.

Now you would have to give me an explanation of why having a yard above the tunnel would completely prevent a station to be put there.

Not sure I agree with the closing down the Beverly and Cortelyou Rd stations simply because Kensington seems to be growing as is most of Brooklyn.  Guess you haven't seen the hipsters moving in there... Having everyone converge on one station in this case isn't the best idea.  People like options and some would complain about having a longer walk, and potential overcrowding as well.  Quite frankly all they need to do is re-do the walls and platforms at those stations because the upstairs part is in pretty decent shape and quite nice.

Why? The total number of commuters using the complex wouldn't come close to the totals at other stations in the city.

But if you are going to argue this "not being the best idea" because you feel some people might want more "options" and might not want to walk, then I will counter by saying the walking would be minimal......the new station would be put in between where the two are now.

Also, don't make assumptions about people, even on the internet. Trust me, I know the neighborhood EXTREMELY well.

just close cortelyou and keep beverly. Reroute B103 and BM lines to beverly reducing travel time.

Cortelyou Rd is busier than Beverly....it has the restaurants and shops and such.

If the buses were rerouted, that would be a major problem.

Agreed with Grand Concourse.

 

As for that idea: NO. Let's first build a decent terminal for the before we build a new station somewhere along the line.

You're not making sense....you're in a thread that asks for new stations along existing lines. I gave one.

If you disagree with that station, then tell me why you disagree with that station being put there--point to something like population or engineering or something concrete rather than the common  "don't do that, do this instead" so--called reasoning.

I am not trying to be insulting, but I see this commonly done here when someone actually answers a question and someone comes along and dismisses it (without any relevant explanation) by saying, "Don't do x, do y instead"....

I find that somewhat annoying.

In my second feeble attempt to get this thread back on topic (getting off topic seems to be common sometimes), I will give my thoughts.

Forgive me if these things have been said before, but I would close down Hewes St and Lorimer St on the and put a station at Union Av to connect to the .

I would close down the Beverly and Cortelyou Rd stations and rebuild a new one in between and name it Beverly/Cortelyou Rds...

I would put a station between 36th st and 9th av on the line. I always felt that there should be a station at 6th/7th avs....

Using existing track layouts, where around the system would you put new stations that never had them before?

 

One place I can think of is Allerton Av on the line. Still some good distance from Gun Hill and while NIMBYish it would make yet another alternate Co-op station (along with Baychester/Pelham/Gun Hill)

I think this was the purpose of the thread.....

Due to bomb explosions, no trains can run between 60th and 120th streets

affected:

 

Oh my....

The bronx and upper manhattan is screwed!!

The Nassau Street line south of Essex is out due to a water main break at the Bowery Station. Trains coming off the Willy B can access the 6th Avenue Line but can't terminate at Essex. Meanwhile, simultaneously, rail conditions on the north end have knocked out service at the Canal Street / / station. Chambers Street and points south can be used and trains can turn north of Chambers.

is shortened to Myrtle Av (Shuttle)

is suspended

replaces to 71st-Continental, All local.

via to Whitehall.

suspended.

in two sections 207th st to 34th st and Chambers to Lefferts or Far Rockaway

From 34th st to Chambers, I suggest people transfer at Times Square to use the and trains.

I would run some extra trains on the 7th av lines.

If you don't want to solve that (becuase you have a life):

 

Jay Street Station is closed. No trains can pass through, but all switches can be used.

 

Reroute: , , ,

 

Darn.

I wouldn't want to leave Lower Manhattan and Downtown Brooklyn without service from Canal to Court st, so I would have all trains terminate at Court st--there are crossover tracks.

The would make all local stops Brooklyn, and so would the --this would give 6th av riders access to Park Slope at 4th AV.

There would be a shuttle to Bay Ridge at 36th st.

Fulton st will be a mess....but here goes:

(A)from Queens to Hoyt st and 207 to High St, all local. is suspended.

Riders from Queens will be strongly urged to transfer at Broadway Junction for the trains (LORD KNOWS NOT THE ) and that line will have increased service. There will be peak direction express service from the Junction to Essex st on the middle track. Call it the J diamond. Skip stop service will be suspended, the J will make all stops.

A free out of station transfer will be given to the and trains at Hoyt st.

Manhattan riders who need Queens (and even Brooklyn east of Nostrand Av) will be strongly urged to take the train to Broadway Junction and transfer.

Broadway Junction (already very busy) will be extremely busy.

The would run from 179th st to York st.

The would completely take over Culver. I would actually extend it to 71st Continental just in case some Queens riders wanted Culver. This is also to give Culver riders access to QB trains. They would get 8 cars and would run 15-18 TPH during Rush Hours. The will be suspended in Manhattan and Queens to make room for the .

Not possible, look at a track map.

 

I see. You are correct.

Of course the MTA isn't going to make it easy. You would think they would have crossover tracks at Bway Lafayette SB....

Oh well:

runs in two sections: 205th st to 2nd AV and from Bway Lafayette to Coney Island. Passengers would simply cross the platform at BWAY Lafayette to continue their ride.

is suspended.

No service b/w East 180 Street & Burnside Avenue or 149 Street.

 

 

 

Ever heard of TRANSFERS?

 

Yes I have. And they are still going to have a long ride home.

NEXT: due to switch replacement, the 6 Av express tracks are unusable between 42 St and 34 St.

 

along line until West 4th St and

along line also until W 4th st

or just simply have the run local with the until West 4th.

BMT/IND trains can't fit on IRT platforms, unfortunately.

 

NEXT: the switch to the northbound loop north of 138 St-Grand Concourse is stuck in favor of the Woodlawn Line. Remember that the , , and (roughly 39 TPH total) can't fit on one track.

 

No....there is an Eastern Parkway station for the shuttle separate from the IRT. I meant terminate there.....the station is big enough for only two cars.

As for the loop,

that means northbound trains can't pass then....

Here goes:

trains terminate at Burnside Av on the 4 line.

trains have to pick up the slack unfortunately

Shuttle train from East 180th st to Dyre Av.

Riders along that line are going to have a LONG ride home.

There's room for three (slightly reduced) lines, which the , , and satisfy (no, that's not a typo, the B is just relabeled as a Q and rerouted).

 

NEXT

 

6 Av & 59 St is flooded.

Reroute: Note: All lines must have same tph to Manhattan as before.

Bonus: the switches at Lex/59 are unusable as well.

 

Word play, but that's ok.

trains run via the line from West 4 Street to Roosevelt Avenue. trains run express Canal-59 Streets.

 

trains run via 63 Street from 57/7 to 36 Street QUEENS.

 

trains run from 42 Street to Stillwell Avenue.

 

split in two sections:

 

1. Ditmars Blvd. to Queensboro Plaza (transfer to the and take it to Times Square for & service.)

2. Whitehall St. to Stillwell Avenue via 4 Ave local.

 

I did this of the top of my head...

 

 

Next:

 

A bomb scare near the 7th Avenue Station . This affects these two lines and the Brooklyn IRT. If you are planning to reroute the BMT Brighton lines, it will also affect the and the . What would you do?

 

train suspended.

Prospect Park to Coney Island

Shuttle buses from Prospect Park to Atlantic Center.

I really wish they had rebuilt the Franklin Av shuttle so that trains could pull in and terminate at Eastern Parkway for the IRT....oh well.

The real problem is that we've got five lines worth of ridership, and only the capacity to fit three lines (and you say two lines) into Manhattan. I've realized that no matter how we route the trains, we'll still have the same number of riders crowding onto the same number of trains. I guess you could make the argument that terminating trains at Atlantic Av forces people onto the IRT (and thus reduces crowding on the BMT), but it's not like the IRT has that much room to spare either. The fact remains that there isn't enough capacity to meet demand without the Manhattan Bridge.

That's exactly my point of contention--there's room for only two lines rather than three.

You've summarized my argument well.

I simply chose the and based on where both of them go and ridership reach.

Yes, you have five lines and signaling that isn't up to par.

They might even be able to squeeze a few more trains on the and .

But you are absolutely correct. Without the bridge, there will be TREMENDOUS problems for the BMT in Brooklyn.

We got a small taste of that a couple weeks ago (even the was affected).

I can only imagine if and when NYC's population reaches 10 million.

One day I hope to be in a position to make policy changes.

Dear god what has this thread turned into.

LOL.

We were discussing the merits of particular service changes and what they would mean according to a scenario presented. It was on topic.

TheSubwayStation,

I understand what you are saying and your larger argument about our subway's infrastructure. But that's not what the argument is about.

I believe that the Broadway line (in Manhattan and Downtown BK) was designed POORLY, but there is nothing really that can be done to address that. It is hard to understand some of the BMT routes when you look at them in isolation. But when you look at the history, it will make sense because of the competition with rival train companies.

The express tracks on sixth av were built later on after the local. And if the bridge is out, you're done--no real options.

The switching and signaling SUCK.

But I want you to understand my NARROW argument. I was making a very narrow and specific argument, based on my experiences and what I know about the MTA signaling, communication, ridership patters, etc. That argument was a continuation of the thread topic.

And my point was also that it would not be a "few" less TPH---It would be a significant number. B and Q trains are PACKED. Forget about the D. The N is a little better, but there is still significant ridership (we're talking about Brooklyn here). There is no way those TPH you suggested would work.

There would be the TPH, but just on TWO LINES through the tunnel--no more. I chose the and the because this would present the fewest systemwide difficulties.

People along West End can transfer at New Utrecht, 36th and Atlantic for Manhattan bound trains.

You would still have service to Astoria and Queens Blvd.

If 4th Av riders really needed 6th Av service, they could transfer at 4th av or Jay st Metrotech. Or they could simply take the and for certain stretches.

Listen, I hear what you are saying.

If I had the power to rebuild the Broadway line, I would have four tracked it in Lower Manhattan from Canal to Dekalb Av....there would be need to go over the bridge. I would have express stops at Whitehall and City Hall (then 14th st).

Instead of the bridge, the B and D would have a tunnel (that the Culver line would have access to for emergencies).

That would take care of these service issues, for sure.

People here would call this "foaming"(right??) but if I had the power to do these things, I would.

But the system is what it is.

NEEEEEXT:

 

The 4th Avenue Line is impassable b/w 36th Street to Atlantic Avenue.

 

Shuttle buses would be logical, but there would be TOO much traffic and too many people. But i would break down and provide them,

My plan mirrors NX Express.

suspended

trains along Brighton Express . They would loop around Coney Island and make stops until 36th st and reverse direction.

There would be an shuttle from 36th st to Coney Island as well as a shuttle from Bay Ridge to 36th st.

I wish they would repair those express tracks on Brighton....

But I would provide buses from 36th to Atlantic. They would run along both 3rd and 4th av.

There's a reason the even runs to Brooklyn - it's well used. Whenever I see Manhattan-bound and trains in the AM rush, they are always crowded. The Brighton Line would probably suffocate without the .

 

Definitely.

The is packed during morning rush. So is the .

TheSubwayStation is arguing to send the through the tunnel at reduced TPH. Yes, there will be problems, but it won't be so bad.

I am arguing that sending all three through the tunnel (even at reduced TPH) WILL BE THAT BAD and that only two of those lines should go.

I am essentially willing to sacrifice many Brighton riders one seat ride for the sake of what I project to be horrible delays throughout the lines that will effect more neighborhoods than the ones the line serves.

If we had a top of the line communication and signaling along the line, then, maybe I wouldn't be so hesitant to accept his proposal.

I just don't think the MTA has the resources to handle over 30 TPH on a LOCAL track for three trains that are going to different destinations. Over the course of so many stops and such a distance.

There would HAVE TO BE OVER 30 TPH. The line would need MINIMUM 15 TPH and that's being conservative. The and combined would need to have about 20 TPH.

We should keep in mind that under Brooklyn's plan, every other line besides the Brighton will be severely overcrowded, because practically every single rider will transfer at Atlantic Av...

 

Also, the problem with your logic is that you're acting like and trains get completely full at that point, which I highly doubt.

 

My solution for the tunnel:

: 6 TPH

: 10 TPH

: 6 TPH

: 6 TPH

 

No way.....10 TPH for Brighton is too little. Without trains, it would need probably double that.

All of these lines have too few TPH.

May I ask you a question?

Are you familiar with these lines and their riderships?

You insist on increasing service to solve overcrowding issues. My point was that there's no reason to do that, since riders will add crowds to another line (because there isn't room for the increased in the tunnel to Manhattan). I'm saying that if you don't increase the , there is enough room in the tunnel. Keep in mind that there are other lines that are very close to 30 TPH, and while they suffer from some delays, they still are okay.

 

I insist on increasing trains since the trains will not be running along the Brighton Line.

I am pretty sure some riders will take the train instead (for much of Brooklyn, they are only about a mile away), but there will be the same crowds waiting for the trains, regardless.

This was only for Brighton riders to get to Atlantic terminal (over our crossover that will be rebuilt lol).

But at no point would I want it to go to Manhattan with two other lines. I personally see a disaster.

Yes, there is "room" but this would be a 4-5 mile stretch with 7 local stops and again, three different lines with different destinations.

There wouldn't be one stretch in the system where this is the case. Sure, QB express has nearly 30 TPH and so does the Lex line.

But there are important differences--

There are only two lines running on that track.

They would not converge TWICE--as the trains would after 57th st.

They are running express and are served by local stations.

The Broadway line would not have this luxury from that 4-5 mile stretch.

Imagine the and running on the same track from 59th st to 125--local.

Imagine the and also running on the same track.

The could terminate at Atlantic Av, with riders transferring to the , , , or . The does not have the luxury of terminating at Atlantic Av.

 

That's a good alternative and would leave only two train lines on the local track, the and .

The can then proceed to Astoria and the can continue without service changes.

But my general point is that out of the three trains, ONE of them has to be cut lest there be severe issues with delays.

This makes no sense to me, because your plan just takes those and riders and puts them ALL onto the , , , and trains. Why not just centralize the crowding to the ? Your plan wouldn't solve the overcrowding issues; it just shifts them over to other lines.

 

Another red herring.

Please read my posts carefully. I am not writing to solve "overcrowding issues". Please read what my argument is. i repeated it several times.

Most of the delays that you (Brooklyn) mention come from merging - e.g. two trains arrive at 34 St at the same time and one of them has to wait. Once the lines are merged, delays shouldn't be too bad.

 

If it's really an issue, there can be one less train per hour on each line. That would be a 3tph reduction, which is pretty significant in terms of track capacity.

 

I agree. That is extremely clear from my posts.

Why not just eliminate the Q? with the N and R running local as the only lines, there is only ONE merging point at 59th st in Brooklyn. Can't get better than that.

Again, my argument is not about capacity IN ITSELF. I said this already. This is to maintain consistency of service for people in Manhattan and Queens. This is more of an indictment of the poor communication and signaling along the Broadway line and the system in general.

I could not imagine having all three train lines running local through Downtown BK and Manhattan without there being numerous delays and problems. It is already not that great RIGHT NOW.

But let's look at YOUR argument and TheSubwayStation:

The capacity argument when looked at deeper falls apart--remember there would be no service...There would probably have to be no fewer than 15 trains per hour (rush hours). According to sources, it's probably closer to 18. This is based on TPH info posted on these forums.

Let's be conservative here:

9 trains

10 trains

15 trains ***again, remember, there has to be compensation for the train.***

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

That's a lot of trains for two tracks.

And can there really be less service? (taking away a few TPH?) People are going to hold doors and trains are going to linger in stations longer. Trains will be more packed. Wait times will increase.

Just a friendly critique.

Via Tunnel???

 

I totally missed that.

TheSubwayStation, do you have a response to my reply?

Are you aware of trains per hour and capacity and such? Theoretically, the , , and on one track is not over capacity. If you think there's a problem, then why don't you just run each of them a little less frequently? That's much better than overcrowding the and specifically, and the already overcrowded IRT.

 

Theoretically....

Again, the crux of my argument is that all three lines through the Montague st tunnels will cause huge delays throughout the line and effect Astoria and Queens Blvd riders. I NEVER SAID ANYTHING ABOUT CAPACITY. That is a red herring.

I stated that based on my extremely frequent experience riding the line over the years and the delays that it faces NOW with just two trains running on the local track, and one of them only running on it PART of the way. This is also with ALL THREE TRAINS on the same track north of 57th st.

So you bringing up capacity in this sense misses my point.

What happens before DeKalb when the needs to get onto the local tracks shared by both the and the ? I see these trains crawling through Manhattan, IMO worse than they do now.

With just the and , the converges at 59th st in BK and diverges after 59th and Lex. Simple. If the line gets backed up in BK or lower Manhattan, there can be trains sitting on the express track ready to be put into service for Astoria and QB (as they are now).

If riders want the Brighton line, just stay on the or to BK. Simple. Or they can use the IRT.

Again, I think this will be the least confusing and simplest for commuters to handle. I think this will also minimize delays into Manhattan and Queens.

As Threexx pointed out, Brighton riders will be pissed, though.

This would cause crowding on the and , though, don't you think?

 

Anyway, I'll try something new:

 

Here's a G.O. alert poster for my Manhattan Bridge scenario: https://docs.google....wRbYAV_Ee0/edit

 

Yes it will, definitely.

Which I would say to give the a few more trains per hour and urge passengers to make that transfer at Atlantic Av, which many of them will.

The Lex line will definitely feel the effects especially at Union Square and Atlantic Center.

The train is definitely going to feel it too, especially at Jay St and Herald Square.

It's not going to be easy, that's for sure, especially when you have such an important link being taken away.

But IMO (and I stress MY OPINION) three train lines on the Broadway local track from Downtown BK to almost Queens isn't going to work.

Well one, the switch isn't there, we've established that.

Two, it would royally piss off 3 of the largest neighborhoods in Brooklyn.

 

Rebuild it.

About two, I most certainly know that. LOL.