KK 6 Ave Local

@LaGuardia Link N Tra You should extend the H to the RBB, although the RBB isn't the most feasible place to build a subway line. 

Not sure if this counts as a bump, but I was made a train fan by either Thomas the Tank Engine (11/10 would watch again) or just looking at a train and deciding "Hey this is fascinating!"

On 10/30/2019 at 12:13 PM, BreeddekalbL said:

It's better that if it is Subway you remove a line from relaying at Forest hills 

100% - If you want to do a shuttle to the Rockaways then one or both of the locals needs to go somewhere else like 73rd avenue or 179th Street.

On 10/26/2019 at 2:15 PM, bwwnyc123 said:

even grown people are Dumb Too.

This is the speech equivalent of shooting yourself in the foot.

Here's something interesting for y'all

https://pedestrianobservations.com/2018/11/29/new-york-city-subway-expansion-proposal/

Interesting idea having both  and  run down the line. Should only be one (the ) though. If they go along with the MX plan  would be the best name for it.

I have a simpler approach to the Jamaica situation- I'll have the el stay, but (as i previously stated) the section between Bway Junction and Crescent Street would be replaced with a three track el/subway along Jamaica Ave rather than Fulton Street. (P)  replace  service in Brooklyn by swapping the  and  in Brooklyn and moving  to Williamsburg so that you can have a (P) <P> pair running on Brighton Line and the  to Bay Ridge-101 St. The  can run to Myrtle Ave and the  will terminate at Broadway Junction at which point the , rerouted to Fulton Street, will have a transfer, and the  will join the new subway and el to Merrick Blvd.

This isn't exactly adding capacity-those plans are long term and I'll come up with some later.  

On 9/26/2019 at 7:01 PM, JeremiahC99 said:

Sorry for the late reply on this topic. I was preoccupied with a bunch of other things, such as school, family obligations, etc. As such, I could not find time to reply to big posts like this.

Anyways, I understand that and you are correct that I should choose between the  or , but not both. Therefore, the best option for what to serve Fulton Local is the  and  from the Broadway Line. Not only could I have the Astoria service still have direct access to yards (i.e Pitkin Yard), but this could be done even before phases 3 and 4 are complete.

With this plan, the  would run between LaGuardia Airport (LGA) and Euclid Avenue at all times except late nights, when service is extended to Lefferts Blvd to replace  service at this time. The  would then be routed on the new Jamaica Avenue Subway, existing Jamaica Avenue El, and extended Archer Line to Hollis. The  would run between LGA and Hollis at all times except late nights. At this time, the  would terminate at Whitehall Street instead of Astoria, with the  picking up the slack. With CBTC (or god knows what other plans they have up their sleeve), I do anticipate that both line be operates on a 15 train per hour headway. Combined, that is 30 trains per hour combined between LGA and Broadway Junction.

To replace access to the Lower East Side from Cypress Hills, I am also proposing an increase in frequency on the M15 bus route.

Note that my plans for the  Broadway Express to 63rd Street,  Fulton Street Express to Queens, and  changes will not be affected with the change in plans. They will remain as is.

With the  taking over the 4th Avenue Local Line, we do have some excess capacity on the 4th Avenue Line. With this in mind, I do have a plan to connect the southern end of the  line to the 4th Avenue Line at Court Street, via a new under river tunnel between Coenties Slip (or wherever the tunnel is planned to end) and Pierrpoint Street, then curve to the Montague Street Tunnel in a similar way to the 60th Street Tunnel Connection. From there, both the  and  would operate to the new 101st Street terminal I have planned. The  would operate at 15 trains per hour, and the  possibly at 12 (though 15 can also be possible. The benefit of this is that there is a direct access to both Lower Manhattan and the East Side, thus allowing for one to avoid the (intermittent) crowds at Bowling Green and along the  and  in general.

I am going to need to rehash those schemes for reworking the SAS for me. It would be helpful.

To me, I feel like the South 4th Street Subway would be worth it since you would have available capacity to accommodate current and future demand. The thing is that with the Jamaica El is a dinosaur built for a different age, where Lower Manhattan was once the business hub of the whole city. Now most of the demand has shifted to midtown, with some Lower Manhattan demand. The structure as a whole is beginning to outlive its usefulness as well, unable to handle more trains for future demand. Yes the incremental improvements are nice as well, but if we're going to route almost all 8th Avenue Local service to the bridge, rebuild the line, for Essex terminal Ops, consolidate a few stops, etc, then might as well build a new subway from here, with a spur to Central Queens. This would allow for future capacity for future demand.

On the subject of the QB Deinterlining, I also had some other concerns with trying to fully deinterline QB and the 8th Avenue Line, which both have similar Junctions. If I go overzealous on deinterlining, I could end up with one branch with express only service and another with local only service and/or both branches access to one line only. This may not go well with most riders.

You did mention at one point on here regarding 8th Avenue that deinterlining 59th Street does not mean also deinterlining 145th Street. This would've been achieved by swapping the  and . Initially, I balked at this due to the fact that Norwood residents may get upset about losing the  designation. However, I am willing to put historical preferences aside and fully embrace this plan. With this, the  and  would be on the express tracks and the  and  would be on the local tracks. North of 145th Street, the  would make express stops to 207th Street, joined by the , making local stops to 168th Street. On the Concourse Line, the  would make local stops, while the  would travel to 205th Street, replacing the . This was also the original route of the  for some time since the line opened in 1933.

A similar plan should be examined for Queens Blvd as well, mitigating any concerns regarding slower trips and less options. What I am proposing to do is have the  and  on the express tracks and the  and  on the local tracks. At Briarwood, the the  would go via Archer Avenue, while the  would go via QB Express to Jamaica-179th Street and eventually, Springfield Blvd. The  would be local to 179th Street, while the  would be going via Archer. More specifically:

: 207th Street-Far Rockaway

: Bedford Park Blvd-Brighton Beach

: Norwood-205th Street - Lefferts Blvd

: 168th Street-Coney Island

As for Queens Blvd:

: Rosedale-F. Lewis - World Trade Center

: Jamaica-179th Street - Coney Island

: Queens Village-Springfield Blvd

: Rosedale-F. Lewis - Metropolitan Avenue

This service plan should deinterling some of the problem interlockings with minimal impact on commuter travel patterns. In addition, both the Hillside and Archer branches gain both local and express service, while deinterlining 36th Street. A  extension would also be included as well (via Northern?) I do plan to incorporate this into my South 4th Street Subway plans.

I plan to have Utica Avenue served by IRT trains, since travel patterns (and somehow, my own commute) dictate that most customers along the two zip codes along the Utica Avenue corridor (11234, and 11203) have a destination of Downtown Brooklyn first, then Midtown Manhattan. I live in the 11234 zip code, and take the B46 SBS to school, so I do see this myself as well.

You do realize that the Vanshnook map does have a SAS to Lower Manhattan, thus already reliving crowding on the Lex (in fact, had this been completed in 1931, the Lexington Avenue crowding situation would not exist before 2017).

I was thinking that the 's route would be replaced by the  routes, and the  would only run rush hours Essex Street-Hollis, also this could be a rush hour extension of the . Future SAS service would go to Northern because the QBL plan takes out the possibility of a Queens Bypass service. I do think we should get a South Fourth Street Subway (different name should apply for the new service) with the , something on SAS, and the  I will think of a routing later.

3 hours ago, BreeddekalbL said:

While on the topic of light rail what should be done for cross bronx transit?

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=3003893556293162&id=196173003731912

I'm going with a light rail along Fordham Road. This would connect to all the major Bronx lines (except the  but it will connect in Manhattan)

@Jova42R are your line plans part of that map in your signature? Just curious.

Here is an updated plan of mine showing what an SAS with 4 tracks should look like. 

 - Second Ave Local, Express between 125-72nd. Fordham Road/3rd Ave to Bay Ridge via 3rd Avenue in the Bronx, SAS, Water Street or Nassau, Montague, 4th Avenue

(U) - Second Ave Express, Bartow Ave/Bronx to Coney Island via 3rd Avenue, SAS, north side Manhattan Bridge tracks, Brighton Express

 Second Ave Local, 179th Street/Queens to Brighton Beach via Hillside Ave, Queens Blvd, Queens Bypass, SAS, north side Manhattan Bridge, Brighton Local

Notes and other plans:

 will run to a 3 track Northern Blvd line

(U)  displace  to Metropolitan Ave and Bway Junction respectively, and  to West End.

 displaces  to Fulton,  will run to Hollis and  to Euclid

 runs as a rush hour service between Essex and Jamaica

 plan for QBL,  will run to RBB, splitting off at 63rd Drive.

 and  will run the same routes so they might have to be integrated to an  service, another option is that Lefferts runs can be  while Far Rock runs can be

Thoughts?

10 hours ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

That is a good way to run a West End express. But then you’d have to have all that extra transferring at Atlantic and DeKalb.

I don't think the cons out weight the pros in this instance, Dekalb needs deinterlining one way or another. 

I've made a map in Brand New Subway showing some changes I would like made to the subway system. I placed the stations randomly so they might not be in ideal locations.

https://www.mediafire.com/file/hna7o0pn1sctkcg/bns_saved_game_(1).json/file this link should work, if it doesn't then please let me know

@JeremiahC99 because i won't quote your plan, I will just tag you to send a notification.

I only have a few tweaks to make with your proposal. First off, I love the  to Broadway Junction and  to Hollis idea. Very interesting, and something I was thinking of before. Considering the added capacity of QBL under your plan, the SAS (Y), my proposal for a second route, can be diverted to Northern Blvd (for a future second phase) with the  and  trains. This (Y) line would run express to Bayside* and terminate at Hanover Square for the time being. Also,  trains, after B'way Junction, should instead run to Jamaica Ave** and meet up with the elevated at Cypress Hills in a 3-track elevated line, to avoid that god-awful curve. This allows for express service on the Jamaica Line the entire way there, and peak express trains may have the capacity to use this middle track***. The  should instead run to 3rd Avenue, up to at least Fordham Road for phase 1, and the RBB should be included as part of phase 1. Also, aren't the  and  just the same thing? If so it should just be called the .

*Exact location up for debate

**Intermediate stops will be added, and I am currently trying to figure out where they should be.

*** You already have this in your map but peak express service is still something possible.

FIrst post in a while. I think the  would be a good fit for Northern Blvd and SAS can come later. If phase 3 is built with at least provisions for express tracks we can have a fully fledged Northern Blvd trunk line. 

20 hours ago, Lawrence St said:

I think someone forgot to turn the child lock back on...

Edit: nvm I see what you mean

On 5/10/2019 at 9:01 PM, subwayfan1998 said:

so without 9/11, there wouldn't be no "New" South Ferry and the New SAS Stations??

In my scenario, I Think there would still be SAS and but no New South Ferry since New South Ferry was part of recovery effort for 9/11.

New South Ferry was most likely not an effort to recover from 9/11, it was built because the SF Loop only fit 5 cars and was very rushed-seeming in nature.

I was wondering if it'd be feasible to connect SAS to Myrtle Ave south and north running on the  tracks north of Broadway. This connects North and South Brooklyn, provides new service, and totally eliminates the / merge.

Either way if you think about it LRT's not relevant to the expansion of our normal subway system.

I would rearrange Lower Manhattan to have the  serving Fulton Local. This can also be done with a second SAS Line.

Here's my vision for the Second Avenue Subway:

 (U)  

Local  

Express  (U)

 starts at Broadway-125 Street and runs on SAS to Hanover Square where it runs under a new tunnel to the Fulton Local tracks. 

(U) would run from Throgs Neck, Lafayette Ave, and SAS to Fulton Local as well.

 would run from Jamaica/179th Street to the 63rd tunnel and SAS Local, then to either Hanover Square or somewhere in Williamsburg. 

 would run on a 3rd Avenue Line to Fordham Road or Co-op City

Northern Queens would be serviced by an extension of the  to Bell Blvd and the  to Bayside and College Point. This idea could also be done using a Northern Blvd subway with the  services.

For Northern Queens:

 would be extended to LGA, College Point, and Bell Blvd with a  extension to Clearview Expy. LRT would serve the Union Tpke, Kissena Blvd, and Northern Blvd corridors,  provisions would be made at 86th or 57th Street.

3 minutes ago, JeremiahC99 said:

Actually eliminating the  will cause more problems than it solves, especially since the service is really popular. It’s elimiation will cause crowding to go worse on the , , , and other lines, especially the crumbling . It also sets us back 30 years, especially since the North Brooklyn area is changing. North Brooklyn isn’t what it was 20-30 years ago, and with ridership on the  growing like crazy, coupled with an increasing population in the areas the  serves, there needed a better way to serve the area. The old service to Lower Manhattan won’t do, so the orange  was created. Remember, 22,000 riders used to transfer to reach Midtown, while only 17,000 enjoyed the direct ride to Lower Manhattan. Almost nobody was going into Southern Brooklyn.

A possible compromise would be to have the  run to 96th Street on the Second Avenue Line at 9 tph full time, and have the  use Queens Blvd at 6 tph. This way, the 22,000+ riders can continue to enjoy their favorite one seat ride to Midtown from the popular North Brooklyn nabes, and Culver can have an express service without adverse impacts.

Another option is to keep the  on Queens Blvd, and have the  go to 96th Street, as the express service beneficiaries are only going to Midtown Manhattan anyway. Again, it would allow for all the same benefits the first compromise allows for.

The problem is, you're hurting someone in some way either way- whether it be W'burg or QBL. 

You can't run the  all on 4 tracks. 

11 hours ago, Fredrick Wells 3 said:

Let's shift over to this Utica Avenue Subway thing that is being talked about (https://www.ny1.com/nyc/all-boroughs/transit/2019/04/06/utica-avenue-subway-extension-mta-to-study-if-it-is-worth-pursuing?fbclid=IwAR03YM611S3bVybCJZIod4qXdUD98q3t9g8nPNn9weELjZPTX-qjPCocNDc). Unless the  starts a new Breezy Point to Kings Plaza (where the  is slated to terminate) bus line, you can pretty much say that a Subway line would be too much for the corridor, yet a Light Rail may be more feasible.

 

"So how are we going to accomplish a Utica Line?"

"yes."

If a Fulton-Seaport and South Ferry station/connection are built on SAS, we can possibly leave Brooklyn SAS service to the long term. That being said, it is necessary, and if we were to do this, I would have service to Staten Island and Willamsburg.

On the topic of light rail, I am very much on board with a Brooklyn Bridge and Kissena lines, and I think any LRT should be used as bus relief, not subway relief.