Jump to content

Second Avenue Subway Discussion


CenSin

Recommended Posts


  • Replies 6.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
7 minutes ago, EvilMonologue said:

I tend to think 50th is better than 57th, just because of the transfers, even if 53rd is there. But either way, and this is a genuine question idk, wouldn't it be cheaper to do two separate tunnels than one two-level tunnel?

57th has more express transfers, most stops at 50th are local.

That would probably be true for two tunnels in different locations, but not tunnels that are going to be on top of each other. The 63 St tunnel was precast as a two-story tunnel and then sunk as an immersed tube, so it didn't actually involve much more digging.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, bobtehpanda said:

57th has more express transfers, most stops at 50th are local.

That would probably be true for two tunnels in different locations, but not tunnels that are going to be on top of each other. The 63 St tunnel was precast as a two-story tunnel and then sunk as an immersed tube, so it didn't actually involve much more digging.

I guess that makes sense. Does Queens need 4 extra tracks though? And where would they go? Bypass and Northern?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, EvilMonologue said:

I guess that makes sense. Does Queens need 4 extra tracks though? And where would they go? Bypass and Northern?

Northern is definitely one option.

There are definitely several corridors that could use two tracks that haven't been served (e.g. HHE) but the major thing here is just getting a tunnel in place because we're running out of places to weave tunnels otherwise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello 2nd Ave. Subway Discussion Forum.

I'm delighted that Cornell University Press just released my new book, titled "Last Subway: The Long Wait for the Next Train in New York City." 

Last Subway reveals the dramatic story behind the Second Avenue subway and explains why the city’s subway system, once the best in the world, is now too often unreliable, overcrowded, and uncomfortable. 

You can learn more about it at www.plotch.comCornell Press, or Amazon. If you get a chance to read it, I'd really like to hear what you think.  My email is pplotch@saintpeters.edu

The book's launch event is free and sponsored by Open House New York and the Transit Center. See TransitCenter for more info.  Unfortunately, all the tickets were taken minutes after they were made available online.  However, you can watch it online. 

Phil Plotch

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/4/2020 at 11:58 PM, bobtehpanda said:

If you want really good connections for SAS, you can link it to Manhattan Br N. My preferred deinterlining looks like

 

CPW EXP - 6 AV EXP - Willy B

CPW LCL - 8 AV LCL 

QBL LCL - 53 - 8 AV EXP - CRANBERRY

QBL EXP - 63 - 6AV LCL

2 AV (UPTOWN) - BWAY EXP - MAN BR S

ASTORIA - BWAY LCL - WHITEHALL/MONTAGUE

2 AV (LOWER) - MANHATTAN BR N

 

Under this plan no trains run the full length of 2 AV. 55 St is the terminal, with connections to 53 and 59 Lex. Future provisions for extension to a new Queens tunnel.

IMO, it seems problematic to have 2 Ave split up in that way.  2 Ave has no hope of decongesting the Lex line unless there is at least one service running all the way from Harlem to at least Houston, if not into the Financial District.

Some of your ideas are workable to an extant though.  Let's take your ideas, but force 2 AV to be one line, we then have:

CPW EXP - 6 AV EXP - Willy B

CPW LCL - 8 AV LCL - WTC

QBL LCL - 53 - 8 AV EXP - CRANBERRY

QBL EXP - 63 - 6AV LCL - RUTGERS

ASTORIA - BWAY LCL - MONTAGUE

2 AV - MAN BR N

57/7Av - BWAY EXP - MAN BR S

OK, seven trunk line services, but 8th Ave local and Broadway express are necessarily limited since these two services do not leave the CBD on one end, (S end for 8 Av local and N end for Bwy express).

So we can make an adjustment to the above by using the switches at W4 to move the 8th Ave local to the Houston St trancks toward the Rutgers tunnel.  It will also mean that we can connect the Broadway express with the 63rd street tunnel to Queens.

CPW EXP - 6 AV*  - Willy B  [B,D]

CPW LCL - 8 AV LCL - W4 switch - RUTGERS [A,C]

QBL LCL - 53 - 8 AV EXP - CRANBERRY [E,F]

ASTORIA - BWAY LCL - MONTAGUE [R,W]  (an alternate naming system would introduce a yellow M instead of W)

QBL EXP - 63 - BWAY EXP - MAN BR S  [N,Q]

UPPER 2 AV - LOWER 2 AV - MAN BR N [T,V]

(*This first line could be a 6th Ave express with a 6th Ave local line limited to the CBD running from 57/6 to WTC.  But that would be largely superfluous, so just eliminate the 6th Ave local and run the express on all stops between W4 and 34.  I would much rather have 6 lines run frequently than 7 lines slightly less frequently.)

Other than a few switches, the above can be implemented without any new construction, except for phase 3 and 4 of SAS.  Again, a critical element is to be sure that SAS will have good transfer connections in Midtown.

Connecting to the Bridge will ensure good connections in Brooklyn.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, mrsman said:

IMO, it seems problematic to have 2 Ave split up in that way.  2 Ave has no hope of decongesting the Lex line unless there is at least one service running all the way from Harlem to at least Houston, if not into the Financial District.

Some of your ideas are workable to an extant though.  Let's take your ideas, but force 2 AV to be one line, we then have:

CPW EXP - 6 AV EXP - Willy B

CPW LCL - 8 AV LCL - WTC

QBL LCL - 53 - 8 AV EXP - CRANBERRY

QBL EXP - 63 - 6AV LCL - RUTGERS

ASTORIA - BWAY LCL - MONTAGUE

2 AV - MAN BR N

57/7Av - BWAY EXP - MAN BR S

OK, seven trunk line services, but 8th Ave local and Broadway express are necessarily limited since these two services do not leave the CBD on one end, (S end for 8 Av local and N end for Bwy express).

So we can make an adjustment to the above by using the switches at W4 to move the 8th Ave local to the Houston St trancks toward the Rutgers tunnel.  It will also mean that we can connect the Broadway express with the 63rd street tunnel to Queens.

CPW EXP - 6 AV*  - Willy B  [B,D]

CPW LCL - 8 AV LCL - W4 switch - RUTGERS [A,C]

QBL LCL - 53 - 8 AV EXP - CRANBERRY [E,F]

ASTORIA - BWAY LCL - MONTAGUE [R,W]  (an alternate naming system would introduce a yellow M instead of W)

QBL EXP - 63 - BWAY EXP - MAN BR S  [N,Q]

UPPER 2 AV - LOWER 2 AV - MAN BR N [T,V]

(*This first line could be a 6th Ave express with a 6th Ave local line limited to the CBD running from 57/6 to WTC.  But that would be largely superfluous, so just eliminate the 6th Ave local and run the express on all stops between W4 and 34.  I would much rather have 6 lines run frequently than 7 lines slightly less frequently.)

Other than a few switches, the above can be implemented without any new construction, except for phase 3 and 4 of SAS.  Again, a critical element is to be sure that SAS will have good transfer connections in Midtown.

Connecting to the Bridge will ensure good connections in Brooklyn.

This is a very interesting way to de-interline the B-Division while still having an almost-full length SAS in Manhattan. Presumably, there would be some interlining in Brooklyn if the T and V replace the B and D, and you’d only build the part of Phase 4 that would connect SAS to the Manny B.

But it does leave some questions to be answered about service in The Bronx, Brooklyn and Queens. For one thing, if the now-8th Avenue local A and C are rerouted to the Rutgers St Tunnel and the E and F are the new 8th Avenue expresses, what’s stopping at Spring St or WTC? 

And with the B and D being rerouted onto the Willy B, what becomes of the current J line between Bowery and Broad St?

For the 6th Avenue local, one alternative could be to build a track connection between the existing PATH line between the 9th and 14 St stations that would allow PATH trains to take over the F line between 14th and 57th and incorporate the line into the subway as the P train. However, connections between the 6th Avenue local and express tracks would probably have to be severed, as P trains would still have to use smaller, narrow cars that can fit in the Hudson Tubes and wouldn’t be able to share tracks with the B and D in the event of a service problem or outage.

The M or W designation would probably be superfluous in this plan. From what I’m reading, it seems like there’s only on line from Astoria to Broadway Local to Montague. What would differentiate the M/W from the R? Same question for the A and C services in Upper Manhattan and the E and F in Queens?

Where would the A, C, E and F services be going in Brooklyn and South Queens? And would there still be a Concourse Express in The Bronx?

Edited by T to Dyre Avenue
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, mrsman said:

(*This first line could be a 6th Ave express with a 6th Ave local line limited to the CBD running from 57/6 to WTC.  But that would be largely superfluous, so just eliminate the 6th Ave local and run the express on all stops between W4 and 34.  I would much rather have 6 lines run frequently than 7 lines slightly less frequently.)

Other than a few switches, the above can be implemented without any new construction, except for phase 3 and 4 of SAS.  Again, a critical element is to be sure that SAS will have good transfer connections in Midtown.

If there is only one service on 6 Av, you could in theory connect the PATH to the other set of tracks, although you'd need to do station reconstruction. This also assumes that PATH and the Subway could get along and introduce free transfers, which is doubtful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/6/2020 at 6:16 PM, T to Dyre Avenue said:

This is a very interesting way to de-interline the B-Division while still having an almost-full length SAS in Manhattan. Presumably, there would be some interlining in Brooklyn if the T and V replace the B and D, and you’d only build the part of Phase 4 that would connect SAS to the Manny B.

But it does leave some questions to be answered about service in The Bronx, Brooklyn and Queens. For one thing, if the now-8th Avenue local A and C are rerouted to the Rutgers St Tunnel and the E and F are the new 8th Avenue expresses, what’s stopping at Spring St or WTC? 

And with the B and D being rerouted onto the Willy B, what becomes of the current J line between Bowery and Broad St?

For the 6th Avenue local, one alternative could be to build a track connection between the existing PATH line between the 9th and 14 St stations that would allow PATH trains to take over the F line between 14th and 57th and incorporate the line into the subway as the P train. However, connections between the 6th Avenue local and express tracks would probably have to be severed, as P trains would still have to use smaller, narrow cars that can fit in the Hudson Tubes and wouldn’t be able to share tracks with the B and D in the event of a service problem or outage.

The M or W designation would probably be superfluous in this plan. From what I’m reading, it seems like there’s only on line from Astoria to Broadway Local to Montague. What would differentiate the M/W from the R? Same question for the A and C services in Upper Manhattan and the E and F in Queens?

Where would the A, C, E and F services be going in Brooklyn and South Queens? And would there still be a Concourse Express in The Bronx?

Thank you for the comments.

Yes, if 2 Ave takes over one side of the Manhattan Bridge, I believe it is necessary to not de-interline in Brooklyn.  Many of the proposals of deinterlining that have all Brighton trains to Broadway and all 4 Ave expresses to 6th Ave (or vice versa) only work because the Broadway trains and the 6th Ave trains run only one block apart through most of Midtown.  As 2 Ave is far from the Broadway line in Midtown, it would be better to live with a littile interlining in Brooklyn, and limiting some train flow, to provide the better world of connections.  Presumably, a T line would run from the Bronx along 2 Ave to the Bridge and continue as the Brighton express.  A V line would run along 125th Street, down 2nd Ave to the Bridge and continue as the West End line.  N along the Sea Beach and Q along the Brighton local as today.

The 8th Ave express, E and F trains, would serve Spring Street.  New switches would be needed between Spring and W4 so the 8th Ave express can run on the local tracks south of W4 with no trains normally running on the express tracks.  South of Canal, E and F would follow the path of the current C train to stop at Chambers and continue to Fulton Street.  The WTC station would not be served, people in that area will walk to Chambers or Fulton for 8th Ave service.

I don't have a set plan for the Manhattan stations of the J.  Anyone in the Lower East Side, including those coming in from the Rutgers tunnel or the Willy Br would continue to W4 or Broadway-Laffayette to transfer to a Downtown service.  I envision a new transfer to the Broadway local (Prince) and the existing transfer to the Lex local at B-L and the existing transfer to the 8th Ave express at W4.  As the tracks under Nassau Street are available, if a better plan does not service, one possibility would be a track connection to the 6 train, so that 6 trains can service Fulton and Broad.  This would help with some of the 4/5 congestion in Lower Manhattan.  I guess, even if you do that, you could run some shuttle between Chambers and Delancey/Essex, but I don't see that much demand for that.

Another possiblity is sending one of the 2nd Ave services down the Nassau tracks to terminate at Broad Street.  So the Man Br N is only half served. Not ideal, but it may meet the demand better.

There may not be a need for two service desingations along the Broadway local, assuming they all go to Bay Ridge.  But if one of the 2nd Ave services goes downtown, then we will need two separate designations along the Broadway local, one to service Bay Ridge and the other to service Brighton locals.  Brighton expresses and Sea Beach trains will use the bridge to Broadway express and West End trains will use the bridge to 2nd Ave.  This does unfoturnatelly make a mess of Brooklyn, but IMO it is far better to deinterline Manhattan than to leave merging in Manhattan.

I do linke the idea of allowing PATH to utilize some of the 6th Ave subway to reach 57/6.  I think it can be done and it would be a great improvement for PATH customers to reach the new heart of Midtown, as there are more modern skyscrapers in the 40s and 50s than in the 30s.

While I may not need two designations for the Broadway local, I absolutely need two designations for the other trains.  I still envision some interlining at 145th Street in Upper Manhattan.  This will provide an express and a local for both W Hts and Concourse branches but very importantly eliminate the merging at Columbus Circle:

A 168th St Washington Heights- 8th Ave local - Rutgers

B Inwood - CPW express- 6th Ave - Willy Bridge and then to Jamaica

C Concourse local - 8th Ave local - Rutgers

D Concourse express - CPW express - 6th Ave - Willy Bridge to Metropolitan

E Forest Hills - QBL local - 53 - 8th Ave express- Fulton express to Lefferts and the Rockaways

F Forest Hills - QBL local - 53 - 8th Ave express - Fulton local to Euclid

 

Notice that I reinstate the original naming scheme of the IND by having norther terminals of AB in Manhattan, CD in Bronx, and EF in Queens.  I suppose we can add in an H designation to differentiate between Lefferts adn Rockaway E trains.  Also, if we need more capacity to service these trains, we can turn some trains at Quees Plaza (so that H trains don't make it all the way to Forest Hills).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

could we potentially triple-track 2 av south of 63 st, and have 3 services (one on the two outside, two on the middle and one outside)? Maybe the following:

(T) 125 St Crosstown / Upper 2 Av Local / Lower 2 Av Local / Willy Br / Myrtle Local

(Q) Webster Av Local / Upper 2 Av Local / Bway Exp / Man Br S / Brighton Local

(H) Lower Montauk Local / Queensboro Brg / Lower 2 Av Local / Cranberry St Tubes* / Culver Express**

(V) 96 St Crosstown / York Av Local (Tram) / Lower 2 Av Local

*(A) runs via Rutgers

**to 18 Av, where (H) terminates

 

Thoughts? @mrsman @T to Dyre Avenue

Edited by Jova42R
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/6/2020 at 1:14 PM, mrsman said:

IMO, it seems problematic to have 2 Ave split up in that way.  2 Ave has no hope of decongesting the Lex line unless there is at least one service running all the way from Harlem to at least Houston, if not into the Financial District.

I actually think the opposite - a two-tracked Second Avenue line has no hope of competing with the Lex along the full length, since the (4) and (5) will always be faster. Peak load on Lex is between 42-GC and 125th and not along the full length of the line anyhow.

On the contrary, I think this type of plan will divert more people, particularly in Brooklyn; 2 Av Lower will be the Manhattan Bridge express for Midtown East, ensuring instant demand and heavy cross-platform activity for SAS from BMT Southern Division services, and significantly lowering any potential transfers happening right now at Atlantic or Borough Hall or even Union Square. In the same way that the (Q) serves different destinations than the Lex but still draws off a lot of people, I think that with current construction the easiest way to get people off the Lex is to peel off secondary markets that currently use the Lex because it's the only option.

Edited by bobtehpanda
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/6/2020 at 3:16 PM, T to Dyre Avenue said:

This is a very interesting way to de-interline the B-Division while still having an almost-full length SAS in Manhattan. Presumably, there would be some interlining in Brooklyn if the T and V replace the B and D, and you’d only build the part of Phase 4 that would connect SAS to the Manny B.

Not all deinterlining is bad. To me pretty much the only original sin with reverse branching is the 11th St connection, because it is basically the reason every delay ripples across the system. If you remove that connection, and also remove interlining on CPW, you've turned the B Division into two separate groups, Eighth Avenue and Sixth Avenue locals, and Sixth Av Express and Broadway, and Nassau picks up the slack.

Edited by bobtehpanda
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Jova42R said:

could we potentially triple-track 2 av south of 63 st, and have 3 services (one on the two outside, two on the middle and one outside)? Maybe the following:

(T) 125 St Crosstown / Upper 2 Av Local / Lower 2 Av Local / Willy Br / Myrtle Local

(Q) Webster Av Local / Upper 2 Av Local / Bway Exp / Man Br S / Brighton Local

(H) Lower Montauk Local / Queensboro Brg / Lower 2 Av Local / Cranberry St Tubes* / Culver Express**

(V) 96 St Crosstown / York Av Local (Tram) / Lower 2 Av Local

*(A) runs via Rutgers

**to 18 Av, where (H) terminates

 

Thoughts? @mrsman @T to Dyre Avenue

Note here: the (V) would run a Siemens Avenio reconfigured for high-floor. It would use catenary from 96 St to 60 St, then use battery.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 3/8/2020 at 2:00 PM, Jova42R said:

could we potentially triple-track 2 av south of 63 st, and have 3 services (one on the two outside, two on the middle and one outside)? Maybe the following:

(T) 125 St Crosstown / Upper 2 Av Local / Lower 2 Av Local / Willy Br / Myrtle Local

(Q) Webster Av Local / Upper 2 Av Local / Bway Exp / Man Br S / Brighton Local

(H) Lower Montauk Local / Queensboro Brg / Lower 2 Av Local / Cranberry St Tubes* / Culver Express**

(V) 96 St Crosstown / York Av Local (Tram) / Lower 2 Av Local

*(A) runs via Rutgers

**to 18 Av, where (H) terminates

 

Thoughts? @mrsman @T to Dyre Avenue

One could run trains like that, but in my view it will have so much intermixing that it could be a lot of trouble to run efficiently.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/8/2020 at 11:00 AM, Jova42R said:

could we potentially triple-track 2 av south of 63 st, and have 3 services (one on the two outside, two on the middle and one outside)? Maybe the following:

(T) 125 St Crosstown / Upper 2 Av Local / Lower 2 Av Local / Willy Br / Myrtle Local

(Q) Webster Av Local / Upper 2 Av Local / Bway Exp / Man Br S / Brighton Local

(H) Lower Montauk Local / Queensboro Brg / Lower 2 Av Local / Cranberry St Tubes* / Culver Express**

(V) 96 St Crosstown / York Av Local (Tram) / Lower 2 Av Local

*(A) runs via Rutgers

**to 18 Av, where (H) terminates

 

Thoughts? @mrsman @T to Dyre Avenue

Triple tracking is dumb as hell, because you can only really use it in one direction at a time. No way it could support all of this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, bobtehpanda said:

Triple tracking is dumb as hell, because you can only really use it in one direction at a time. No way it could support all of this.

Only the (T)(H)(V) would run triple tracked - the layout would be the following

SB (T) - DOWNTOWN LOCAL

NB (T) - UPTOWN LOCAL

SB (H) - DOWNTOWN LOCAL

NB (H) - MIDDLE

SB (V) - MIDDLE

NB (V) - UPTOWN LOCAL

 

Between stations, there would be sidings in the middle track so that NB (H) and SB (V)s can pass.

Would that work?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jova42R said:

Only the (T)(H)(V) would run triple tracked - the layout would be the following

SB (T) - DOWNTOWN LOCAL

NB (T) - UPTOWN LOCAL

SB (H) - DOWNTOWN LOCAL

NB (H) - MIDDLE

SB (V) - MIDDLE

NB (V) - UPTOWN LOCAL

 

Between stations, there would be sidings in the middle track so that NB (H) and SB (V)s can pass.

Would that work?

The capacity of a single track line, even with sidings, is something on the order of 4-5tph. It's pitiful and not worth the money. (A three-track railway is either 2/1 or a double track railway with a single track railway next to it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jova42R said:

Only the (T)(H)(V) would run triple tracked - the layout would be the following

SB (T) - DOWNTOWN LOCAL

NB (T) - UPTOWN LOCAL

SB (H) - DOWNTOWN LOCAL

NB (H) - MIDDLE

SB (V) - MIDDLE

NB (V) - UPTOWN LOCAL

 

Between stations, there would be sidings in the middle track so that NB (H) and SB (V)s can pass.

Would that work?

If you're going to include passing sidings, you might as well just make it 4 tracks the entire length and save the gymnastics that would be required of your dispatcher to keep some semblance of a schedule intact.

One little thing and all of a sudden you've got (H)'s and (V)'s missing their scheduled meets at the siding and all hell breaks loose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think most SAS service north should be sent to Queens, because only (N)(Q) service on 3rd Ave to Fordham Road is really needed right now, combined with (T) to Broadway/125th Street

So for Queens I propose a 4-track Northern Blvd trunk line. Basically the QBL's northern counterpart. It would carry (U) and (V) for Second Avenue from a 79th Street tunnel, and (G)  possibly (L)  for local service. It would carry 4 tracks from Sunnyside to Flushing-Main Street (7), then 2 tracks to College Point. (7) service and potentially extended (R)(W) service could run to Bayside.

For bypass service I'd rather just divert the (F) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Jova42R said:

Only the (T)(H)(V) would run triple tracked - the layout would be the following

SB (T) - DOWNTOWN LOCAL

NB (T) - UPTOWN LOCAL

SB (H) - DOWNTOWN LOCAL

NB (H) - MIDDLE

SB (V) - MIDDLE

NB (V) - UPTOWN LOCAL

 

Between stations, there would be sidings in the middle track so that NB (H) and SB (V)s can pass.

Would that work?

Single track with sidings supports at most 4-5 TPH. It's a waste of money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, KK 6 Ave Local said:

I think most SAS service north should be sent to Queens, because only (N)(Q) service on 3rd Ave to Fordham Road is really needed right now, combined with (T) to Broadway/125th Street

So for Queens I propose a 4-track Northern Blvd trunk line. Basically the QBL's northern counterpart. It would carry (U) and (V) for Second Avenue from a 79th Street tunnel, and (G)  possibly (L)  for local service. It would carry 4 tracks from Sunnyside to Flushing-Main Street (7), then 2 tracks to College Point. (7) service and potentially extended (R)(W) service could run to Bayside.

For bypass service I'd rather just divert the (F) 

I have a similar proposal:

NORTH QUEENS LINE: 

(G) LOCAL

(H) EXPRESS

(V) LOCAL

(G)s are extended:

  • 41 Av (F)
  • 36 Av
  • Broadway
  • 27 Av (H)(V)
  • Crescent St (V)
  • 31 St (N)(W)(H)(V)
  • Steinway St (V)
  • 47 St (V)
  • 73 St (V)
  • 82 St (H)(V)(JFK)
    • (JFK) runs to all LGA terminals.
  • 88 St (V)
  • 94 St (V)
  • 101 St (V)
  • 108 St (H)(V)
  • Citi Field (H)(V)
  • Flushing (7)<7>(H)(V)

(H):

runs with (T) from Hanover Sq to 96 St ((Q) runs via new lower level from 96 to 63), then:

  • 102 St-1 Av (V)
    • via Wards Island Bridge
  • Randalls Island (V)
    • via a new tunnel to:
  • 24 Av (V)
  • 27 Av (V)(G)
  • then makes express stops on the North Queens line (see (G)) to Flushing, then
    • via Linden Pl (tunnel)
  • 32 Av (V)
    • via Whitestone Expy (median)
  • Linden Pl
  • 25 Av
  • 20 Av
  • 14 Av
    • via Cross Island Pkwy (viaduct)
  • 149 St
  • Francis Lewis Blvd
  • Utopia Pkwy
  • Fort Totten

(V):

starts at 125 St/Bway, then runs via the (T) to 106 St, then via the (H) to 27 Av, then via the (G) to Flushing, then:

  • 32 Av (H)
    • via 32 Av (tunnel)
  • Parsons Blvd
  • 148 St
  • 154 St
  • 160 St
  • 167 St
  • Utopia Pkwy
  • Clearview Expy
    • via Clearview Expy (viaduct)
  • 35 Av
  • 39 Av
  • Bayside LIRR

This was also posted in the Proposals thread.

Thoughts @mrsman @KK 6 Ave Local @Around the Horn?

Edited by Jova42R
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will defer to the others on the (H) and (V), but I like the concept of the (G) (which I'm assuming uses 21 Street, Ditmars Blvd, Astoria Blvd and Northern Blvd?) going out to Flushing... I personally would take Northern the whole way but this route isn't bad either.

I think the stop spacing is a little too close together... 47th and 73rd could be one stop at Hazen, 88th is unnecessary if you have stops at 82nd with exits to 85th and 94th/Junction Blvd with exits to 92nd or 93rd and 101st is unnecessary if you have an exit to 106th at 108th and an exit at 95th or 96th at the aforementioned Junction Blvd stop.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Around the Horn said:

I will defer to the others on the (H) and (V), but I like the concept of the (G) (which I'm assuming uses 21 Street, Ditmars Blvd, Astoria Blvd and Northern Blvd?) going out to Flushing... I personally would take Northern the whole way but this route isn't bad either.

I think the stop spacing is a little too close together... 47th and 73rd could be one stop at Hazen, 88th is unnecessary if you have stops at 82nd with exits to 85th and 94th/Junction Blvd with exits to 92nd or 93rd and 101st is unnecessary if you have an exit to 106th at 108th and an exit at 95th or 96th at the aforementioned Junction Blvd stop.

The (G)(H)(V) run together under Astoria Blvd to 114 St, before stopping at Citi Field and Flushing.

47th/73rd should be Hazen, you are right.

82nd could be at 83rd, then have exits at 82nd, 83rd, 84th, and 85th, then eliminate 88.

101st could be moved to 100, eliminating it is not great.

Thoughts about the (JFK) or the (H)(V) NE Queens section?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Jova42R I would rather have (V) service via bypass so that we would have QBL and (7) relief lines, the (V) and (G)(H) respectively. Because I wanna keep things 2 tracked past the (Q) junction, I'd route (H)(V) service via the 63rd Street tunnel until a 79th Street tunnel can be made. Northern Blvd subway would be 3 tracks to Flushing for peak (H) service, 2 to College Point. Provisions for a 4th track included.

So here would be the full idea:

(N)(Q) from Fordham Road - Coney Island

(T) from 125th/Bway - 2nd ave express - a southern terminal

(H) from College Point - 79th - 2nd ave local - a southern terminal

(V) from Laurelton - 79th - 2nd ave local - a southern terminal

(G) from Flushing Main Street - Church Ave

Edited by KK 6 Ave Local
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, KK 6 Ave Local said:

@Jova42R I would rather have (V) service via bypass so that we would have QBL and (7) relief lines, the (V) and (G)(H) respectively. Because I wanna keep things 2 tracked past the (Q) junction, I'd route (H)(V) service via the 63rd Street tunnel until a 79th Street tunnel can be made. Northern Blvd subway would be 3 tracks to Flushing, 2 to College Point for peak (H) service. Provisions for a 4th track included.

So here would be the full idea:

(N)(Q) from Fordham Road - Coney Island

(T) from 125th/Bway - 2nd ave express - a southern terminal

(H) from College Point - 79th - 2nd ave local - a southern terminal

(V) from Laurelton - 79th - 2nd ave local - a southern terminal

I'd say have the SE Queens line be the following:

(X) 125th/Bway - 2 Av Exp - Fulton Exp - SE Queens Local

If you want (V) service not on Astoria Bl, then maybe run it via a new 79 St Tunnel and via 36 Av then Northern, then merging with the (G), and running to Bayside.

So

(H) 2 Av Local - Randalls Island or 79 St Tun - North Queens Exp - College Point/Whitestone

(G) Crosstown Local - 21 St - North Queens Local - Flushing

(V) 125 St/Bway - 2 Av Local - 79 St Tun or Randalls Island - Northern Bl - Bayside

(X) 2 Av Exp - Fulton Exp - SE Queens Local

2 Av is 4 tracks the whole line. 79 St, 63 St, and Randalls Island are all 2 tracks. Northern is 2 tracks. North Queens is 4 tracks to Flushing, then each branch (CP/Whitestone and Bayside) is 2 tracks.

Thoughts?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.