Jump to content
Attention: In order to reply to messages, create topics, have access to other features of the community you must sign up for an account.

Second Avenue Subway Discussion


CenSin
 Share

Recommended Posts

On 11/14/2022 at 11:01 AM, Kamen Rider said:

…1, we don’t do double letters anymore.

2: it’s an IND line

3: how much service are you shoving down it?

4: that belongs in a fantasy thread.

 

5: you responded to a post from a decade ago!

Obviously someone who didn't realize that post was from almost 11 years ago at this point. 

And some of those stops would be impossible (most notably 66th Street).

As I have said before, I would build a lower level at 72nd Street if possible that could eventually serve as express tracks but more immediately would serve to be a spur that would at first terminate at 79th Street/1st-York Avenue with the full intention to eventually have it become a Queens leg of the SAS. Not having a 79th Street station to me was the one mistake with the SAS given that part of the Upper East Side is about as dense as any area in the entire country (which I know from having grown up there), and having at least some SAS trains terminating (until such were to be built out to Queens) at 79th with entrances at York and 1st Avenues fixes that, especially with people who in particular live on York and East End Avenues (not a small number) who have to currently go to 83rd and 2nd to get the (Q).  This could once the (T) is running be done where the (Q) ran to 79th/1st-York while more (T) trains could run to 125th (with a transfer between the two at 72nd if a lower level were built for this purpose.  Also would in an emergency allow the (T) to go there if for some reason there was a problem north of 72nd on the regular SAS. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 5.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

And I didn't think of it until after I posted it:

If possible, if such a lower level at 72nd were built, perhaps it could be done where it goes a bit further north (running say from 72nd-75th Street) to where exits from that level could be done at 75th and 2nd.  This would be notable given Robert F. Wagner Junior High School is on 75th between 2nd and 3rd (front entrance on 76th) and Eleanor Roosevelt High School is on 76th east of 1st Avenue.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

Sorry if this has already been discussed a while ago, but the question of how SAS Phase II would practically work in terms of service patterns has plagued me for quite a while.

(Q) train once every 6-8 minutes to serve the entire line to 125th is insufficient, even if you throw in an (N) train here and there. One could just dedicate both the (N)and (Q) up SAS full time, but then the (W) would be left to serve Astoria all by itself. You could take the (R) off of QBLVD and send it up to Astoria, but then you need to find a replacement for the (R), and are beginning to dive into pretty dramatic service changes with much of the IND.

The other underrated option is to send a 6th avenue train up 2nd avenue to help the Q, but adding in a whole other service would be hard.

To me, it really seems like they should do phase III first to avoid this problem, even though the tunnels for Phase II are mostly there. It'd be really ironic is poor planning leads to overcrowding on the line designed to alleviate overcrowding on a nearby line.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/24/2023 at 2:12 PM, ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ said:

Sorry if this has already been discussed a while ago, but the question of how SAS Phase II would practically work in terms of service patterns has plagued me for quite a while.

(Q) train once every 6-8 minutes to serve the entire line to 125th is insufficient, even if you throw in an (N) train here and there. One could just dedicate both the (N)and (Q) up SAS full time, but then the (W) would be left to serve Astoria all by itself. You could take the (R) off of QBLVD and send it up to Astoria, but then you need to find a replacement for the (R), and are beginning to dive into pretty dramatic service changes with much of the IND.

The other underrated option is to send a 6th avenue train up 2nd avenue to help the Q, but adding in a whole other service would be hard.

To me, it really seems like they should do phase III first to avoid this problem, even though the tunnels for Phase II are mostly there. It'd be really ironic is poor planning leads to overcrowding on the line designed to alleviate overcrowding on a nearby line.

Maybe for phase 2, there will be either both the (N)(Q) to 2 Av and the (W) only to Astoria (with an (R)(W) route switch at the southern end), or if the MTA wants to be fiscally conservative, alternate the (N) between 2 Av and Astoria weekdays, and leave the (R)(W) as is. Weekends the (N) would exclusively serve Astoria.

Edited by darkstar8983
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/24/2023 at 5:48 PM, Kamen Rider said:

The problem with that is the space between the Q runs is for the T.

Yeah, but you have a whole two decades in between the capacity need and the (T) ever showing up. Might as well add another service—say a detour via 6 Avenue local to Lower East Side–2 Avenue—to fill the gap in the meantime.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, CenSin said:

Yeah, but you have a whole two decades in between the capacity need and the (T) ever showing up. Might as well add another service—say a detour via 6 Avenue local to Lower East Side–2 Avenue—to fill the gap in the meantime.

Send the M up Second Avenue and the G back to Forest Hills

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, mannysoloway said:

Send the M up Second Avenue and the G back to Forest Hills

But then what would run in the 53rd St Tunnel along with the (E)? The (E) definitely can’t handle 53rd alone. And you can’t put the (F) back in 53rd unless another service replaces it in 63rd.

On 1/24/2023 at 2:12 PM, ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ said:

Sorry if this has already been discussed a while ago, but the question of how SAS Phase II would practically work in terms of service patterns has plagued me for quite a while.

(Q) train once every 6-8 minutes to serve the entire line to 125th is insufficient, even if you throw in an (N) train here and there. One could just dedicate both the (N)and (Q) up SAS full time, but then the (W) would be left to serve Astoria all by itself. You could take the (R) off of QBLVD and send it up to Astoria, but then you need to find a replacement for the (R), and are beginning to dive into pretty dramatic service changes with much of the IND.

The other underrated option is to send a 6th avenue train up 2nd avenue to help the Q, but adding in a whole other service would be hard.

To me, it really seems like they should do phase III first to avoid this problem, even though the tunnels for Phase II are mostly there. It'd be really ironic is poor planning leads to overcrowding on the line designed to alleviate overcrowding on a nearby line.

I agree with also running the (N) to 2nd Avenue and having the (W) run solo in Astoria. Of course the (W) would have to run more frequently due to the absence of the (N), but then we’d be free of the delay-prone (N)(R)(W) merge at 34th St and we would be able to run more frequent service. 34th is just a bad place to merge trains. Ditto for Prince St. 

The biggest concern I have with running a 6th Avenue service to/from 2nd Avenue is that it will be a very tight squeeze on the 6th Avenue local tracks along with the (F) and (M). And would likely have to be suspended if the (A)(C) and/or (E) ever have to be rerouted onto 6th. Like @mannysoloway suggested, we could run the (M) to/from 2nd. But like I responded above, another service would then have to take its place in the 53rd St Tunnel, most likely the (F), which in turn would then have to have another service replace it in the 63rd St Tunnel if the (M) goes onto 2nd Ave.

On 1/24/2023 at 5:48 PM, Kamen Rider said:

The problem with that is the space between the Q runs is for the T.

But that’s not going to be a problem for a long time to come. The Jets will likely win a second Super Bowl before the (T) train starts running. 

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

35 minutes ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

But then what would run in the 53rd St Tunnel along with the (E)? The (E) definitely can’t handle 53rd alone. And you can’t put the (F) back in 53rd unless another service replaces it in 63rd.

I agree with also running the (N) to 2nd Avenue and having the (W) run solo in Astoria. Of course the (W) would have to run more frequently due to the absence of the (N), but then we’d be free of the delay-prone (N)(R)(W) merge at 34th St and we would be able to run more frequent service. 34th is just a bad place to merge trains. Ditto for Prince St. 

The biggest concern I have with running a 6th Avenue service to/from 2nd Avenue is that it will be a very tight squeeze on the 6th Avenue local tracks along with the (F) and (M). And would likely have to be suspended if the (A)(C) and/or (E) ever have to be rerouted onto 6th. Like @mannysoloway suggested, we could run the (M) to/from 2nd. But like I responded above, another service would then have to take its place in the 53rd St Tunnel, most likely the (F), which in turn would then have to have another service replace it in the 63rd St Tunnel if the (M) goes onto 2nd Ave.

But that’s not going to be a problem for a long time to come. The Jets will likely win a second Super Bowl before the (T) train starts running

Hell the Knicks could possibly at best make it the conference finals before that as well. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/28/2023 at 4:01 PM, T to Dyre Avenue said:

But then what would run in the 53rd St Tunnel along with the (E)? The (E) definitely can’t handle 53rd alone. And you can’t put the (F) back in 53rd unless another service replaces it in 63rd.

I agree with also running the (N) to 2nd Avenue and having the (W) run solo in Astoria. Of course the (W) would have to run more frequently due to the absence of the (N), but then we’d be free of the delay-prone (N)(R)(W) merge at 34th St and we would be able to run more frequent service. 34th is just a bad place to merge trains. Ditto for Prince St. 

The biggest concern I have with running a 6th Avenue service to/from 2nd Avenue is that it will be a very tight squeeze on the 6th Avenue local tracks along with the (F) and (M). And would likely have to be suspended if the (A)(C) and/or (E) ever have to be rerouted onto 6th. Like @mannysoloway suggested, we could run the (M) to/from 2nd. But like I responded above, another service would then have to take its place in the 53rd St Tunnel, most likely the (F), which in turn would then have to have another service replace it in the 63rd St Tunnel if the (M) goes onto 2nd Ave.

But that’s not going to be a problem for a long time to come. The Jets will likely win a second Super Bowl before the (T) train starts running. 

Yeah, sending the (N) up SAS would help de-interline Broadway so it can be higher capacity. Ig the real constrain here would be that Whitehall Street would not be able to terminate a (W) every 4 minutes.

Perhaps this means ending Forest Hills (R) trains at Whitehall Street (basically the old (EE67)) and instead the (W) serving as the 4th Av local in Brooklyn. If it were a service running with 4-ish minute headways, perhaps it could split between Bay Ridge 95th street and serving as a rush hour express for either Sea Beach or West End.

I think in this scenario though, I think the MTA would call the Forest Hills-Whitehall Broadway local the (W) and the Astoria to Bay Ridge Broadway local would be (R), but now the (W) would be a distinct entity from the (N) train and may run on weekends.

Regardless, this seems really poorly thought out on the MTA's part since Broadway needs to provide 2 key services north of 59th Street - 2nd Av and Astoria, plus supplementing QLBVD local.

The other option is a complete de-interline. All Broadway Express up SAS, all local to Astoria, all QBLVD local go via 53rd and to 8th av, and all QBLVD express go express via 63rd and down 6th avenue.

Think something like this (credit to fbfree)

http://www.transportnotes.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/NYC_deinterline_map.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ said:

Yeah, sending the (N) up SAS would help de-interline Broadway so it can be higher capacity. Ig the real constrain here would be that Whitehall Street would not be able to terminate a (W) every 4 minutes.

Perhaps this means ending Forest Hills (R) trains at Whitehall Street (basically the old (EE67)) and instead the (W) serving as the 4th Av local in Brooklyn. If it were a service running with 4-ish minute headways, perhaps it could split between Bay Ridge 95th street and serving as a rush hour express for either Sea Beach or West End.

I think in this scenario though, I think the MTA would call the Forest Hills-Whitehall Broadway local the (W) and the Astoria to Bay Ridge Broadway local would be (R), but now the (W) would be a distinct entity from the (N) train and may run on weekends.

Regardless, this seems really poorly thought out on the MTA's part since Broadway needs to provide 2 key services north of 59th Street - 2nd Av and Astoria, plus supplementing QLBVD local.

The other option is a complete de-interline. All Broadway Express up SAS, all local to Astoria, all QBLVD local go via 53rd and to 8th av, and all QBLVD express go express via 63rd and down 6th avenue.

Think something like this (credit to fbfree)

http://www.transportnotes.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/NYC_deinterline_map.pdf

If the ridership demands it this would work (SAS - Broadway related reroute), but knowing the MTA, they’ll split the (N) similar to how the (A) is split (weekdays from 6:30AM to 10PM while the (W) runs), and all other times, leaving the (N) as it is now. During rush hours though, there would just be more 86 St (W) trains during the literal peak hour 8AM to 9:20AM southbound and 5-6PM northbound. Headways would be:

 

Rush Hours:

(N) - 10 TPH (split 5:5 between 125 St and Astoria)

(Q)(R) - no change from current service 

(W) - 6 TPH (plus 2-3 trains additionally to/from 86 St - one full round trip from 86 St to Astoria, then back to 86 St)

 

Middays and evenings until 9PM

(N) - 6 TPH (split 3:3)

(Q)(R)(W) - no change from current service

 

Nights and Weekends - no change from current service (N)(Q)(R) only. Then the MTA wouldn’t need to spend money on the weekend or late night (W) and can provide service to the QB branch, Astoria branch, and 2 Av

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ said:

Yeah, sending the (N) up SAS would help de-interline Broadway so it can be higher capacity. Ig the real constrain here would be that Whitehall Street would not be able to terminate a (W) every 4 minutes.

Perhaps this means ending Forest Hills (R) trains at Whitehall Street (basically the old (EE67)) and instead the (W) serving as the 4th Av local in Brooklyn. If it were a service running with 4-ish minute headways, perhaps it could split between Bay Ridge 95th street and serving as a rush hour express for either Sea Beach or West End.

I think in this scenario though, I think the MTA would call the Forest Hills-Whitehall Broadway local the (W) and the Astoria to Bay Ridge Broadway local would be (R), but now the (W) would be a distinct entity from the (N) train and may run on weekends.

Regardless, this seems really poorly thought out on the MTA's part since Broadway needs to provide 2 key services north of 59th Street - 2nd Av and Astoria, plus supplementing QLBVD local.

The other option is a complete de-interline. All Broadway Express up SAS, all local to Astoria, all QBLVD local go via 53rd and to 8th av, and all QBLVD express go express via 63rd and down 6th avenue.

Think something like this (credit to fbfree)

http://www.transportnotes.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/NYC_deinterline_map.pdf

We could always go back to the old service pattern with part time service for the (B) along West End to Coney and have the (W) return running service along West End to Bay Parkway, the (N) run to 96 St full time while the (Q) returns to being part time along Brighton Express with the (D) as the Brighton local. Weekend and late night service for the (B) would be replaced by the (W) full time, thus no issue with the lack of yard access for Astoria. (W) trains could also do what the (N) used to do when the <M> used to run along 4 Av express during weekends and run express with the (N) along 4 Av via Manhattan Bridge then local the rest of the way to Astoria. 

Not popular obviously, but this does solve issues with Broadway while also providing extra service along SAS, 4 Av, and West End for that matter. Dekalb junction still isn't de-interlined, but isn't in a worse shape either.

One (costly) solution to fixing QBL while aslo sort of de-interlining in the process would be to reconstruct the 36 St station in Queens. I've shared this before in another subforum, again while being costly, it certainly is better than the (MTA)'s attemp in bringing connecting the 63 St tunnel to the QBL, I would hope so at least. Swaping the (F)(M) while also reconstructing the station would help QBL local riders a lot as well as relieve crowding at Jackson Heights station. People would still crowd at that station, especially trying to get into Manhattan and even Queens Plaza, but this also helps local riders like I said, giving them a better chance to get to Queens Plaza by having a transfer at 36 St.

The map you provided isn't great and has its issues. I highly doubt this E service would ever be considered due to the issue of ENY and it's limited car length capacity, especially running express along QBL? Definitely going to be thrown out the window at that point. The next issue is the (W), while it's a rush hour line, that literally doesn't solve the QBL issue since it's also running express along QBL, but via 60 St. As for the (C) and that (A) at this point, the (C) taking over a line that has been served by the (A) since its debut isn't really going to sit well for many riders. Theoretically, the (C) would be fine here, but I highly doubt it would in practice even after a while of people adapting to this new service. 

The NYC subway system can run better, but there are a lot of things that hinder it from being able to achieve amazing feats, unfortunately, de-interlining doesn't solve everything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, darkstar8983 said:

If the ridership demands it this would work (SAS - Broadway related reroute), but knowing the MTA, they’ll split the (N) similar to how the (A) is split (weekdays from 6:30AM to 10PM while the (W) runs), and all other times, leaving the (N) as it is now. During rush hours though, there would just be more 86 St (W) trains during the literal peak hour 8AM to 9:20AM southbound and 5-6PM northbound. Headways would be:

 

Rush Hours:

(N) - 10 TPH (split 5:5 between 125 St and Astoria)

(Q)(R) - no change from current service 

(W) - 6 TPH (plus 2-3 trains additionally to/from 86 St - one full round trip from 86 St to Astoria, then back to 86 St)

 

Middays and evenings until 9PM

(N) - 6 TPH (split 3:3)

(Q)(R)(W) - no change from current service

 

Nights and Weekends - no change from current service (N)(Q)(R) only. Then the MTA wouldn’t need to spend money on the weekend or late night (W) and can provide service to the QB branch, Astoria branch, and 2 Av

I wouldn't do that.

Instead:

(N)(Q) 125th St - Coney Island via Sea Beach/Brighton respectively. Late nights, (N) turns at Times Square. (Q) runs local.

(W) Astoria - Whitehall St during rush hours, with one trip every hour operating to 86th St. Late night, service runs b/w Astoria and Bay Ridge. 

(R) late night shuttle discontinued.

(R)(M) runs to 179th St . (F) switches to Jamaica Center. (E) runs from Forest Hills-71st Ave to Ozone Park-Lefferts Blvd via Chambers St. (C) ends at WTC.

(G) weekends and evenings runs to 179th St, replacing the (M) on weekends.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Vulturious said:

We could always go back to the old service pattern with part time service for the (B) along West End to Coney and have the (W) return running service along West End to Bay Parkway, the (N) run to 96 St full time while the (Q) returns to being part time along Brighton Express with the (D) as the Brighton local. Weekend and late night service for the (B) would be replaced by the (W) full time, thus no issue with the lack of yard access for Astoria. (W) trains could also do what the (N) used to do when the <M> used to run along 4 Av express during weekends and run express with the (N) along 4 Av via Manhattan Bridge then local the rest of the way to Astoria. 

Not popular obviously, but this does solve issues with Broadway while also providing extra service along SAS, 4 Av, and West End for that matter. Dekalb junction still isn't de-interlined, but isn't in a worse shape either.

One (costly) solution to fixing QBL while aslo sort of de-interlining in the process would be to reconstruct the 36 St station in Queens. I've shared this before in another subforum, again while being costly, it certainly is better than the (MTA)'s attemp in bringing connecting the 63 St tunnel to the QBL, I would hope so at least. Swaping the (F)(M) while also reconstructing the station would help QBL local riders a lot as well as relieve crowding at Jackson Heights station. People would still crowd at that station, especially trying to get into Manhattan and even Queens Plaza, but this also helps local riders like I said, giving them a better chance to get to Queens Plaza by having a transfer at 36 St.

The map you provided isn't great and has its issues. I highly doubt this E service would ever be considered due to the issue of ENY and it's limited car length capacity, especially running express along QBL? Definitely going to be thrown out the window at that point. The next issue is the (W), while it's a rush hour line, that literally doesn't solve the QBL issue since it's also running express along QBL, but via 60 St. As for the (C) and that (A) at this point, the (C) taking over a line that has been served by the (A) since its debut isn't really going to sit well for many riders. Theoretically, the (C) would be fine here, but I highly doubt it would in practice even after a while of people adapting to this new service. 

The NYC subway system can run better, but there are a lot of things that hinder it from being able to achieve amazing feats, unfortunately, de-interlining doesn't solve everything.

Thank you for this insightful post; I'm not someone who's an expert on every individual junction and what would be possible so this is helpful.

Ig my main question would be this feels like a bit of an over-balance of service in South Brooklyn, cause rmbr in this scenario the (W) would have to be running every 4 minutes or so to serve Astoria all by itself (all the other lines stay at their existing headways by default). The West End line having a (W) train every 4 minutes with the (B) supplementing seems like a lot. The easy answer would be have every other (W) train terminate at Whitehall St, but I'd be curious to here your thoughts.

My other question is kinda knit-picky, but if the (B) train isn't going to run on weekends and overnights, why not just make the (W) the dominant West End line full time and have the (B) terminate at Bay PKWY when it's running?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ said:

Thank you for this insightful post; I'm not someone who's an expert on every individual junction and what would be possible so this is helpful.

Ig my main question would be this feels like a bit of an over-balance of service in South Brooklyn, cause rmbr in this scenario the (W) would have to be running every 4 minutes or so to serve Astoria all by itself (all the other lines stay at their existing headways by default). The West End line having a (W) train every 4 minutes with the (B) supplementing seems like a lot. The easy answer would be have every other (W) train terminate at Whitehall St, but I'd be curious to here your thoughts.

My other question is kinda knit-picky, but if the (B) train isn't going to run on weekends and overnights, why not just make the (W) the dominant West End line full time and have the (B) terminate at Bay PKWY when it's running?

No issues with the (W) short-turning at Whitehall to keep Astoria service consistent, I definitely see where you're coming from when it comes to the over-balance service. I guess I'm a little biased and considering the BMT Broadway line feeds directly from South Brooklyn and we're attempting to fix said trunk line, I thought why not kill two birds with one stone. One other option would be to rebuild the switch south of 86 St in Bay Ridge to the middle track for relaying purposes. Select (W) trains could run to 86 St using that middle track, this way it continues to give the (R) some needed extra service, especially in South Brooklyn. 

I decided to keep the (B) as the line running to Coney Island during weekdays to keep West End direct express service along 4 Av along with direct express service in and through Manhattan. It's probably not that big of a deal to run this kind of service.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Vulturious said:

No issues with the (W) short-turning at Whitehall to keep Astoria service consistent, I definitely see where you're coming from when it comes to the over-balance service. I guess I'm a little biased and considering the BMT Broadway line feeds directly from South Brooklyn and we're attempting to fix said trunk line, I thought why not kill two birds with one stone. One other option would be to rebuild the switch south of 86 St in Bay Ridge to the middle track for relaying purposes. Select (W) trains could run to 86 St using that middle track, this way it continues to give the (R) some needed extra service, especially in South Brooklyn. 

I decided to keep the (B) as the line running to Coney Island during weekdays to keep West End direct express service along 4 Av along with direct express service in and through Manhattan. It's probably not that big of a deal to run this kind of service.

Honestly, now that I think about it this imbalance is really just a consequence of NY geography. For these north-south trunk lines in Manhattan, they only really have to serve downtown and southern Brooklyn going South, but going north, they have the much heavier load between upper Manhattan, Queens, and The Bronx. That's why other lines like the (1)(6) and (E) all terminate in lower Manhattan; even if they could go to Brooklyn they're just not needed.

What makes the (W) unique ig is that Whitehall Street only has 1 platform to turn trains around. Ig if the MTA really needed to though they could use the lower level of City Hall to have a higher capacity terminal for Broadway Locals.

Looking back and knowing midtown is the real CBD, I think we really could've used more crosstown services like the 7 and L that could help share the load of Queens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ said:

Honestly, now that I think about it this imbalance is really just a consequence of NY geography. For these north-south trunk lines in Manhattan, they only really have to serve downtown and southern Brooklyn going South, but going north, they have the much heavier load between upper Manhattan, Queens, and The Bronx. That's why other lines like the (1)(6) and (E) all terminate in lower Manhattan; even if they could go to Brooklyn they're just not needed.

What makes the (W) unique ig is that Whitehall Street only has 1 platform to turn trains around. Ig if the MTA really needed to though they could use the lower level of City Hall to have a higher capacity terminal for Broadway Locals.

Looking back and knowing midtown is the real CBD, I think we really could've used more crosstown services like the 7 and L that could help share the load of Queens.

Speaking of a crosstown service, I had an idea that I presented in another subforum that involved the (G) and reintroducing the (V) but into a crosstown line. 

GreenV_Wye.png?width=1436&height=676GVvia34.png?width=1142&height=676

It's not geographically accurate obviously, but it's the best I could do. Essentially, what's happening here is the (V) makes a return in the form of a Crosstown 34 St line. Railroad lines operate underneath 32nd and 33rd Sts and with 34 St avaliable, I decided to run them there. This is merely just a proposal as a way to bring in more crosstown service in Manhattan, especially in some of the densest parts of Manhattan.

The (G) would reroute from Greenpoint Av to a new stop somewhere in Queens to at least give riders direct service into LIC, albeit not as close to the development of the area, but close enough. A new wye would be created keeping the existing tunnels for redundancy purposes like the (F) via Crosstown which occasionally happens. Since under this scenario, service wouldn't normally run through those tunnels anymore, it's fine to create an at-grade junction. 

The (V) would take over Queens portion of the (G)'s old route that would also run along QBL. Riders in this scenario wouldn't object to this new version of the (V) as it not only brings them to Queens Plaza, but also into Manhattan.

I'm not as crazy about it as I used to be when I first created this, however I do see a lot of potential with this idea. I did also have another unorthodox idea that involved rerouting the (G), but this time along 21 St in Queens from the 21 St station (which is renamed to Jackson Av) to then run into Randalls Island making one stop, then into the Bronx along St. Ann's Av. I would show a mockup map of it, but I'm lazy to show the link, it's in the proposals subforum if you want more details.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Vulturious said:

Speaking of a crosstown service, I had an idea that I presented in another subforum that involved the (G) and reintroducing the (V) but into a crosstown line. 

GreenV_Wye.png?width=1436&height=676GVvia34.png?width=1142&height=676

It's not geographically accurate obviously, but it's the best I could do. Essentially, what's happening here is the (V) makes a return in the form of a Crosstown 34 St line. Railroad lines operate underneath 32nd and 33rd Sts and with 34 St avaliable, I decided to run them there. This is merely just a proposal as a way to bring in more crosstown service in Manhattan, especially in some of the densest parts of Manhattan.

The (G) would reroute from Greenpoint Av to a new stop somewhere in Queens to at least give riders direct service into LIC, albeit not as close to the development of the area, but close enough. A new wye would be created keeping the existing tunnels for redundancy purposes like the (F) via Crosstown which occasionally happens. Since under this scenario, service wouldn't normally run through those tunnels anymore, it's fine to create an at-grade junction. 

The (V) would take over Queens portion of the (G)'s old route that would also run along QBL. Riders in this scenario wouldn't object to this new version of the (V) as it not only brings them to Queens Plaza, but also into Manhattan.

I'm not as crazy about it as I used to be when I first created this, however I do see a lot of potential with this idea. I did also have another unorthodox idea that involved rerouting the (G), but this time along 21 St in Queens from the 21 St station (which is renamed to Jackson Av) to then run into Randalls Island making one stop, then into the Bronx along St. Ann's Av. I would show a mockup map of it, but I'm lazy to show the link, it's in the proposals subforum if you want more details.

Intersting idea; I def think the crosstown has a lot of potential long term in how it can be used for the system. I've also seen some folks try to do like a giant loop sending it into Manhattan via Cranberry or Rutgers.

Personally, I think it'd be cool to turn the crosstown into a 3-line. One prong is the existing crosstown, one is via 34th street, and one is a completely new line running under or near the Long Island Expressway which would also contain a new yard. The 3 services are the (G) from Church Av to Penn Station (as in your map), the (H79) from somewhere out in Flushing to Penn Station, and the (V) from somewhere out in Flushing to Church Av.

Yes, there is an existing connection of the Crosstown to QBLVD, but I don't see a world in which service would demand the (G) go to Forest Hills again since most commuters are going into Manhattan during rush and they already have the ability for a transfer at Court Sq, plus trying to merge the (G)(M) and (R) all together would be annoying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ said:

Yeah, sending the (N) up SAS would help de-interline Broadway so it can be higher capacity. Ig the real constrain here would be that Whitehall Street would not be able to terminate a (W) every 4 minutes.

Perhaps this means ending Forest Hills (R) trains at Whitehall Street (basically the old (EE67)) and instead the (W) serving as the 4th Av local in Brooklyn. If it were a service running with 4-ish minute headways, perhaps it could split between Bay Ridge 95th street and serving as a rush hour express for either Sea Beach or West End.

I think in this scenario though, I think the MTA would call the Forest Hills-Whitehall Broadway local the (W) and the Astoria to Bay Ridge Broadway local would be (R), but now the (W) would be a distinct entity from the (N) train and may run on weekends.

Regardless, this seems really poorly thought out on the MTA's part since Broadway needs to provide 2 key services north of 59th Street - 2nd Av and Astoria, plus supplementing QLBVD local.

The other option is a complete de-interline. All Broadway Express up SAS, all local to Astoria, all QBLVD local go via 53rd and to 8th av, and all QBLVD express go express via 63rd and down 6th avenue.

Think something like this (credit to fbfree)

http://www.transportnotes.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/NYC_deinterline_map.pdf

It’s true that you’d be unable to terminate a more frequent (W) at Whitehall and that’s why I’ve suggested extending the (W) to Brooklyn in place of the (R), while running the (R) like the old (EE67). This would actually facilitate extending the (R) onto the old Rockaway Beach Branch, because then it wouldn’t be that long of a route. And with fewer merges that the (M), which is Queenslink’s proposal. But you’d still have to have a heavily interlined Queens Blvd line for that to be possible.

Quote

Speaking of a crosstown service, I had an idea that I presented in another subforum that involved the G and reintroducing the V but into a crosstown line. 

(image)

It's not geographically accurate obviously, but it's the best I could do. Essentially, what's happening here is the V makes a return in the form of a Crosstown 34 St line. Railroad lines operate underneath 32nd and 33rd Sts and with 34 St avaliable, I decided to run them there. This is merely just a proposal as a way to bring in more crosstown service in Manhattan, especially in some of the densest parts of Manhattan.

The G would reroute from Greenpoint Av to a new stop somewhere in Queens to at least give riders direct service into LIC, albeit not as close to the development of the area, but close enough. A new wye would be created keeping the existing tunnels for redundancy purposes like the F via Crosstown which occasionally happens. Since under this scenario, service wouldn't normally run through those tunnels anymore, it's fine to create an at-grade junction. 

The V would take over Queens portion of the 's old route that would also run along QBL. Riders in this scenario wouldn't object to this new version of the V as it not only brings them to Queens Plaza, but also into Manhattan.

I'm not as crazy about it as I used to be when I first created this, however I do see a lot of potential with this idea. I did also have another unorthodox idea that involved rerouting the G, but this time along 21 St in Queens from the 21 St station (which is renamed to Jackson Av) to then run into Randalls Island making one stop, then into the Bronx along St. Ann's Av. I would show a mockup map of it, but I'm lazy to show the link, it's in the proposals subforum if you want more details.

I really like the proposal to send the (G) and a revived ( V ) in a new tunnel to 34th Street (or to some other crosstown street in Midtown Manhattan). I really think a new rail tunnel between Queens and Manhattan is needed and this one also has the potential to be a relief line for the (L) depending on how many riders transfer to go uptown from the (L) at 14th Street. Though I do think it should continue further west in Manhattan (like to 10th/11th Ave). I prefer this over the Bronx (G) proposal because I'm not sure how much of a demand there is from that corridor in The Bronx for Astoria/LIC. But given how busy the (L) gets, even in these post-Covid times, it certainly could use some relief. And the ( V ) service would likely be a more reliable service than the current (R) because it wouldn't be merging with the (N)(W) in LIC and would likely be able to run more frequently than the (R).

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

As a short term exercise without too many changes for the system as a whole, one can make the following changes in order to allow more trains to run along the Broadway BMT:

(E) No changes

(F) Run along the 53rd street tunnel between Queens and Manhattan

(M) Northern terminal 57th/6.  (I.e. no longer continue to Queens Blvd)

(Q) No changes.

(N) Follows (Q) to 63rd street and then continues in the tunnel to Queens to serve Roosevelt Island and 21St-Queensbridge and continue to Forest Hills as a QBL local service.

(R) Astoria - 60th - Broadway local - 4 Av local - Bay Ridge.  [CI Yard wil serve as the yard for these trains and any out of service (R) train will use gaps in Sea Beach service to reach the yard.]  As R is the only Astoria service, it should see an increase in service.

(W) Forest Hills - QBL local - 60th tunnel - Broadway local - Whitehall.  These trains will use Jamaica Yard.

The above will have the N and W joint together in Queens, but after the R departs from the trackway to QBL, so the merger is easier than the current mess at Herald Square.  From the Queens perspective, (N) replaces (M) but does so with a higher capacity (longer trains).  The above gets rid of a few very bad merges in Manhattan and Queens and generally does not change ridership patterns except for replacing the QBL local - 6th Ave service with an additional QBL local - Broadway service.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, mrsman said:

As a short term exercise without too many changes for the system as a whole, one can make the following changes in order to allow more trains to run along the Broadway BMT:

(E) No changes

(F) Run along the 53rd street tunnel between Queens and Manhattan

(M) Northern terminal 57th/6.  (I.e. no longer continue to Queens Blvd)

(Q) No changes.

(N) Follows (Q) to 63rd street and then continues in the tunnel to Queens to serve Roosevelt Island and 21St-Queensbridge and continue to Forest Hills as a QBL local service.

(R) Astoria - 60th - Broadway local - 4 Av local - Bay Ridge.  [CI Yard wil serve as the yard for these trains and any out of service (R) train will use gaps in Sea Beach service to reach the yard.]  As R is the only Astoria service, it should see an increase in service.

(W) Forest Hills - QBL local - 60th tunnel - Broadway local - Whitehall.  These trains will use Jamaica Yard.

The above will have the N and W joint together in Queens, but after the R departs from the trackway to QBL, so the merger is easier than the current mess at Herald Square.  From the Queens perspective, (N) replaces (M) but does so with a higher capacity (longer trains).  The above gets rid of a few very bad merges in Manhattan and Queens and generally does not change ridership patterns except for replacing the QBL local - 6th Ave service with an additional QBL local - Broadway service.

 

So here you propose cutting service to 57 St-6 Av outside weekdays and a connection from 63 St to 6 Av? I do like the idea of just having the (E)(F) via 53 St (no more merging of the (E) and local service via 53 St) though. Not sure if there is much demand for Broadway/QB service, even though the feasibility is there. And yes an Astoria-Bay Ridge service can run every 4 minutes rush hours (some trains southbound terminating at 59 St/4 Av, 36 St/4 Av, or Canal St (Whitehall St not available since it would be the terminal for the QB Local/Broadway Local). For the nomenclature, I think the (W) will retain Astoria and the (R) will retain Queens Blvd though, with the southern routes swapped

Edited by darkstar8983
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, darkstar8983 said:

So here you propose cutting service to 57 St-6 Av outside weekdays and a connection from 63 St to 6 Av? I do like the idea of just having the (E)(F) via 53 St (no more merging of the (E) and local service via 53 St) though. Not sure if there is much demand for Broadway/QB service, even though the feasibility is there. And yes an Astoria-Bay Ridge service can run every 4 minutes rush hours (some trains southbound terminating at 59 St/4 Av, 36 St/4 Av, or Canal St (Whitehall St not available since it would be the terminal for the QB Local/Broadway Local). For the nomenclature, I think the (W) will retain Astoria and the (R) will retain Queens Blvd though, with the southern routes swapped

One question is would the (E) and (F) sharing 53rd cause a capacity issue, since both lines are extremely crowded during peak hours and can't afford to really lose any service.  

For nomenclature, I think Bay Ridge defines the (R) more than Astoria defines the (W), especially since the (W) is a much newer service and it shares Astoria with the (N) anyways. Historically, we've seen the (R) and (N) swap between Astoria and Queens Blvd so it seems like their paths in South Brooklyn are more defining. Idk though if the MTA has hard rules around this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ said:

One question is would the (E) and (F) sharing 53rd cause a capacity issue, since both lines are extremely crowded during peak hours and can't afford to really lose any service.  

For nomenclature, I think Bay Ridge defines the (R) more than Astoria defines the (W), especially since the (W) is a much newer service and it shares Astoria with the (N) anyways. Historically, we've seen the (R) and (N) swap between Astoria and Queens Blvd so it seems like their paths in South Brooklyn are more defining. Idk though if the MTA has hard rules around this.

I mean look at the (B) and (D) - they had their routes from 1967-2004, but then got swapped after 2004 (1986-1988 and 2001-2004 the southern portion of (B)(D) did have their 1967 routes despite being Broadway routes).

 

with respect to the (E)(F), the only issue would be a tighter merge at 5 Av-53 St, but the run through the 53 St tunnel and past 36 St should be smooth sailing.

 

also remember that the IRT (2)(3)(4)(5) have had their southern terminals switch on and off until finally being stationed in 1983

Edited by darkstar8983
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.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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