Department of Subways - Proposals/Ideas

[Lawrence St]

Here is a proposal based off an earlier city proposal:

A Bronx Connection for the :

In this case, Harlem-148th St would be abandoned. A new track connection would be built under the Harlem River Drive (which would be raised into a new elevated portion) with a new station at 153rd St, rebuilt stations at Sedgwick Ave & Anderson Ave, and a new Metro-North station at Sedgwick Ave. The connection to Jerome Ave would be slightly alerted due to the new placement of Yankee Stadium, with Anderson Ave station curving towards the north, then the structure would turn right onto 164th St and left onto Jerome Ave, with a slight increase in incline to the Jerome Elevated to compensate for the length loss. It would then merge directly into the Jerome Ave Local & express tracks.

At Bedford Park Blvd, new tracks would be built on the outer sides of both platforms, serving as the new terminal for the  line. 

Schedule wise, the  would run peak-direction express depending on the AM or PM rush hour. Other times, there are two options, either terminate the  at 167th St, or have it run local in both directions to Bedford Park Blvd, with select trips continuing to Woodlawn. With this new connection, the  and  can both be interlined with each other, providing more service.

 

[TMC]

6 hours ago, Lawrence St said:

Here is a proposal based off an earlier city proposal:

A Bronx Connection for the :

In this case, Harlem-148th St would be abandoned. A new track connection would be built under the Harlem River Drive (which would be raised into a new elevated portion) with a new station at 153rd St, rebuilt stations at Sedgwick Ave & Anderson Ave, and a new Metro-North station at Sedgwick Ave. The connection to Jerome Ave would be slightly alerted due to the new placement of Yankee Stadium, with Anderson Ave station curving towards the north, then the structure would turn right onto 164th St and left onto Jerome Ave, with a slight increase in incline to the Jerome Elevated to compensate for the length loss. It would then merge directly into the Jerome Ave Local & express tracks.

At Bedford Park Blvd, new tracks would be built on the outer sides of both platforms, serving as the new terminal for the  line. 

Schedule wise, the  would run peak-direction express depending on the AM or PM rush hour. Other times, there are two options, either terminate the  at 167th St, or have it run local in both directions to Bedford Park Blvd, with select trips continuing to Woodlawn. With this new connection, the  and  can both be interlined with each other, providing more service.

 

Not to beat a dead horse with these kinds of proposals, but I really dislike adding more reverse-branches into the system. I am in favor of removing the Lex-WPR connection, because demand is much more geared towards the West Side almost everywhere in the city, especially on White Plains Rd. This also obviates the need for reverse-branching on Jerome, as service would be able to be increased with such a setup. It’s still not a bad proposal/crayon though, although I wish the discussion of de-interlining, and transit in general, was higher level in this city.

[Lawrence St]

1 hour ago, TMC said:

Not to beat a dead horse with these kinds of proposals, but I really dislike adding more reverse-branches into the system. I am in favor of removing the Lex-WPR connection, because demand is much more geared towards the West Side almost everywhere in the city, especially on White Plains Rd. This also obviates the need for reverse-branching on Jerome, as service would be able to be increased with such a setup. It’s still not a bad proposal/crayon though, although I wish the discussion of de-interlining, and transit in general, was higher level in this city.

It's not so much to add more interlining/connectivity, but to add more flexibility to the system.

[TMC]

1 minute ago, Lawrence St said:

It's not so much to add more interlining/connectivity, but to add more flexibility to the system.

Valid argument. I argue that you would add more flexibility making the system de-interlined. I guess an argument could be made for it as a non-revenue connection, though it seems lengthy for that.

[Lex]

1 hour ago, TMC said:

Not to beat a dead horse with these kinds of proposals, but I really dislike adding more reverse-branches into the system. I am in favor of removing the Lex-WPR connection, because demand is much more geared towards the West Side almost everywhere in the city, especially on White Plains Rd. This also obviates the need for reverse-branching on Jerome, as service would be able to be increased with such a setup. It’s still not a bad proposal/crayon though, although I wish the discussion of de-interlining, and transit in general, was higher level in this city.

Don't confuse the demand and supply.

[TMC]

46 minutes ago, Lex said:

Don't confuse the demand and supply.

That's not a supply issue, it's just a fact that jobs are more densely packed on the West Side, rather than the East Side. That's why crowding on Lex is extremely high, everyone on the UES is transferring to go west, and it decreased with the Q, now that they have a one-seat option. 

[Kamen Rider]

should point out the reconstruction of the Major Deegan will demolish what's left of Segdwick Avenue

[Lawrence St]

28 minutes ago, Kamen Rider said:

should point out the reconstruction of the Major Deegan will demolish what's left of Segdwick Avenue

Seal, not demolish, except for the parts that are sticking out.

[Reptile]

QBL re-arrangement that gets rid of the merge and adds 2nd Avenue access

Unchanged

Unchanged

Forest Hills to Metropolitan Av via QBL Local, 63 St, 2nd Av

Forest Hills to Church Av via QBL Local, 53 St, 6th Av

[Vulturious]

41 minutes ago, Reptile said:

QBL re-arrangement that gets rid of the merge and adds 2nd Avenue access

Unchanged

Unchanged

Forest Hills to Metropolitan Av via QBL Local, 63 St, 2nd Av

Forest Hills to Church Av via QBL Local, 53 St, 6th Av

So basically, get rid of one line just to not change anything about the merge issues with QBL as a whole? Yeah, that definitely makes a whole lot of sense.

[MTA Researcher]

1 hour ago, Reptile said:

QBL re-arrangement that gets rid of the merge and adds 2nd Avenue access

Unchanged

Unchanged

Forest Hills to Metropolitan Av via QBL Local, 63 St, 2nd Av

Forest Hills to Church Av via QBL Local, 53 St, 6th Av

 

21 minutes ago, Vulturious said:

So basically, get rid of one line just to not change anything about the merge issues with QBL as a whole? Yeah, that definitely makes a whole lot of sense.

And I thought I was the crazy one with my ideas I have posted several times involving 

 

No one comments on my Most Recent Master Plan proposal anymore…

[T to Dyre Avenue]

14 hours ago, Reptile said:

QBL re-arrangement that gets rid of the merge and adds 2nd Avenue access

Unchanged

Unchanged

Forest Hills to Metropolitan Av via QBL Local, 63 St, 2nd Av

Forest Hills to Church Av via QBL Local, 53 St, 6th Av

But you're making the merge at 36th St much worse. Not only do you have the  and  still merging there, you now also have the  merging with the  there to go to 63rd St. And you still have a merge at QP between the  and . The delays will be terrible. Why not run both the  and  express via the 63rd St and the  and  local via 53rd? Then cut the  back to Forest Hills and have either the  or  replace it to/from Jamaica Center (with the other line operating to/from 179th). 

Edited January 18, 2023 by T to Dyre Avenue

[TMC]

I don't think access to 2nd Ave is strictly necessary, but that's also because of my views on 2nd Ave as a whole. I'd want to see the system free of reverse-branches, 100%, no exceptions, which is where I take issue with 2nd Ave. 

It doesn't add any new core capacity, which is a huge part of the push to build it, relieving IRT Lexington Ave:

- It's too far east to do so, it misses the Midtown Core by a block, traveling through mostly residential development, and the E-W transfers will be very long, longer than ideal. This is bad, because I believe that every line should connect to every other line in a system with the best possible transfer facilities. You'd likely force more crowding at transfer points due to it being so far east. 

- It's reverse-branched, meaning the southern section only runs half-capacity. You could argue that branching would give it full capacity, but that just comes with the issue of cascading delays, which the line should be future-proofed against by operationally isolating it. Phase 3 needs to be a separate trunk, 3rd Ave is the edge of the Midtown Core, so it should be built there, giving it better transfers, as most of the lines intersecting it have exits at 3rd Ave at present. 

- Running it as separate trunks through Midtown and the UES solves the core capacity issue, instead of throwing money at a glamour project that is 2nd Ave at present, by alleviating congestion where it is most needed, and not bending backwards to provide what's essentially a branch line through East Midtown, solely for coverage purposes, where spending billions is not even remotely worth it. 

[Wallyhorse]

On 1/15/2023 at 5:16 PM, Vulturious said:

Continuing on with some of my bs proposals, I decided to change up the alignment for Phase IV of the SAS routing. Starting off, the SAS would continue to make it's proposed stop at Grand St which if I'm not mistaken there was a proposal to have the transfer be cross-platform which is what I did. Kind of forgot to add crossover switches for reroute purposes and whatnot, but I would be very disappointed if we do not see cross-platform transfer conversion for Grand St.

I wanted to use more portions of the Nassau line that would make one stop at the abandoned Canal St platform for transfers to all of Broadway, but that would've missed Grand St transfer which I think is rather important since the SAS is already making transfers to the  already. So I decided to use the abandoned side of the old Nassau loop that used to connect to the Manhattan Bridge. There's also a track connection I added between both Broadway and SAS. This one is a bit of a troll move on my part, but there's potential stuff that can happen with this connection, like a Manhattan Loop.

Moving on towards Chambers St, decided to truncate both the  to Chambers to give room for the SAS to continue on down along Nassau St. Obviously, it's not the best idea, but under this there would be in a way less moving parts happening. If I'm correct, switches north of the station wouldn't need to be touched at all and the only thing to keep operations moving would be to time trains arriving/departing Chambers St properly.

Like all of my other proposals, these are nothing but just pipedreams and doesn't need to be taken seriously. 

Very interesting, especially having it come in at Grand Street (likely on a lower level) and continuing on a new route to Chambers, likely using the local tracks and some of the old Bridge tracks.  In this scenario, the can potentially replace the  as the 4th Avenue Brooklyn local to 95th Street-Bay Ridge.  It likely would require Broad, Fulton and Chambers (and possibly Canal Street as well) to be lengthened to 600 feet to accommodate the .  

[Wallyhorse]

On 1/16/2023 at 7:37 PM, TMC said:

Not to beat a dead horse with these kinds of proposals, but I really dislike adding more reverse-branches into the system. I am in favor of removing the Lex-WPR connection, because demand is much more geared towards the West Side almost everywhere in the city, especially on White Plains Rd. This also obviates the need for reverse-branching on Jerome, as service would be able to be increased with such a setup. It’s still not a bad proposal/crayon though, although I wish the discussion of de-interlining, and transit in general, was higher level in this city.

If possible you would want the  to be able to stop at 161-Yankee Stadium even if it came in on a new upper level of that station and then joined the  after that going north. 

[TMC]

17 minutes ago, Wallyhorse said:

If possible you would want the  to be able to stop at 161-Yankee Stadium even if it came in on a new upper level of that station and then joined the  after that going north. 

This is what I mean when I say people here don't really understand the call for de-interlining, and why reverse-branching is bad. 

[Lex]

4 hours ago, TMC said:

This is what I mean when I say people here don't really understand the call for de-interlining, and why reverse-branching is bad. 

Because Alon "Pedestrian Observer" Levy said so?

[TMC]

7 hours ago, Lex said:

Because Alon "Pedestrian Observer" Levy said so?

No, I didn't even need them to figure that out. 

[T to Dyre Avenue]

8 hours ago, Lex said:

Because Alon "Pedestrian Observer" Levy said so?

Because the MTA says it's better to have more service Uptown than in Midtown/Downtown?

http://web.mta.info/capital/sas_docs/feis/figures-01.pdf

 

Quote

I don't think access to 2nd Ave is strictly necessary, but that's also because of my views on 2nd Ave as a whole. I'd want to see the system free of reverse-branches, 100%, no exceptions, which is where I take issue with 2nd Ave. 

It doesn't add any new core capacity, which is a huge part of the push to build it, relieving IRT Lexington Ave:

- It's too far east to do so, it misses the Midtown Core by a block, traveling through mostly residential development, and the E-W transfers will be very long, longer than ideal. This is bad, because I believe that every line should connect to every other line in a system with the best possible transfer facilities. You'd likely force more crowding at transfer points due to it being so far east. 

- It's reverse-branched, meaning the southern section only runs half-capacity. You could argue that branching would give it full capacity, but that just comes with the issue of cascading delays, which the line should be future-proofed against by operationally isolating it. Phase 3 needs to be a separate trunk, 3rd Ave is the edge of the Midtown Core, so it should be built there, giving it better transfers, as most of the lines intersecting it have exits at 3rd Ave at present. 

- Running it as separate trunks through Midtown and the UES solves the core capacity issue, instead of throwing money at a glamour project that is 2nd Ave at present, by alleviating congestion where it is most needed, and not bending backwards to provide what's essentially a branch line through East Midtown, solely for coverage purposes, where spending billions is not even remotely worth it.

Unfortunately, look how long we had to go just to get Phase 1. Meanwhile, they haven't even broken ground on Phase 2 yet. At the very least, we need to get Phase 2 built. We've got to figure out a way to make what we've already got work before we can start on another line one avenue block parallel to the existing line (and in between two existing lines between 63rd and 96th Streets).

I do agree that the current four-phase MTA plan is shit and forces the line to run well below capacity below 63rd St. There's nothing good about spending many billions of dollars over many decades only to be forced to run a new line well below capacity. I'm more than happy to have Phases 3 and 4 sent back to the drawing board for reevaluation so we don't wind up with a line running at only half-capacity that requires long (and expensive) passageways to connect with the nearest crosstown line stations in Midtown. This is in part why I like the idea of having a second SAS service to/from Queens. The old 2nd Ave El had one (via the Queensboro Bridge). Because if you already have a service from Queens like an  or a ( V ), then you don't need those long passageways because riders to and from Queens will already be on a Second Ave service, negating the need to transfer from the  or  to the . It's either that or we figure out a way to have the subway shift from 2nd to 3rd Ave south of 63rd St, which will definitely require new EIS/FEIS studies and add more time that we'll be waiting to see it in operation. Because having Phases 3 and 4 of the current plan run at only 50 to (maybe) 60 percent capacity is both an expensive and a bad option.

Edited January 20, 2023 by T to Dyre Avenue

[TMC]

5 hours ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

Because the MTA says it's better to have more service Uptown than in Midtown/Downtown?

http://web.mta.info/capital/sas_docs/feis/figures-01.pdf

 

Unfortunately, look how long we had to go just to get Phase 1. Meanwhile, they haven't even broken ground on Phase 2 yet. At the very least, we need to get Phase 2 built. We've got to figure out a way to make what we've already got work before we can start on another line one avenue block parallel to the existing line (and in between two existing lines between 63rd and 96th Streets).

I do agree that the current four-phase MTA plan is shit and forces the line to run well below capacity below 63rd St. There's nothing good about spending many billions of dollars over many decades only to be forced to run a new line well below capacity. I'm more than happy to have Phases 3 and 4 sent back to the drawing board for reevaluation so we don't wind up with a line running at only half-capacity that requires long (and expensive) passageways to connect with the nearest crosstown line stations in Midtown. This is in part why I like the idea of having a second SAS service to/from Queens. The old 2nd Ave El had one (via the Queensboro Bridge). Because if you already have a service from Queens like an  or a ( V ), then you don't need those long passageways because riders to and from Queens will already be on a Second Ave service, negating the need to transfer from the  or  to the . It's either that or we figure out a way to have the subway shift from 2nd to 3rd Ave south of 63rd St, which will definitely require new EIS/FEIS studies and add more time that we'll be waiting to see it in operation. Because having Phases 3 and 4 of the current plan run at only 50 to (maybe) 60 percent capacity is both an expensive and a bad option.

I agree with this, but I also believe that Phases 3 and 4 should be canned until we maximize capacity on Lexington Ave (which is at about 80% capacity in terms of throughput right now) through signal upgrades and de-interlining in the Bronx and Brooklyn. Most of the congestion is between 59th-42nd Streets, as most riders have to transfer west. This is solved by Phase 2 and the Cross-125th Street Extension. Congestion elsewhere would be addressed through boosting  service by removing the express (Yes, I know, I will explain.). The express really isn’t that much faster than the local according to schedules, and high dwell times contribute to longer runtimes as well. By running a single  service, every 2 minutes, short-turning half at Parkchester, you would likely see faster travel times, because dwell times would be lower, waiting time is cut down, and trains would pass north of Parkchester much faster. This allows 30 TPH , 30 TPH . 

[MTA Researcher]

I was watching MysticTransitthe other day and I loved his idea of sending all  trains to Lefferts Blvd and leaving the Rockaways to this [H] train. 
 

The way I would do it is like this:

 

8 Av Line:

 

 
All Times except nights

207 - Lefferts Blvd: CPW/8 Av/Fulton St Exp

Nights: All local to Lefferts

 

All times except nights:

BPB - WTC: Concourse/CPW/8 Av Lcl

Nights: No service

 
All Times except Nights

JC - Euclid Av: QBL/8 Av Exp - Fulton St Lcl

Nights

JC - WTC: All Local

 

Rockaway Line (Pink Color)

[H] Rego Park - Far Rockaway via Rockaway Beach Branch

Rego Park  - Rockaway Park via Rockaway Beach Branch

I hope this works given the fact 2 Av Subway is a waste of time and money…

[TMC]

16 hours ago, MTA Researcher said:

I was watching MysticTransitthe other day and I loved his idea of sending all  trains to Lefferts Blvd and leaving the Rockaways to this [H] train. 
 

The way I would do it is like this:

 

8 Av Line:

 

 
All Times except nights

207 - Lefferts Blvd: CPW/8 Av/Fulton St Exp

Nights: All local to Lefferts

 

All times except nights:

BPB - WTC: Concourse/CPW/8 Av Lcl

Nights: No service

 
All Times except Nights

JC - Euclid Av: QBL/8 Av Exp - Fulton St Lcl

Nights

JC - WTC: All Local

 

Rockaway Line (Pink Color)

[H] Rego Park - Far Rockaway via Rockaway Beach Branch

Rego Park  - Rockaway Park via Rockaway Beach Branch

I hope this works given the fact 2 Av Subway is a waste of time and money…

I have problems with Queenslink, the corridor itself is not that impressive in terms of its built environment, bus ridership is pretty mediocre, considering it’s split across 4 routes, away from the line itself. I’m not sure how making it into a shuttle helps, or if running subway service into the Rockaways is even justifiable at current ridership levels. 

[Trainmaster5]

17 hours ago, MTA Researcher said:

I was watching MysticTransitthe other day and I loved his idea of sending all  trains to Lefferts Blvd and leaving the Rockaways to this [H] train. 
 

The way I would do it is like this:

 

8 Av Line:

 

 
All Times except nights

207 - Lefferts Blvd: CPW/8 Av/Fulton St Exp

Nights: All local to Lefferts

 

All times except nights:

BPB - WTC: Concourse/CPW/8 Av Lcl

Nights: No service

 
All Times except Nights

JC - Euclid Av: QBL/8 Av Exp - Fulton St Lcl

Nights

JC - WTC: All Local

 

Rockaway Line (Pink Color)

[H] Rego Park - Far Rockaway via Rockaway Beach Branch

Rego Park  - Rockaway Park via Rockaway Beach Branch

I hope this works given the fact 2 Av Subway is a waste of time and money…

With this Rockaway Line idea you seem like someone who’s never given a thought to the majority of the ridership who are headed for Brooklyn and Manhattan. There’s a reason why the connection was made to the at Liberty junction.I missing something here ? Carry on. 

[JustTheSIR]

On 1/20/2023 at 9:39 AM, T to Dyre Avenue said: do agree that the current four-phase MTA plan is shit and forces the line to run well below capacity below 63rd St. There's nothing good about spending many billions of dollars over many decades only to be forced to run a new line well below capacity. I'm more than happy to have Phases 3 and 4 sent back to the drawing board for reevaluation so we don't wind up with a line running at only half-capacity that requires long (and expensive) passageways to connect with the nearest crosstown line stations in Midtown. This is in part why I like the idea of having a second SAS service to/from Queens. The old 2nd Ave El had one (via the Queensboro Bridge). Because if you already have a service from Queens like an  or a ( V ), then you don't need those long passageways because riders to and from Queens will already be on a Second Ave service, negating the need to transfer from the  or  to the . It's either that or we figure out a way to have the subway shift from 2nd to 3rd Ave south of 63rd St, which will definitely require new EIS/FEIS studies and add more time that we'll be waiting to see it in operation. Because having Phases 3 and 4 of the current plan run at only 50 to (maybe) 60 percent capacity is both an expensive and a bad option.

Has anyone thought about cutting the N to 57th and adding another line from Astoria to 2nd Avenue, or just relocating the N to 2nd Avenue in Manhattan entirely to add midtown service

[MTA Researcher]

2 hours ago, Trainmaster5 said:

With this Rockaway Line idea you seem like someone who’s never given a thought to the majority of the ridership who are headed for Brooklyn and Manhattan. There’s a reason why the connection was made to the at Liberty junction.I missing something here ? Carry on. 

Well at Rockaway Blvd we would establish a transfer point.

 

And yes I have considered ridership going through Manhattan and Brooklyn. I guess we could make it go past Rego Park.

 

In that case, we will have to trespass the dreamline of 2 Av. Maybe it’s time to rethink 2 Av line. Hmm maybe the [H] can go from Rego Park towards 2 Av to meet up with the  and from there the [H] go local and the  go 2 Av Exp?

 

You’re right to some extent though. I’m no expert but I learn based on feedback. Trial and Error. I want to hear your thoughts on my experimental ideas.