Department of Subways - Proposals/Ideas

[T to Dyre Avenue]

On 4/23/2023 at 11:52 AM, ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ said:

I don't think it will be considered sadly. With the recent MTA megaprojects, they often look at them at very face value rather than thinking about how it could tie into the larger system long term.

Another thing I've noticed is with these MTA reports on megaprojects, they seem to intestinally exclude anything more robust than the one they tunnel-vision for. A good example would be with SAS; the original report from the early 2000s listed alternatives like BRT, light rail, jitney vans (lol), a line only North of 63rd St, and converting Lexington Avenue to B-division, but didn't list more robust alternatives like a quad-track subway or a line that somehow had a whole new branch into Brooklyn or Queens. The current SAS proposal with the  and  was the best and most significant option on that list, but still far from perfect as many have discussed.

From their initial winter report, it seems the MTA has tunnel-vision for Utica Avenue being an extension of Eastern Parkway. Not only is it the most robust option listed (tied with Fulton St extension), but the report talks so much about the Eastern Parkway line in general, even in areas that don't serve Utica Av. To me, it seems like they just wanna do a whole Eastern Parkway line enhancing megaproject, that would fix Rodgers, add a new yard, perhaps extend the current  a stop past new lots, and yes build some form of Utica Av subway as a branch. Another thing that needs to be addressed imo is the Nostrand Av line needs a better terminal, and this can be done without actually extending the line.

The fact that the current  proposal lacks a Queens service and doesn’t even plan for one definitely shows “tunnel vision” on the MTA’s part.

With Utica, though, it’s really not easy to do it as anything other than an Eastern Pkwy extension, unless an entirely new line is built. 

[ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ]

23 hours ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

The fact that the current  proposal lacks a Queens service and doesn’t even plan for one definitely shows “tunnel vision” on the MTA’s part.

With Utica, though, it’s really not easy to do it as anything other than an Eastern Pkwy extension, unless an entirely new line is built. 

I think it's one of those things where if Phases 3/4 were built as proposed, a Queens service would likely be provided via the connection to the 63rd St tunnel even if it's not directly stated in current plans. It's similar to how Phase 1 brought back the  train which is something a lot of transit fans speculated but was never an official proposal of the project.

A new "H" train could run up SAS via 63rd to Forest Hills as a QBLVD local, possibly replacing the  or  would also somewhat resolve the reverse-branching issue because close to full service could be provided on SAS south of 72nd St. 

As I've said earlier though, I don't think SAS phases 3 and 4 are serious projects under consideration at this time and the  service is a very vague proposals used for political reasons. I suspect that if/when Phase 3 becomes a higher priority, there will be serious discussion around a 2nd service that uses 63rd, and honestly I'd be shocked if the MTA doesn't at least do a study on this service while constructing phase 3.

 

SAS optimized track map

I think Vanshnookenraggen's proposals to optimize SAS while abiding to the same general scope of 2 tracks and not bunch of new branches is smart. Having SAS take over the Northern Manhattan Bridge tracks is also a smart idea, because you wouldn't need to do a deep Chrystie and then go all the way to Hanover Square, and it'd allow the  to become dedicated to something else (in his proposal fully taking over the Broadway El). Also, the  largely mirror the  in Manhattan, so Second Avenue trains over the Manhattan Bridge would provide South Brooklyn riders more direct options. Even if you don't want 6th Avenue Express taking over the Broadway El, they already have a free terminal at 2nd Av, so it'd just be easier than having to go deep under Chrystie Street and constructing a new terminals station for SAS.

Edited May 4, 2023 by ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ

[Amiri the subway guy]

15 minutes ago, ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ said:

I think it's one of those things where if Phases 3/4 were built as proposed, a Queens service would likely be provided via the connection to the 63rd St tunnel even if it's not directly stated in current plans. It's similar to how Phase 1 brought back the  train which is something a lot of transit fans speculated but was never an official proposal of the project.

A new "H" train could run up SAS via 63rd to Forest Hills as a QBLVD local, possibly replacing the  or  would also somewhat resolve the reverse-branching issue because close to full service could be provided on SAS south of 72nd St. 

As I've said earlier though, I don't think SAS phases 3 and 4 are serious projects under consideration at this time and the  service is a very vague proposals used for political reasons. I suspect that if/when Phase 3 becomes a higher priority, there will be serious discussion around a 2nd service that uses 63rd, and honestly I'd be shocked if the MTA doesn't at least do a study on this service while constructing phase 3.

 

SAS optimized track map

I think Vanshnookenraggen's proposals to optimize SAS while abiding to the same general scope of 2 tracks and not bunch of new branches is smart. Having SAS take over the Northern Manhattan Bridge tracks is also a smart idea, because you wouldn't need to do a deep Chrystie and then go all the way to Hanover Square, and it'd allow the  to become dedicated to something else (in his proposal fully taking over the Broadway El). Also, the  largely mirror the  in Manhattan, so Second Avenue trains over the Manhattan Bridge would provide South Brooklyn riders more direct options. Even if you don't want 6th Avenue Express taking over the Broadway El, they already have a free terminal at 2nd Av, so it'd just be easier than having to go deep under Chrystie Street and constructing a new terminals station for SAS.

The thing is the 2nd Avenue line doesn’t have that much major job options 6th avenue serves in the heart of midtown. The whole project will be very expensive and difficult Fulton street for  is smarter proposal since the  service there is abysmal. South Brooklyn doesn’t even have a overwhelming demand for east side. Just use the  

[ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ]

25 minutes ago, Amiri the subway guy said:

The thing is the 2nd Avenue line doesn’t have that much major job options 6th avenue serves in the heart of midtown. The whole project will be very expensive and difficult Fulton street for  is smarter proposal since the  service there is abysmal. South Brooklyn doesn’t even have a overwhelming demand for east side. Just use the  

1. It'd be expensive, but cheaper than the official proposal because you wouldn't have to build SAS South of Grand St.

2. It is true that 2nd Avenue is currently kinda the border of the CBD, but recent developments suggests that might be changing, with several very large office blocks recently constructed between 2nd and 3rd Avs in midtown. I also suspect construction of a full SAS would make this area more desirable for larger office blocks. The Broadway trains  would probably be slightly favored over SAS, at least initially, but if the MTA could improve some of the SAS transfers in Midtown from the current proposal, I think it could become an equal. It'd be no more favored than the  would be over the  at the very least.

3. The  can take over the Fulton St local either by making a connection to Montague, or having the  take over Montague and the  go via a new tunnel under East River, connecting to the Court Street station currently being used as the transit museum. The transit museum could move to somewhere like City Hall lower level.

4. Having SAS going to Brooklyn via the Manhattan Bridge would offer a desirable alternative to the  that skips lower Manhattan. A lot of discussion is based arond  overcrowding on the upper east side, but the  in Lower Manhattan and downtown Brooklyn can get pretty bad too because during the morning rush, tons of people transfer onto the  at such as Atlantic Av and Fulton St to get to the east side of Midtown.

To be clear, I'm def not against having SAS take over Fulton St local; I think it's an equally viable idea with different pros and cons, but the current MTA proposal of going all the way to Hanover Square and then having a very aggressive turn under the East River isn't it. Perhaps it could just turn after the proposed Seaport station under the East River, but you'd have to go underneath several existing subway tunnels.

[Wallyhorse]

2 hours ago, ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ said:

I think it's one of those things where if Phases 3/4 were built as proposed, a Queens service would likely be provided via the connection to the 63rd St tunnel even if it's not directly stated in current plans. It's similar to how Phase 1 brought back the  train which is something a lot of transit fans speculated but was never an official proposal of the project.

A new "H" train could run up SAS via 63rd to Forest Hills as a QBLVD local, possibly replacing the  or  would also somewhat resolve the reverse-branching issue because close to full service could be provided on SAS south of 72nd St. 

As I've said earlier though, I don't think SAS phases 3 and 4 are serious projects under consideration at this time and the  service is a very vague proposals used for political reasons. I suspect that if/when Phase 3 becomes a higher priority, there will be serious discussion around a 2nd service that uses 63rd, and honestly I'd be shocked if the MTA doesn't at least do a study on this service while constructing phase 3.

 

SAS optimized track map

I think Vanshnookenraggen's proposals to optimize SAS while abiding to the same general scope of 2 tracks and not bunch of new branches is smart. Having SAS take over the Northern Manhattan Bridge tracks is also a smart idea, because you wouldn't need to do a deep Chrystie and then go all the way to Hanover Square, and it'd allow the  to become dedicated to something else (in his proposal fully taking over the Broadway El). Also, the  largely mirror the  in Manhattan, so Second Avenue trains over the Manhattan Bridge would provide South Brooklyn riders more direct options. Even if you don't want 6th Avenue Express taking over the Broadway El, they already have a free terminal at 2nd Av, so it'd just be easier than having to go deep under Chrystie Street and constructing a new terminals station for SAS.

The one notable thing about that is the would likely have to late nights in this go to Penn Station-34th Street (skipping Spring and 23rd Street) because of the way the layouts are and where the tracks are.  Canal Street could be done as a terminal as well more easily.  

[Amiri the subway guy]

18 hours ago, ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ said:

1. It'd be expensive, but cheaper than the official proposal because you wouldn't have to build SAS South of Grand St.

2. It is true that 2nd Avenue is currently kinda the border of the CBD, but recent developments suggests that might be changing, with several very large office blocks recently constructed between 2nd and 3rd Avs in midtown. I also suspect construction of a full SAS would make this area more desirable for larger office blocks. The Broadway trains  would probably be slightly favored over SAS, at least initially, but if the MTA could improve some of the SAS transfers in Midtown from the current proposal, I think it could become an equal. It'd be no more favored than the  would be over the  at the very least.

3. The  can take over the Fulton St local either by making a connection to Montague, or having the  take over Montague and the  go via a new tunnel under East River, connecting to the Court Street station currently being used as the transit museum. The transit museum could move to somewhere like City Hall lower level.

4. Having SAS going to Brooklyn via the Manhattan Bridge would offer a desirable alternative to the  that skips lower Manhattan. A lot of discussion is based arond  overcrowding on the upper east side, but the  in Lower Manhattan and downtown Brooklyn can get pretty bad too because during the morning rush, tons of people transfer onto the  at such as Atlantic Av and Fulton St to get to the east side of Midtown.

To be clear, I'm def not against having SAS take over Fulton St local; I think it's an equally viable idea with different pros and cons, but the current MTA proposal of going all the way to Hanover Square and then having a very aggressive turn under the East River isn't it. Perhaps it could just turn after the proposed Seaport station under the East River, but you'd have to go underneath several existing subway tunnels.

Let’s move on from Brooklyn and queens for now since it appears we have a common goal, and it’s to make 2nd Avenue line attavive as possible. So let’s focus on, the Bronx. Now People say that SAS is supposed reduce crowding on the , but the  is just as if not even more crowded. I ride the  daily in the Bronx. during the rush hours they get crushloaded to the brim. And then34 Avenue el was a subway that you guess it operated in 3rd avenue Bronx. It closed in 1970s due to the elevated route structure being  obsolete, when the Bronx population was growing in the region the 2000s and 2010s this became a huge problem the Bx15 and Bx41 buses ridership levels shows this. So my proposal is to build a 4 track line serving as the long overdue replacement for the 3rd avenue line. The west side  would be supplemented by the existing Broadway express   would be express during daytime weekdays,  but  run local during Weekends and late nights. The east side  would be supplemented by a proposed 2nd Avenue local the  which would be the daytime weekday only local service for 3rd avenue and 2nd Avenue operating 6:30 AM - 10:00 PM. During all other times when the  isn’t operating use the  . The  would start off at Mosholu Parkway west Gun hill road then running east down to Webster Avenue. It would stop at Bainbridge avenue 204th street and Bedford Park Blvd  where at Fordham Plaza it’s meets with the  

 

the local service only stations would be 

 

 

181st street

Claremont Parkway 

168th street

Morrisania 163rd street 

156th street 

143rd street 

and the all local and express service stations are 

 

Fordham Plaza

Tremont Avenue 

3rd  Avenue 149th street 

3rd Avenue 138th street.

This will more than help out central Bronx. It will also reduce crowding on the . Since Broadway and 7th Avenue run at close proximity to each other the  is the perfect alternate route. Note the  route is Fordham Plaza - Hanover Square.

 

Is this perfect, too under capacity, or overkill? any feedback suggestions or criticism. 

 

Edited May 4, 2023 by Amiri the subway guy

[Wallyhorse]

3 hours ago, Amiri the subway guy said:

Let’s move on from Brooklyn and queens for now since it appears we have a common goal, and it’s to make 2nd Avenue line attavive as possible. So let’s focus on, the Bronx. Now People say that SAS is supposed reduce crowding on the , but the  is just as if not even more crowded. I ride the  daily in the Bronx. during the rush hours they get crushloaded to the brim. And then34 Avenue el was a subway that you guess it operated in 3rd avenue Bronx. It closed in 1970s due to the elevated route structure being  obsolete, when the Bronx population was growing in the region the 2000s and 2010s this became a huge problem the Bx15 and Bx41 buses ridership levels shows this. So my proposal is to build a 4 track line serving as the long overdue replacement for the 3rd avenue line. The west side  would be supplemented by the existing Broadway express   would be express during daytime weekdays,  but  run local during Weekends and late nights. The east side  would be supplemented by a proposed 2nd Avenue local the  which would be the daytime weekday only local service for 3rd avenue and 2nd Avenue operating 6:30 AM - 10:00 PM. During all other times when the  isn’t operating use the  . The  would start off at Mosholu Parkway west Gun hill road then running east down to Webster Avenue. It would stop at Bainbridge avenue 204th street and Bedford Park Blvd  where at Fordham Plaza it’s meets with the  

 

the local service only stations would be 

 

 

181st street

Claremont Parkway 

168th street

Morrisania 163rd street 

156th street 

143rd street 

and the all local and express service stations are 

 

Fordham Plaza

Tremont Avenue 

3rd  Avenue 149th street 

3rd Avenue 138th street.

This will more than help out central Bronx. It will also reduce crowding on the . Since Broadway and 7th Avenue run at close proximity to each other the  is the perfect alternate route. Note the  route is Fordham Plaza - Hanover Square.

 

Is this perfect, too under capacity, or overkill? any feedback suggestions or criticism. 

 

This is similar to what I would do for a rebuilt Bronx 3rd Avenue EL (or subway) IF such were connected to the SAS.  You have the stops more spread out as I would do it for the most part, including key transfers at 138 (for the ) and 149 (for the /).  

[ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ]

6 hours ago, Amiri the subway guy said:

Let’s move on from Brooklyn and queens for now since it appears we have a common goal, and it’s to make 2nd Avenue line attavive as possible. So let’s focus on, the Bronx. Now People say that SAS is supposed reduce crowding on the , but the  is just as if not even more crowded. I ride the  daily in the Bronx. during the rush hours they get crushloaded to the brim. And then34 Avenue el was a subway that you guess it operated in 3rd avenue Bronx. It closed in 1970s due to the elevated route structure being  obsolete, when the Bronx population was growing in the region the 2000s and 2010s this became a huge problem the Bx15 and Bx41 buses ridership levels shows this. So my proposal is to build a 4 track line serving as the long overdue replacement for the 3rd avenue line. The west side  would be supplemented by the existing Broadway express   would be express during daytime weekdays,  but  run local during Weekends and late nights. The east side  would be supplemented by a proposed 2nd Avenue local the  which would be the daytime weekday only local service for 3rd avenue and 2nd Avenue operating 6:30 AM - 10:00 PM. During all other times when the  isn’t operating use the  . The  would start off at Mosholu Parkway west Gun hill road then running east down to Webster Avenue. It would stop at Bainbridge avenue 204th street and Bedford Park Blvd  where at Fordham Plaza it’s meets with the  

I largely like this idea, and while I think it'd be good to have provisions for express tracks, I think it wouldn't be worth the additional cost, especially given the Northern part of SAS is only 2 tracked and may have an additional branch of 125th St crosstown. Further apart station spacing than the Bronx IRT lines and just being newer could still make them viable alternatives to the . I tend to agree overall though that a large part of the Lexington Avenue overcrowding comes because of how dependent the Bronx is on it's different branches, and as you state this could also help out the  which can get pretty bad.

[Amiri the subway guy]

6 minutes ago, ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ said:

I largely like this idea, and while I think it'd be good to have provisions for express tracks, I think it wouldn't be worth the additional cost, especially given the Northern part of SAS is only 2 tracked and may have an additional branch of 125th St crosstown. Further apart station spacing than the Bronx IRT lines and just being newer could still make them viable alternatives to the . I tend to agree overall though that a large part of the Lexington Avenue overcrowding comes because of how dependent the Bronx is on it's different branches, and as you state this could also help out the  which can get pretty bad.

 

2 hours ago, Wallyhorse said:

This is similar to what I would do for a rebuilt Bronx 3rd Avenue EL (or subway) IF such were connected to the SAS.  You have the stops more spread out as I would do it for the most part, including key transfers at 138 (for the ) and 149 (for the /).  

Now you both have very good feedback. 
 

Now I admit maybe some of the stations are a bit too close, 156th street and 143rd street are the two stations that may be unnecessary at they might be both a little too close to stations that would have a higher ridership count. 
 

I initially thought that 3 tracks would be enough but at the same time my logic was that 4 tracks would allow for the highest potential capacity but as you said it might be way too expensive, so a 3 track line maybe for peak way express would be good enough but my main issue with this is that the  or would have to share the gun hill road terminal meaning they would have to share and use the exact same equipment (not saying it’s a problem)   but the main flaw is in that proposal the  or   would have to operate on a pattern to balance out service, therefore I propose creating a IND Throngs Neck Subway. The  would start at Lafayette avenue Tremont Avenue running down Lafayette avenue and 163rd Street it then merges with the  at a 161st street junction. This could fill up another Bronx transit desert. 

[FLX9304]

On 5/5/2023 at 1:07 AM, Amiri the subway guy said:

 

Now you both have very good feedback. 
 

Now I admit maybe some of the stations are a bit too close, 156th street and 143rd street are the two stations that may be unnecessary at they might be both a little too close to stations that would have a higher ridership count. 
 

I initially thought that 3 tracks would be enough but at the same time my logic was that 4 tracks would allow for the highest potential capacity but as you said it might be way too expensive, so a 3 track line maybe for peak way express would be good enough but my main issue with this is that the  or would have to share the gun hill road terminal meaning they would have to share and use the exact same equipment (not saying it’s a problem)   but the main flaw is in that proposal the  or   would have to operate on a pattern to balance out service, therefore I propose creating a IND Throngs Neck Subway. The  would start at Lafayette avenue Tremont Avenue running down Lafayette avenue and 163rd Street it then merges with the  at a 161st street junction. This could fill up another Bronx transit desert. 

Preferably, the  and the . Then have the  extended from 205th to Gun Hill Rd to create a 4 line transfer between the  and the . For a Throggs Neck, what stations are you proposing to connect from 161st to said terminal? 

[ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ]

Why is a Central Park super-express bypass line that serves the Bronx either on 3rd Av or Throggs Neck more discussed in expansion plans (relative to projects like Utica Av, Nostrand Av, 10th Av subway, ect)? A super-express bypass thing would be cheaper to construct running under Central Park because presumably there'd be less obstacles to avoid and could offer a very desirable alternative for  and even  riders. If building express tracks under SAS is physically impossible or would just be too logistcally complex, this seems like a good long term alternative for another line to support a Bronx branch.

[Amiri the subway guy]

On 5/8/2023 at 2:55 PM, FLX9304 said:

Preferably, the  and the . Then have the  extended from 205th to Gun Hill Rd to create a 4 line transfer between the  and the . For a Throggs Neck, what stations are you proposing to connect from 161st to said terminal? 

Late reply but here’s the stations 

Throngs Neck Tremont Avenue 
Castle Hill Avenue 

White Plains Road 

Soundview Avenue 

Boynton Avenue 

Hunts Point Avenue 

Intervale Avenue

 

[JustTheSIR]

On 5/3/2023 at 11:36 PM, ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ said:

I think it's one of those things where if Phases 3/4 were built as proposed, a Queens service would likely be provided via the connection to the 63rd St tunnel even if it's not directly stated in current plans. It's similar to how Phase 1 brought back the  train which is something a lot of transit fans speculated but was never an official proposal of the project.

A new "H" train could run up SAS via 63rd to Forest Hills as a QBLVD local, possibly replacing the  or  would also somewhat resolve the reverse-branching issue because close to full service could be provided on SAS south of 72nd St. 

As I've said earlier though, I don't think SAS phases 3 and 4 are serious projects under consideration at this time and the  service is a very vague proposals used for political reasons. I suspect that if/when Phase 3 becomes a higher priority, there will be serious discussion around a 2nd service that uses 63rd, and honestly I'd be shocked if the MTA doesn't at least do a study on this service while constructing phase 3.

 

SAS optimized track map

I think Vanshnookenraggen's proposals to optimize SAS while abiding to the same general scope of 2 tracks and not bunch of new branches is smart. Having SAS take over the Northern Manhattan Bridge tracks is also a smart idea, because you wouldn't need to do a deep Chrystie and then go all the way to Hanover Square, and it'd allow the  to become dedicated to something else (in his proposal fully taking over the Broadway El). Also, the  largely mirror the  in Manhattan, so Second Avenue trains over the Manhattan Bridge would provide South Brooklyn riders more direct options. Even if you don't want 6th Avenue Express taking over the Broadway El, they already have a free terminal at 2nd Av, so it'd just be easier than having to go deep under Chrystie Street and constructing a new terminals station for SAS.

I’m aware that this is a bit old, but wouldn’t it be better to make the   Local to prevent further delays by not merging the  at 63rd

Edited May 15, 2023 by JustTheSIR

[ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ]

4 minutes ago, JustTheSIR said:

I’m aware that this is a bit old, but wouldn’t it be better to make the   Local to prevent further delays by not merging the  at 63rd

It's a tough situtation cause 63rd generally doesn't have great transfer access and QBLVD express customers would be furious at the loss of the . It also might put too much of a burden on the  as it'd likely be heavily favored over the . Overall, Queens Blvd is a patchwork of connections to Manhattan cause the IND cut corners when the line was originally built and the MTA again when they were doing the never finished Super-Express Project.

[JustTheSIR]

1 minute ago, ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ said:

It's a tough situtation cause 63rd generally doesn't have great transfer access and QBLVD express customers would be furious at the loss of the . It also might put too much of a burden on the  as it'd likely be heavily favored over the . Overall, Queens Blvd is a patchwork of connections to Manhattan cause the IND cut corners when the line was originally built and the MTA again when they were doing the never finished Super-Express Project.

I meant to say 36th st, as that’s where the   Currently merges with the , but my point still stands, you wouldn’t get much more service out of that as more switching between stations is probably going to be slower than setting switches at stations…

for your point about the E, yes, people would be very annoyed, but what about an infill station on the 63rd st line

[FLX9304]

21 hours ago, Amiri the subway guy said:

Late reply but here’s the stations 

Throngs Neck Tremont Avenue 
Castle Hill Avenue 

White Plains Road 

Soundview Avenue 

Boynton Avenue 

Hunts Point Avenue 

Intervale Avenue

 

Throw in Brush Ave for UPS workers coming out of the Throggs Neck Hub. 

[Amiri the subway guy]

5 minutes ago, FLX9304 said:

Throw in Brush Ave for UPS workers coming out of the Throggs Neck Hub. 

Lol how did I forgot to add that station in anyway what route should serve there  or  

[FLX9304]

Just now, Amiri the subway guy said:

Lol how did I forgot to add that station in anyway what route should serve there  or  

The  at all times, let every 3rd  terminate at Gun Hill during peak hours. All others serve Throggs Neck. Dig? 

[Wallyhorse]

4 hours ago, JustTheSIR said:

I meant to say 36th st, as that’s where the   Currently merges with the , but my point still stands, you wouldn’t get much more service out of that as more switching between stations is probably going to be slower than setting switches at stations…

for your point about the E, yes, people would be very annoyed, but what about an infill station on the 63rd st line

Would there be a way to make 36th an express station (even if you had to be an entirely new level under the existing station)?  I would think that would solve a lot of these issues.  

[Amiri the subway guy]

On 5/15/2023 at 8:04 PM, FLX9304 said:

The  at all times, let every 3rd  terminate at Gun Hill during peak hours. All others serve Throggs Neck. Dig? 

Ah every 3rd  you say? So I guessing a very limited amount of Rush Hour   via 3rd avenue, I feel it’s too soon discussing rush hours reroutes. We don’t even know whether which branch may need the extra service. 

Edited May 18, 2023 by Amiri the subway guy

[FLX9304]

10 hours ago, Amiri the subway guy said:

Ah every 3rd  you say? So I guessing a very limited amount of Rush Hour   via 3rd avenue, I feel it’s too soon discussing rush hours reroutes. We don’t even know whether which branch may need the extra service. 

The  can order an extra 80 subway cars strictly for the  since the  will be more frequent, CBTC & all. 

[Amiri the subway guy]

10 hours ago, FLX9304 said:

The  can order an extra 80 subway cars strictly for the  since the  will be more frequent, CBTC & all. 

So I assume extra R211s for 2nd Avenue lines then. CBTC Could allow for 18 TPH, so Just 8   TPH during rush hours via 3rd avenue should be enough since you still have the remaining 12 going to throngs neck, meanwhile how many  are you proposing I want at least 14  TPH During Peak Hours

Edited May 19, 2023 by Amiri the subway guy

[Wallyhorse]

On 5/4/2023 at 12:37 AM, ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ said:

1. It'd be expensive, but cheaper than the official proposal because you wouldn't have to build SAS South of Grand St.

2. It is true that 2nd Avenue is currently kinda the border of the CBD, but recent developments suggests that might be changing, with several very large office blocks recently constructed between 2nd and 3rd Avs in midtown. I also suspect construction of a full SAS would make this area more desirable for larger office blocks. The Broadway trains  would probably be slightly favored over SAS, at least initially, but if the MTA could improve some of the SAS transfers in Midtown from the current proposal, I think it could become an equal. It'd be no more favored than the  would be over the  at the very least.

3. The  can take over the Fulton St local either by making a connection to Montague, or having the  take over Montague and the  go via a new tunnel under East River, connecting to the Court Street station currently being used as the transit museum. The transit museum could move to somewhere like City Hall lower level.

4. Having SAS going to Brooklyn via the Manhattan Bridge would offer a desirable alternative to the  that skips lower Manhattan. A lot of discussion is based arond  overcrowding on the upper east side, but the  in Lower Manhattan and downtown Brooklyn can get pretty bad too because during the morning rush, tons of people transfer onto the  at such as Atlantic Av and Fulton St to get to the east side of Midtown.

To be clear, I'm def not against having SAS take over Fulton St local; I think it's an equally viable idea with different pros and cons, but the current MTA proposal of going all the way to Hanover Square and then having a very aggressive turn under the East River isn't it. Perhaps it could just turn after the proposed Seaport station under the East River, but you'd have to go underneath several existing subway tunnels.

As I do it, the SAS would go through a new tunnel at Schermerhorn Street that would require moving the transit museum elsewhere as Hoyt Street would be re-activated for transit service.  This allows the and  to both be full-time Fulton express routes in Brooklyn with the full-time split between Far Rockaway and Rockaway Park (late nights the  that currently operates between Broad Channel and Rockaway Park still operates and the  operates 19/7 to Lefferts with the extended to Lefferts late nights.  This to me is the most logical option for the as especially in Downtown Brooklyn, the stations for the Fulton Street line are only a couple of blocks from the IRT stations and would take some of the load off of lower Manhattan, especially those looking for the east side of lower Manhattan that the SAS is supposed to serve.

As noted in other comments, I would solve the problem with the  by moving that to Nassau.  This would involve doing the work necessary to re-activate the abandoned tracks on the northbound side of Canal Street and Bowery on the  with Canal Street returning to being the terminal it once was for trains coming off the Willy B (as I would do it here, it was not possible to do prior to the current setup being done as there used to be a crossover at the south end of Canal).  In this case, the  becomes brown and operates from 95th-Bay Ridge to Canal Street, terminating mostly on what currently is the northbound track for the (old "southbound terminal/express" track, during peak hours, a handful of trains would terminate on the "old northbound terminal/express track" at Canal and turn north of there and come back on the southbound side on the current northbound track).  The in this would terminate at Chambers save for a handful of supplemental runs that would in rush hours go to Broad Street as this  would be limited to 10 TPH in all likelihood.  This  would be based out of East New York and would have in-service yard runs that end and begin at Broadway Junction on the .  Late-nights and weekends, this  would run to Metropolitan Avenue and absorb the late-night and weekend  shuttles.  This gives politicians in Bay Ridge what they appear to really want: An  train that is split and not nearly as badly delayed as it often gets now as the only interlining that would be done here is with a small split of the that operates via the tunnel and a small number of trains that would during rush hours end and begin at Broad Street.  

The as I would do it would basically become two distinct services so enough trains can run to Astoria:

trains via the Bridge would run as they do now.

There also would be  trains via the tunnel that would short-turn at 9th Avenue on the  and run local on 4th Avenue, via Montague and Broadway local (these trains could be designated another letter if necessary).

The becomes a 19/7 line between Whitehall Street and 71st-Continental and is based out of Jamaica.  During peak hours, there would be select trains when there are more than can turn at Whitehall that would terminate on the tunnel level of Canal Street and use the lower level of City Hall to turn and come back northbound starting at Canal.

This to me is what works best. 

[FLX9304]

5 hours ago, Amiri the subway guy said:

So I assume extra R211s for 2nd Avenue lines then. CBTC Could allow for 18 TPH, so Just 8   TPH during rush hours via 3rd avenue should be enough since you still have the remaining 12 going to throngs neck, meanwhile how many  are you proposing I want at least 14  TPH During Peak Hours

I would propose limited service during peak hours for the  to go to Throgs Neck since there are more  service going out there. Say 5:30a-8:00a to Manhattan and 4:00-6:45p from Manhattan, every 15 min. 
oh, no R211s, but I’m thinking a límited R265  (very small order), Similar look to R211s but strictly to operate on the  to supplement the R type trains that operate. 

[Reptile]

11 minutes ago, FLX9304 said:

I would propose limited service during peak hours for the  to go to Throgs Neck since there are more  service going out there. Say 5:30a-8:00a to Manhattan and 4:00-6:45p from Manhattan, every 15 min. 
oh, no R211s, but I’m thinking a límited R265  (very small order), Similar look to R211s but strictly to operate on the  to supplement the R type trains that operate. 

You could also have some sets from whatever car type replaces the R68 (or at this rate the R160)