Department of Subways - Proposals/Ideas

[Wallyhorse]

Psst. Wallyhorse, stop trying to turn the clock back to 1988. There's a reason why the R local/F express service failed. There's also a reason why the original idea of the Queens Blvd locals serving Archer Ave never took off. Riders don't want the local from that far along the line, especially on the busiest stops like Sutphin Blvd/Archer and Jamaica Center. You're setting yourself up for failure with that one. If by some strange set of circumstances occur and the Rockaway Beach line is rebuilt and connected to the Queens Blvd line, here's how I see the service. Either the R serves the line full-time or we return to the G/V weekday/weekend service pattern where the M serves the RBL on weekdays and the G runs down there during the off hours. There's no reason to redesign the entire subway system, nor is there much gained by such a maneuver.

Actually, if the did become the RBB line, it likely would be a 24/7 line, especially given the growth already taking place in Brooklyn with more likely coming over time.   That is as noted the best of a group of bad options, which I was illustrating and noted such.

[Fresh Pond]

Read 4 pages of this and burst out laughing out here watching the eclipse.

 

But moving along, while waiting for the at Court St, I half-assed thought of an idea. What about running a train from Whitehall to Bay Pkwy via 4 Av/West End local. Don't care what its called, but it gives 4 Av and West End riders extra service to get to major transfer points without arbitrarily rerouting extra lines to unheard of places.

 

It can be a daytime only service 7 days a week with no overnight service. The and is more than enough for overnight replacements on 4 Av.

[T to Dyre Avenue]

Didn't the M and R services via Nassau St sort of fill that role? They obviously didn't stop at Whitehall St, but Broad St is not far from Whitehall and they had multiple connections at Fulton and Chambers that the Broadway R did not have. The 4th Ave local stops below 36th St are well-used and their ridership is increasing (per MTA's own stats), so maybe they ought to take another look at a second 4th Ave local from Bay Ridge to/from the Nassau St line once there are enough R179s in service.

Edited September 28, 2015 by T to Dyre Avenue

[Wallyhorse]

Didn't the M and R services via Nassau St sort of fill that role? They obviously didn't stop at Whitehall St, but Broad St is not far from Whitehall and they had multiple connections at Fulton and Chambers that the Broadway R did not have. The 4th Ave local stops below 36th St are well-used and their ridership is increasing (per MTA's own stats), so maybe they ought to take another look at a second 4th Ave local from Bay Ridge to/from the Nassau St line once there are enough R179s in service.

The and "Brown " certainly did.  Perhaps you could bring back the "Brown , " but have it run both directions and have such run to Essex Street on weekdays from 5:30 AM-10:00 PM and extended to Broadway Junction rush hours and terminate there.

Edited September 28, 2015 by Wallyhorse

[NewFlyer 230]

The and "Brown " certainly did. Perhaps you could bring back the "Brown , " but have it run both directions and have such run to Essex Street on weekdays from 5:30 AM-10:00 PM and extended to Broadway Junction rush hours and terminate there.

What track would the <R> use to turn around because the and use different tracks at that station.

[T to Dyre Avenue]

It would probably turn at Broadway Junction. That's where it should turn.

[Fresh Pond]

Then you would be over-serving the Jamaica line. At its peak, you'll have 4 lines running between Myrtle & Essex St. Bad enough the & goes through 2 bottlenecks at Essex & Myrtle with the merging in and out.

[j4lambert]

If you extend Nostrand south, you cover neither Nostrand or Utica, so you get this weird half-solution because you still need a bus running up and down Utica, a bus running up and down Nostrand, and a bus running up and down Flatbush. Plus, the MTA had decided to do that at one point, until it realized that in the context of the greater transportation network that it was suboptimal, and switched back to the Nostrand/Utica Line proposals in the '70s.

Therefore, the only solution would be as follows:

 

1. Build a new Utica Avenue subway line, just like DeBlasio mentioned, branching off from Crown Heights station. New stations would be built at Empire Boulevard, Winthrop Street, Linden Boulevard/Church Avenue, Clarendon Road, Kings Highway, Flatlands Avenue, and Avenue N (between Avenue N and Avenue O). After the Avenue N station, the Utica Avenue Line would run under Flatbush Avenue to Avenue U/Kings Plaza. After the line is constructed and opened for use, the Nostrand Avenue Line would temporarily close for refurbishment and extension.

2. Refurbish the Nostrand Avenue Line and extend it down Nostrand Avenue to Kingsborough Community College, like in the original proposal. The first phase of the extension would consist of three stations at Avenue J, Avenue M, and Kings Highway. The second phase would consist of three stations at Quentin Road/Gerritsen Avenue, Avenue S, and Avenue U. After the first two phases are built, the third phase would consist of stations built at Avenue X and Voorhies Avenue. The last segment of the extension would be to build an extremely deep underwater crossing from Voorhies Avenue under Sheepshead Bay to a station at Kingsborough Community College. 

[MysteriousBtrain]

Therefore, the only solution would be as follows:

 

1. Build a new Utica Avenue subway line, just like DeBlasio mentioned, branching off from Crown Heights station. New stations would be built at Empire Boulevard, Winthrop Street, Linden Boulevard/Church Avenue, Clarendon Road, Kings Highway, Flatlands Avenue, and Avenue N (between Avenue N and Avenue O). After the Avenue N station, the Utica Avenue Line would run under Flatbush Avenue to Avenue U/Kings Plaza. After the line is constructed and opened for use, the Nostrand Avenue Line would temporarily close for refurbishment and extension.

2. Refurbish the Nostrand Avenue Line and extend it down Nostrand Avenue to Kingsborough Community College, like in the original proposal. The first phase of the extension would consist of three stations at Avenue J, Avenue M, and Kings Highway. The second phase would consist of three stations at Quentin Road/Gerritsen Avenue, Avenue S, and Avenue U. After the first two phases are built, the third phase would consist of stations built at Avenue X and Voorhies Avenue. The last segment of the extension would be to build an extremely deep underwater crossing from Voorhies Avenue under Sheepshead Bay to a station at Kingsborough Community College. 

I don't know about a Nostrand Av extension because then the flatbush terminal would have to close for like a bit of time to provide an extension.

[trainfanrod]

the utica avenue line should run directly up n down ujtica until you meet ave x and terminate kings plaza next to lowes

[T to Dyre Avenue]

Then you would be over-serving the Jamaica line. At its peak, you'll have 4 lines running between Myrtle & Essex St. Bad enough the & goes through 2 bottlenecks at Essex & Myrtle with the merging in and out.

Right. That's why I don't think it should be a completely separate service. Maybe it could be operated as extra rush hour service that runs before skip-stop service starts (since skip-stop service only runs for about an hour during each rush hour period and only in the peak direction). Sort of like a short-turn , but extended to Bay Ridge. Edited September 30, 2015 by T to Dyre Avenue

[Wallyhorse]

Right. That's why I don't think it should be a completely separate service. Maybe it could be operated as extra rush hour service that runs before skip-stop service starts (since skip-stop service only runs for about an hour during each rush hour period and only in the peak direction). Sort of like a short-turn , but extended to Bay Ridge.

That's partially why during rush hours I would extend the "Brown " to Broadway Junction.   This also could be a 24/7 train that would run at all times from Essex to Bay Ridge and eliminate the need for the shuttle while late nights and weekends actually run Metropolitan Avenue to Bay Ridge and also eliminate the shuttle while doing so.

[Fresh Pond]

That's partially why during rush hours I would extend the "Brown " to Broadway Junction. This also could be a 24/7 train that would run at all times from Essex to Bay Ridge and eliminate the need for the shuttle while late nights and weekends actually run Metropolitan Avenue to Bay Ridge and also eliminate the shuttle while doing so.

Now you're throwing off the skip-stop dynamic, screwing over the people east of the Junction with the loss of skip stop, over-serving the Myrtle Av branch, and having a duplicate service with the same letter between Bay Ridge to Court St (the normal and your "brown R), AND having 3 local lines going to Bay Ridge during the day. Can 95 St even turn 3 lines around, let alone 2?

Edited October 1, 2015 by Fresh Pond

[Wallyhorse]

It would be TWO lines, NOT three to Bay Ridge:

What used to be the "Brown " on Nassau and in Brooklyn would become the full-time in the new version, running as follows:

Rush hours: Broadway Junction to 95th Street-Bay Ridge in both directions.
Middays and weeknights: Essex Street to 95th Street-Bay Ridge
Late nights and all times on weekends and holidays: Metropolitan Avenue to 95th Street-Bay Ridge (eliminating BOTH the and shuttles late nights and shuttle on weekends). 

If you need to retain skip-stop between Broadway Junction and Jamaica Center in the peak direction, you could have a "Brown " replace the current version of the for that.

[Fresh Pond]

That's completely pointless. Why have it it serve one branch on weekdays, and a whole different branch on weekends?

 

Plus, you still blew over my first point. You would be over-serving the half of the Jamaica line between Essex & Myrtle Av at its peak with the J, K, M, R, and Z. The J/M/Z already hold each other up at Myrtle & Essex merging in and out with each other as is.

Edited October 1, 2015 by Fresh Pond

[Wallyhorse]

You mean the and / as the latter is really one line with a different letter for skip-stop.

The main point was to have a full-time serve LOWER Manhattan and 4th Avenue to help the as a local in the latter case.  My first choice for this would actually be to have such a train run Essex to 95th Street at all times while extending to Metropolitan Avenue to eliminate the shuttle late nights and weekends (also eliminating the shuttle late nights), however, Essex really can't be used as a terminal in rush hours which was why I would have such go to Broadway Junction during those times.

If you need skip-stop between Broadway Junction and Jamaica, you can still do that with the and whatever other letter would be used for that.

[j4lambert]

I don't know about a Nostrand Av extension because then the flatbush terminal would have to close for like a bit of time to provide an extension.

The closing of Flatbush Avenue station coincides with the refurbishment of the Nostrand Avenue Line. 

 

If the Nostrand Avenue Line is extended to Kings Plaza, building modern streetcar lines on Utica Avenue and Nostrand Avenue would be a better option since it costs less to build a streetcar line than to build a subway line. 

[Jcb]

Extending any subway line to Kings plaza would most likely have to be done as an el because of the water table. If you build it as subway, you will have issues like Line 14 of the Paris Metro. That said, a streetcar would make the B44 SBS redundant and probably raise lots of NIMBY opposition over traffic and loss of parking spaces.

If the Nostrand Avenue Line is extended to Kings Plaza, building modern streetcar lines on Utica Avenue and Nostrand Avenue would be a better option since it costs less to build a streetcar line than to build a subway line.

 

[bobtehpanda]

Extending any subway line to Kings plaza would most likely have to be done as an el because of the water table. If you build it as subway, you will have issues like Line 14 of the Paris Metro. That said, a streetcar would make the B44 SBS redundant and probably raise lots of NIMBY opposition over traffic and loss of parking spaces.

 

It's not impossible or unheard of; places like Amsterdam or Bangkok have naturally high water tables but have been building subways as well.

[Jcb]

It's not impossible or unheard of; places like Amsterdam or Bangkok have naturally high water tables but have been building subways as well.

You're right. It's not impossible. What i'm saying is that it would probably cost more and require extra work, and i believe that such a sealing project would end up like the extension, especilly the incline elevators.

[2Line1291]

Well in NYC it'll be much more expensive to build in water tables correct me if I'm wrong.

[JGMR]

My proposal involves one new line, which would officially be two separate lines. More on that later. The first line (or really, part of the line) would be the IRT 125th Street Line, which would diverge from the IRT Broadway/Seventh Avenue Line and run crosstown via a new subway under (you guessed it) 125th Street. There have been several calls for a 125th Street crosstown line, with some even saying that it's more important than the IND Second Avenue Line (which I disagree with). In fact, the Second Avenue Line is planned to include provisions for an extension down 125th (as well as into the Bronx). However, I don't think 125th Street justifies the extra expenses of a B division-caliber line, and since a project as expensive as this would need to have as much of the expenses shaved off as possible, an IRT line is more than sufficient.

 

The line would have two tracks, as express service across 125th Street would be mostly unnecessary, and would share most of it's stops with the M60 Select Bus Service, save for Madison Avenue, Lexington Avenue, and Madison Avenue, which would be merged into one stop at Park Avenue or Lexington Avenue, and connect with Metro-North, the 4, 5, and 6 trains, and the Q and T when those are running, which would probably be before something like this is even considered. It would then extend across to Queens via a new East River tunnel, possibly with a stop on Randall's Island, then go aboveground, most likely prior to the Astoria Boulevard station, where it would connect with the N train.

 

The second part of the line would be called the MTA Grand Central Parkway Line. Why would you call it an MTA line and not an IRT/IND/BMT line, you may ask? Glad you asked. The line would be capable of handling both A division (IRT) trains, and B division (IND/BMT) trains. Now, before you accuse me of a felony and imprison me for 7 years for saying this, allow me to explain how this would work. The two reasons why you can't run an A division train on a B division line are that A division trains are more narrow than a B division trains, meaning that the gap between the train and the platform would be too big, and that the train stops, which activate the emergency break if the train attempts to bypass a red signal, are on different sides. Work trains are built to IRT standard, which is smaller than B division standard and thus will work fine on B division tracks, and have stop switches on both sides so that the functionality will be provided on both A and B division lines. So, the solution is to build an IND-class line, with track or retrofitted trains with train stops on both sides (although a CBTC-enabled line would negate the need for that, except in the case of a malfunction that would require the use of a backup signaling system), and at stations, either diverge the tracks to serve separate A and B division-compatible platforms, or have a moving platform to fill the gap, similar to the system used at the South Ferry loop on the 1 train. An ATS system that can tell trains apart, which would be standard with CBTC, would be able to tell the signaling system and platforms which side to raise the train stop on, and if a gap filler is necessary.

 

The line would be connected to the 125th Street Line as well as to the BMT Astoria Line, and would run either alongside or above the Grand Central Parkway, with stops at Astoria Boulevard (where a free "Transfer is available to the N train") 31st Street, Steinway Street, and 77th Street. These stations would be accessible from the sidewalks of Astoria Boulevard via a footbridge. The line would then either swing north, going near/under/around 81st Street to LaGuardia's marine terminal, or would continue along the Grand Central Parkway, before slightly branching off to provide convenient access to the airport via separate stations at terminals B, C, and D. The line would then terminate at LaGuardia - Terminal D station. An extension of the Astoria Line to LaGuardia via tracks running alongside or above the Grand Central Parkway has been proposed before, and shot down by NIMBYs. The solution that's currently being pursued is building a new AirTrain from Mets - Willets Point on the 7 and LIRR to LaGuardia. However, in my opinion, that's a horrible idea, since it would increase crowding even more on the 7, which would be brutal for the daily commuters, especially if the crowding stems from travelers with bulky luggage. The best way to link the airports with the rest of the city by rail is with New York City's quintessential form of transportation: the subway. If the NIMBYs object, we can tie them up, duct tape their mouths shut, and throw them into an abandoned Culver Shuttle station.

 

The trains serving the 125th Street Line and the Grand Central Parkway Line would be a revived 9 train, and the N train. The new 9 train would provide additional local service on the Broadway - Seventh Avenue Line (local for two reasons: there's already enough express service on that line from the 2 and 3, and local trains are better for tourists who are unfamiliar with the system, since they don't have to worry about if their station is an express stop), extending from the South Ferry loop (giving people from Staten Island easy access via the ferry) up to 125th Street, where it would turn onto the 125th Street Line, continue into the Grand Central Parkway Line, and terminate at LaGuardia Airport. This new 9 train would effectively replace the M60 Select Bus Service, which could then in turn be discontinued or downgraded to a local bus, with the far superior service available from a rail line. Also, the 9 would preferably use R188 stock for two reasons: to take advantage of possible CBTC on the new line, and because it's automated announcement system is good for tourists who are unfamiliar with the system. Meanwhile, the N train would diverge from the Astoria Line onto the Grand Central Parkway Line after the Astoria Boulevard station, and then extend to LaGuardia Airport. This arrangement would be similar to the A train in that you can get on a Ditmars Boulevard-bound N train or a LaGuardia Airport-bound N train. If they decide to bring back the W train to fill the gap in services on the Astoria Line after Q trains begin running up Second Avenue, the N could run to LaGuardia and the W to Ditmars, or the other way around.

 

One more thing: the new stations along the Grand Central Parkway would be fairly normal aboveground stations, however, the stations at LaGuardia terminals would be equipped with a "visitor center" of sorts, which would include a station attendant, plenty of MetroCard machines, and an abundance of maps, brochures, and posters to explain the system. The trains, in addition to the standard "This is a LaGuardia Airport-bound 9 local train. The next stop is..." would have announcements for what airlines serve the terminal. Something along the lines of "This is: LaGuardia Terminal B. Airlines serving Terminal B include: Air Canada, American Airlines, Frontier Airlines, JetBlue Airways, Southwest Airlines, Spirit Airlines, United Airlines, and Virgin America." Travelers would also benefit from an announcement played as the train exits the LaGuardia area to welcome them to New York City and briefly explain the subway system, including local/express trains, number/letter and color/coding, the availability of maps in each car and station as well as online and in brochures available from station ticket agents, and the availability of 511 and MTA.info for information on possible service changes.

[bobtehpanda]

You cant have separate A and B Division platforms on the same track, because the B Division trains are just going to smash into the A Division platform on the side. Gap fillers also do not work as a solution, because they are not ADA accessible, but all new government construction must meet ADA standards.

[Wallyhorse]

You cant have separate A and B Division platforms on the same track, because the B Division trains are just going to smash into the A Division platform on the side. Gap fillers also do not work as a solution, because they are not ADA accessible, but all new government construction must meet ADA standards.

Exactly!!

 

That is why the easiest solution would be to extend the SAS across 125th to a terminal at Broadway-12th Avenue with a connection to the 8th Avenue line at St. Nicholas Avenue that would be mainly for G.O.s on the CPW and 8th Avenue lines when needed that would allow the and to access the SAS between 125th and 63rd/Lex before going to the at 57th Street.

[P3F]

Would it be possible to design ADA accessible gap fillers?