Department of Subways - Proposals/Ideas

[CenSin]

Rather than just physical infrastructure, I would rather they massively improve communication. Those useful tidbits that come over the radio? They should be public. I want to know that there is a traffic jam down Broadway and 6 Avenue so I can find alternatives way around the blockage. Instead, as soon as major problems clear, the website always lists “Good Service” even when it is clearly not.

 

There was an stuck just outside the Lexington Avenue/63 Street station this evening, but I crossed the platform for the and escaped the that was dwelling in the station. There was no mention of that on the website.

 

Starting from 14 Street–Union Square, the had numerous delays. This was true all the way to Coney Island–Stillwell Avenue. Nary a peep from the MTA regarding the . They did mention problems with Queens-bound and trains though, which was irrelevant to me.

[T to Dyre Avenue]

Bringing this over from the thread on making the a full-time train to the Rockaways only:

 

 

I have myself many times brought up the idea of the Rockaway Beach Branch as a second line, mainly because it would also provide a second subway line for both the Racino at Aqueduct and Howard Beach-JFK Airport in addition to obviously The Rockaways.  How I would now do that, a bit different from previous ideas on this:

The would revert back to being the main line to Astoria and run 24/7.  Select trains on the going to Coney Island for the Yard (as that would become the Yard for the line) would run via the West End Line after 36th Street in service there and would be designated as such.

The would become the second train to Astoria, running there weekdays from 5:30 AM-10:00 PM.  Other times, the would run with the to 96th Street-2nd Avenue.

The would become the Rockaway Beach Line, running from Whitehall Street-Rockaway Park at all times, eliminating the Shuttle and giving those on the Broadway Line and (at 60th Street on 3rd-Lexington and 5th Avenues) east side access to the Racino at Aqueduct and JFK at Howard Beach.   Late nights, the line could be truncated to 34th Street.

As part of such, evenings, late nights and weekends the would go back to running to 71-Continental when there are no G.O.'s on the QB line to replace the and on weekends the .

If needed, a new  train could run from 95th Street-Broadway Junction via the Nassau and Broadway-Brooklyn Lines OR via reconnecting the Brooklyn-bound track from the Nassau Line to the Manhattan Bridge, running as a loop to and from 95th Street in Brooklyn, operating via the Tunnel (and stopping ONLY at Jay-Metrotech, Court, Broad, Fulton and Chambers) to Manhattan and via the Bridge back to Brooklyn).  Such would run 24/7 and allow the to in that scenario move its Brooklyn terminal to Coney Island via most likely the West End or Brighton Line.

 

No. Just no.

 

Better to just extend the or to the Rockaways, although if the is extended there, either the or the would have to run local between 71st-Continental and Roosevelt to on weekends to make up for the loss of the currently weekdays-only , which would be left as the sole train serving 67th Ave. Or expand the to seven days a week, then it would make more sense to reroute the M to the Rockaways and keep the R as the full-length Queens Blvd local. Will Queens Blvd be able to handle four services on weekends after the CBTC work is completed?

[Caelestor]

No. Just no.

 

Better to just extend the or to the Rockaways, although if the is extended there, either the or the would have to run local between 71st-Continental and Roosevelt to on weekends to make up for the loss of the currently weekdays-only , which would be left as the sole train serving 67th Ave. Or expand the to seven days a week, then it would make more sense to reroute the M to the Rockaways and keep the R as the full-length Queens Blvd local. Will Queens Blvd be able to handle four services on weekends after the CBTC work is completed?

 

Every Rockaway Branch proposal should be accompanied by a new QBL bypass through Woodside. There's not enough demand for local service on the QBL, and so all the riders are just going to transfer onto the at Roosevelt Ave. Most Rockaway Branch trains should be routed onto the LIRR bypass and onto 63 St, though the connection to the QBL local tracks should be built anyways since the provisions are already there.

[pringle5095]

Every Rockaway Branch proposal should be accompanied by a new QBL bypass through Woodside. There's not enough demand for local service on the QBL, and so all the riders are just going to transfer onto the at Roosevelt Ave. Most Rockaway Branch trains should be routed onto the LIRR bypass and onto 63 St, though the connection to the QBL local tracks should be built anyways since the provisions are already there.

May as well put the as the QBL Express and the onto the LIRR to Rockaways

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Around the Horn]

May as well put the as the QBL Express and the onto the LIRR to Rockaways

 

Are you kidding me? QBL riders would throw a fit!

[T to Dyre Avenue]

Every Rockaway Branch proposal should be accompanied by a new QBL bypass through Woodside. There's not enough demand for local service on the QBL, and so all the riders are just going to transfer onto the at Roosevelt Ave. Most Rockaway Branch trains should be routed onto the LIRR bypass and onto 63 St, though the connection to the QBL local tracks should be built anyways since the provisions are already there.

I don't disagree with the need for a Queens Blvd bypass through Woodside. It is very much needed. But I do think every Rockaway Branch proposal that involves incorporating it into the QB subway should include converting Woodhaven Blvd into an express station using the existing provisions put in when the IND was first built. While most riders will likely transfer to the at an express Woodhaven Blvd station, it would be preferable to transferring at Roosevelt Ave with its narrow platforms full of riders coming off the . A converted Woodhaven Blvd station would likely have much wider platforms than Roosevelt.

 

But I think the Rockaway service should run via the Queens Blvd subway so that it can connect to more subway and bus lines, which would be great for intra-Queens travel and help boost ridership. The bypass line might be better suited for the train.

[Wallyhorse]

No. Just no.

 

Better to just extend the or to the Rockaways, although if the is extended there, either the or the would have to run local between 71st-Continental and Roosevelt to on weekends to make up for the loss of the currently weekdays-only , which would be left as the sole train serving 67th Ave. Or expand the to seven days a week, then it would make more sense to reroute the M to the Rockaways and keep the R as the full-length Queens Blvd local. Will Queens Blvd be able to handle four services on weekends after the CBTC work is completed?

The problem with extending the there is the route already is very long (there's a reason it's known as the "rarely" in some cases).

 

The 's problem is that does not go through lower Manhattan (which some people I know still refer to as The Financial District even if we know better).  The thinking is for any line on the Rockaway Beach Branch, you do need to have such a line go through lower Manhattan, especially with the Racino at Aqueduct (as I do think Genting, a Malaysia-based company that owns Resorts World at Aqueduct would want such in particular).  

 

That's why I do the changes that I do with and make the a 24/7 line between Whitehall and Rockaway Park (which also in this scenario gives riders from the Rockaways and JFK direct access to the Broadway Line), including moving the back to Astoria and if necessary switching southern terminals to Coney Island and run it as a second West End Line and creating a new train on the Nassau line to replace the between 36th and 95th Streets.

[T to Dyre Avenue]

The problem with extending the there is the route already is very long (there's a reason it's known as the "rarely" in some cases).

 

The 's problem is that does not go through lower Manhattan (which some people I know still refer to as The Financial District even if we know better). The thinking is for any line on the Rockaway Beach Branch, you do need to have such a line go through lower Manhattan, especially with the Racino at Aqueduct (as I do think Genting, a Malaysia-based company that owns Resorts World at Aqueduct would want such in particular).

 

That's why I do the changes that I do with and make the a 24/7 line between Whitehall and Rockaway Park (which also in this scenario gives riders from the Rockaways and JFK direct access to the Broadway Line), including moving the back to Astoria and if necessary switching southern terminals to Coney Island and run it as a second West End Line and creating a new train on the Nassau line to replace the between 36th and 95th Streets.

No it's not! Genting has absolutely nothing to do with this! They aren't building anything other than an expansion of Resorts World. How many freaking times do people have to point this out to you? They don't give two shits about whether or not the serves the Financial District. Genting already provides shuttle bus transportation. Besides - and this has already been pointed out to you numerous times - there already is a Rockaways train that serves the Financial District. It's called the train! How many times does the existence of the A train and its stop at Broadway-Nassau have to be pointed out to you?

 

If you brought up the multiple merges with the , , and lines (in that order) as being the problem, then I might be inclined to agree. Same if you brought up that the is the first train to go whenever there's a meltdown in Queens Blvd service. Or maybe that the MTA might not want to have four services running on Queens Blvd on weekends because that's when they perform track and signal work. Because any of those would be valid issues with extending the to Rockaway Park. Issues that might not be such a concern if they opt to extend the to Rockaway Park instead of the M. But no, you had to go and post the same tired old bullshit response you gave five years ago about Genting not being aware that Lower Manhattan is no longer NYC's main business district ("even if WE know better" - yeah, you said that before). You were wrong then. You're wrong now.

 

And please stop with the R being a very long route! It's certainly not a short route, but you have it running down Brighton or West End in Brooklyn. Wouldn't THAT make it a very long route too?

Edited January 19, 2017 by T to Dyre Avenue

[Around the Horn]

No it's not! Genting has absolutely nothing to do with this! They aren't building anything other than an expansion of Resorts World. How many freaking times do people have to point this out to you?

 

And please stop with the R being a very long route. You have it running down Brighton or West End in Brooklyn. Wouldn't THAT make it a very long route too?

 

Agree with you totally...

I don't care how much money Genting has or makes. The  would laugh in their face...

[T to Dyre Avenue]

See, what I'm trying to gauge is whether the  or the  is the better option for extending one of the existing QB local services onto the Rockaway Beach branch. Or if it should be a revived V service via 2nd Ave, 63rd St tunnel and either the QB local or the QB bypass. Or if it should be LIRR. I'm not interested in  trains going back to Astoria or running on the Brighton Line or  trains running to Bay Ridge or  trains with a different northern terminal depending on the time of the week, etc.

Edited January 19, 2017 by T to Dyre Avenue

[Caelestor]

See, what I'm trying to gauge is whether the  or the  is the better option for extending one of the existing QB local services onto the Rockaway Beach branch. Or if it should be a revived V service via 2nd Ave, 63rd St tunnel and either the QB local or the QB bypass. Or if it should be LIRR. I'm not interested in  trains going back to Astoria or running on the Brighton Line or  trains running to Bay Ridge or  trains with a different northern terminal depending on the time of the week, etc.

 

The cheapest option is to run the via 2 Ave, 63 St, QBL bypass, and the reactivated Rockaway Branch, since building connections to the existing QBL is going to be costly. 

 

The is the better QBL local option to extend: the Broadway corridor is the busiest at night I believe, so the is a better full-time route than the , which also has the disadvantage of running above ground in Brooklyn.

 

LIRR conversion is not the best option since the lower half of the Rockaway Branch is already part of the subway.

Edited January 20, 2017 by Caelestor

[T to Dyre Avenue]

The V has the advantage of not having to dig an underground connection from the north end of the Rockaway Branch to the QBL, which does save on construction costs. On the other hand, it would have fewer connections to other services in North Queens because it would be somewhat isolated on the bypass tracks. Another service on the bypass - one that branches off QB somewhere near Forest Hills or Kew Gardens would help somewhat. But I still think an extended or would offer more subway and bus connections throughout North Queens because of all the connecting services at each QBL stop.

[bobtehpanda]

I don't disagree with the need for a Queens Blvd bypass through Woodside. It is very much needed. But I do think every Rockaway Branch proposal that involves incorporating it into the QB subway should include converting Woodhaven Blvd into an express station using the existing provisions put in when the IND was first built. While most riders will likely transfer to the at an express Woodhaven Blvd station, it would be preferable to transferring at Roosevelt Ave with its narrow platforms full of riders coming off the . A converted Woodhaven Blvd station would likely have much wider platforms than Roosevelt.

 

But I think the Rockaway service should run via the Queens Blvd subway so that it can connect to more subway and bus lines, which would be great for intra-Queens travel and help boost ridership. The bypass line might be better suited for the train.

 

I don't think that converting Woodhaven has ever not been discussed in conjunction with a QBL local going to Rockaway. Heck, I think it should be converted at today's crowding levels, let alone a hypothetical tomorrow's.

 

QBL local via Rockaway also solves the terminal constraint at Forest Hills rather nicely.

 

The problem with extending the there is the route already is very long (there's a reason it's known as the "rarely" in some cases).

 

The 's problem is that does not go through lower Manhattan (which some people I know still refer to as The Financial District even if we know better).  The thinking is for any line on the Rockaway Beach Branch, you do need to have such a line go through lower Manhattan, especially with the Racino at Aqueduct (as I do think Genting, a Malaysia-based company that owns Resorts World at Aqueduct would want such in particular).  

 

That's why I do the changes that I do with and make the a 24/7 line between Whitehall and Rockaway Park (which also in this scenario gives riders from the Rockaways and JFK direct access to the Broadway Line), including moving the back to Astoria and if necessary switching southern terminals to Coney Island and run it as a second West End Line and creating a new train on the Nassau line to replace the between 36th and 95th Streets.

 

If it's so important to Genting (hint: it isn't), then Genting can front all of the money. Otherwise they can get f*** all.

 

The V has the advantage of not having to dig an underground connection from the north end of the Rockaway Branch to the QBL, which does save on construction costs. On the other hand, it would have fewer connections to other services in North Queens because it would be somewhat isolated on the bypass tracks. Another service on the bypass - one that branches off QB somewhere near Forest Hills or Kew Gardens would help somewhat. But I still think an extended or would offer more subway and bus connections throughout North Queens because of all the connecting services at each QBL stop.

 

From what I understand (and I may very well be wrong), a physical connection to QBL from RBB is basically done, in the same way that the tunnel from Jamaica Center to the Atlantic Branch is done.

[bobtehpanda]

Duplicate post, delete. 

Edited January 20, 2017 by bobtehpanda

[T to Dyre Avenue]

I don't think that converting Woodhaven has ever not been discussed in conjunction with a QBL local going to Rockaway. Heck, I think it should be converted at today's crowding levels, let alone a hypothetical tomorrow's.

 

QBL local via Rockaway also solves the terminal constraint at Forest Hills rather nicely.

I agree there. But I did see a posting on the Rockaway Beach Branch Facebook page where the poster assumed that Rockaway subway riders would have to wait until Roosevelt to transfer to the . I'm assuming he's not the only one who assumes they would leave Woodhaven as is. Not surprisingly, he was against a subway extension and in favor of not just restoring the branch as LIRR, but also converting the existing service back to LIRR (which is an unrealistic proposal for so many reasons).

 

And as a former daily QBL rider, I was and still am in favor of converting Woodhaven into an express station, Rockaway Branch or no Rockaway Branch.

Edited January 20, 2017 by T to Dyre Avenue

[Tonyboy515]

To solve the Bay Ridge-4th Avenue line situation, I was thinking about bringing back the and as they were before, except that the would terminate at Bay Ridge-95th Street instead of Bay Parkway or 9th Avenue, and would go via the 4th Avenue Local. The will act as the (M)'s replacement.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using NYC Transit Forums mobile app

Edited January 21, 2017 by Tonyboy515

[BayParkwayW]

To solve the Bay Ridge-4th Avenue line situation, I was thinking about bringing back the and as they were before, except that the would terminate at Bay Ridge-95th Street instead of Bay Parkway or 9th Avenue, and would go via the 4th Avenue Local. The will act as the (M)'s replacement.

Sent from my iPhone using NYC Transit Forums mobile app

The has a bad dead end at 2nd Avenue, which would mean current riders coming from Brooklyn would have to transfer to the from the at Essex, and then make another transfer to the . Besides, I don't think Bay Ridge has good capacity for handling both and .

[Wallyhorse]

The has a bad dead end at 2nd Avenue, which would mean current riders coming from Brooklyn would have to transfer to the from the at Essex, and then make another transfer to the . Besides, I don't think Bay Ridge has good capacity for handling both and .

Yeah, if you're going to do that, then make the the full-time Fulton Local to Church Avenue while the becomes the full-time express in Park Slope, also to Church Avenue with a limited number of peak-direction trains to Kings Highway that run on the express track between Church and Kings Highway.

[T to Dyre Avenue]

To solve the Bay Ridge-4th Avenue line situation, I was thinking about bringing back the and as they were before, except that the would terminate at Bay Ridge-95th Street instead of Bay Parkway or 9th Avenue, and would go via the 4th Avenue Local. The will act as the (M)'s replacement.

Sent from my iPhone using NYC Transit Forums mobile app

Splitting the back into the separate and won't solve the "Bay Ridge-4th Avenue line situation" (exactly what situation would that be?). The old got delayed outside Broad whenever a or terminated there. I really don't see the benefit in doing that. As for the , it would be dead-ending at 2nd Ave and holding up Brooklyn-bound trains. Not sure why the got delayed whenever a pulled into 2nd Ave but it always seemed to.

[Wallyhorse]

Splitting the back into the separate and won't solve the "Bay Ridge-4th Avenue line situation" (exactly what situation would that be?). The old got delayed outside Broad whenever a or terminated there. I really don't see the benefit in doing that. As for the , it would be dead-ending at 2nd Ave and holding up Brooklyn-bound trains. Not sure why the got delayed whenever a pulled into 2nd Ave but it always seemed to.

Not if this   is 24/7 while the / terminates at Chambers.   That would solve that issue with the   running full-time to Metropolitan to 95th Street (eliminating the late-night shuttle).

 

As for the that can continue running as the has been and be a second route from Metropolitan.  

[Jemorie]

The has a bad dead end at 2nd Avenue, which would mean current riders coming from Brooklyn would have to transfer to the from the at Essex, and then make another transfer to the . Besides, I don't think Bay Ridge has good capacity for handling both and .

 

why would they transfer to the ? the makes the same avenue of the Americans station stops too. they just don't want the current riders piling onto already overcrowded rush hour trains or generally having to make multiple transfers to other lines just to reach chelsea and midtown manhattan or the itself to get to Broadway in Brooklyn and the Myrtle Avenue line.

[Lance]

Not if this   is 24/7 while the / terminates at Chambers.   That would solve that issue with the   running full-time to Metropolitan to 95th Street (eliminating the late-night shuttle).

 

As for the that can continue running as the has been and be a second route from Metropolitan.  

That record you keep playing has been shattered into a thousand pieces. Come up with a new idea for once. In fact, come up with one that doesn't crap on other riders' commutes so a few more people can have a one-seat ride.

 

why would they transfer to the ? the makes the same avenue of the Americans station stops too. they just don't want the current riders piling onto already overcrowded rush hour trains or generally having to make multiple transfers to other lines just to reach chelsea and midtown manhattan or the itself to get to Broadway in Brooklyn and the Myrtle Avenue line.

They wouldn't. However, if I'm understanding the previous comment correctly, he's saying that riders along the current path of the will have to transfer to other lines, mainly the and , if the was to revert back to a Nassau St route to Chambers St or Bay Parkway. On that subject, any so-called service improvement plan that calls for elimination of the 6th Avenue in any way whatsoever is dead on arrival. The present route is much more popular than the pre-2010 routes.

 

On a side note, welcome to the forums Jemorie.

[T to Dyre Avenue]

Not if this is 24/7 while the / terminates at Chambers. That would solve that issue with the running full-time to Metropolitan to 95th Street (eliminating the late-night shuttle).

 

As for the that can continue running as the has been and be a second route from Metropolitan.

It doesn't matter. There's not enough capacity on the Broadway el between Myrtle and Essex for both the old and the new (or as you're calling it) along with the and the . The switching delays at Myrtle and Essex alone would doom this idea to failure. Not to mention that the new is way more popular than the old .

[Wallyhorse]

It doesn't matter. There's not enough capacity on the Broadway el between Myrtle and Essex for both the old and the new (or as you're calling it) along with the and the . The switching delays at Myrtle and Essex alone would doom this idea to failure. Not to mention that the new is way more popular than the old .

That is why I originally came up with a "Brown (K)" that can either run 95th-Chambers (with the also terminating at Chambers) OR (with the running as it is now) with this line being a loop line with 95th Street as the sole terminal (and technically Chambers the northern terminal even though it would head right back) running via a re-connection to the Manhattan Bridge to Brooklyn and via the tunnel to Manhattan (stopping on the northbound platform ONLY at Jay-Metrotech, Court, Broad, Fulton and Chambers before returning to Brooklyn).  

 

Not perfect, but it does solve some of the 4th Avenue issues on the by having a second line run there (obviously, this would have to wait until after the work on the tunnel that is suggested for next year happens). 

[pringle5095]

Maybe creating a new East River tube extending the to 4th Avenue and by extension 95 St.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk