Department of Subways - Proposals/Ideas

[T to Dyre Avenue]

Which to me is going to be a disaster and why I would have OOS transfers from the at Fulton to all of the lines at Atlantic-Barclays and encourage riders (especially those looking for lower Manhattan to do that or use the at Hoyt-Schermerhorn.

 

In my version, as noted before the and all go to 179 as locals (with if there is congestion the option to move any train on the local to the express after Parsons Boulevard) while the is express all the way. That solves that issue of the conga line.

No it doesn't! All you're doing is taking the , and trains miles out of their way (especially the ) AND moving the conga line to 179th St. By saying you'd "move any train on the local to the express after Parsons," you've pretty much admitted there will be conga lines at 179. No, sorry, but it's not necessary to put many more miles on the trains and risk meltdowns on five subway lines, due to three of them sharing the QB local tracks from Queens Plaza to 179th St. Edited July 25, 2017 by T to Dyre Avenue

[biGC323232]

No it doesn't! All you're doing is taking the , and trains miles out of their way (especially the ) AND moving the conga line to 179th St. By saying you'd "move any train on the local to the express after Parsons," you've pretty much admitted there will be conga lines at 179. No, sorry, but it's not necessary to put many more miles on the trains and risk meltdowns on five subway lines, due to three of them sharing the QB local tracks from Queens Plaza to 179th St.

Its a great idea on paper if all the ppl who boarded at 179st was MIDTOWN only workers and vice versa... ....Let's say for instance the  did decided to make a move like this....you'll have the    merging at van wyck rather than 75st which in terms slowing the express service already... Then there's the      lcls the entire qns blvd which no one gonna really board except to make the transfer to    ..because at 179 to 75st the  is there with express service after 75st...Really not worth it

[Wallyhorse]

No it doesn't! All you're doing is taking the , and trains miles out of their way (especially the ) AND moving the conga line to 179th St. By saying you'd "move any train on the local to the express after Parsons," you've pretty much admitted there will be conga lines at 179. No, sorry, but it's not necessary to put many more miles on the trains and risk meltdowns on five subway lines, due to three of them sharing the QB local tracks from Queens Plaza to 179th St.

Which shows there really are no "good options" on this one.  Court Square to me is going to be a disaster and why I would be encouraging people to where possible take the the other way Hoyt-Schermerhorn for a transfer to the or to Fulton for an OOS transfer to the at Atlantic-Barclays.  

[Wallyhorse]

    I don't understand. You are reducing the two useful services -- and -- to make way for something that serves literally no purpose. NO ONE will use transfers at Queens Plaza. It gets you Broadway, sure, but you already have the , and covering midtown, and let's face it, few riders will plan their commutes around the given its unreliability, and even fewer will opt for a walk outdoors. Get over it. And even worse, you're screwing Eastern Queens riders while doing it by moving their s to the express track, forcing them to transfer, creating roosevelt v2. You can't plan subway service because it's cool or it's novel, or you miss a service pattern. The time for on Queens Boulevard has passed. Pragmatism must rule, not romanticism. 

I would myself be looking to avoid Court Square at all costs.  The transfer to/from the at Queens Plaza is much easier than at Court Square, and anyone actually going towards 179 or Jamaica Center would actually have an easier time either transferring to the at QP or staying on the to wherever.  For reverse commuters actually going to Eastern Queens, this makes things less hectic for them.  

 

That said, the mileage problem on cars is a legit problem and understandable.  It's too back they did not look at figuring out a way to have the be able to terminate at Queens Plaza while not having to do all the crossovers to reverse, especially when also building the connection to the QB line from 63rd.  

[RR503]

There is only one way I can see Hillside Exp service happening IMO. The  stays as-is. The  runs exp the full length of Queens Blvd from 21 St/Queensbridge-179 St. The  returns to 71 Av full time. The  runs via the Rockaway Branch to either Howard Beach or Rockaway Park via a new spur at 63 Dr-Rego Park. The  is shifted to 63 St and and runs via a new bypass to 179 St, making local stops east of Forest Hills. THe only con I can see with this is that the  has to merge three times(with the  36 St,  at Lex-63 St, and    at 57 St-7 Av).

 

Shoot me.

 

We. Don't. Need. . Service. On. Queens. Boulevard. 

 

If the bypass is built, it will likely be after phase 3 of SAS, so that's where the trains will come from. I'd say via bypass, (second ave-179) via QB exp, as now, to rockaways, as now (cause riders need those QP xfers, unlike riders...). 

[LGA Link N Train]

-125th Street to Hanover Square. We can all keep dreaming or pretend to create that, because budget problems would never allow it to be fully completed.

Why bother completing the whole thing when you could just integregate it to existing lines

[LGA Link N Train]

Shoot me.

 

We. Don't. Need. . Service. On. Queens. Boulevard. 

 

If the bypass is built, it will likely be after phase 3 of SAS, so that's where the trains will come from. I'd say via bypass, (second ave-179) via QB exp, as now, to rockaways, as now (cause riders need those QP xfers, unlike riders...). 

Well, this is how I see how Queens Boulevard Should be.

train stays as is but extended to Larueton using the LIRR ROW

Gains that bit of extra bit of express service past Forest Hills

in the weekdays will terminate at Roosevelt Avenue or Jamaica 179 St to pick up riders who want to go to Williamsburg or Greenpoint from Queens (this would be good for the train shutdown

could be a revived as either an 8 Av, 6 Av, or 2 Av service using the rockaway branch

could use the bypass at 63 St and run local to 179 St

and should swap for better local/express service (just get through the NIMBY's first)

the World fair line could be rebuilt for better service to LGA but I don't see this happening anytime soon.

If you're not okay with that then we could rearrange the trains at Queens plaza so that trains could terminate there instead

[RR503]

Well, this is how I see how Queens Boulevard Should be.

train stays as is but extended to Larueton using the LIRR ROW

 

I agree -- just need money/political will 

 

Gains that bit of extra bit of express service past Forest Hills

 

Ditto. 

 

in the weekdays will terminate at Roosevelt Avenue or Jamaica 179 St to pick up riders who want to go to Williamsburg or Greenpoint from Queens (this would be good for the train shutdown

 

no no no no no no NO! 1. Roosevelt would be a terrible terminal. No way to easily turn trains. 2. You (and everyone else who suggests this) still haven't demonstrated the market for a Queens Boulevard train. Many cite the shutdown as requiring it, but a. Queens Boulevard is nowhere near the line, and b. I am not aware of any significant commutation market between the two. And anyway, riders can already transfer at Court Square. 

 

could be a revived as either an 8 Av, 6 Av, or 2 Av service using the rockaway branch

 

8th/6th doesn't have capacity, so 2nd it is. 

 

could use the bypass at 63 St and run local to 179 St

 

You're overstuffing 63rd st, and not replacing the with anything on 53rd. Leave the alone -- direct QBLocal service to 6th is a good thing. I'd put the on the Bypass and whatever the 2nd ave service is on the normal exp tracks, as I said above. 

 

and should swap for better local/express service (just get through the NIMBY's first)

 

That leaves the yardless. So no. 

 

the World fair line could be rebuilt for better service to LGA but I don't see this happening anytime soon.

 

Just extend the line, if we are assuming we can ignore nimbys.. No? 

 

If you're not okay with that then we could rearrange the trains at Queens plaza so that trains could terminate there instead

 

...or we could leave the at Court Square...

Edited August 18, 2017 by RR503

[T to Dyre Avenue]

Well, this is how I see how Queens Boulevard Should be.

train stays as is but extended to Larueton using the LIRR ROW

Gains that bit of extra bit of express service past Forest Hills

in the weekdays will terminate at Roosevelt Avenue or Jamaica 179 St to pick up riders who want to go to Williamsburg or Greenpoint from Queens (this would be good for the train shutdown

could be a revived as either an 8 Av, 6 Av, or 2 Av service using the rockaway branch

could use the bypass at 63 St and run local to 179 St

and should swap for better local/express service (just get through the NIMBY's first)

the World fair line could be rebuilt for better service to LGA but I don't see this happening anytime soon.If you're not okay with that then we could rearrange the trains at Queens plaza so that trains could terminate there instead

  

The train tunnel shutdown will be over long, long before a Queens Blvd bypass is ever built, so it is completely unnecessary to extend the to Queens Blvd.

 

If the is rerouted to the 63rd St Tunnel, then what 6th Avenue train will take its place in the 53rd St Tunnel? (Please don't say the !)

Why bother completing the whole thing when you could just integregate it to existing lines

And why are you responding to a post from 2011 by someone who doesn't post on here any more?

[LGA Link N Train]

The train tunnel shutdown will be over long, long before a Queens Blvd bypass is ever built, so it is completely unnecessary to extend the to Queens Blvd.

 

If the is rerouted to the 63rd St Tunnel, then what 6th Avenue train will take its place in the 53rd St Tunnel? (Please don't say the !)

And why are you responding to a post from 2011 by someone who doesn't post on here any more?

A. Cause some Queens Blvd riders might work at Greenpoint or Williamsburg

B. Cause I can

 

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

[Around the Horn]

A. Cause some Queens Blvd riders might work at Greenpoint or Williamsburg

B. Cause I can

 

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

You have read the forum rules right? Necroposting is frowned upon.

[LGA Link N Train]

You have read the forum rules right? Necroposting is frowned upon.

Oh, my bad

 

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

[R42N]

Here’s a crazy proposal that’ll never happen, but is an interesting thought nonetheless. 

 

So, it’s no secret that the Nassau Line is considerably underused (has two abandoned tracks) and lacks is probably the most under maintained. Well, if Phase 3/4 gets going on the SAS, here is my proposal: Instead of terminating the down in Hanover Square (which would only further reduce the number of Nassau passengers), you could combine it down a newly renovated Nassau Avenue Line. 

 

Here’s what I suggest: Close the on Nassau Avenue for 3-5 years, and completely renovate the line from top to bottom. It would be considerably less expensive, since all the structure is in place and there would be an extra incentive to renovate the Nassau Avenue Line (the extra passengers.) 

 

While the Nassau Avenue Line is being renovated, you could combine the and the , by running the down through W4st, Christie St, and running the route between Essex Avenue and Jamaica Center.

 

Then, when the Nassau Line is fully renovated, the Teal will run down to the new Broad St with the . Far out there, but thoughts?

[LGA Link N Train]

Here’s a crazy proposal that’ll never happen, but is an interesting thought nonetheless.

 

So, it’s no secret that the Nassau Line is considerably underused (has two abandoned tracks) and lacks is probably the most under maintained. Well, if Phase 3/4 gets going on the SAS, here is my proposal: Instead of terminating the down in Hanover Square (which would only further reduce the number of Nassau passengers), you could combine it down a newly renovated Nassau Avenue Line.

 

Here’s what I suggest: Close the on Nassau Avenue for 3-5 years, and completely renovate the line from top to bottom. It would be considerably less expensive, since all the structure is in place and there would be an extra incentive to renovate the Nassau Avenue Line (the extra passengers.)

 

While the Nassau Avenue Line is being renovated, you could combine the and the , by running the down through W4st, Christie St, and running the route between Essex Avenue and Jamaica Center.

 

Then, when the Nassau Line is fully renovated, the Teal will run down to the new Broad St with the . Far out there, but thoughts?

I might as well have the terminate at Chambers and Have the (if it still exists at this time) run down to Broad St or further

 

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

[Around the Horn]

MTA considered that for the SAS EIS but chose to not do it due to the cost and disruption to area residents.

[R42N]

It has been noted that you cannot link up the  with the  at Bowery many times before. The eastern end of Bowery lies under Chrystie St, which the  will run down as it is a continuation of 2 Av. So the  can't stop at Bowery because it would have to make a really sharp S-curve to connect with the  . Instead what you could do is sever the Nassau line south of Chambers and have the  take over south of there and use the capacity in Montague. And what would take over the Fulton St Line if you plan to run the  to Jamaica? And please don't say the  .

EDIT: I assume the renovations would include lengthening the platforms to acccommodate 10-car trains.

 

 

This is 20 years or so down the road, so one never knows what’ll happen.

 

However, I do have to say, if Phase 4 does open as planned, and you don’t link it with the SAS, you might as well close the Nassau St Line. It is severely underutilized and Chambers St is, while historic, is about as disgusting as it comes to a Subway Station. I think as less and less people use the Financial District and Midtown becomes more popular, the , going uptown (maybe up to 96st, you never know...) with connections to Financial bound Lexington Avenue Line and the new Second Avenue Line is all you’ll need. 

Edited August 18, 2017 by R42N

[Union Tpke]

This is 20 years or so down the road, so one never knows what’ll happen.

 

However, I do have to say, if Phase 4 does open as planned, and you don’t link it with the SAS, you might as well close the Nassau St Line. It is severely underutilized and Chambers St is, while historic, is about as disgusting as it comes to a Subway Station. I think as less and less people use the Financial District and Midtown becomes more popular, the , going uptown (maybe up to 96st, you never know...) with connections to Financial bound Lexington Avenue Line and the new Second Avenue Line is all you’ll need. 

 

You can't just close a line like that. That would be a huge mess. The line is still in use, and ridership has been up and many of the stations. People considered closing the L in the 70s, and look at what happened. Anyhow, it would be a mess to keep trespassers out.

[LGA Link N Train]

MTA considered that for the SAS EIS but chose to not do it due to the cost and disruption to area residents.

Why is the EIS still in effect???

 

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

[R42N]

You can't just close a line like that. That would be a huge mess. The line is still in use, and ridership has been up and many of the stations. People considered closing the L in the 70s, and look at what happened. Anyhow, it would be a mess to keep trespassers out.

 

 

Well, something needs to be done with it. The situation of the stations is so utterly horrible, a major renovation needs to be done, or they need to close the line for a few years to make them “enhanced” like they are doing with Sea Beach and 4th Ave.

[Union Tpke]

Why is the EIS still in effect???

 

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

 

What do you mean by still in effect? An Environmental Impact Statement is required by the National Environmental Policy Act to ensure that any planned project does not cause adverse impacts to the local economy, businesses, people's homes, and the environment. The 2004 EIS analyzed the feasibility and the best option for completing a full-length Second Avenue Subway. The two options analyzed (multiple alternatives have to be looked at) were Nassau Street and Water Street. It was viewed to be too disruptive to connect to the Nassau Street Line, so the plan that is in place, if we ever get to Phase 4, is to build under Water Street. A revision to the EIS will likely need to take place for Phases 3 and 4, and while it is possible that new cost estimates find that it would be cheaper and more beneficial to use the Nassau Street Line, it is unlikely. Nassau Street's tracks still lead into DeKalb Junction, its platform are too short, and it will still be difficult to connect to any subway line under Second Avenue.

[MassTransitHonchkrow]

Once the is shut down, having the run on QP also allows for transfers to the at Queens Plaza as well as OOS to the and .  

that was the idea. The emphasis should be on connections as much as it is stations served. Even if it isn't ideal, I don't think it should be a full time service adjustment.

In addition, even if the tracks aren't connected to anything, I still think they can be used to tuck extra trains away in the event of a train malfunction or other malady.

The trains tucked away should have the tightest inspection schedule.

[LGA Link N Train]

LGA N Train: Again, you cannot spilt up the "(J)" or the "(Z)" or else they will become separate lines.

That's the idea, just increase the capacity in both of them, I see a potential where the and the would Separate

 

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

[LGA Link N Train]

There are a few reasons why this won't work.

 

1) R32s and R42s are banned from Montague.

 

2) Any line that goes to South Brooklyn would be subjected to the notoriously bottlenecked Dekalb Interlocking.

 

3) Nassau is not popular with riders. Look at how empty the old "(M)" was between Chambers and Bay Pkwy.

 

4) You need to send the "(J)" with the "(Z)" to keep the current skip-stop service.

 

5) There aren't enough cars for it at the moment. It could only work after the 211's are in, but even so, why waste the money?

I want to look for a solution to make service more popular on the Nassau Street subway, and If R32's and R42's are banned from Montague then how can service be improved or more attractive in Nassau Street cause it has very low ridership? ???

 

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

I want to look for a solution to make service more popular on the Nassau Street subway, and If R32's and R42's are banned from Montague then how can service be improved or more attractive in Nassau Street cause it has very low ridership? ???

 

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

And, might as well look for a way to rebuild the Dekalb Avenue Junction

 

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

[Trainmaster5]

I want to look for a solution to make service more popular on the Nassau Street subway, and If R32's and R42's are banned from Montague then how can service be improved or more attractive in Nassau Street cause it has very low ridership? ???

 

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

Why would you want to make service along Nassau Street more popular? With the exception of the rush hours there's no real reason to travel on that line. Anyone traveling along the 4th Avenue Line or Brighton corridor along the stretch from Prospect Park to DeKalb Avenue already has options to reach that area. Look back at the travel patterns since 1967 or the Mid-Eighties 'til 9/11. Outside of the rush hours there wasn't any clamor for service on the line. Even with the original WTC still standing. You seem to want to put those tracks to use but the potential ridership, today and in the past, say you're wasting your time and costing the money. Carry on.

[LGA Link N Train]

Why would you want to make service along Nassau Street more popular? With the exception of the rush hours there's no real reason to travel on that line. Anyone traveling along the 4th Avenue Line or Brighton corridor along the stretch from Prospect Park to DeKalb Avenue already has options to reach that area. Look back at the travel patterns since 1967 or the Mid-Eighties 'til 9/11. Outside of the rush hours there wasn't any clamor for service on the line. Even with the original WTC still standing. You seem to want to put those tracks to use but the potential ridership, today and in the past, say you're wasting your time and costing the money. Carry on.

Ummm... ok

 

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

Why would you want to make service along Nassau Street more popular? With the exception of the rush hours there's no real reason to travel on that line. Anyone traveling along the 4th Avenue Line or Brighton corridor along the stretch from Prospect Park to DeKalb Avenue already has options to reach that area. Look back at the travel patterns since 1967 or the Mid-Eighties 'til 9/11. Outside of the rush hours there wasn't any clamor for service on the line. Even with the original WTC still standing. You seem to want to put those tracks to use but the potential ridership, today and in the past, say you're wasting your time and costing the money. Carry on.

So leave the line as is and just rehabilitate Chambers Street Station????

 

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk