Department of Subways - Proposals/Ideas

[R68OnBroadway]

31 minutes ago, bobtehpanda said:

Recently redid my old proposal plans.

• Full SAS with link to Fulton. All trains terminate at Euclid; to Lefferts; to Howard Beach/Rock Park.
• goes to Morningside Heights. goes to Co-op City by way of Fordham Plaza.
• Turquoise is a new service. Local service from 179 St to Forest Hills, then using the Bypass and a new train line to Utica.

Less important stuff that must come after all of that:

• to Avenue U.
• to Howard Beach.
• to 188 St via either Jewel, 73, or some combination of those.
• to Farmers Blvd.
• to Springfield.
• to QCC.
• link to Woodlawn, to also help relieve the  on GC. (Unsure if needed post-Q extension.

Stuff that could happen in any order:

• (X). Parts north of Jackson Heights are optional.

Problems that are solved:

• Capacity relief in East Side
• Capacity relief in Queens
• Capacity relief in Willamsburg
• Capacity relief on Brooklyn IRT
• Fast link across 125 St
• Fast link(s) between Brooklyn and Queens
• Fast link across Bronx
• Maximum coverage; no parts of Brooklyn or Queens should be more than a 20 minute bus ride from a subway station

 

 

It looks good, but there are a few problems, mainly due to line length.

The  ,  , and  are already very long lines that suffer from erratic service, and an extension will only worsen the problem. However, we can't really fix this issue without doing some wacky service proposal. 

The RBB should be built off of the Queens bypass, not QBL. Putting it on QBL would limit capacity there and the  , being a local, would not attract many riders.

This is more of a question, but where would you put the new NYTM? The only practical place I can think of is City Hall LL.

 

 

 

[bobtehpanda]

37 minutes ago, D to 96 St said:

Not bad. Very good, in fact. 

Except the  should go to Springfield, the  could run Jerome Av Exp, the (X) cold go to SI, and  to Voorhies. 

Also the  should be extended to Hollis, a SAS branch could go to Throgs Neck, and why not extend to Concourse Line to White Plains Rd?

So, for all of those, the question is: why? Every additional mile is expensive, every additional station is expensive. The going to Springfield, the to Voorhies, and Concourse to WPR are not enough value for money. Springfield is walking distance from Farmers. So is Voorhies from Av U. On a bus the travel time is basically zero. Spending another $1B to serve a community within walking distance is not worth it.

The Jerome Av Express basically skips where all the riders are. It's not useful for anybody unless your target objective is "use every last mile of track".

Throgs Neck is not dense enough to warrant that kind of service, and is 20 minutes from a subway station. It's not necessary.

You don't need both the to Hollis and the to Springfield, and if I had to pick one, the is much better, simply because Jamaica Av is a terrible place to be terminating buses at or running buses through.

12 minutes ago, R68OnBroadway said:

It looks good, but there are a few problems, mainly due to line length.

The  ,  , and  are already very long lines that suffer from erratic service, and an extension will only worsen the problem. However, we can't really fix this issue without doing some wacky service proposal. 

The RBB should be built off of the Queens bypass, not QBL. Putting it on QBL would limit capacity there and the  , being a local, would not attract many riders.

This is more of a question, but where would you put the new NYTM? The only practical place I can think of is City Hall LL.

The lines are not unreliable because they are long, the lines are unreliable because of all their merging. In the three cases you mention:

• One merge is removed from the (A), namely the merge with the in Brooklyn. If unreliability continues to be a problem, run all shuttle service to Howard Beach and cut the to back there. The ridership is not high enough to justify sending full length trains to the Rockaways anyways.
• One switch is removed from the (F), the slow merge out of Forest Hills onto the local track. This has always been problematic.
• The is fine, if not unreliable because of 60th St. But that doesn't make it a bad candidate for expansion.

On the contrary, the RBB off the QBL will increase capacity; local capacity on QBL is limited by the fact that both routes terminate at Forest Hills. Giving each their own terminal stops fumigation from being the primary limit to local capacity. In contrast, there is no capacity on the bypass; you can only fit 15TPH through 63 St, and all of that should really be going to Eastern Queens, which needs it more than an area that pretty much already has subway service.

The being a local would still be faster than the Q52, which people take to get to a local subway stop. So that's not really a relevant concern.

Personally, I don't think the NYTM is worth saving if it means denying capacity for riders. But if you couldn't build around Court St, probably 148 St - Harlem.

[Union Tpke]

8 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

 

Personally, I don't think the NYTM is worth saving if it means denying capacity for riders. But if you couldn't build around Court St, probably 148 St - Harlem.

On the map you wrote Court Square. You can't build the NYTM at 148th as only A Division cars can get there. I think that it is worth saving, and I believe that it is at the best spot. Court Street is close to Hoyt. Have the trains run via State Street before going into Hoyt.

Also, why do you extend the 7 all the way to Springfield?

[LGA Link N Train]

Speaking of NYTM relocation, I remember Makinga thread on that 

Preferably  (with sea level rise in consideration) I'd move the NYTM to the LIRR long Island City station since it's VERY underutilized. From there you can build a new building and have a connection to the Queens Bypass and 63 Street. I chose this option due to how close it is to Midtown Manhattan and the fact that if I put it in long Island City, it would be attractive and more well known to tourist. All you have to do from there is advertise.

[Coney Island Av]

58 minutes ago, LGA Link N train said:

Speaking of NYTM relocation, I remember Makinga thread on that 

Preferably  (with sea level rise in consideration) I'd move the NYTM to the LIRR long Island City station since it's VERY underutilized. From there you can build a new building and have a connection to the Queens Bypass and 63 Street. I chose this option due to how close it is to Midtown Manhattan and the fact that if I put it in long Island City, it would be attractive and more well known to tourist. All you have to do from there is advertise.

I actually agree with this. It's only across the river from Midtown, but a new platform would have to be constructed to exhibit the old artifacts. Regardless, this location would actually attract more commuters. 

[BreeddekalbL]

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/flying-airport-article-1.3651910

Anyone see the editorial essentally endorsing the to lga?

[MassTransitHonchkrow]

I think the Triboro Rail Project would be a more feasible, better-serving and cost effective project.

 

@BreeddekalbL how about connecting the SAS to the tip of the Astoria line instead of tunneling even deeper under Lex Av - 125 St?

It would make for a fantastic view going into Manhattan and it wouldn't have to be tunneled under.

 

The Manhattan portion of SAS would still be underground.

But for EL material, fiberglass, faux quartz and stainless steel would make them the nicest looking ELs in the land. They get a bad rep, but the truth is, they really got bad maintenance.

[MassTransitHonchkrow]

2 hours ago, BreeddekalbL said:

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/flying-airport-article-1.3651910

Anyone see the editorial essentally endorsing the to lga?

Yup. SMH Cuomo really wants this to go on.

He gold-digs, he shoots transit in the hip, he scores!

[bobtehpanda]

21 hours ago, Union Tpke said:

On the map you wrote Court Square. You can't build the NYTM at 148th as only A Division cars can get there. I think that it is worth saving, and I believe that it is at the best spot. Court Street is close to Hoyt. Have the trains run via State Street before going into Hoyt.

Also, why do you extend the 7 all the way to Springfield?

Bayside is very dense, but the PW line is not a great place to actually put the train line because of how poor the connections with the bus network and street grid are. There's quite clearly a lot of latent ridership; the neighborhood is very dense, and Bayside was a top ten LIRR station the last time a ridership count was conducted. In fact, Northern is much better, because it places the Q27 route within two blocks, and that bus route is always packed.

[Porter]

I will preface this by saying that I support the and am relieved that it has returned after a six-year suspension. That being said, what would the consequences be if the were to be completely cut without any adjustments except for commensurately increasing service on the ? No station is -specific, and it seems to be only marginally more useful than the , in that it gives Astoria more service.

[P3F]

1 minute ago, Skipper said:

I will preface this by saying that I support the and am relieved that it has returned after a six-year suspension. That being said, what would the consequences be if the were to be completely cut without any adjustments except for commensurately increasing service on the ? No station is -specific, and it seems to be only marginally more useful than the , in that it gives Astoria more service.

Lower Manhattan

[Porter]

2 minutes ago, P3F said:

Lower Manhattan

Yes, and it gives Lower Manhattan more service (four stops), but that didn't stop the from discontinuing the (five+ stops).

But would there be consequences other than forcing the (north) and (south) to run more frequently to pick up the slack?

[R68OnBroadway]

1 hour ago, Skipper said:

Yes, and it gives Lower Manhattan more service (four stops), but that didn't stop the from discontinuing the (five+ stops).

Nassau is much less used than Broadway, and is essential a BMT version of Lex after Canal.

[Around the Horn]

2 hours ago, Skipper said:

Yes, and it gives Lower Manhattan more service (four stops), but that didn't stop the from discontinuing the (five+ stops).

But would there be consequences other than forcing the (north) and (south) to run more frequently to pick up the slack?

Reliability on Broadway as a whole would go down the tube since you would be reintroducing the Prince Street merge on weekdays

[T to Dyre Avenue]

On 11/27/2017 at 5:01 AM, bobtehpanda said:

Bayside is very dense, but the PW line is not a great place to actually put the train line because of how poor the connections with the bus network and street grid are. There's quite clearly a lot of latent ridership; the neighborhood is very dense, and Bayside was a top ten LIRR station the last time a ridership count was conducted. In fact, Northern is much better, because it places the Q27 route within two blocks, and that bus route is always packed.

I’ve always wanted to see a subway line on Northern Blvd from Flushing to Bayside, either as a  extension or as a separate line. Depending on how far out it goes, it would pull riders from multiple buses in addition to the Q27 (Q12, Q13, Q26, Q28). 

4 hours ago, Skipper said:

I will preface this by saying that I support the and am relieved that it has returned after a six-year suspension. That being said, what would the consequences be if the were to be completely cut without any adjustments except for commensurately increasing service on the ? No station is -specific, and it seems to be only marginally more useful than the , in that it gives Astoria more service.

At the time (2009-10), the  having no stops to itself made it seem like the perfect service to cut. And they extended the  to Queens to replace it there, while making the  a full time local in Manhattan. Sounds like a no-brainer, yes? Except it required a lot of merging and switching. And it caused lots of delays. By bringing back the  they took away one of the Broadway Line’s biggest choke points on weekdays, Prince St. It works much better now with the  back in service, than when the  ran local full time.

[bobtehpanda]

9 minutes ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

I’ve always wanted to see a subway line on Northern Blvd from Flushing to Bayside, either as a  extension or as a separate line. Depending on how far out it goes, it would pull riders from multiple buses in addition to the Q27 (Q12, Q13, Q26, Q28). 

A subway line on Northern would remove a lot of the stupid things that happen in the NE Queens bus network due to the need to go into Flushing. Same with a Hillside Line for Jamaica.

[RR503]

7 hours ago, Skipper said:

I will preface this by saying that I support the and am relieved that it has returned after a six-year suspension. That being said, what would the consequences be if the were to be completely cut without any adjustments except for commensurately increasing service on the ? No station is -specific, and it seems to be only marginally more useful than the , in that it gives Astoria more service.

You also can't boost  service much because of dekalb, making a second Astoria route necessary.

[Porter]

22 hours ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

At the time (2009-10), the  having no stops to itself made it seem like the perfect service to cut. And they extended the  to Queens to replace it there, while making the  a full time local in Manhattan. Sounds like a no-brainer, yes? Except it required a lot of merging and switching. And it caused lots of delays. By bringing back the  they took away one of the Broadway Line’s biggest choke points on weekdays, Prince St. It works much better now with the  back in service, than when the  ran local full time.

Okay, but what if the were just cut cold-turkey? The would remain a weekday express, and the would continue to serve 96th Street. The would handle all local service except for late nights, when the would take over (as it always has). Couldn't you just run more trains?

Edited December 3, 2017 by Skipper

[bobtehpanda]

54 minutes ago, Skipper said:

Okay, but what if the were just cut cold-turkey? The would remain a weekday express, and the would continue to serve 96th Street. The would handle all local service except for late nights, when the would take over (as it always has). Couldn't you just run more trains?

DeKalb and QBL local are basically at capacity. So your only options are to run a train that doesn't go through DeKalb, and doesn't terminate in Forest Hills. Which is the (W).

Edited December 3, 2017 by bobtehpanda

[P3F]

4 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

DeKalb and QBL local are basically at capacity. So your only options are to run a train that doesn't go through DeKalb, and doesn't terminate in Forest Hills. Which is the (W).

DeKalb junction's capacity has nothing to do with the during rush hours, since it doesn't merge with anything in the area. 

[CenSin]

7 hours ago, P3F said:

DeKalb junction's capacity has nothing to do with the during rush hours, since it doesn't merge with anything in the area. 

But he did say “doesn't go through DeKalb, and doesn't terminate in Forest Hills”—a condition which the  does not satisfy since it does terminate in Forest Hills.

[RR503]

Look, the best option for adding Broadway service is the swap.  weekdays/weekends to 96,  doubled, and to Astoria (covers for  in BK late nights).  and  remain same. That gets rid of all merging on Broadway, adds SAS service, and adds 4av local service as not all  s would be able to turn at Whitehall. 

[CDTA]

This is a bit out there but I wanna know what you guys think

So I was thinking of running the Flushing Express track into a new tunnel going down 34th st, then, when it gets to Hudson Yards, it loops back around and goes down 34th heading East on a second parallel track, in the morning, and reverse in the evening. A new yard would be built at the ConEd site to store the trains during the mid-day since the whole thing is technically only one track (I don't see why ConEd couldn't just build whatever they needed to on top of the yard). Doing this would double capacity on the Flushing Line since the local can now run a full 30TPH, and the express can run a full 30 TPH all while only needing new track up to Queens Plaza. Plus, since the 34th st section is technically double-tracked, when the express isn't running you can still operate the section independently as a 34th st Crosstown line. AND since the tunneling would be all new construction, you can build it to B-division standards for that little bit of extra capacity since the elevated is already built to B-division standards. You'd also need a huge expansion of Corona Yard, but seeing how right now the surrounding area is all surface parking lots that shouldn't be too difficult.

[darkstar8983]

57 minutes ago, RR503 said:

Look, the best option for adding Broadway service is the swap.  weekdays/weekends to 96,  doubled, and to Astoria (covers for  in BK late nights).  and  remain same. That gets rid of all merging on Broadway, adds SAS service, and adds 4av local service as not all  s would be able to turn at Whitehall. 

This would be the best way to add service with the following modifications, and providing this happens only after phase 2 opens and is undone when phase 3 opens.

 

-  becomes local and the 24/7 Astoria service

about 40% of the  trains from Astoria will terminate at Whitehall St (Canal St if we really need that many  trains). This would be for rush hours, where the  is needed every 3-4 minutes out of Astoria, and for middays, all  trains will operate the full route from Astoria to Coney Island (8 minute headway’s to accommodate construction):, or they could alternate the  with 7.5 minute headway’s between Astoria and Whitehall St and every 15 minutes between Whitehall St and Stillwell Av, with the  picking up the slack via Sea Beach.

 trains from Brooklyn to Ditmars Blvd will operate every 8-10 minutes during peak hours due to the fact that the extra trains will be supplemented by those that start at Canal or Whitehall St. some trains will start at 86 St instead of Stillwell Av

-  runs weekdays as it does now but via the s service pattern and all trains to 96 St- 2 Av. Weekday headway’s every 6 minutes, middays every 10 minutes, evening service every 10 minutes until 11PM. No late night or weekend service. Some trains will start at 86 St instead of Stillwell Av.

-  headway’s stay at 6 minutes during rush hours but reduce to 10 minutes middays and evenings because you’ll have the  supplementing it on 2 Av weekdays. Weekend service remains unchanged

 

Until phase 2 opens, you’ll just have to add 1  train to Astoria for every  you remove and transplant to 96 St. you could also move some  trains that run on 6 Av and normally drop out at Bedford Park Blvd/Kingsbridge Rd and reroute them to 96 St, and send them down as  trains back to Coney Island Yard similar to how the  train trip was added. Similar things can be done during the PM rush, and the  via Sea Beach Hours can be changed so that those trains actually service the core of the rush hour period rather than the later and earlier shoulders.

[T to Dyre Avenue]

On 12/2/2017 at 9:03 PM, Skipper said:

Okay, but what if the were just cut cold-turkey? The would remain a weekday express, and the would continue to serve 96th Street. The would handle all local service except for late nights, when the would take over (as it always has). Couldn't you just run more trains?

If you just add more  trains, then you’d have even more trains backing up the local tracks waiting to get into 71st - Continental. And you’d be over-serving the Sea Beach Line with all the extra  trains that would be needed to make up for the loss of the . 

On 12/3/2017 at 11:55 AM, darkstar8983 said:

This would be the best way to add service with the following modifications, and providing this happens only after phase 2 opens and is undone when phase 3 opens.

 

-  becomes local and the 24/7 Astoria service

about 40% of the  trains from Astoria will terminate at Whitehall St (Canal St if we really need that many  trains). This would be for rush hours, where the  is needed every 3-4 minutes out of Astoria, and for middays, all  trains will operate the full route from Astoria to Coney Island (8 minute headway’s to accommodate construction):, or they could alternate the  with 7.5 minute headway’s between Astoria and Whitehall St and every 15 minutes between Whitehall St and Stillwell Av, with the  picking up the slack via Sea Beach.

 trains from Brooklyn to Ditmars Blvd will operate every 8-10 minutes during peak hours due to the fact that the extra trains will be supplemented by those that start at Canal or Whitehall St. some trains will start at 86 St instead of Stillwell Av

-  runs weekdays as it does now but via the s service pattern and all trains to 96 St- 2 Av. Weekday headway’s every 6 minutes, middays every 10 minutes, evening service every 10 minutes until 11PM. No late night or weekend service. Some trains will start at 86 St instead of Stillwell Av.

-  headway’s stay at 6 minutes during rush hours but reduce to 10 minutes middays and evenings because you’ll have the  supplementing it on 2 Av weekdays. Weekend service remains unchanged

 

Until phase 2 opens, you’ll just have to add 1  train to Astoria for every  you remove and transplant to 96 St. you could also move some  trains that run on 6 Av and normally drop out at Bedford Park Blvd/Kingsbridge Rd and reroute them to 96 St, and send them down as  trains back to Coney Island Yard similar to how the  train trip was added. Similar things can be done during the PM rush, and the  via Sea Beach Hours can be changed so that those trains actually service the core of the rush hour period rather than the later and earlier shoulders.

Seems like an awfully complicated solution for 2nd Ave train frequency. Cutting midday Brighton Local service down to just 6 tph isn’t going to sit well with Brighton Line riders.