Department of Subways - Proposals/Ideas

[T to Dyre Avenue]

On 11/8/2017 at 1:32 AM, bobtehpanda said:

Brighton:

 local part time express

4th Av:

local Sea Beach West End

Cross platform transfer available at DeKalb.

I suggested this almost a couple years ago and got flamed for it. It was in response to a thread posted on here in December 2015 about at guest post made by Alon Levy over on Second Avenue Sagas about the pitfalls of NYC’s frequecy guidelines. He made a valid point about how all the switching (“reverse-branching”) of lines, especially in the B-Division, forces Transit to run fewer trains than it could in an attempt to provide more one-seat rides. 

It is worth mentioning, however, that in 2015, we had no SAS and the  was switching from express to local at Prince full time and the weekday   was switching from express to local at 34th. There were more switching delays then. I think there was certainly a strong case for “straight-railing” DeKalb then. I still think there is one now. It would be great to not have to be stopped between DeKalb Ave and the bridge, sometimes more than once. But maybe there are other options we can consider too, like running both  and  to 2nd Ave. 

1 hour ago, RR503 said:

But decreases usability. Again, will we really save 4 mins by doing this? Because if we aren’t, we’re adding to many people’s commutes. 

Yes, this gets a crap load of trains through the interlocking, but we must consider at what cost. Queens Boulevard and Culver would see service increases if we pumped 30tph up crosstown, and made the manhattan services express, but that removes useful service from many. Throughput can’t always be the priority. 

But maybe it would be helpful to be able to run more trains, especially in the case of the  . You see how Transit has to reroute that one  and those few  trains to keep up with the demand on SAS. How long will that hold? They can’t just run more  trains with the current DeKalb service plan, because they can’t run them all to Stillwell Ave, nor can they short-turn them on the Brighton Line because the  is the local there. If the  ran via the West End Line, then they could possibly turn the extra  ‘s at 9th Ave.

Edited November 10, 2017 by T to Dyre Avenue

[RR503]

Look, in general I'm with you all -- screw 1 seaters for throughput. However, in this case, I think the difficulty of the transfers that would replace 1 seat rides negates any gain that you make in throughput.

If you need more SAS capacity (given more cars), do the Broadway swap. Broadway express to SAS, and locals to queens. The  would absorb the  s astoria frequencies, and half of its trains would continue beyond Whitehall to some place in Brooklyn.  trains wouldn't run weekends, replaced by the  on sea beach. That (or something generally akin to it) is what I'd do. Also, aside from increasing SAS service, you get a significant tph bump on Broadway, and the elimination of the archaic switching pattern where  s cross from exp to local at 34. 

Edited November 10, 2017 by RR503

[bobtehpanda]

1 hour ago, RR503 said:

Look, in general I'm with you all -- screw 1 seaters for throughput. However, in this case, I think the difficulty of the transfers that would replace 1 seat rides negates any gain that you make in throughput.

If you need more SAS capacity (given more cars), do the Broadway swap. Broadway express to SAS, and locals to queens. The  would absorb the  s astoria frequencies, and half of its trains would continue beyond Whitehall to some place in Brooklyn.  trains wouldn't run weekends, replaced by the  on sea beach. That (or something generally akin to it) is what I'd do. Also, aside from increasing SAS service, you get a significant tph bump on Broadway, and the elimination of the archaic switching pattern where  s cross from exp to local at 34. 

I mean, of course, but I'm pretty sure the OP who asked the question in the first place was trying to finagle trains from SI into Montague.

Personally I think the whole exercise is a waste of time because Manhattan-> SI is only worth it if it's direct, and we're not about to blow a crapton of money on that when we have far more pressing needs in line.

[LGA Link N Train]

18 hours ago, RR503 said:

Look, in general I'm with you all -- screw 1 seaters for throughput. However, in this case, I think the difficulty of the transfers that would replace 1 seat rides negates any gain that you make in throughput.

If you need more SAS capacity (given more cars), do the Broadway swap. Broadway express to SAS, and locals to queens. The  would absorb the  s astoria frequencies, and half of its trains would continue beyond Whitehall to some place in Brooklyn.  trains wouldn't run weekends, replaced by the  on sea beach. That (or something generally akin to it) is what I'd do. Also, aside from increasing SAS service, you get a significant tph bump on Broadway, and the elimination of the archaic switching pattern where  s cross from exp to local at 34. 

I'd do that as well, but instead I'd keep the local at Astoria and the express  (maybe to Queens running next to the LIRR to take some congestion off QBL) it was an old proposal that I made long ago

[R42N]

5 hours ago, LGA Link N train said:

I’d do that as well, but instead I'd keep the local at Astoria and the express, it was an old proposal that I made long ago

I agree here. I know you’ll still claim “the  is the supplemental service”, but there is a reason that the  switches over to SAS and the  switches over to the local/Astoria whenever there are IRROPS, and that’s because the  is the primary, and thus more familiar. 

As someone who grew up in the 80s and 90s, the 24/7 local train to Astoria is the ,   is the .  The  seems to be Broadway’s extra line. Running down to Bay Ridge when need be, up to SAS during Astoria construction or whatever else is needed. 

Of course, until the necessary cars arrive (maybe the R211’s, but probably the car after that) this cannot happen, as doing the “Broadway Swap” is essentially creating a fifth line with consistent headways, which is not possible today. 

 

[Coney Island Av]

This is my fantasy subway map- i brought it here so more people can critique it. 

Enmodal link: http://app.enmodal.co/?id=bee7a31886ae8a71

 

 

[Union Tpke]

Frankly, there are many problems with the map.

The K is way too long and only goes to SI indirectly.

The 9 to Red Hook is a waste and is not a priority.

The 8 reduces service on the 6 east of Whitlock, introduces a merge, and slows service for people on the Dyre Avenue Line.

Your B route is way too long and is not direct. Everyone east of Queens Boulevard would pile onto the Queens Boulevard Line. In addition, how would you connect the Canarsie Line to your line via the NY Connecting RR. In addition, you can't have subway service run there: freight uses it. In addition, the LIE route will have very low ridership.

Your M route is just a horrible idea. No-one from College Point would take this ridiculous, round-about way to get to Lower Manhattan. They would just take the Q25 to Flushing for the 7 to the 4 or 5.

 

That Union Turnpike–Central Queens Line would be way too expensive, and would not have the ridership that would warrant such an expenditure. 

Don't extend the F that far. Just end it at Springfield.

There is no need to extend the 1 farther north. No one has been advocating that, it would require rebuilding the 242nd Street station, and would face heavy opposition.

What is the point of tearing down part of the Broadway EL? Having the  there is coming right out of Wallyhorse's playbook.  The  to Southeast Queens would be way too slow. If you were to have such a service, have it be a Fulton Express, which I am not advocating. Anyway the extension of the  could be done more cheaply by the Southeast Queens extension of the  which you show. Also, don't extend the ; there is no need for it. Tell me when it needs 30 TPH.

That L extension is way too expensive. Just end it at 72nd Street if you deem it such a high priority.

I can understand the D to Co-Op City, but it is overkill to have it loop to go to Dyre Avenue. By the way, a  extension would be cheaper.

You are going to make the  so much more unreliable with this. Just cut-back the extension to LGA.

Also, there is no need for Nassau–Fourth Avenue service. Stop foaming.

 

In many respects, this is like my old fantasy maps with lines drawn all across the city. However, drawing random lines on the map that might follow plans from the 1920s and 1930s won't indicate what should be built. Subway construction is expensive, so it should be done in moderation, and there are other factors to consider, including the height of water tables, local communities, difficulty of construction, practicality, cost-effectiveness, and so on. Just keep this in mind. Keep thinking!

Edited November 12, 2017 by Union Tpke

[Coney Island Av]

1 hour ago, Union Tpke said:

Frankly, there are many problems with the map.

The K is way too long and only goes to SI indirectly.

The 9 to Red Hook is a waste and is not a priority.

The 8 reduces service on the 6 east of Whitlock, introduces a merge, and slows service for people on the Dyre Avenue Line.

Your B route is way too long and is not direct. Everyone east of Queens Boulevard would pile onto the Queens Boulevard Line. In addition, how would you connect the Canarsie Line to your line via the NY Connecting RR. In addition, you can't have subway service run there: freight uses it. In addition, the LIE route will have very low ridership.

Your M route is just a horrible idea. No-one from College Point would take this ridiculous, round-about way to get to Lower Manhattan. They would just take the Q25 to Flushing for the 7 to the 4 or 5.

 

That Union Turnpike–Central Queens Line would be way too expensive, and would not have the ridership that would warrant such an expenditure. 

Don't extend the F that far. Just end it at Springfield.

There is no need to extend the 1 farther north. No one has been advocating that, it would require rebuilding the 242nd Street station, and would face heavy opposition.

What is the point of tearing down part of the Broadway EL? Having the  there is coming right out of Wallyhorse's playbook.  The  to Southeast Queens would be way too slow. If you were to have such a service, have it be a Fulton Express, which I am not advocating. Anyway the extension of the  could be done more cheaply by the Southeast Queens extension of the  which you show. Also, don't extend the ; there is no need for it. Tell me when it needs 30 TPH.

That L extension is way too expensive. Just end it at 72nd Street if you deem it such a high priority.

I can understand the D to Co-Op City, but it is overkill to have it loop to go to Dyre Avenue. By the way, a  extension would be cheaper.

You are going to make the  so much more unreliable with this. Just cut-back the extension to LGA.

Also, there is no need for Nassau–Fourth Avenue service. Stop foaming.

 

In many respects, this is like my old fantasy maps with lines drawn all across the city. However, drawing random lines on the map that might follow plans from the 1920s and 1930s won't indicate what should be built. Subway construction is expensive, so it should be done in moderation, and there are other factors to consider, including the height of water tables, local communities, difficulty of construction, practicality, cost-effectiveness, and so on. Just keep this in mind. Keep thinking!

 train: The only cheap way to even go to SI via subway is from bklyn since building it from the harbor is very expensive. Also, SI is very underserved so it would be great for central SI citizens living on Castleton. And any line going to SI will still be long due to the island's enormous size. 

 train: Well TBH Red Hook is in planned development but this extension won't be needed for a while. And you could say extend another train, but there would be better demand for it to go somewhere else.

 train: I originally wanted to send the  to Dyre but expanding into the underserved neighborhoods is more important. The  is more of a cheaper version of this Dyre bypass, and also they would have the  as an exp option so they wouldn't really lose out. As for Pelham it would see less traffic due to the Throgs Neck extension of SAS. 

LIE and Canarsie lines: The  is indirect cuz it is meant to give riders near the edge of the city a faster commute. Plus thats the only way you could do it without interfering with normal service. The Canarsie Line was intended to be relocated to the Bay Ridge ROW. New stations could be built to replace the el stops. 

College Point M: Plz explain how it is a roundabout route. This  would connect Flushing with Lower Manhattan in a ONE-SEAT RIDE. Not some disgraceful two to three legged transfer. They will also have the faster  train as well. 

Union Tpke Line: I originally conceived it branching off of QB- however I thought that the QB locals stay where they're at so I extended the P. It would also serve eastern queens neighborhoods but I put it in last min. I might scrap this line given the LIE and Hillside subways are nearby. 

Hillside Extension: I extended it to the City Line because it would also serve Little Neck and give more subway access. 

Riverdale  Extension: Riverdale is virtually underserved. So I extended the 1 train there cuz it would better serve the neighborhood and reduce bus transfers. FYI Pelham Bay Park would ALSO have to be reconfigured. 

Broadway EL: A third track would be added between Broadway Jct and Jamaica, and the Myrtle bottleneck would be fixed. The Jamaica EL is relocated because all the lines B, C, P all head into Bklyn via tunnels so relocating the EL would make transfers easier and fix the bottleneck at Myrtle. This would make 8 Av Exp trains more faster to Manhattan.  trains are on Bway-Bklyn to give midtown access to those living there. Again, the Cambria Hts extension was put in there because it is underserved and it would be better if a train ran there. 

J to Hollis: ??? Why would you deny such a thing? It would replace the old EL and would be very beneficial to the neighborhood. 

10 Av/Northern Blvd extension: I do know about costs but this line would really take relief off of the  and QB. Even allowing a shortcut across Central Park to Queens without backtracking, serving the Far West Side, it should be high, but at the bottom high list. 

 train to Dyre: I sent it to Dyre to provide more express service and better serve Eastchester. It could be cut back tho. As for the , the  would be much faster than the  to Manhattan. Cost doesn't ALWAYS be the sole reason. 

 train to Bayside: I extended it to Bayside cuz that neighborhood is underserved. It would also give riders in Flushing access to LGA. But now service on the R would be good and more reliable, since there will be no interaction with the  and . In terms of line length, it mainly has support from the  and (W). 

 to 9 Av/Bay Pkwy: This would be for additional rush hr service, since service on 4 Av was very lacking since the latter left in 2010. I originally intended the to do such a thing but there would be no capacity due to Dekalb. This also has to do with Broad St lacking terminal capacity for both lines. Now you could cut the  to Chambers but that would be detrimental. 

Thanks for your response. I'll take this into consideration for the next map. 

 

 

 

[R68OnBroadway]

1 hour ago, D to 96 St said:

 train: The only cheap way to even go to SI via subway is from bklyn since building it from the harbor is very expensive. Also, SI is very underserved so it would be great for central SI citizens living on Castleton. And any line going to SI will still be long due to the island's enormous size. 

 train: Well TBH Red Hook is in planned development but this extension won't be needed for a while. And you could say extend another train, but there would be better demand for it to go somewhere else.

Riverdale  Extension: Riverdale is virtually underserved. So I extended the 1 train there cuz it would better serve the neighborhood and reduce bus transfers. FYI Pelham Bay Park would ALSO have to be reconfigured. 

 train to Dyre: I sent it to Dyre to provide more express service and better serve Eastchester. It could be cut back tho. As for the , the  would be much faster than the  to Manhattan. Cost doesn't ALWAYS be the sole reason. 

 train to Bayside: I extended it to Bayside cuz that neighborhood is underserved. It would also give riders in Flushing access to LGA. But now service on the R would be good and more reliable, since there will be no interaction with the  and . In terms of line length, it mainly has support from the  and (W). 

Thanks for your response. I'll take this into consideration for the next map. 

 

 

 

   My response: 

The whole  to SI shtick is pointless. SI already has buses to St George for the quick ferry, and dragging riders into Brooklyn is a waste. People use the ferry for a reason.

Red Hook is underserved, but it would be easier just to have a line branch off Montague and to 4th Av. 

Most people in Riverdale are wealthy and drive Lincolns to Park Av. Also, MNRR takes 30 mins to get to GCT, and the 1 to TS will take the same amount of time, if not longer.

The  on Dyre is enough. Dyre is a low-ridership branch and does not need another line. 

Bayside has LIRR, and they can take that to Woodside for the  . 

 

 

[Coney Island Av]

8 hours ago, R68OnBroadway said:

   My response: 

The whole  to SI shtick is pointless. SI already has buses to St George for the quick ferry, and dragging riders into Brooklyn is a waste. People use the ferry for a reason.

Red Hook is underserved, but it would be easier just to have a line branch off Montague and to 4th Av. 

Most people in Riverdale are wealthy and drive Lincolns to Park Av. Also, MNRR takes 30 mins to get to GCT, and the 1 to TS will take the same amount of time, if not longer.

The  on Dyre is enough. Dyre is a low-ridership branch and does not need another line. 

Bayside has LIRR, and they can take that to Woodside for the  . 

 

 

SI : THE ONLY WAY TO BUILD A TUNNEL TO SI IS FROM BROOKLYN! IT WOULD BE VERY EXPENSIVE TO MAKE A DIRECT TUNNEL! You see, it's not as simple as "take the bus!" Buses only do good for local residents and SI commuters have long travel times to midtown. They would rather take the subway tan experience long commutes in the middle of traffic. THE ONLY reason why people use the bus, and ferry for that matter, is because there is no other subway available to them. 

As for Red Hook, I sent the  there because Montague would have no extra capacity with the , , and  sharing the tube, secondly this extension isn't that important and Red Hook isn't as big as other transit deserts. A local train will suffice. 

Lincolns/Park Avs are nowhere near Riverdale. Again, Metro-North isn't simple enough. MNRR should handle service OUTSIDE THE CITY, and the subway should handle service INSIDE THE CITY. They'll also have the , which is express from 261 St to 96 St. 

The  connects to two Dyre stations: Eastchester-Dyre and Gun Hill Rd. It is meant to provide express service to Manhattan, as well as serving Co-op City. 

Again, it is not as simple as "take the LIRR!" It increases fares, reduces transfers, and most would rather take the bus to the subway if one isn't nearby. 

 

[R68OnBroadway]

18 minutes ago, D to 96 St said:

SI : THE ONLY WAY TO BUILD A TUNNEL TO SI IS FROM BROOKLYN! IT WOULD BE VERY EXPENSIVE TO MAKE A DIRECT TUNNEL! You see, it's not as simple as "take the bus!" Buses only do good for local residents and SI commuters have long travel times to midtown. They would rather take the subway tan experience long commutes in the middle of traffic. THE ONLY reason why people use the bus, and ferry for that matter, is because there is no other subway available to them. 

 

 

Even if buses are slow, I guarantee you that few people on SI would take a subway into Brooklyn and building anything there would take forever. Taking a subway would be just as painfully slow as the bus/ferry, and Staten Island will always be remote compared to the rest of NYC. 

[Union Tpke]

18 minutes ago, D to 96 St said:

SI : THE ONLY WAY TO BUILD A TUNNEL TO SI IS FROM BROOKLYN! IT WOULD BE VERY EXPENSIVE TO MAKE A DIRECT TUNNEL! You see, it's not as simple as "take the bus!" Buses only do good for local residents and SI commuters have long travel times to midtown. They would rather take the subway tan experience long commutes in the middle of traffic. THE ONLY reason why people use the bus, and ferry for that matter, is because there is no other subway available to them. 

Not true. While expensive, a tunnel to Staten Island should be built from Lower Manhattan as part of a regional rail system. It would be too slow to go via Brooklyn.

As for Red Hook, I sent the  there because Montague would have no extra capacity with the , , and  sharing the tube, secondly this extension isn't that important and Red Hook isn't as big as other transit deserts. A local train will suffice. 

Red Hook isn't a priority. Better bus service serving as a feeder to the R should do the trick.

Lincolns/Park Avs are nowhere near Riverdale. Again, Metro-North isn't simple enough. MNRR should handle service OUTSIDE THE CITY, and the subway should handle service INSIDE THE CITY. They'll also have the , which is express from 261 St to 96 St.

That is not how things should work. Commuter rail stations in NYC should have service increased and should have their platforms lengthened to reduce crowding on the subway, while also allowing for reverse commuting into the suburbs. Express service on Broadway north of 96th Street will not work. That extension does not make sense.

The  connects to two Dyre stations: Eastchester-Dyre and Gun Hill Rd. It is meant to provide express service to Manhattan, as well as serving Co-op City.

There is no reason to have it loop back to Dyre Aveue. If people really want to access the  they will transfer at Gun Hill Road.

11 hours ago, D to 96 St said:

 train: I originally wanted to send the  to Dyre but expanding into the underserved neighborhoods is more important. The  is more of a cheaper version of this Dyre bypass, and also they would have the  as an exp option so they wouldn't really lose out. As for Pelham it would see less traffic due to the Throgs Neck extension of SAS. 

This doesn't serve any underserved areas! PSA would serve these areas. A Throggs Neck extension does not mean that capacity on the  should be reduced. What would your express/local service pattern be? 

LIE and Canarsie lines: The  is indirect cuz it is meant to give riders near the edge of the city a faster commute. Plus thats the only way you could do it without interfering with normal service. The Canarsie Line was intended to be relocated to the Bay Ridge ROW. New stations could be built to replace the el stops.

No, the Canarsie Line was not intended to be relocated there. It was a plan that was not implemented due to high costs. You still ignore the freight question. You can't have subway service go alongside railroad tracks like that. Anyhow, density is low near the LIE.

College Point M: Plz explain how it is a roundabout route. This  would connect Flushing with Lower Manhattan in a ONE-SEAT RIDE. Not some disgraceful two to three legged transfer. They will also have the faster  train as well. 

It goes from Flushing, heads southeast, makes a sharp turn southwest, turns south sharply, turns southwest again, and then goes east via the Jamaica Line. The line would be very slow. A one-seat ride is not everything. Transferring is faster.

Union Tpke Line: I originally conceived it branching off of QB- however I thought that the QB locals stay where they're at so I extended the P. It would also serve eastern queens neighborhoods but I put it in last min. I might scrap this line given the LIE and Hillside subways are nearby. 

The Union Tpke line would be very expensive, and cannot be easily connected to any part of the subway system. It would be a lot easier to extend a line up Hillside Avenue, or extend the R through Jamaica Yard and up Jewel/73. Those would be less expensive, and would be more effective.

Hillside Extension: I extended it to the City Line because it would also serve Little Neck and give more subway access. 

A subway extension does not need to go that far east. Ridership would be low, and it would be very expensive. Improve bus service, and have a new bus terminal at Springfield Boulevard and Hillside.

Broadway EL: A third track would be added between Broadway Jct and Jamaica, and the Myrtle bottleneck would be fixed. The Jamaica EL is relocated because all the lines B, C, P all head into Bklyn via tunnels so relocating the EL would make transfers easier and fix the bottleneck at Myrtle. This would make 8 Av Exp trains more faster to Manhattan.  trains are on Bway-Bklyn to give midtown access to those living there. Again, the Cambria Hts extension was put in there because it is underserved and it would be better if a train ran there. 

Building all these new tunnels would be prohibitively expensive. I could understand the cost for a Second Avenue extension to Brooklyn, but there is no need for this. Demolishing the Broadway El to remove the Myrtle bottleneck is not a good justification. The  already provides midtown access.

J to Hollis: ??? Why would you deny such a thing? It would replace the old EL and would be very beneficial to the neighborhood.

Why is this a priority? Add an LIRR stop at Merrick.

10 Av/Northern Blvd extension: I do know about costs but this line would really take relief off of the  and QB. Even allowing a shortcut across Central Park to Queens without backtracking, serving the Far West Side, it should be high, but at the bottom high list.

A Northern Blvd line would be nice, but large subway extensions are really expensive. Invest in improving LIRR service via the Main Line and the Port Washington Branch. Add stops at Queens Boulevard (for Triboro Rx transfer), 108th Street and Junction Boulevard.

 train to Dyre: I sent it to Dyre to provide more express service and better serve Eastchester. It could be cut back tho. As for the , the  would be much faster than the  to Manhattan. Cost doesn't ALWAYS be the sole reason.

I am not so sure about that. The  would probably be faster.

 train to Bayside: I extended it to Bayside cuz that neighborhood is underserved. It would also give riders in Flushing access to LGA. But now service on the R would be good and more reliable, since there will be no interaction with the  and . In terms of line length, it mainly has support from the  and (W). 

Port Washington Line service should be improved with subway-like frequencies and reduced fairs. There is no need to extend the subway..

 to 9 Av/Bay Pkwy: This would be for additional rush hr service, since service on 4 Av was very lacking since the latter left in 2010. I originally intended the to do such a thing but there would be no capacity due to Dekalb. This also has to do with Broad St lacking terminal capacity for both lines. Now you could cut the  to Chambers but that would be detrimental.

Ridership on the  was low, and if you are saying that there is no capacity for the (W), there would be no capacity for the M.

 

 

[bobtehpanda]

3 hours ago, Union Tpke said:

SI : THE ONLY WAY TO BUILD A TUNNEL TO SI IS FROM BROOKLYN! IT WOULD BE VERY EXPENSIVE TO MAKE A DIRECT TUNNEL! You see, it's not as simple as "take the bus!" Buses only do good for local residents and SI commuters have long travel times to midtown. They would rather take the subway tan experience long commutes in the middle of traffic. THE ONLY reason why people use the bus, and ferry for that matter, is because there is no other subway available to them. 

Not true. While expensive, a tunnel to Staten Island should be built from Lower Manhattan as part of a regional rail system. It would be too slow to go via Brooklyn.

No tunnel should be built to Staten Island. Short of insane levels of development in our lifetime, the return on investment is too low.

As for Red Hook, I sent the  there because Montague would have no extra capacity with the , , and  sharing the tube, secondly this extension isn't that important and Red Hook isn't as big as other transit deserts. A local train will suffice. 

Red Hook isn't a priority. Better bus service serving as a feeder to the R should do the trick.

Lincolns/Park Avs are nowhere near Riverdale. Again, Metro-North isn't simple enough. MNRR should handle service OUTSIDE THE CITY, and the subway should handle service INSIDE THE CITY. They'll also have the , which is express from 261 St to 96 St.

That is not how things should work. Commuter rail stations in NYC should have service increased and should have their platforms lengthened to reduce crowding on the subway, while also allowing for reverse commuting into the suburbs. Express service on Broadway north of 96th Street will not work. That extension does not make sense.

The  connects to two Dyre stations: Eastchester-Dyre and Gun Hill Rd. It is meant to provide express service to Manhattan, as well as serving Co-op City.

There is no reason to have it loop back to Dyre Aveue. If people really want to access the  they will transfer at Gun Hill Road.

  14 hours ago, D to 96 St said:

 train: I originally wanted to send the  to Dyre but expanding into the underserved neighborhoods is more important. The  is more of a cheaper version of this Dyre bypass, and also they would have the  as an exp option so they wouldn't really lose out. As for Pelham it would see less traffic due to the Throgs Neck extension of SAS. 

This doesn't serve any underserved areas! PSA would serve these areas. A Throggs Neck extension does not mean that capacity on the  should be reduced. What would your express/local service pattern be? 

LIE and Canarsie lines: The  is indirect cuz it is meant to give riders near the edge of the city a faster commute. Plus thats the only way you could do it without interfering with normal service. The Canarsie Line was intended to be relocated to the Bay Ridge ROW. New stations could be built to replace the el stops.

No, the Canarsie Line was not intended to be relocated there. It was a plan that was not implemented due to high costs. You still ignore the freight question. You can't have subway service go alongside railroad tracks like that. Anyhow, density is low near the LIE.

It wasn't that the plan wasn't implemented due to high costs, it was that the MTA ran out of money building all the other crap they were trying to build. Subway service and light rail service along active railroad tracks with freight trains already exists along several subway lines in the US.

College Point M: Plz explain how it is a roundabout route. This  would connect Flushing with Lower Manhattan in a ONE-SEAT RIDE. Not some disgraceful two to three legged transfer. They will also have the faster  train as well. 

It goes from Flushing, heads southeast, makes a sharp turn southwest, turns south sharply, turns southwest again, and then goes east via the Jamaica Line. The line would be very slow. A one-seat ride is not everything. Transferring is faster.

I think it still provides useful connections, just because Queens has not very good connections to Williamsburg, although I would have it follow the PW instead of the LIE.

Union Tpke Line: I originally conceived it branching off of QB- however I thought that the QB locals stay where they're at so I extended the P. It would also serve eastern queens neighborhoods but I put it in last min. I might scrap this line given the LIE and Hillside subways are nearby. 

The Union Tpke line would be very expensive, and cannot be easily connected to any part of the subway system. It would be a lot easier to extend a line up Hillside Avenue, or extend the R through Jamaica Yard and up Jewel/73. Those would be less expensive, and would be more effective.

Hillside Extension: I extended it to the City Line because it would also serve Little Neck and give more subway access. 

A subway extension does not need to go that far east. Ridership would be low, and it would be very expensive. Improve bus service, and have a new bus terminal at Springfield Boulevard and Hillside.

Broadway EL: A third track would be added between Broadway Jct and Jamaica, and the Myrtle bottleneck would be fixed. The Jamaica EL is relocated because all the lines B, C, P all head into Bklyn via tunnels so relocating the EL would make transfers easier and fix the bottleneck at Myrtle. This would make 8 Av Exp trains more faster to Manhattan.  trains are on Bway-Bklyn to give midtown access to those living there. Again, the Cambria Hts extension was put in there because it is underserved and it would be better if a train ran there. 

Building all these new tunnels would be prohibitively expensive. I could understand the cost for a Second Avenue extension to Brooklyn, but there is no need for this. Demolishing the Broadway El to remove the Myrtle bottleneck is not a good justification. The  already provides midtown access.

J to Hollis: ??? Why would you deny such a thing? It would replace the old EL and would be very beneficial to the neighborhood.

Why is this a priority? Add an LIRR stop at Merrick.

I actually don't disagree with this. LIRR regional rail is a pipe dream, and the current discussions of it don't give me reasons to think it would be super successful.

10 Av/Northern Blvd extension: I do know about costs but this line would really take relief off of the  and QB. Even allowing a shortcut across Central Park to Queens without backtracking, serving the Far West Side, it should be high, but at the bottom high list.

A Northern Blvd line would be nice, but large subway extensions are really expensive. Invest in improving LIRR service via the Main Line and the Port Washington Branch. Add stops at Queens Boulevard (for Triboro Rx transfer), 108th Street and Junction Boulevard.

 train to Dyre: I sent it to Dyre to provide more express service and better serve Eastchester. It could be cut back tho. As for the , the  would be much faster than the  to Manhattan. Cost doesn't ALWAYS be the sole reason.

I am not so sure about that. The  would probably be faster.

 train to Bayside: I extended it to Bayside cuz that neighborhood is underserved. It would also give riders in Flushing access to LGA. But now service on the R would be good and more reliable, since there will be no interaction with the  and . In terms of line length, it mainly has support from the  and (W). 

Port Washington Line service should be improved with subway-like frequencies and reduced fairs. There is no need to extend the subway..

Disagree, there's a lot of latent demand in that area, to the point where I think it could justify having both the LIRR and a subway.

 to 9 Av/Bay Pkwy: This would be for additional rush hr service, since service on 4 Av was very lacking since the latter left in 2010. I originally intended the  to do such a thing but there would be no capacity due to Dekalb. This also has to do with Broad St lacking terminal capacity for both lines. Now you could cut the  to Chambers but that would be detrimental.

Ridership on the  was low, and if you are saying that there is no capacity for the (W), there would be no capacity for the M.

 

[LGA Link N Train]

http://app.enmodal.co/?id=9c095c8310235391

What do you guys think 

A. I tried to stay as realistic as possible

B. Ignore the LGA AirTrain that I made (I felt too lazy to fix it)

[bobtehpanda]

2 hours ago, LGA Link N train said:

http://app.enmodal.co/?id=9c095c8310235391

What do you guys think 

A. I tried to stay as realistic as possible

B. Ignore the LGA AirTrain that I made (I felt too lazy to fix it)

I think that you could be less conservative. But here's some feedback:

Bronx

Why Dyre over Third? Third/Webster/Park is super dense and just screaming for more subway service.

Queens

Bypass could use more stops. Definitely one on Woodhaven, maybe one on Grand. Improves connections to local buses.

RBB could use an additional stop at Myrtle. Maybe one at Yellowstone, or Fleet. Improves connections to local buses.

SE Queens could use less stops. I don't see the need for Foch or Springfield.

While there's nothing wrong with to Hollis, I think (F)/SAS east on Hillside is probably more useful due to the way the bus and street networks could be laid out. Jamaica Av is not a great place to send lots of buses.

I personally think that to QCC via Northern Blvd is way more valuable than College Point. But that's just me.

Brooklyn

Nothing of major importance. 

Staten Island

I don't generally agree with an SI-Brooklyn line. But rather than end it at Victory/Travis, which has a whole lotta nothing, I would rather see a route serving CSI, the SI Mall, and ETC in one shot.

[Caelestor]

I played around with the app and added some fantasy extensions here: http://app.enmodal.co/?id=ad8151a17872190e#

I went for low-hanging fruit expansion, and in particular I tried to improve lines with inefficient terminals as much as possible. 

Services extended:

•  : Extended down Nostrand Ave to Avenue X.
•  : Extended down Utica Ave to Kings Plaza.
•  : Express on Fulton St, extended east to Liberty Ave. All  trains run to Howard Beach or one of the Rockaway terminals.
•  : Extended east to Rosedale via the LIRR ROW as originally planned in the 1980s.
•  : Extended up 10 Ave to 72 St.
•  : Extended north to Co-op City (MNR) via 3rd / Park Aves and Fordham Road.
•  : 125 St / Broadway - Euclid Ave via 125 St, SAS, and the IND Fulton St local tracks.
•  : Hanover Square - 179 St via the QBL Bypass. (For simplicity I kept the existing QBL configuration, but open to swapping the  and  if needed). Possible extension to Euclid Ave if demand warrants it; Hanover Sq might have to be reconfigured in order to terminate trains from Queens.

 

[Caelestor]

http://app.enmodal.co/?id=81e9156710739148

[BreeddekalbL]

In today's mta if you built the lie hhe line who would run on it?

[bobtehpanda]

3 hours ago, Caelestor said:

I played around with the app and added some fantasy extensions here: http://app.enmodal.co/?id=ad8151a17872190e#

I went for low-hanging fruit expansion, and in particular I tried to improve lines with inefficient terminals as much as possible. 

Services extended:

•  : Extended down Nostrand Ave to Avenue X.
•  : Extended down Utica Ave to Kings Plaza.
•  : Express on Fulton St, extended east to Liberty Ave. All  trains run to Howard Beach or one of the Rockaway terminals.
•  : Extended east to Rosedale via the LIRR ROW as originally planned in the 1980s.
•  : Extended up 10 Ave to 72 St.
•  : Extended north to Co-op City (MNR) via 3rd / Park Aves and Fordham Road.
•  : 125 St / Broadway - Euclid Ave via 125 St, SAS, and the IND Fulton St local tracks.
•  : Hanover Square - 179 St via the QBL Bypass. (For simplicity I kept the existing QBL configuration, but open to swapping the  and  if needed). Possible extension to Euclid Ave if demand warrants it; Hanover Sq might have to be reconfigured in order to terminate trains from Queens.

 

I would not consider the  under 10th Av to be a "low-hanging fruit" by any definition of that term. That being said, it looks pretty good, although IMO two things:

Going all the way to Av X is not really necessary. Av U is basically as far as you need to go to make all the required bus connections.

If you're going to Rosedale, you might as well just go all the way to Valley Stream.

[Coney Island Av]

After reading everyone's suggestions for my map, I can compile a list of what I agree/disagree with.

Agree

Union Tpke Line- will cut this from my next map

 to Co-op-City, cut from Dyre

 Pelham Extension- I would build this WITH the latter BUT the  wold definitely be faster because it is peak-exp in the Bronx and FULL-TIME EXPRESS in Manhattan. The  is peak-exp in the Bronx, but completely LOCAL in Manhattan. 

 to Riverdale- MNRR is far from Broadway and this would be a cheap extension for the people closer to the park than the waterfront, but this transit desert is too small to support this. 

 to 9 Av- I should clarify that I couldn't send BOTH THE  AND  down 4th due to DeKalb. I only sent the  there for additional rush hr service, as well as to connect all Chinatowns- in Flushing, Manhattan, and Brooklyn, with each other. But I might remove this. 

 to the City Line- I might reconsider cutting it to Springfield or having it turn on Braddock Av to Bellerose. 

Disagree

 to Red Hook- would be better to send it elsewhere so it would be more useful. The  is a bit obscure, and would really have nowhere else to go to so it will suffice.

 cut from Bayside to LGA- Bayside is VERY underserved and there would be lots of demand for a subway there. Plus, the  is mainly unreliable due to endless merging.

NOT Demolishing the Broadway EL from Marcy to Myrtle: Firstly, it is not the WHOLE EL. It is only part of it, and all the tunnels the , , and (P) use to get into Brooklyn are all underground. There is no way to link up the  with the EL structure still standing without destroying a full chunk of buildings. Also, the  on Bway-Bklyn- yes I did know Wally proposed that, but it would only be for weekend closures, whereas this is full-time. Also, the three lines would be adequate enough to provide Midtown service, allowing the  to return to Nassau St, freeing up capacity on 6 Av/QB to be used for other lines. 

Not extending the  to Hollis: I disagree because firstly, this terminal would be more efficient than Jamaica Center. Secondly, it would be beneficial to central Jamaica and replace the old Jamaica EL. Third, it would be very cheap to pull off. 

No Cambria Heights Extension- Disagree because this area is a bit far from the Laurelton  Extension, and would be cheap, so it wold make sense. Plus, the  would be fast to Manhattan, skipping stops between Sutphin Blvd and Berry St without any bottlenecks. 

I also want more people to critique this map, so I can get more suggestions. Thank you!

 

 

 

 

 

 

[T to Dyre Avenue]

On 11/9/2017 at 10:50 PM, bobtehpanda said:

The proposal isn't a solution for convenient rides, it's a solution for pumping through as many trains per hour at DeKalb. Reduces conflicts and unreliability.

And it’s probably the easiest way to do it, because you would be swapping one full time service for another ( for ). And you have a station (9th Ave) that can easily short-turn  trains that are unable to turn at Stillwell (probably the only time I’ll advocate for turning trains at 9th Ave).

Edited November 17, 2017 by T to Dyre Avenue

[Lawrence St]

When the reconstruction finishes, I would like to motion the extension of the weekend from Essex St to Chambers St, because me personally would love to have a one seat ride from Metropolitian to Chambers to connect with the (4).

[quadcorder]

What do people think of this to relieve merging difficulties on BMT Broadway and encourage transfers via 63rd Street:

• Reroute via 63rd Street tunnel, replacing in Manhattan and Brooklyn
• Reroute via Lower Manhattan and 4 Ave local, discontinuing service

Upsides:

• (goal) Allows increased Second Avenue service without the difficulties of pulling trains off other routes or finding a place besides Whitehall to turn trains
• Allows flexibility in 4 Av Local and Astoria service frequencies by turning trains at Whitehall

Downsides:

• Astoria loses express service (it's not much faster and half their trains are local already)
• Merging into on QBL has the ability to delay the   (if serious, solution: hold trains at Queens Plaza local platform with new switches just before the station)

 

[P3F]

17 minutes ago, quadcorder said:

What do people think of this to relieve merging difficulties on BMT Broadway and encourage transfers via 63rd Street:

• Reroute via 63rd Street tunnel, replacing in Manhattan and Brooklyn
• Reroute via Lower Manhattan and 4 Ave local, discontinuing service

Upsides:

• (goal) Allows increased Second Avenue service without the difficulties of pulling trains off other routes or finding a place besides Whitehall to turn trains
• Allows flexibility in 4 Av Local and Astoria service frequencies by turning trains at Whitehall

Downsides:

• Astoria loses express service (it's not much faster and half their trains are local already)
• Merging into on QBL has the ability to delay the   (if serious, solution: hold trains at Queens Plaza local platform with new switches just before the station)

 

Somehow you conveniently forgot that you would get rid of half of Astoria's capacity, which is not something you want to do with the current crowding situation. In addition, you would increase crowding on the D and Q trains, because nobody wants to stay on an N which takes an entire 10 minutes longer to get from DeKalb to Canal. This suggestion is poorly thought out and quite absurd in its current state.

[R42N]

7 hours ago, P3F said:

Somehow you conveniently forgot that you would get rid of half of Astoria's capacity, which is not something you want to do with the current crowding situation. In addition, you would increase crowding on the D and Q trains, because nobody wants to stay on an N which takes an entire 10 minutes longer to get from DeKalb to Canal. This suggestion is poorly thought out and quite absurd in its current state.

I don’t think he did. He realizes that some  would turn southbound at Whitehall, but not necessarily half, so you would have increased 4th Avenue service.