Jump to content

Attention: In order to reply to messages, create topics, have access to other features of the community you must sign up for an account.
EE Broadway Local

Department of Subways - Proposals/Ideas

Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, RR503 said:

Completely agree. And thank you! It's part of a much larger map set I'm working on...

Option 1 is honestly a good idea under this plan -- the lost cross platform transfer between Essex and Jamaica Line trains is recreated at Bowery. 

I would have preferred to keep the north track open if only for simplicity's sake, but as I said before, that curve entering Manhattan-bound is a not-insignificant capacity penalty. I'm sure it could be traversed faster than it is today, but I can't imagine it ever being done at more than 15. With all the growth along the (J)(M)(Z), I think those sorts of incremental improvements are going to be crucial to the line's future function. 

The terminal ops side of things doesn't bother me too much. Remember that a train terminating at Essex from the south and one terminating at at Broad/Chambers from the north will have to share track or at least cross paths at some point. Thus, unless you plan a high-density shuttle from Chambers to Essex, that capacity would never be leveraged.

If I may make an addendum to my map, however, I'd add a double crossover between the two middle tracks somewhere between Canal and Essex to provide flexibility in the case something goes wrong at Essex middle, or its terminal function is needed for another service (eg: some shit goes down on 6th, requiring (M) service to be kept off there).  

I'm sure for some indeterminate sum of money you could do it, but I think this goes to my above point -- it doesn't gain you anything. Trains will have to share a track or switch at some point -- there's no way you'd ever be able to truly leverage the built capacity. 

I mean I think its just what I said when I initially proposed it -- it's a relatively simple way of leveraging the strengths of Nassau, Fulton and Broadway Local while deinterlining.

People from 4th Ave never stay on the (R) unless headed to Lower Manhattan, thus it seems a shame to use its ample Manhattan-bound capacity on the corridor. At the same time, despite the line's excellent coverage of Lower Manhattan destinations/transfers, Nassau's Brooklyn capability lies completely unused. And on the IND side, Fulton's potentially high throughput is constricted by its caveman-like design -- a reality increasingly aggravated by area growth. 

The proposal is, of course, to link Whitehall's provisions with Fulton Local via a new tunnel approximately under State St. Before your friends freak out, I highly doubt that it's possible -- even on a 3% grade -- to dive from the NYTM to a depth sufficient for a sub-aqueous crossing, so I'd imagine such a tunnel would tap into A1/A2 somewhere between NYTM and Hoyt-Scherm. The (R) would be rerouted through the tunnel, displacing the (C) onto the express tracks to Lefferts, while a new service from Essex St to Bay Ridge takes its place on 4th (along with, possibly, (J) service).

And there ya have it, 25-30 new tph into Brooklyn with no more merge at Schermerhorn. 

Beyond these capacital benefits, placing the (R) on Fulton would (finally) give 8th/Fulton riders convenient access to the BMT. Yes, transfers exist today at Jay and Chambers, but anyone who has traversed those passageways knows they are, frankly, hell. It's like that '80s song -- up, down, turn around, please don't let me hit the ground... 

Anyway, back the first time around, I did a time comparison between current alternatives to key Broadway line points and this expanded (R) service. I'm going to quote it here: 

On a final note, moving the (R) to Euclid makes deinterlining the north end of Broadway (ie local to Astoria, express to 96) a hell of a lot easier. (R)s would have access to Pitkin, while whatever we call this new Nassau/4th Local service would have access to ENY and all the excess trackage along Nassau. Kills the CI/36/reverse issue once and for all... 

So this will be the new service pattern?

(A) RPK/FRock to 207 via Fulton/8th express

(C) 168th to Lefferts- local in Manhattan, express in Brooklyn

(E) stays same

(N) 96th/125th to CI

(Q) same

(R) Euclid to Astoria/LGA

(W) FHills to Euclid

Some new service like (K) 95th-Canal, Essex, or Chambers

Also, would it be possible to build a stop at State/Clinton or State/Henry? It would be rather deep and need elevators or long stairs to reach the surface, but if warranted, it could be built.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, R68OnBroadway said:

So this will be the new service pattern?

(A) RPK/FRock to 207 via Fulton/8th express

(C) 168th to Lefferts- local in Manhattan, express in Brooklyn

(E) stays same

(N) 96th/125th to CI

(Q) same

(R) Euclid to Astoria/LGA

(W) FHills to Euclid

Some new service like (K) 95th-Canal, Essex, or Chambers

Also, would it be possible to build a stop at State/Clinton or State/Henry? It would be rather deep and need elevators or long stairs to reach the surface, but if warranted, it could be built.

Yes, if some level of deinterlining is not pursued. 

A State/Clinton or Henry stop would probably be impossible. Remember that tracks in stations must be relatively flat, thus placing a stop on a downgrade going into a tunnel would effect the positioning/vertical clearances of the tunnel relative to the river and Fulton Local. I would worry that running the line flat for 600' or so under Brooklyn Heights would bring it under the river too high, but again, I'm not a civil engineer. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, RR503 said:

A State/Clinton or Henry stop would probably be impossible. Remember that tracks in stations must be relatively flat, thus placing a stop on a downgrade going into a tunnel would effect the positioning/vertical clearances of the tunnel relative to the river and Fulton Local. I would worry that running the line flat for 600' or so under Brooklyn Heights would bring it under the river too high, but again, I'm not a civil engineer. 

Indeed. Currently, the only stop that far west in Brooklyn is Clark Street, which you can only access by elevator. That's not a great or affordable way to construct a station.

Edited by bobtehpanda

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/14/2018 at 9:27 AM, Mysterious2train said:

It's been 50 years since revenue service last ran from Canarsie down Broadway in Brooklyn, right? I wouldn't expect any area politicians to know about such a service or advocate for it. I would hope none of them oppose this additional bus service. 

It’s certainly possible they wouldn’t know. But you never know. After all, how many area politicians in 2009-10 knew you could run a train service from Metropolitan Avenue directly to 6th Avenue? 

On 9/15/2018 at 2:18 PM, RR503 said:

Bringing this discussion over from the 14th St thread...

@Around the Horn, here are the maps regarding what I think should be done on Nassau. 

What's here now:

What I'd do (includes (R) tunnel to Hoyt Scherm.). Red means new/reopened/realigned stuff. 

The only reason I wish to abandon the north platform is to kill that terribly sharp (and heavily timed) curve coming off the bridge. If we're building new stuff in the area, we might as well address one of its capacity constraints....

This map, of course, neglects to show other changes I'd make in the area. I would, for example, invest in new passageways and increased mezzanine space at Canal St., more/wider stairs to/from the (F) platform at Delancey, and a connection to the (B)(D) at Grand from Bowery. 

Excellent maps. It would be great to do away with that sharp curve.

Edited by T to Dyre Avenue

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.