Jump to content

Department of Subways - Proposals/Ideas


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, transitfan111 said:

The platforms? If you remove the end platforms you could fit another train car that’s it. There’s only about a block of space to build tail tracks before hitting the railroad. 

Source: I use that station everyday. 

In that case maybe extend the platforms up to Farragut and convert the tracks south of Glenwood to tail tracks. 

If possible, maybe you could just extend the line to Avenue J with tail tracks to Avenue L.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 12.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
On 10/28/2018 at 11:09 AM, R68OnBroadway said:

1. We could do this better with the (N)(Q) via SAS, (W) to FHills, and the (R)  Astoria/LGA-Bay Ridge (provided 36th is converted to a yard or we get a new one in Astoria).

3. Most people look for Midtown.

4. The congestion on that platform could be fixed with a mezzanine under Walker from the tunnel platforms to the Nassau platforms.

Agreed on #1. And after waiting more than five minutes today for the crowd flocking down that one narrow staircase from the (J)(Z) platform to the (N)(Q) platform to clear, I certainly agree some kind of mezzanine and new passageways are needed at Canal. Interestingly, most of that crowd moved off to the right once they got down the stairs, so it was safe to say they were transferring from the (J) or (Z) to the Brooklyn-bound (N) or (Q).

Edited by T to Dyre Avenue
Link to comment
Share on other sites

(3) to the Bronx

After 148 St turn onto Fredrick Douglass Blvd then a sharp right onto Macombs Pl (then under or over Macombs Dam Bridge) turn left onto Jerome Av

161 St - Yankee Stadium/ Jerome Av (B)(D)(4)

167 St-Jerome Av/Edward J Grant Hwy

170 St/Edward J Grant Hwy

Featherbed Ln/Dr Martin Luther King Blvd

Tremont Av/ Dr Martin Luther King Blvd

Burnside Av- Bronx Community College /Dr Martin Luther King Blvd

Fordham Rd/Dr Martin Luther King Blvd

Sedgwick Av - Kingsbridge Rd

Kingsbridge - 230 St/ Bailey Av

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, subwaykid256 said:

(3) to the Bronx

After 148 St turn onto Fredrick Douglass Blvd then a sharp right onto Macombs Pl (then under or over Macombs Dam Bridge) turn left onto Jerome Av

161 St - Yankee Stadium/ Jerome Av (B)(D)(4)

167 St-Jerome Av/Edward J Grant Hwy

170 St/Edward J Grant Hwy

Featherbed Ln/Dr Martin Luther King Blvd

Tremont Av/ Dr Martin Luther King Blvd

Burnside Av- Bronx Community College /Dr Martin Luther King Blvd

Fordham Rd/Dr Martin Luther King Blvd

Sedgwick Av - Kingsbridge Rd

Kingsbridge - 230 St/ Bailey Av

I don't really think we should send the (3) to the Bronx as a north-south line- the best use for it could be a 161st/163rd and Bruckner line to Throgs Neck, but for now it should just be left alone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, R68OnBroadway said:

I don't really think we should send the (3) to the Bronx as a north-south line- the best use for it could be a 161st/163rd and Bruckner line to Throgs Neck, but for now it should just be left alone.

good idea let me try it that way. 

 

UPDATE: Logistics are tricky with this route

Primarily trying to decide whether to send it down Story or Laffayette would be a viable options because sending down a subway line down a highway wouldn't be feasible

Heres what I got

161 St-Yankee Stadium (B)(D)(4)

Park-Melrose Avs/161 St - Metro North

3 Av-Boston Rd/163 St (T)

Prospect Av/163 St

Intervale Av/163 St :15x15_px_02:(5)

Hunts Point Av/163 St (6)

 

Honestly this wouldn't be too bad since it would connect with every line in the Bronx except the :15x15_px_01:

Edited by subwaykid256
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, subwaykid256 said:

good idea let me try it that way. 

 

UPDATE: Logistics are tricky with this route

Primarily trying to decide whether to send it down Story or Laffayette would be a viable options because sending down a subway line down a highway wouldn't be feasible

Heres what I got

161 St-Yankee Stadium (B)(D)(4)

Park-Melrose Avs/161 St - Metro North

3 Av-Boston Rd/163 St (T)

Prospect Av/163 St

Intervale Av/163 St :15x15_px_02:(5)

Hunts Point Av/163 St (6)

 

Honestly this wouldn't be too bad since it would connect with every line in the Bronx except the :15x15_px_01:

I think we could send it down the southern part of Bruckner Blvd- it would be possible to have an elevated there and it would also make it easier to get to the central area of Throgs Neck/Country Club so we would have a line like this:

(from 135th St)

145th lengthened to 10 cars

148th is folded back into the yard, but we would keep the platform there for emergency reroutes and for a place to start short turns. 

161st-Yankee Stadium (B)(D)(4) 

Third Avenue (transfer to a SAS line)

Intervale Av-163rd St (2)(5) 

Hunts Pt Av (6) 

lines turns to run under Garrison Av and then Story Av

Wheeler Av

Rosedale Av 

(lines curves to Bruckner Blvd South with a portal somewhere)

Castle Hill Av-Unionport

Subway then goes on a high viaduct to pass over the interchange

Balcom Av

E Tremont Av- Schuyerville

line turns south to follow Throgs Neck expressway

Randall Av

Lawton Av-Throgs Neck

Note that this proposal is nowhere near my list of needed projects, but more or so a nice-to-have proposal. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don’t really see the need for this. Yes, the (3) has only 2 sole service stops, but its relatively empty cars are the lifeline of Harlem/the UWS — the (2) is generally impossible to board south of 149. Beyond that, funneling even more Bx traffic to the A division seems a recipe for disaster. I think the emphasis needs to be on bringing more B div up there, so SAS to 3rd Ave, a Fordham extension from 207, and vastly increased Concourse service. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/30/2018 at 11:03 PM, T to Dyre Avenue said:

Agreed on #1. And after waiting more than five minutes today for the crowd flocking down that one narrow staircase from the (J)(Z) platform to the (N)(Q) platform to clear, I certainly agree some kind of mezzanine and new passageways are needed at Canal. Interestingly, most of that crowd moved off to the right once they got down the stairs, so it was safe to say they were transferring from the (J) or (Z) to the Brooklyn-bound (N) or (Q).

Yeah, showing that abandoning the northbound platform at Canal MIGHT have been a mistake and is something that maybe should be revisited in the future. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/30/2018 at 11:03 PM, T to Dyre Avenue said:

Agreed on #1. And after waiting more than five minutes today for the crowd flocking down that one narrow staircase from the (J)(Z) platform to the (N)(Q) platform to clear, I certainly agree some kind of mezzanine and new passageways are needed at Canal. Interestingly, most of that crowd moved off to the right once they got down the stairs, so it was safe to say they were transferring from the (J) or (Z) to the Brooklyn-bound (N) or (Q).

I remember proposing last year for Canal Street to be rebuilt for easier navigation and so that the (N) and (Q) platforms become wider and safer

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, BreeddekalbL said:

the bridge platforms at canal are very cramped i agree i was afraid someone might fall onto the tracks

Watch, (MTA) is not going to widen those platforms unless something serious happens due to how dangerously narrow those platforms are. That would be pretty short sighted of them. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alright, new proposal. Keep in mind that this proposal goes off the assumption that SAS is complete. 

(R) Trains are rerouted to Astoria and Are Extended to LaGuardia Airport and trains now house at 36th-38th Street Yard as currently planned. In the Long term, a new Yard in Astoria would be built using part of ConEd land. Some trains will short turn at 9th Avenue on the (D) line so that trains, can access the yard. (Note: Routes south of Dekalb are not deinterlined) 

Canal Street Station complex would be rebuilt from top to bottom (or bottom to top depending on your preception of it). The Express (N) and (Q) platforms would be widened by 10 feet on each side. The track alignment on the (R) and (W) platforms would be pushed inward to allow for wider platforms. Mezzanine pathways would be adjusted to allow for More Direct Transfers between the ((4) Overnights) (6)(J)(Z)(N)(Q)(R)(W). As for the (J) Platforms, the former Northbound Platforms will be reopened in case of a Provision for the Second Avenue Subway (T). Now while the Hanover Square option has better coverage for Underserved Neighborhoods, it lacks Connections with other lines and a Brooklyn Extension is almost not Feasible. 

As Much as I support Deinterlining Broadway, I don't support building a Lower Level at 72nd Street because I'm worried of Feasibility and to preserve a Future one seat Ride for SAS riders who are looking to Travel Second Avenue North to South and vice versa, thus I'll keep a little bit of Interlining on Broadway. (N) trains will use the Tracks just North of 57th Street-7th Avenue to turn onto the Express tracks instead of using the interlocking's between 34th Street-Herald square and Times Square-42nd Street. They will continue to serve Astoria, but now alongside the (R) line. The (W) would be eliminated under this plan and for a reason I'm about to get to in a bit.

57 Street Interlocking

credit to Vanshnookenraggen for creating the Geographically accurate NYC subway Track map. 

On Queens Blvd, there will be a service rearrangement. 

Some may argue that the (M) should use the Unused capacity in the 63rd Street tunnel, but I partially disagree with that. A second SAS route will run with the (T) under my proposal and use the 63rd Street tunnel with the (F) under my proposal. Both routes will run express in Queens to Jamaica Center and 179th Street. The (M) will continue to be local on Queens Blvd and the (E) will now be converted to a Local Route, still running at 15TPH, but this time to Jamaica - 179th Street, trains could still serve Jamaica Center, but that would require an Extension to Rochdale similar to the 1968 Program For Action, which is Not what I'm proposing today. Overall Service would look like this:

(E) - WTC to Jamaica-179th Street; QB Local via 53rd Street

(F) - Coney Island to Jamaica-179th Street; QB Express via 63rd Street

(M) - Metropolitan Av to Forest Hills-71st Avenue or Jamaica-179th Street via 53rd Street

(V) - Hanover Square via 2nd Avenue to Jamaica Center; QB Express via 63rd Street. 

An alternative option is to swap the Express Local alignment of my proposed (E) and (V)

Any thoughts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

Alright, new proposal. Keep in mind that this proposal goes off the assumption that SAS is complete. 

(R) Trains are rerouted to Astoria and Are Extended to LaGuardia Airport and trains now house at 36th-38th Street Yard as currently planned. In the Long term, a new Yard in Astoria would be built using part of ConEd land. Some trains will short turn at 9th Avenue on the (D) line so that trains, can access the yard. (Note: Routes south of Dekalb are not deinterlined) 

Canal Street Station complex would be rebuilt from top to bottom (or bottom to top depending on your preception of it). The Express (N) and (Q) platforms would be widened by 10 feet on each side. The track alignment on the (R) and (W) platforms would be pushed inward to allow for wider platforms. Mezzanine pathways would be adjusted to allow for More Direct Transfers between the ((4) Overnights) (6)(J)(Z)(N)(Q)(R)(W). As for the (J) Platforms, the former Northbound Platforms will be reopened in case of a Provision for the Second Avenue Subway (T). Now while the Hanover Square option has better coverage for Underserved Neighborhoods, it lacks Connections with other lines and a Brooklyn Extension is almost not Feasible. 

As Much as I support Deinterlining Broadway, I don't support building a Lower Level at 72nd Street because I'm worried of Feasibility and to preserve a Future one seat Ride for SAS riders who are looking to Travel Second Avenue North to South and vice versa, thus I'll keep a little bit of Interlining on Broadway. (N) trains will use the Tracks just North of 57th Street-7th Avenue to turn onto the Express tracks instead of using the interlocking's between 34th Street-Herald square and Times Square-42nd Street. They will continue to serve Astoria, but now alongside the (R) line. The (W) would be eliminated under this plan and for a reason I'm about to get to in a bit.

credit to Vanshnookenraggen for creating the Geographically accurate NYC subway Track map. 

On Queens Blvd, there will be a service rearrangement. 

Some may argue that the (M) should use the Unused capacity in the 63rd Street tunnel, but I partially disagree with that. A second SAS route will run with the (T) under my proposal and use the 63rd Street tunnel with the (F) under my proposal. Both routes will run express in Queens to Jamaica Center and 179th Street. The (M) will continue to be local on Queens Blvd and the (E) will now be converted to a Local Route, still running at 15TPH, but this time to Jamaica - 179th Street, trains could still serve Jamaica Center, but that would require an Extension to Rochdale similar to the 1968 Program For Action, which is Not what I'm proposing today. Overall Service would look like this:

(E) - WTC to Jamaica-179th Street; QB Local via 53rd Street

(F) - Coney Island to Jamaica-179th Street; QB Express via 63rd Street

(M) - Metropolitan Av to Forest Hills-71st Avenue or Jamaica-179th Street via 53rd Street

(V) - Hanover Square via 2nd Avenue to Jamaica Center; QB Express via 63rd Street. 

An alternative option is to swap the Express Local alignment of my proposed (E) and (V)

Any thoughts?

So let me get this straight.
 

(R) Bay Ridge to Astoria, Bway local

(N) Sea Beach to Astoria via Bway express

(Q) Brighton to 96 via Bway express
 

All you did was shuffle the deck chairs on the Titanic; Broadway is still massively underutilized and there is no new capacity on Queens Blvd. What problem is this solving? Because we already tried an all-stops past Forest Hills and nobody rode it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, subwaykid256 said:

Question how popular is the idea of Bringing the (G) back to Forest Hills-71 Avenue?

 

My ideas

(M) Metropolitan Av to 96 St/2 av 6 Av local

(W) Astoria- Ditmars Blvd to Brighton via Bway local/Brighton Express

 

It is an awful idea to extend the (G). There is no capacity. There is no need. People flocked to Manhattan-bound trains. We are short on cars. I can continue telling you why it shouldn't be done.

What are the arguments for doing this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What if we de-interlined using this method:

(A) RPK/FRock-207th 

(C) now express on Fulton, Lefferts-168th

(N) Fordham Plaza- Coney Island via 3rd, 2nd, Broadway express and so on

(Q) 125th St-Broadway or St. Nicholas Av- CI via 125th, 2nd, Broadway express and so on

(R) LGA/Astoria- Euclid (provided a new tunnel is built that can connect to the Hoyt local tracks just after passing the museum)

(W) Somewhere on Union Turnpike- Whitehall St or City Hall lower via UT local, QBL local and so on

(K)  Bay Ridge- Essex

(T) 72nd lower-Tottenville via 2nd express, Water St and SIR from Stapleton and on

:M: Metropolitan-somewhere along Union Turnpike via new Union Turnpike express ( (W) takes local), bypass, and a new 72nd St tunnel), 2nd local, Chrystie and so on

(local stops on 2nd would be 65th, 34th St, 23rd St-Peter Cooper Village, and 8th St/St Marks)

This pattern allows for several improvements like a subway to SI, better Fulton local service, an increase in TPH for Bay Ridge riders, and a one seat ride to the East Side from Queens with rather minimal construction for parts of SAS that would be hard to fix- you'd only need a new lower level for 72nd, and if you were really tight on $, you could nix the 72nd tunnel and use 63rd (which I think is a poor idea as it prevents more (F) service- it sucks you can't use the lower level either because of the boondoggle called ESA).

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, R68OnBroadway said:

Sorry for doubling-posting (this is a result of the edit time expiring), but how far do the tail tracks past Norwood go, and does anything preclude them from traveling under the Bronx River to run under Burke?

They go to Webster Avenue. They were designed with an extension on Burke in mind, so yes, they can go under.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, R68OnBroadway said:

What if we de-interlined using this method:

(A) RPK/FRock-207th 

(C) now express on Fulton, Lefferts-168th

(N) Fordham Plaza- Coney Island via 3rd, 2nd, Broadway express and so on

(Q) 125th St-Broadway or St. Nicholas Av- CI via 125th, 2nd, Broadway express and so on

(R) LGA/Astoria- Euclid (provided a new tunnel is built that can connect to the Hoyt local tracks just after passing the museum)

(W) Somewhere on Union Turnpike- Whitehall St or City Hall lower via UT local, QBL local and so on

(K)  Bay Ridge- Essex

(T) 72nd lower-Tottenville via 2nd express, Water St and SIR from Stapleton and on

:M: Metropolitan-somewhere along Union Turnpike via new Union Turnpike express ( (W) takes local), bypass, and a new 72nd St tunnel), 2nd local, Chrystie and so on

(local stops on 2nd would be 65th, 34th St, 23rd St-Peter Cooper Village, and 8th St/St Marks)

This pattern allows for several improvements like a subway to SI, better Fulton local service, an increase in TPH for Bay Ridge riders, and a one seat ride to the East Side from Queens with rather minimal construction for parts of SAS that would be hard to fix- you'd only need a new lower level for 72nd, and if you were really tight on $, you could nix the 72nd tunnel and use 63rd (which I think is a poor idea as it prevents more (F) service- it sucks you can't use the lower level either because of the boondoggle called ESA).

Why are we keeping Broadway service on QB? The only reason it's still there is for Lex express access; the SAS connection makes that a waste. I'd take that chance to amp up 8th with a 4th service, no? 

I also don't completely follow the rationale behind (M) to SAS. If we want better Jamaica line connectivity, why don't we do what @vanshnookenraggen proposed -- (B)(D) out that way, and SAS to Brooklyn? Sure, that kills the Staten Island idea, but it keeps SAS bound to the network at large (think about all those transfers in Brooklyn), and does the same for the Jamaica/Myrtle complex. 

Otherwise, I think it's a completely defensible plan. 

44 minutes ago, Union Tpke said:

They go to Webster Avenue. They were designed with an extension on Burke in mind, so yes, they can go under.

Funnily enough, they were actually slated to go over the river -- a new bridge from Burke Ave would have carried the (D) on its lower level. IIRC this is written up in The Routes Not Taken. 

Edited by RR503
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

So let me get this straight.
 

(R) Bay Ridge to Astoria, Bway local

(N) Sea Beach to Astoria via Bway express

(Q) Brighton to 96 via Bway express
 

All you did was shuffle the deck chairs on the Titanic; Broadway is still massively underutilized and there is no new capacity on Queens Blvd. What problem is this solving? Because we already tried an all-stops past Forest Hills and nobody rode it.

Well, my main goal was to be as realistic with the proposal as possible with this and that's what I came up with. In terms of new capacity though I didn't say anything because I believe that you can only squeeze a Max of 5 additional TPH along with the use of CBTC. In terms of new capacity on Queens Blvd, you'd need to redo terminal procedures at Forest Hills. I could've also simply have extended my (V) past Jamaica Center or added the Jewel Avenue extension which I chose not to do.

One thing I'll say is that I deinterlined QBL. 

 

9 minutes ago, RR503 said:

Why are we keeping Broadway service on QB? The only reason it's still there is for Lex express access; the SAS connection makes that a waste. I'd take that chance to amp up 8th with a 4th service, no? 

I also don't completely follow the rationale behind (M) to SAS. If we want better Jamaica line connectivity, why don't we do what @vanshnookenraggen proposed -- (B)(D) out that way, and SAS to Brooklyn? Sure, that kills the Staten Island idea, but it keeps SAS bound to the network at large (think about all those transfers in Brooklyn), and does the same for the Jamaica/Myrtle complex. 

Otherwise, I think it's a completely defensible plan. 

Funnily enough, they were actually slated to go over the river -- a new bridge from Burke Ave would have carried the (D) on its lower level. IIRC this is written up The Routes Not Taken. 

Which page what that in, I might've missed that detail.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

Well, my main goal was to be as realistic with the proposal as possible with this and that's what I came up with. In terms of new capacity though I didn't say anything because I believe that you can only squeeze a Max of 5 additional TPH along with the use of CBTC. In terms of new capacity on Queens Blvd, you'd need to redo terminal procedures at Forest Hills. I could've also simply have extended my (V) past Jamaica Center or added the Jewel Avenue extension which I chose not to do.

But there's barely any new capacity anywhere. It's exactly the same as today.

I don't really support deinterlining if it isn't going to result in concrete benefits. Pumping the Broadway Express 100% to 96 St, an (M) via 63rd and a (K) via 53rd and spare capacity on 8th does actually increase the amount of capacity. This doesn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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