Jump to content

Department of Subways - Proposals/Ideas


Recommended Posts

While that would give the (7) more capacity and provide for a 50th Street crosstown subway, I don’t see how double-decking the existing Roosevelt Avenue el and terminating the new express tracks over the PW branch would have any real advantage over building a four-track subway under Roosevelt that could have provisions built in for potential branches into East and Northeast Queens (possibly even East Elmhurst/LGA). And I get the feeling Astoria riders would absolutely go bonkers the idea of replacing their spacious (relatively speaking) B-Division trains for the smaller, cramped A-Division trains. 

What about this instead? Build the tunnel under 50th Street you suggested, but once in Queens, have it continue straight along 45th Avenue, which then turns into Thompson Avenue at Court Square, which then merges into Queens Blvd just east of the railroad tracks. Then the tracks would rise in the middle of Queens Blvd and take over the existing (7) el starting at Rawson/33rd Street. The (7) line stations from 33rd on would then be converted to B-Division. I presume the short subway in Flushing is already built to B-Division clearances, so that shouldn’t be a big problem. Though you’d still have the same issues with branching or extending the Flushing Line eastward, but it may be better with longer trains. And you also lose  a significant number of the Flushing line’s transfers by relocating it to 50th Street in Manhattan (specifically the (A)(Q)(2)(3)(4) and (5), also the (N) if it’s sent up 2nd Ave). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 12.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
30 minutes ago, BreeddekalbL said:

At current numbers would it be possible to split the (A) service as run a letter (K) service to lefferts and A to Rockaway? 

In general branches of existing services shouldn't have different names. For example the (E)(N)(5) have two different northern terminals during rush hour.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, BreeddekalbL said:

At current numbers would it be possible to split the (A) service as run a letter (K) service to lefferts and A to Rockaway? 

Ideally, have another service take Fulton Local ( (R) or (W) from Broadway has been discussed here in this thread previously), move the (C) to the role of Fulton Express to Lefferts, which allows for all (A) trains to alternate between short turning at JFK and Far Rock.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I saw a tweet about spending money to extend the (J) down 4th Ave to supplement service vs wasting money on the stupid BQX posted by 2nd Ave sagas 

Why not extend the (W) to supplement 4th Ave service ?

Covers CBD access that the (brownM)🐡lacked when it ran on 4th ave

Edited by BreeddekalbL
Can someone please edit that blow fish out I didn't mean do post it
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, BreeddekalbL said:

I saw a tweet about spending money to extend the (J) down 4th Ave to supplement service vs wasting money on the stupid BQX posted by 2nd Ave sagas 

Why not extend the (W) to supplement 4th Ave service ?

Covers CBD access that the (brownM)🐡lacked when it ran on 4th ave

The CBD is covered by (R) to (D)/(N) (or in this case, it would be (J) to (D) / (N)).

The biggest difference between 2010 ridership patterns and 2019/2020 ridership patterns is the emergence of downtown as a legitimate destination in its own right. There's definitely more people staying on the (R) to/from Lower Manhattan than I can recall previously. The (brownM) was also hurt by missing the highest ridership portion of 4th Avenue (45th-95th) completely.

The combination of serving Bay Ridge/Sunset Park and serving the east side of Lower Manhattan (Fulton Center, Wall Street, Water Street, etc) would make the (J) attractive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Probably because the (W) pretty much would duplicate the (R) the entire way in Brooklyn and Manhattan. Vanshnookenraggen suggested extending both the (J) and (W) as a way to mitigate traffic congestion on the Gowanus/BQE, whenever they plan to reconstruct it. Here’s the link:

http://www.vanshnookenraggen.com/_index/2018/10/we-dont-need-to-replace-the-bqe-but-we-will/

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

Probably because the (W) pretty much would duplicate the (R) the entire way in Brooklyn and Manhattan. Vanshnookenraggen suggested extending both the (J) and (W) as a way to mitigate traffic congestion on the Gowanus/BQE, whenever they plan to reconstruct it. Here’s the link:

http://www.vanshnookenraggen.com/_index/2018/10/we-dont-need-to-replace-the-bqe-but-we-will/

 

 

Sounds like a nice plan. Now all that's left is the willpower of the (MTA) ...

Edited by lara8710
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is one service enough for the planned Second Avenue Subway? With a proposed connection to the (F) at 63rd Street towards Queens, it's logical that a second service supplement the (T).

This was my most recent service proposal:

On 2/8/2019 at 8:59 PM, lara8710 said:

The SAS could get a second line to Queens, given that current plans call for a spur to the 63rd Street (F) line toward 21st Street - Queensbridge. From there the line can continue as an elevated structure above the LIRR between Sunnyside Yards and the Forest Hills - 71st Avenue (E)(F)(M)(R) station where it connects to the local tracks along the Queens Boulevard corridor. This new line would be a turquoise (V) supplementing the (T) south of 55th Street, operating local east of that station to 179th Street, operating express to 21st Street via the 61st Street - Woodside (7) station, and then making all (T) stops to Hanover Square after Lexington Avenue - 63rd Street (F)(Q) station. It would operate at all times except late nights.

To accommodate this new service, the (E) would run express east of 71st Avenue at all times except late nights when it operates local in Queens. (F) service along this segment toward 179th Street would remain unchanged.

However, I also have to admit that such a plan would first require that Jamaica Yard be expanded as overcrowding has forced the storage of trains on the express tracks east of 71st Avenue during late nights and weekends.

 

Edited by lara8710
Link to comment
Share on other sites

New Proposal: 

I’m not open to the idea of Making a subway on Northen Boulevard but since there is High Ridership on the (7) line, and is in need of a Relief, here are my thoughts:

Under the scenario that the Q66 (being converted to SBS) and the Atlantic Ticket are not sufficient enough to relive the crowds on the (7) (Which is something that will happen in my opinion) a Northern Boulevard Subway would be justified. 

(Short Term) If we were to build Norrhern Boulevard as a Trunk, then the 63rd Street Tunnel and the Crosstown Line/Queens Plaza Local Tracks should be Used in my opinion. (This would also Help with Deinterlining QBL as well)  Tunnel Spurs would run Underneath Sunnyside Yards for simplicity and to not underpin any tunnels. Stops: 

Broadway - Local (E); (G)(R) SAS (V) 

64/69th Street - (G)(R) 

72nd Street- (G)(R) 

81st Street - (G)(R)

90th Street- (G)(R) 

(Either Junction Blvd Or 108th Street could be the Express stop before a potential LaGuardia Spur can be built.) 

Junction Blvd- (G)(R) SAS (V), connection to the Q72 to LaGuardia 

108th Street- (G)(R) 

(Spur to LaGuardia Airport, College Point or Continue down Northern Blvd if warranted, but for now, Let’s Simplify this) 

Main Street - (G) ( (R) )  SAS (V)  

Parsons Blvd/132nd Street - SAS (V) 

Willets Point Blvd - SAS (V)

20th Avenue - SAS (V) 

14th Avenue - SAS (V)

One disclaimer before I close off, the reason I have the (G) extended here is so that it can have a better terminal than compared to now. Any thoughts or comments about this proposal? 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, given what the pols in Brooklyn seem to now want with a split of the R Train (PDF FIle):

Looks like my idea of the (Z) might have to become a serious option:

I would now be seriously looking at re-connecting the Nassau Line to the Manhattan Bridge with the (R) unchanged and the (Z) becoming a supplemental line to the (R) that runs as a Nassau Loop Line may be a better option.  I noted this in greater detail in the thread for this particular situation.

Edited by Wallyhorse
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, lara8710 said:

Is one service enough for the planned Second Avenue Subway? With a proposed connection to the (F) at 63rd Street towards Queens, it's logical that a second service supplement the (T).

This was my most recent service proposal:

 

One service is definitely not enough for the Second Avenue Subway below the 63rd Street Tunnel (assuming the current MTA plan comes to pass and we get the (Q) and (T) above 63rd). The best possible route for a V (Queens-SAS) service is one that doesn’t reverse-branch onto already overburdened line in North Queens. Of course that means spending big bucks on a relief line for either the Flushing or Queens Blvd lines, but that really is something our esteemed transit authority and political brain trust (LOL!) should have thought about decades ago. I like running the V via Northern Blvd, like @LaGuardia Link N Tra suggested up thread. Or running the V via the LIRR Main Line as you’ve suggested, though perhaps alongside the LIRR tracks from Sunnyside to Forest Hills, where the line would go back underground and connect to the QB local tracks. To avoid a messy merge, I’d keep the (F) and off-peak (E) express after 71st. 

20 hours ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

New Proposal: 

I’m not open to the idea of Making a subway on Northen Boulevard but since there is High Ridership on the (7) line, and is in need of a Relief, here are my thoughts:

Under the scenario that the Q66 (being converted to SBS) and the Atlantic Ticket are not sufficient enough to relive the crowds on the (7) (Which is something that will happen in my opinion) a Northern Boulevard Subway would be justified. 

(Short Term) If we were to build Norrhern Boulevard as a Trunk, then the 63rd Street Tunnel and the Crosstown Line/Queens Plaza Local Tracks should be Used in my opinion. (This would also Help with Deinterlining QBL as well)  Tunnel Spurs would run Underneath Sunnyside Yards for simplicity and to not underpin any tunnels. Stops: 

Broadway - Local (E); (G)(R) SAS (V) 

64/69th Street - (G)(R) 

72nd Street- (G)(R) 

81st Street - (G)(R)

90th Street- (G)(R) 

(Either Junction Blvd Or 108th Street could be the Express stop before a potential LaGuardia Spur can be built.) 

Junction Blvd- (G)(R) SAS (V), connection to the Q72 to LaGuardia 

108th Street- (G)(R) 

(Spur to LaGuardia Airport, College Point or Continue down Northern Blvd if warranted, but for now, Let’s Simplify this) 

Main Street - (G) ( (R) )  SAS (V)  

Parsons Blvd/132nd Street - SAS (V) 

Willets Point Blvd - SAS (V)

20th Avenue - SAS (V) 

14th Avenue - SAS (V)

One disclaimer before I close off, the reason I have the (G) extended here is so that it can have a better terminal than compared to now. Any thoughts or comments about this proposal? 

 

 

I like it because we really could use a relief line on heavily congested Northern Blvd. I was thinking about a similar line with the just the V, though that might result in a rather long local run through North Queens, so maybe having a four-track line with the V running express to 14th Avenue and the (R) local to/from Main Street is better (not sure the (G) would be needed).

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

I like it because we really could use a relief line on heavily congested Northern Blvd. I was thinking about a similar line with the just the V, though that might result in a rather long local run through North Queens, so maybe having a four-track line with the V running express to 14th Avenue and the (R) local to/from Main Street is better (not sure the (G) would be needed).


 

Like I said, the main reason I have the (G) being extended is to give it a better terminal, Court Square does a good job at turning (G) trains now, but I don't feel like that's going to be the case for long considering that this city has some weird obsession with the Brooklyn-Queens Waterfront. (And I don't agree with a Queensboro Plaza/21st Street extension either since that requires a bunch of Infrastructure changes, not to mention underpinning the Streets, EL Platforms and the (F) Train Platforms. Just imagine how expensive that'd be!) By extending it to Northern Boulevard, we'd have a bit more Flexibility in our hands and what kind of service patterns we'd be able to plan coming from/going to Manhattan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The issue with a line on Northern is that, no matter how you jigger services, you're sending those riders into the same number of Manhattan-bound track pairs as you had before. You still have 53/63 feeding QB, 60 feeding Astoria and 42 feeding Flushing. Sure, you expand coverage area, but you aren't really addressing the actual area that needs relief -- ie the Manhattan-Queens crossing.

Don't get me wrong, it'd be nice, and a 2-track version tied into Crosstown+11th St wouldn't mess up Manhattan capacity and would provide for, at least, transfer-free intra-borough trips, but all the same, if we're going down the 'let's build the most necessary improvements' path, this ain't it. 

Re: (G) to 21st St, it's only as expensive as it needs to be. Wanna save money? Send the (G) up 21st from 21st Station. Wanna get more easy connections? Do @officiallyliam's snake route through LIC proper. And the benefit there, FWIW, isn't so much an improved terminal (you could accomplish that with a new crossover at Court Square) but connectivity -- any deinterlining scheme reduces the number of Manhattan trunk options available to (G) riders at Court Square from 3 to 2. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
5 minutes ago, BreeddekalbL said:

Would it be feasible to build a subway for Astoria replacing the Astoria El 

In the future would it be feasible for them to replace the else as concrete else like in other countries?

 

El replacement is always possible; the question would wind up being whether we'd be able to do top-down cut and cover to do the work rather than deep-bore tunneling because deep-bore tunneling is absurdly expensive for fairly little mileage. The thing that would make the most sense to do would be to put an el over 278 and the Grand Central Parkway and tie it into both a renovated Astoria and 2 Av at 86 St

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, engineerboy6561 said:

El replacement is always possible; the question would wind up being whether we'd be able to do top-down cut and cover to do the work rather than deep-bore tunneling because deep-bore tunneling is absurdly expensive for fairly little mileage. The thing that would make the most sense to do would be to put an el over 278 and the Grand Central Parkway and tie it into both a renovated Astoria and 2 Av at 86 St

Would it even be feasible to replace the El as a concrete El like in other countries 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Throughout the history of the subway system extensions have been built in phases. However, in a few cases, there have been short extensions built years after the initial line, (I am not counting phased extensions) such as:

  • Fourth Avenue Line from 86th Street to 95th Street on October 31, 1925
  • Flushing Line from 103rd Street to Main Street on October 13, 1925 and January 21, 1928
  • Nassau Street Line from Chambers Street to Broad Street on May 29, 1931
  • Canarsie Line from Sixth Avenue to Eighth Avenue on May 30, 1931
  • Queens Boulevard Line from 169th Street to 179th Street on December 11, 1950
  • Lenox Avenue Line from 145th Street to Harlem–148th Street on May 13, 1968
  • Flushing Line from Times Square to 34th Street–Hudson Yards on September 13, 2015

I have thought of a few short extensions (1 to 2 stations) that could have the greatest benefit. What extensions can you guys think of that fall under this condition? I will share mine after I hear your thoughts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(A)  To Far Rock LIRR Station

(B)/(D)  To Burke Av

(C) To Van Wyck

(E) To Linden Boulevard 

(F) To 188th 

(G) To Court Square

(H) Far Rock to 116

(J)/(Z)  South Ferry (new station) to Hollis/Farmers

(L) 34th st/10th av to Remsen/Flatbush 

(M) to LIE

(Q) to 125

(R) to Clifton (and then to Saint George

Brooklyn (S) to Lafayette 

(T) to 53

(1) to Ludlow

(2)/(5) South Side/Mount Vernon to Kings Hwy

(3) Jerome/Bainbridge to the Conduits 

(4) Wakefield/Woodlawn Avs to the Conduits

(6) to Co-Op city

(7) Weehawken to Murray Hill

 

 

 

These are all short, not including larger scale projects

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Union Tpke said:

I have thought of a few short extensions (1 to 2 stations) that could have the greatest benefit. What extensions can you guys think of that fall under this condition? I will share mine after I hear your thoughts.

Two I thought of:

(M) to Jewel Av. and Main Street

(L) to Hudson Yard, new stops at 23rd and 34th St.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, ibroketheprinter said:

(A)  To Far Rock LIRR Station

This is only a few blocks away

(B)/(D)  To Burke Av

(C) To Van Wyck

? What is the point?

(E) To Linden Boulevard 

(F) To 188th 

(G) To Court Square

It stops here already.

(H) Far Rock to 116

(J)/(Z)  South Ferry (new station) to Hollis/Farmers

Not short and why? How are you going to build a stop at South Ferry when the line continues into the Montague Tunnels?

(L) 34th st/10th av to Remsen/Flatbush 

Not short

(M) to LIE

(Q) to 125

(R) to Clifton (and then to Saint George

This is not short

Brooklyn (S) to Lafayette 

I would connect it to Bedford-Nostrands

(T) to 53

?

(1) to Ludlow

Why?

(2)/(5) South Side/Mount Vernon to Kings Hwy

Why?

(3) Jerome/Bainbridge to the Conduits 

?

(4) Wakefield/Woodlawn Avs to the Conduits

?

(6) to Co-Op city

This one is good

(7) Weehawken to Murray Hill

Weehawken is not short, but I agree concerning Murray Hill

 

 

These are all short, not including larger scale projects

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, ibroketheprinter said:

(H) Far Rock to 116

Ignoring the fact that this is not a station extension, I'd like to point out that ridership on this line would be very low. The temporary (S) running last year had bare minimum ridership across the Hammels Wye, only riders from Manhattan from the (A) train. The sandy (H) also relied on riders usually taking the (A). You can just take the Q22 instead which is not overloaded by any chance; maybe slower, but with higher frequency and reliability. The subways should be utilized to get off and on the peninsula, not through it.

Edited by NoHacksJustKhaks
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.