Department of Subways - Proposals/Ideas

[TheNewYorkElevated]

It would be my honors to introduce you, to the new and worsened Wallyhorse!

Oh, God... Please don't this...

[Armandito]

Here's one of my old proposals, but I revised it this time again. It'll go into effect after Phase IV of the Second Avenue Subway is completed:

 

There will be a new subway line under Steinway Street to 20th Avenue, branching off the and after Broadway. The new service that'll use this line will travel via the after 36th Street and veer off onto Second Avenue after Roosevelt Island, but will continue to Brooklyn via Hanover Square and the Montague Street tunnel instead of going across the Manhattan Bridge. Here are my plans:

 

Plan A:

Weekdays: between Steinway-20th Avenue and Bay Parkway via 63rd Street, Second Avenue, Fourth Avenue, and the West End Line

Weekends: between Steinway-20th Avenue and Hanover Square via 63rd Street and Second Avenue

Late nights: shuttle between Steinway-20th Avenue and Steinway Street-Broadway

 

Plan B:

Weekdays: between Steinway-20th Avenue and Kings Highway via 63rd Street, Second Avenue, Fourth Avenue, and the Sea Beach Line

Weekends and late nights: Same as Plan A

 

In both Plans A and B, the new service will run fully local, and trains will run local in Queens during late nights. At Hanover Square a free transfer to the , , , and trains at nearby stations will be available, and south of the Steinway Street station a new layup track will be built alongside one of the existing tracks for nightly shuttle trains.

 

Which plan is better: A or B?

Edited January 8, 2015 by lara8710

[bobtehpanda]

One - how on earth would you connect SAS to Montague? Where Water St is, that would mean building a flying junction under the East River that snakes around the Nassau and Broadway lines while not disrupting service.

 

Two - why would you waste perfectly good cross-river capacity on a line serving Western Queens? You also cannot run three services on a pair  of tracks like that without creating nasty ripple effects when delays occur, and Queens Blvd causes enough of those as it is.

[Armandito]

One - how on earth would you connect SAS to Montague? Where Water St is, that would mean building a flying junction under the East River that snakes around the Nassau and Broadway lines while not disrupting service.

 

Two - why would you waste perfectly good cross-river capacity on a line serving Western Queens? You also cannot run three services on a pair of tracks like that without creating nasty ripple effects when delays occur, and Queens Blvd causes enough of those as it is.

The SAS extension through the tunnel would use the existing Nassau Street connection, which is not currently used in revenue service. Also, Western Queens would definitely use another line because the Astoria line is already getting overcrowded.

[bobtehpanda]

The SAS extension through the tunnel would use the existing Nassau Street connection, which is not currently used in revenue service. Also, Western Queens would definitely use another line because the Astoria line is already getting overcrowded.

 

It's not about the capacity, it's about the priority. Queens Blvd has been overcrowded for decades now, and 63 St's extra capacity was always meant to relieve the QBL using a bypass.

[BxM4Woodlawn]

they should make the even a Super Express when it uses the White Plains Road line. Have it run the express track even north of 180th St.

[TrainFanInfinity]

The question is: is it actually needed? People always say there should be express service where there are express tracks, but it's about whether ridership shows that it is necessary.

[BxM4Woodlawn]

if there was it would jump from 180th St right to Gun Hill I think then 233rd.

[MTA Dude]

if there was it would jump from 180th St right to Gun Hill I think then 233rd.

 

No, Gun Hill then Wakefield.

[MysteriousBtrain]

if there was it would jump from 180th St right to Gun Hill I think then 233rd.

No, Gun Hill then Wakefield.

No and no. If it were express after 180th, it would go to gun hill, then all stops to nereid av. But I'm pretty sure there is a reason there is no express service south of gun hill.I only disagree with this express service because of the Bx12.

[Wallyhorse]

The SAS extension through the tunnel would use the existing Nassau Street connection, which is not currently used in revenue service. Also, Western Queens would definitely use another line because the Astoria line is already getting overcrowded.

I proposed that before you as did others as a way to take crowds off the and between Atlantic Avenue-Barclays and 125th Street, however, the issue is capacity at DeKalb Avenue.

 

With that in mind, coupled with a chance to expand service on the Fulton Street Line in Brooklyn, I'd be looking to have the go through a new Schermerhorn Street tunnel that would connect to what currently is the Transit Museum (Court Street) in Brooklyn and have it become the Fulton Street local to Euclid Avenue.  That would allow the and to both run express and eliminate the need for the to merge with the north of Hoyt-Schermerhorn (as the would be on the as-present unused local track at Hoyt-Schermerhorn) as well as also make it so other than overnights, the runs to Lefferts (the can be extended to Lefferts overnights) and the can run to the Rockaways at all times.

[Armandito]

It's not about the capacity, it's about the priority. Queens Blvd has been overcrowded for decades now, and 63 St's extra capacity was always meant to relieve the QBL using a bypass.

Where will the bypass be routed?

I proposed that before you as did others as a way to take crowds off the and between Atlantic Avenue-Barclays and 125th Street, however, the issue is capacity at DeKalb Avenue.

 

With that in mind, coupled with a chance to expand service on the Fulton Street Line in Brooklyn, I'd be looking to have the go through a new Schermerhorn Street tunnel that would connect to what currently is the Transit Museum (Court Street) in Brooklyn and have it become the Fulton Street local to Euclid Avenue. That would allow the and to both run express and eliminate the need for the to merge with the north of Hoyt-Schermerhorn (as the would be on the as-present unused local track at Hoyt-Schermerhorn) as well as also make it so other than overnights, the runs to Lefferts (the can be extended to Lefferts overnights) and the can run to the Rockaways at all times.

Routing it through the Transit Museum is a big no-no. Many people have vigorously fought to save the museum from closure not long ago... Edited January 9, 2015 by lara8710

[bobtehpanda]

Where will the bypass be routed?

Routing it through the Transit Museum is a big no-no. Many people have vigorously fought to save the museum from closure not long ago...

 

The plan was to have the line continue through to the LIRR Main Line, and then have it merge back into Forest Hills.

[Union Tpke]

I have a plan that may seem Wallyhorse-esque but there is a good reason for it.

I plan to extend the train to 179 St between 6 AM and 9 PM.

The would run on the express track between 71 Avenue to 179 Street.

The main reason would be to relieve switching at 75th Avenue.

Every morning there are delays on the train there, waiting for trains to switch. Sometimes it takes more time to get from KG and 71 Avenue then between 71 Avenue and Roosevelt or QP.

This would relieve tons of delays!

This would provide extra service at Kew Gardens, Parsons Boulevard and 179 Street.

People may choose to divert off the train because they want a less crowded train and want a seat and prioritize it over a quicker ride.

This would reduce crowding on the .

Also if you see 71 Avenue CTL during rush hours you can see tons of people transfering from the express to local, these people if they wanted the they wouldn't have to transfer there and would have a one seat ride.

[TheNewYorkElevated]

Where will the bypass be routed?Routing it through the Transit Museum is a big no-no. Many people have vigorously fought to save the museum from closure not long ago...

True that. Adding to this, there are also no other locations for the Transit Museum, and the station itself is just two blocks west of Hoyt-Schermerhorn. So if you want an IND Court Street station for the , built and locate it as an island platform between Court Street and Clinton Street. Problem solved.

[bobtehpanda]

I have a plan that may seem Wallyhorse-esque but there is a good reason for it.

I plan to extend the train to 179 St between 6 AM and 9 PM.

The would run on the express track between 71 Avenue to 179 Street.

The main reason would be to relieve switching at 75th Avenue.

Every morning there are delays on the train there, waiting for trains to switch. Sometimes it takes more time to get from KG and 71 Avenue then between 71 Avenue and Roosevelt or QP.

This would relieve tons of delays!

This would provide extra service at Kew Gardens, Parsons Boulevard and 179 Street.

People may choose to divert off the train because they want a less crowded train and want a seat and prioritize it over a quicker ride.

This would reduce crowding on the .

Also if you see 71 Avenue CTL during rush hours you can see tons of people transfering from the express to local, these people if they wanted the they wouldn't have to transfer there and would have a one seat ride.

 

This was tried, and it failed because it caused ridership at all non-express Hillside stops to crash. There's really nothing that would warrant a local service going all the way to 179, plus you can't have the terminating on the local track at 71st and expect that to go very well.

[NYSubwayBuff]

I have an idea:

If it is possible to expand the lex local capacity while building a switch at G.C. from the 7 so that it would run down lex to city hall (or bowling green if it is so required that the trains are on lex express) so that flushing line gets a one seat ride downtown

Edited January 9, 2015 by NYSubwayBuff

[MysteriousBtrain]

I have an idea:

If it is possible to expand the lex local capacity while building a switch at G.C. from the 7 so that it would run down lex to city hall (or bowling green if it is so required that the trains are on lex express) so that flushing line gets a one seat ride downtown

West of the lex, there can't be a provision because 5 Avenue and Grand Central are too close.

 

I have a plan that may seem Wallyhorse-esque but there is a good reason for it.

I plan to extend the train to 179 St between 6 AM and 9 PM.

The would run on the express track between 71 Avenue to 179 Street.

The main reason would be to relieve switching at 75th Avenue.

Every morning there are delays on the train there, waiting for trains to switch. Sometimes it takes more time to get from KG and 71 Avenue then between 71 Avenue and Roosevelt or QP.

This would relieve tons of delays!

This would provide extra service at Kew Gardens, Parsons Boulevard and 179 Street.

People may choose to divert off the train because they want a less crowded train and want a seat and prioritize it over a quicker ride.

This would reduce crowding on the .

Also if you see 71 Avenue CTL during rush hours you can see tons of people transfering from the express to local, these people if they wanted the they wouldn't have to transfer there and would have a one seat ride.

Not a wallyhorse idea lol.

Anyways, while I like this idea, the real problem is the Jamaica riders because all people at local stops east of 71 Avenue want fast service to Manhattan

Edited January 9, 2015 by MysteriousBtrain

[Lance]

 

I have a plan that may seem Wallyhorse-esque but there is a good reason for it.

I plan to extend the   train to 179 St between 6 AM and 9 PM.

The   would run on the express track between 71 Avenue to 179 Street.

The main reason would be to relieve switching at 75th Avenue.

Every morning there are delays on the   train there, waiting for   trains to switch. Sometimes it takes more time to get from KG and 71 Avenue then between 71 Avenue and Roosevelt or QP.

This would relieve tons of delays!

This would provide extra service at Kew Gardens, Parsons Boulevard and 179 Street.

People may choose to divert off the   train because they want a less crowded train and want a seat and prioritize it over a quicker ride.

This would reduce crowding on the  .

Also if you see 71 Avenue CTL during rush hours you can see tons of people transfering from the express to local, these people if they wanted the   they wouldn't have to transfer there and would have a one seat ride.

 

This was tried, and it failed because it caused ridership at all non-express Hillside stops to crash. There's really nothing that would warrant a local service going all the way to 179, plus you can't have the terminating on the local track at 71st and expect that to go very well.

Nah, this isn't a Wallyhorse idea. It lacks the prerequisite off-hours diversion of an already established line or some version of a Central Park West-Jamaica route.

 

Seriously though, this idea was tried when Archer Ave opened in 1988. The F ran via Hillside express while the R ran local to 179 St. The problem is that riders bailed the R at the first opportunity for the E or F express. To minimize those transfers, R service to 179 St was gradually cut back from normal hours to rush-hours only and eventually discontinued in 1991 in favor of running the F local on Hillside Ave. While the times may have changed in the intervening years, the problems that eliminated Hillside express service still exist.

 

Oh and by the way, I don't think it would be a problem for the R to run to 179 St while the M continued to terminate at Forest Hills. The R and G did the same thing back then.

Edited January 9, 2015 by Lance

[Armandito]

True that. Adding to this, there are also no other locations for the Transit Museum, and the station itself is just two blocks west of Hoyt-Schermerhorn. So if you want an IND Court Street station for the , built and locate it as an island platform between Court Street and Clinton Street. Problem solved.

How will that solve the problem?

[TheNewYorkElevated]

How will that solve the problem?

The original Court Street station will still be in place, and the two tracks used by the will merge with the original tracks that lead to the Transit Museum, then head into Hoyt-Schermerhorn.

[bobtehpanda]

I have an idea:

If it is possible to expand the lex local capacity while building a switch at G.C. from the 7 so that it would run down lex to city hall (or bowling green if it is so required that the trains are on lex express) so that flushing line gets a one seat ride downtown

 

That would actually cut local capacity on the Lex north of 42nd St, since tracks can handle a max of 24-30 TPH and the 6 already runs 24 TPH.

[Wallyhorse]

 

 

 

 

Routing it through the Transit Museum is a big no-no. Many people have vigorously fought to save the museum from closure not long ago...

 

 

The Transit Museum can most likely be moved to the unused portion of The Bowery Station on the if it came to that, which it won't for another 30-40 years at least.   By the time this would come up, the Fulton Street Line area might very well have been built up considerably.

[Fresh Pond]

The Transit Museum can most likely be moved to the unused portion of The Bowery Station on the if it came to that, which it won't for another 30-40 years at least. By the time this would come up, the Fulton Street Line area might very well have been built up considerably.

We been through this already...

 

There's only 1 track (northbound local) left at that station. The northbound express track was ripped out and the local one is used for diversions.

[Wallyhorse]

We been through this already...

 

There's only 1 track (northbound local) left at that station. The northbound express track was ripped out and the local one is used for diversions.

That's now, but we are talking about 30-40 years into the future.  A lot can change between now and then.