Department of Subways - Proposals/Ideas

[Fresh Pond]

To provide fast access from the Lex Line to the 7th Ave Line.

That's literally 4 blocks...hardly the worth of its own subway line

[Union Tpke]

 

 

 

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.

 

the main reason is not for service, but to alleviate delays, yet again my train took 15 minutes to get to 71 Avenue from KG.

[Javier]

That's literally 4 blocks...hardly the worth of its own subway line

And yet the still has the 42 Street shuttle to this day.

[Union Tpke]

That's literally 4 blocks...hardly the worth of its own subway line

 

That's literally 4 blocks...hardly the worth of its own subway line

Yay time to divert funding from other needed projects, like a Utica Avenue line or a 3rd Avenue line in the bronx, or even better a Hillside Avenue Extension

 

NOW I HATE THIS THREAD BECAUSE OF THE STUPIDEST IDEAS ON EARTH!

[MysteriousBtrain]

And yet the still has the 42 Street shuttle to this day.

The was actually part of the first subway. They likely kept it because of the high usage at Times Square and Grand Central.

[MTA Dude]

@Javier

 

Just no. You already got the M34 SBS, which is enough, plus, you can use nearby stops on the 8th Av line, 7th Av line, 6th Av line, Lex, Broadway, and soon, SAS. Do you do not notice why exactly is the 42nd St Shuttle a shuttle in the first place and is accepted? Grand Central is a major train station, and Times Square is a major train stop and some other major things. A shuttle allows trains to connect with each other faster so passengers won't suffer. Your 34th St Shuttle is nearly useless.

 

Do you notice how far apart your stop are? You will basically have each platform literally 12 ft away! A single platform is about between two avenue's length. Half of that? Still, half an avenue's lengh. This proposal is not really someone would utilize.

Yay time to divert funding from other needed projects, like a Utica Avenue line or a 3rd Avenue line in the bronx, or even better a Hillside Avenue Extension

 

NOW I HATE THIS THREAD BECAUSE OF THE STUPIDEST IDEAS ON EARTH!

 

Relax, just calm down. Please.

[LTA1992]

I have two things to say:

 

, In 1930, there was a proposal for a Second Avenue Subway branch to run via 34th Street to 10th Avenue.

 

, I know I said that I was going to present my proposals for other lines I think would be needed across the city, but I first want to make my 1st Avenue Trunk Line plan as perfect as possible. In version 3, I will propose a connection to the Concourse Subway. Why? Simply because the line lacks a direct downtown routing, which is something that was asked for when the line was first proposed by the BOT. The connection to the Concourse would be made south of the 167th street station. This is another way to possibly reduce passenger congestion on the Lex, while providing areas with more rapid transit and thus progressing their development. As a result, the Boston Road Line of the 1st Avenue system would be reduced from 4-Tracks to either 2 or 3. Details coming in the next few days.

[MTA Dude]

 

Plan A:

 

(O) runs local to Broadway Junction while runs express. Express stops are:

• Bedford Av
• Lorimer St
• Graham Av
• DeKalb Av
• Myrtle Av-Wyckoff Av
• Broadway Junction

Variants:

• (O) runs only to Myrtle Av-Wyckoff Av
• Graham Av and DeKalb Av are not express stations
• Rush Hours only

Plan B:

 

(O) runs to Myrtle Av-Wyckoff Av. nonstop to Manhattan.

 

Variants:

• Rush Hour only.
• stops at Bedford Av, Lorimer St, and Myrtle Av-Wyckoff Av.
• Nonstop service starts at Broadway Junction.

Edited January 13, 2015 by MTA Dude

[MTA Dude]

 

Plan A:

 

is now an express, is local. Express and local stops stay the same.

 

Variants:

• Rush Hours only.
• ends at Crescent St.
• ends at 121st St.

Plan B:

 

service runs local north of Broadway Junction. Runs nonstop to Delancey St. service replaces the non-stop section.

 

Variants:

• Rush Hours only.
• This pattern is extended to Crescent St.
• stops at Myrtle Av.

P.S. The center tracks at Marcy Avenue are connected to mainline.

[Caelestor]

This is far off, but what do people think of connecting SAS to the Nassau St line? South of Grand St, the tracks would dive underneath the Manhattan Bridge tracks and connect to the tracks that were severed upon the completion of the Chrystie St connection. 

 

Pros:

• Existing access to Fulton Center and Brooklyn compared to a stub terminal at Hanover Square
• Better serves the employment centers of Downtown
• Likely cheaper/easier/faster to construct

Cons:

• Only serves Chinatown at Grand St; no station at Chatham Square 
• Does not serve Water St and eastern lower Manhattan
• Potential conflicts at Chambers St due to lack of flying junction
• Services from Queens via 63rd St would have to terminate at Chambers St

 

[bobtehpanda]

 

This is far off, but what do people think of connecting SAS to the Nassau St line? South of Grand St, the tracks would dive underneath the Manhattan Bridge tracks and connect to the tracks that were severed upon the completion of the Chrystie St connection. 

 

Pros:

• Existing access to Fulton Center and Brooklyn compared to a stub terminal at Hanover Square
• Better serves the employment centers of Downtown
• Likely cheaper/easier/faster to construct

Cons:

• Only serves Chinatown at Grand St; no station at Chatham Square 
• Does not serve Water St and eastern lower Manhattan
• Potential conflicts at Chambers St due to lack of flying junction
• Services from Queens via 63rd St would have to terminate at Chambers St

 

 

The flip side of "easier to construct" is "ripping up a good degree of historic buildings". The MTA would almost certainly not hobble itself by building a flat junction to the Nassau St Line, which in and of itself would hobble capacity on the SAS by forcing it to share tracks with the Jamaica Line (if we're talking about through service to Brooklyn, which is basically the only benefit of the plan). You'd also have to build a complicated junction like this underneath the Manhattan Bridge itself based on your description, and good luck getting that to go smoothly.

 

Doing this with federal money might also mean that stations have to be reconfigured for ADA accessibility, which takes out a lot of the cost advantage and may not be feasible at certain stations depending on where the line is connected.

 

Water St is better for redundancy purposes, for future expansion purposes, and for meeting the future needs of Lower Manhattan together (the Nassau/Broad St area already has two IRT lines, an IND line, and a BMT line, whereas Water St and the future Seaport City still have no convenient subway service to speak of.

Edited January 13, 2015 by bobtehpanda

[Roadcruiser1]

 

Plan A:

 

is now an express, is local. Express and local stops stay the same.

 

Variants:

• Rush Hours only.
• ends at Crescent St.
• ends at 121st St.

Plan B:

 

service runs local north of Broadway Junction. Runs nonstop to Delancey St. service replaces the non-stop section.

 

Variants:

• Rush Hours only.
• This pattern is extended to Crescent St.
• stops at Myrtle Av.

P.S. The center tracks at Marcy Avenue are connected to mainline.

 

Nope. You can't do this. Skip stop service is not similar to express, or local service, and would require the removal of the . Not just that, but it wouldn't work out well for the either. In fact a better idea would be to end skip stop service .

[Javier]

What if the SAS was extended down into brooklyn via the Rutger Tubes? 

[MysteriousBtrain]

What if the SAS was extended down into brooklyn via the Rutger Tubes?

This is not a good idea IMO.

[Fresh Pond]

Nope. You can't do this. Skip stop service is not similar to express, or local service, and would require the removal of the . Not just that, but it wouldn't work out well for the either. In fact a better idea would be to end skip stop service .

Yeah lets not

[Javier]

Then how did the back in the 1900's plan to extend the SAS into Brooklyn? It had to go above the Broadway Station and it had to go via South 4 Street.

[MysteriousBtrain]

Then how did the back in the 1900's plan to extend the SAS into Brooklyn? It had to go above the Broadway Station and it had to go via South 4 Street.

You are talking about the original 6/8 Avenue plans. The SAS was to use the transit museum before it was a museum.

[Javier]

Wait, so then the tunnels in Brooklyn are already pre existing?

[MysteriousBtrain]

Wait, so then the tunnels in Brooklyn are already pre existing?

It you are talking about the museum:

Court Street (which is the current NY transit museum), was created for the Court Street shuttle, named HH. there is provision for the SAS to operate through Court Street, but there is no tunnel connecting to the SAS. Due to the Great Depression, WWII, and low ridership, the IND desided to abandon the Court Street shuttle and decades later, turn the Court Street station into a museum.

If you are talking about the South 4th Street line:

The section, like most of the evidence showing the IND Seond System, was a bellmouth and is uncompleted, with no connections to any line.

[Armandito]

How is it possible to construct a Queens Boulevard bypass along the LIRR tracks? You can't just build in subway connections onto the ROW and then start service. Also, an SAS service to Queens would sound like a better idea for usage of the bypass than rerouting current services.

[Armandito]

Here's another suggestion to increase usefulness of the 63rd Street line:

 

-Reroute the back to the Nassau Street line, terminating at Broad Street on weekdays

-Introduce a new SAS service to replace the along Queens Boulevard, operating weekdays between Forest Hills and Hanover Square (assuming all phases of the SAS are finished)

 

What do you think?

[MysteriousBtrain]

Here's another suggestion to increase usefulness of the 63rd Street line:

 

-Reroute the back to the Nassau Street line, terminating at Broad Street on weekdays

-Introduce a new SAS service to replace the along Queens Boulevard, operating weekdays between Forest Hills and Hanover Square (assuming all phases of the SAS are finished)

 

What do you think?

Did you think of what will replace the on 53rd Street?

[Roadcruiser1]

How is it possible to construct a Queens Boulevard bypass along the LIRR tracks? You can't just build in subway connections onto the ROW and then start service. Also, an SAS service to Queens would sound like a better idea for usage of the bypass than rerouting current services.

 

The R.O.W. is open cut so it can be built above it, and the 63rd Street Tunnel was built for it anyway. The is just too cheap to spend the extra $400 million in building it .

[RollOver]

Speaking as a rider who uses the fairly regularly, if you don't ride the / skip-stop service during rush hours (both AM and PM), don't even bother suggesting to eliminate skip-stop service.

 

Thank you.

[RollOver]

Here's another suggestion to increase usefulness of the 63rd Street line:

 

-Reroute the back to the Nassau Street line, terminating at Broad Street on weekdays

-Introduce a new SAS service to replace the along Queens Boulevard, operating weekdays between Forest Hills and Hanover Square (assuming all phases of the SAS are finished)

 

What do you think?

 

Yeah, no. All for a new line to SAS? I doubt riders on the Myrtle Av branch (including the ones at Myrtle, Flushing, Lorimer, Hewes and Marcy) would give up their one-seat ride to Midtown Manhattan that fast, as almost none of those riders are heading towards Lower Manhattan, and the is already crowded with its own riders too by the way. And also, you'd be delaying the / and at Broad Street.

 

Anyway, didn't you used to live in Ridgewood (according to your old account as Q90)?

Edited January 13, 2015 by RollOver