Department of Subways - Proposals/Ideas

[Javier]

Yes but the noise from trains running above or next to the Museam would distract the visitors, and Court Street is quiet as a mouse. Where does the go after it uses. Court Street?

[Armandito]

Yes but the noise from trains running above or next to the Museam would distract the visitors, and Court Street is quiet as a mouse. Where does the go after it uses. Court Street?

Sounds like the Transit Museum may need to be relocated in that case.

[BronxBombers]

Sounds like the Transit Museum may need to be relocated in that case.

 

Or use the Court St , than a new tunnel connecting that station to the outer tracks at Hoyt-Schermerhorn.

[bobtehpanda]

You could just go under Court St and skip it entirely, since the stop is so close to Hoyt/Schermerhorn.

[CenSin]

You could just go under Court St and skip it entirely, since the stop is so close to Hoyt/Schermerhorn.

I think around is a more likely option (assuming the buildings and utilities don't get in the way). That area is like one of those complex highway flyovers with multiple lines going over and under each other. You'd need enough distance for a rise up from the lower level and a merge. Given the short distance, I doubt the possibility.

Yes but the noise from trains running above or next to the Museam would distract the visitors, and Court Street is quiet as a mouse. Where does the go after it uses. Court Street?

It's a transit museum. An absence of train noise is, in fact, unnatural for a museum that houses trains. Install sound dampeners to muffle the noise if needed.

[Javier]

Where do you think the Museam can be relocated?

[2Line1291]

Why move the museum? I cost a lot to build a tunnel plus Montague St Tunnel is underutilized. Proposal Montague and Fulton local tracks can be tied via new tracks built between DeKalb Junction and Lafayette Ave. This opens up for a from Astoria to Euclid Ave at all times.

 

Speaking of DeKalb Junction, to minimize interlocking and maximize efficiency why can't the go down 4th Ave while the go down Brighton.

[T to Dyre Avenue]

While you certainly would be minimizing the amount of switching and delays at DeKalb interlocking, and opening up the possibility of running more trains on the B, D, N and Q lines, you'd be forcing a lot of southern Brooklyn riders to give up the direct services they have had for years (if not decades). Atlantic Ave would become a madhouse because Brighton Line riders who want 6th Ave would have to transfer there and walk through those already-crowded passages. DeKalb Ave would have no direct 6th Ave service (except during late night hours when it would be of least use), which would put more pressure on Atlantic.

 

And you'd have to change the operating hours and/or service patterns of the B, N and Q lines. With the being moved to 4th Ave express, it would presumably become the new Sea Beach service and that would require it to run seven days a week for at least 18 hours per day. Presumably, the would then replace the as the Brighton express, so it would no longer need to run 24/7 with another 24/7 Broadway line - the - already there. So the would most likely be reduced to weekdays only, leaving the more popular Broadway line with only the and lines on weekends, and only the Q during late nights. The Q would then have to become the full-time Astoria service with a part-time N. And then there's the matter of which line goes up 2nd Ave once those stations open in 2016/17?

Edited January 19, 2015 by T to Dyre Avenue

[CenSin]

While you certainly would be minimizing the amount of switching and delays at DeKalb interlocking, and opening up the possibility of running more trains on the B, D, N and Q lines, you'd be forcing a lot of southern Brooklyn riders to give up the direct services they have had for years (if not decades). Atlantic Ave would become a madhouse because Brighton Line riders who want 6th Ave would have to transfer there and walk through those already-crowded passages. DeKalb Ave would have no direct 6th Ave service (except during late night hours when it would be of least use), which would put more pressure on Atlantic.

 

And you'd have to change the operating hours and/or service patterns of the B, N and Q lines. With the being moved to 4th Ave express, it would presumably become the new Sea Beach service and that would require it to run seven days a week for at least 18 hours per day. Presumably, the would then replace the as the Brighton express, so it would no longer need to run 24/7 with another 24/7 Broadway line - the - already there. So the would most likely be reduced to weekdays only, leaving the more popular Broadway line with only the and lines on weekends, and only the Q during late nights. The Q would then have to become the full-time Astoria service with a part-time N. And then there's the matter of which line goes up 2nd Ave once those stations open in 2016/17?

A lot of problems would be solved in his proposal if the and were the Brighton routes and the and were the 4 Avenue routes. The current would simply swap with the current in Brooklyn. The gets to remain a supplemental line, and all services are streamlined. This assumes that both the and will stop at DeKalb Avenue while the and would skip it.

 

Of course, that leave one problem remaining: the long transfer at Atlantic Avenue. It would be partly solved with a transfer between Prince Street and Broadway–Lafayette Street, but should both the and run express at a later date, there would be no transfer from those routes below midtown.

 

Therefore, the current setup is the one that serves the ridership best.

[MysteriousBtrain]

Where do you think the Museam can be relocated?

If the 75 Street station or whatever the hell station that is rumored to exist on the fulton line exists, then we found our spot. Otherwise, I guess make a new building that can support the rolling stock.

[CenSin]

Where do you think the Museam can be relocated?

Would you mind listing your criteria for a transit museum?

 

How would any of these stations be unsuitable?

• Canal Street on the Nassau Street line has an abandoned platform with the possibility to install a track exclusively for museum trains.
• Bowery on the Nassau Street line has an abandoned platform with the possibility to install a track exclusively for museum trains.
• 9 Avenue on the West End line has a lower level with two platforms and three tracks. Some tracks are used for non-revenue equipment, but I doubt all three tracks are needed. One or two tracks could be used for museum trains.
• Atlantic Avenue on the Canarsie line has two abandoned platforms with room for four tracks. The easternmost platform and trackways would require lengthening since it was partly demolished a decade ago, even without that, only two tracks have to be installed with storage facilities moved over to make room for a full Transit Museum replacement.

[Fresh Pond]

If the 75 Street station or whatever the hell station that is rumored to exist on the fulton line exists, then we found our spot. Otherwise, I guess make a new building that can support the rolling stock.

76 St doesn't exist

[Union Tpke]

76 St doesn't exist

it does ask tunnel rat.

[Armandito]

For SAS to have a service to Queens, I'd suggest cutting back the to 57th Street/Seventh Avenue to make way for it. In this proposal, a new train will operate between Hanover Square and Forest Hills at all times except late nights, making all stops in Queens and Manhattan. Also, trains will run to Forest Hills at all times except late nights when it operates as a shuttle between Metropolitan Avenue and Myrtle Avenue/Broadway and trains will run local in Queens during late nights to replace the . North of 57th Street/Seventh Avenue, two layup tracks will be built beide each existing track for terminating trains.

Edited January 19, 2015 by lara8710

[BM5 via Woodhaven]

For SAS to have a service to Queens, I'd suggest cutting back the to 57th Street/Seventh Avenue to make way for it. In this proposal, a new train will operate between Hanover Square and Forest Hills at all times except late nights, making all stops in Queens and Manhattan. Also, trains will run to Forest Hills at all times except late nights when it operates as a shuttle between Metropolitan Avenue and Myrtle Avenue/Broadway and trains will run local in Queens during late nights to replace the . North of 57th Street/Seventh Avenue, two layup tracks will be built beide each existing track for terminating trains.

I'd rather have service to Midtown West and Broadway and Downtown, then have a line to East Midtown (as well as all other QBL riders).

[P3F]

They could connect SAS to Nassau north of Chambers and send a (U) via Montague and then on the Brighton line, giving the Brighton lower Manhattan access.

[Armandito]

They could connect SAS to Nassau north of Chambers and send a (U) via Montague and then on the Brighton line, giving the Brighton lower Manhattan access.

That's not a good plan because it would mean running shorter trains, since the Nassau Street Line has shorter platforms.

[Armandito]

Should the SAS be routed into Brooklyn via Nassau, then the platforms at Chambers, Fulton, and Broad would have to be lengthened.

[MysteriousBtrain]

For SAS to have a service to Queens, I'd suggest cutting back the to 57th Street/Seventh Avenue to make way for it. In this proposal, a new train will operate between Hanover Square and Forest Hills at all times except late nights, making all stops in Queens and Manhattan. Also, trains will run to Forest Hills at all times except late nights when it operates as a shuttle between Metropolitan Avenue and Myrtle Avenue/Broadway and trains will run local in Queens during late nights to replace the . North of 57th Street/Seventh Avenue, two layup tracks will be built beide each existing track for terminating trains.

One problem: you need to turn Queens Plaza and Queensboro Plaza into a station complex for this to happen. And even so, not really a big fan of this proposal.

 

They could connect SAS to Nassau north of Chambers and send a (U) via Montague and then on the Brighton line, giving the Brighton lower Manhattan access.

I don't think there should be Lower Manhattan service on the Brighton line. Just transfer at Canal Street and Dekalb Avenue and call it a day.

[CenSin]

One problem: you need to turn Queens Plaza and Queensboro Plaza into a station complex for this to happen. And even so, not really a big fan of this proposal.

You mean Queensbridge and Queens Plaza

[MysteriousBtrain]

You mean Queensbridge and Queens Plaza

Nope. I meant the two plazas because I know for a fact that Lexington Avenue express riders would want to connect to the Queens Blvd line easily ( -> -> ). But this would mean no direct access to the Queens Blvd line on the Broadway line if the is cut, which is why I believe this is not a good proposal.

Also, I don't believe walking to 63 Street would be a good option.

Edited January 19, 2015 by MysteriousBtrain

[Fresh Pond]

it does ask tunnel rat.

We had a huge ass discussion about this already...

 

76 St was planned, but never built. There's no photos of the station whatsoever; if it did exist, don't you think someone over the past 60+ years the entire segment was open would've taken some kind of photo of it? The closest thing we have to a photo it's that picture of the tower board that shows where 76 St was supposed to be.

[Armandito]

One problem: you need to turn Queens Plaza and Queensboro Plaza into a station complex for this to happen. And even so, not really a big fan of this proposal.

 

I don't think there should be Lower Manhattan service on the Brighton line. Just transfer at Canal Street and Dekalb Avenue and call it a day.

There could be a Queens service going along the SAS to Brooklyn via the Montague Street Tunnel, but because the Queens Boulevard Line is already at capacity, I'd go back to my old proposal for a new line along Steinway Street that would service an SAS route between western Queens and Brooklyn via the tunnel running local along Fourth Avenue and either the West End or Sea Beach Lines. Edited January 19, 2015 by lara8710

[MysteriousBtrain]

We had a huge ass discussion about this already...

 

76 St was planned, but never built. There's no photos of the station whatsoever; if it did exist, don't you think someone over the past 60+ years the entire segment was open would've taken some kind of photo of it? The closest thing we have to a photo it's that picture of the tower board that shows where 76 St was supposed to be.

Not to be a douche, but that station was opened for a short amount of time (apparently). There might of not been enough time and ridership to even take a few photos of the station (I remembered seeing one photo that showed a station that was apparently 76 Street). And I'll be assuming no one really liked the subway at that time.

Not saying it does exist, but if it did, it would have been wise to take more than two photos.

[Javier]

Where was the "76 Street" station suppose to be built?