Department of Subways - Proposals/Ideas

[bobtehpanda]

If the SAS was going to be extended into Queens, it should have its own tunnel so we don't have many delays like when the ran via the Mountage Tubes which cut back service. I would suggest running it via te WillyB then break off from the rest of the Nassu street line.

 

Let me also remind you that Court Street has only one exit and much of the stations mezzanine is used for employees or for museum purposes.

 

About who suggested extending the SAS into the Bronx, that is a big no-no because Bronx is a IRT only borough. If you recreate the bullet as a (8) and have it run via the Pelham Line instead of the Dyre Ave Line.

 

If I remember correctly, the Williamsburg has capacity and speed limitations due to its structural weaknesses.

If the SAS was going to be extended into Queens, it should have its own tunnel so we don't have many delays like when the ran via the Mountage Tubes which cut back service. I would suggest running it via te WillyB then break off from the rest of the Nassu street line.

 

Let me also remind you that Court Street has only one exit and much of the stations mezzanine is used for employees or for museum purposes.

 

About who suggested extending the SAS into the Bronx, that is a big no-no because Bronx is a IRT only borough. If you recreate the bullet as a (8) and have it run via the Pelham Line instead of the Dyre Ave Line.

 

This is essentially the subway argument of a little kid arguing that mashed potatoes and peas can't touch on the plate...

 

SAS has always been planned to extend into the Bronx. There isn't a subway plan for it that doesn't have this feature, and even the current one has a pretty big provision for it.

[Javier]

I said I forgot that the and went to Bronx, so that's why I said Bronx is a IRT only borough.

 

If the would ever get extended into the Bronx Brooklyn or Queens (The can not be modified since we depend to much on it) it would require modyfying the service pattern which in this case would require the to go along with wherever you propose the to go. If you go along with the original plan with both the going to 125 Street, and as 2line said, 125 Street would need to have the same platform layout as QueensBoro Plaza since we can not have BMT trains on IRT platforms.

[2Line1291]

I said I forgot that the and went to Bronx, so that's why I said Bronx is a IRT only borough.

 

If the would ever get extended into the Bronx Brooklyn or Queens (The can not be modified since we depend to much on it) it would require modyfying the service pattern which in this case would require the to go along with wherever you propose the to go. If you go along with the original plan with both the going to 125 Street, and as 2line said, 125 Street would need to have the same platform layout as QueensBoro Plaza since we can not have BMT trains on IRT platforms.

I never said that javier but that's not the case; after 116th St there the line would curve under 125th St stopping at Lexington Ave (as the official SAS plan states and in my opinion is a waste of money) and there's the provision stub going further up 2nd Ave past 125th St for a Bronx extension so... the SAS 125th St-Lexington Ave station has nothing to do with a Queensboro setup it's to be built under the 125th St station according to the official plan

Edited January 20, 2015 by 2Line1291

[Wallyhorse]

Suppose the is extended to Brooklyn via Fulton Local. If a Queens service via SAS is also planned, should that route also extend to Brooklyn?

Not sure right now that would be possible unless you built the QB bypass OR perhaps build a line that could start/run through the never-used upper level of Roosevelt Avenue to Manhattan via a new tunnel that would stop on the north side of Roosevelt Island and then York-1st Avenues and 79th Street before joining the SAS north of 72nd Street.  While there is supposed to be a connection from the QB line, that would be mainly for re-routes as needed barring some drastic changes in the next 30 years.

[CenSin]

About who suggested extending the SAS into the Bronx, that is a big no-no because Bronx is a IRT only borough. If you recreate the bullet as a (8) and have it run via the Pelham Line instead of the Dyre Ave Line.

Even if the Bronx had only IRT lines, how would that impede a B Division line from being built? An analogous question would be: if you live in Yonkers, how does that prevent me from also living there? Do you own Yonkers?!

Not sure right now that would be possible unless you built the QB bypass OR perhaps build a line that could start/run through the never-used upper level of Roosevelt Avenue to Manhattan via a new tunnel that would stop on the north side of Roosevelt Island and then York-1st Avenues and 79th Street before joining the SAS north of 72nd Street.  While there is supposed to be a connection from the QB line, that would be mainly for re-routes as needed barring some drastic changes in the next 30 years.

The Queens Boulevard line's western end has direct connections to Crosstown, 6 Avenue × 2, 8 Avenue, Broadway, and (a long time into the future) 2 Avenue. That's 6 connections in total. If it remains 4-tracked, one of those connections will have to give. The most likely loser is 6 Avenue, since it has 2 connections already.

I said I forgot that the and went to Bronx, so that's why I said Bronx is a IRT only borough.

 

If the would ever get extended into the Bronx Brooklyn or Queens (The can not be modified since we depend to much on it) it would require modyfying the service pattern which in this case would require the to go along with wherever you propose the to go. If you go along with the original plan with both the going to 125 Street, and as 2line said, 125 Street would need to have the same platform layout as QueensBoro Plaza since we can not have BMT trains on IRT platforms.

Look at the plans. Read them. There's nothing more unproductive to discussion than a misinformed or uninformed post.

You and I know that but there are a few people out there who have swallowed that hoax, hook, line, and sinker. No one who has ever worked at NYCT has ever set foot at this "station". The last Trainmaster in the system laughed at some of us when we asked about this supposed station. He also said that if we found this "station" the Tooth Fairy would be the RR Clerk selling tokens and the Seven Dwarfs would be the RR Porters..For the younger forum members the Clerk and Porter titles were what today's SA and Cleaner (TA) were called back then. My Station Dept .co-workers might also note that there was never a work program for a clerk or porter at this "station" nor was there ever a booth # or #s for this location.They have old station department work programs for the Chambers St station, Myrtle-Jay on the el, to name a few as well as old RTO work programs like the Bowling Green Shuttle or the Third Avenue el that date back over 50 years but nothing about 76th St? Come on.This coming from a man who could identify any signal location in the system if you gave him the signal number. All that ever existed was an inscription on a model board. As he and some other RTO oldtime legends pointed out to me back then there's a reason I could visit the Fulton/Utica upper level at the , , station or the uncompleted South Fourth St or Roosevelt Avenue Terminal. They actually exist. People can believe what ever they want but I trust those who taught me. Knowing the total system was their job. Carry on.

Based on what we know about the IND plans, it doesn't even make sense that it exists. The station is a local station with 4 tracks and 2 side platforms. Trains terminating there would be about as logical as northbound-bound trains terminating at Prince Street (for whatever reason).

Edited January 20, 2015 by CenSin

[P3F]

Edit: wrong thread.

Edited January 20, 2015 by P3F

[CenSin]

This is the proposed track map for the Fulton Street line's extension east from 76 Street to 105 Street and Aqueduct:

 

Here's the plan for the area around the junction (including the switches just east of 76 Street):

Notice that this switch arrangement does not allow trains to turn back at 76 Street without wrong railing into Euclid Avenue.

[2Line1291]

@CenSin: It's amazing how much they put into architecture and track layout back in the day. Nobody can say that now. Look at the half behind job they did with the 63rd St and Archer Ave Lines by tying it with Queens Blvd and SAS designed as 2 tracks instead of 3 or 4 tracks.

[CenSin]

Nothing in the world beats what the IND did back then. The builders of today does what everyone else is doing. There's much less flexibility, ingenuity, and ambition. If a double-tracked line is the bare minimum of a functional subway service, that's what they'll do. In case of service disruptions, I guess they'll put in enough switches for on-demand single-tracking.

[2Line1291]

Nothing in the world beats what the IND did back then. The builders of today does what everyone else is doing. There's much less flexibility, ingenuity, and ambition. If a double-tracked line is the bare minimum of a functional subway service, that's what they'll do. In case of service disruptions, I guess they'll put in enough switches for on-demand single-tracking.

Exactly IND put there heart and soul in for the long run. Think about if they hadn't went about and beyond back in the day our generation of commuters would've been screwed

[Trainmaster5]

This is the proposed track map for the Fulton Street line's extension east from 76 Street to 105 Street and Aqueduct:

 

Here's the plan for the area around the junction (including the switches just east of 76 Street):

Notice that this switch arrangement does not allow trains to turn back at 76 Street without wrong railing into Euclid Avenue.

Thank you for this post. I've known about the plan for many years but the key word is "proposed". The dead end trackways and such fit in nicely with what the planners of the IND did in other locations like Roosevelt Terminal ,Second Avenue , or Utica Avenue , , where the basic layout exists for potential extensions. If the true believers would take their fantasy to it's obvious conclusion they would ask where the 84th St and Cross Bay stations are. The IND built segments of a line, not single stations, whether on the QBL, 8th Avenue, or Fulton St line, for example. The segment from south of Broadway-East New York to Euclid was built and opened at the same time. The newest construction south of Euclid is Grant Avenue station which opened up when I was a child. That's when the connection to the BMT Fulton line was made. Does anyone really believe that the NYCTA would abandon brand new stations in that scenario? Carry on.

[Armandito]

Not sure right now that would be possible unless you built the QB bypass OR perhaps build a line that could start/run through the never-used upper level of Roosevelt Avenue to Manhattan via a new tunnel that would stop on the north side of Roosevelt Island and then York-1st Avenues and 79th Street before joining the SAS north of 72nd Street. While there is supposed to be a connection from the QB line, that would be mainly for re-routes as needed barring some drastic changes in the next 30 years.

I was assuming you already knew that I was proposing a new SAS service into Queens IN ADDITION to the Queens Boulevard bypass. Here's a map of my proposed route, but let's keep in mind this is only a rough draft: https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?mid=zh758mgJc1tw.kAhITSskdJzI&cid=mp&cv=P5MqXS5JDyA.en. Edited January 21, 2015 by lara8710

[T to Dyre Avenue]

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.

That's true, even though it would require an extra switch in each direction to be used. I had suggested via Brighton and via 4th Ave Express skipping DeKalb. And swapping the and is a much simpler switch that doesn't require all sorts of other things to happen in order to work. And DeKalb Ave would have direct service to both Broadway and 6th Ave (at all times, unlike the current setup).

 

It's really an either-or situation. You can have more frequent and less-delayed service, but then you have to give up the direct services and choice of routes you have. Since the Chrystie St connection, Brighton and 4th Ave have had direct services to both Broadway and 6th Ave - except, of course, during Manhattan Bridge shutdowns.

[T to Dyre Avenue]

I'm technically against building a bypass along the LIRR ROW because that'll mean passing through people's backyards and demolishing some buildings, so once again, I'd go for a new SAS line to Western Queens via 63rd Street and Steinway Street to relieve overcrowding on the and trains in Astoria.

 

Or...is it possible to construct the bypass under the LIRR ROW instead of over it or beside it?

Wouldn't it be more expensive and disruptive to LIRR service to build under the LIRR Main Line? I can't see the MTA going for that. And people would still have to deal with construction in their backyards because they'd still be doing construction along that same right-of-way, just not directly on it.

[Fresh Pond]

About who suggested extending the SAS into the Bronx, that is a big no-no because Bronx is a IRT only borough. If you recreate the bullet as a (8) and have it run via the Pelham Line instead of the Dyre Ave Line.

I thought I told you this already...

 

Any new subway line will automatically be built to B division dimensions. B division cars fit a lot more people than A division cars.

 

Hell, even the extensions of the original IRT subway line (and every extension afterwards) was built to B division dimensions.

[bobtehpanda]

I said I forgot that the and went to Bronx, so that's why I said Bronx is a IRT only borough.

 

If the would ever get extended into the Bronx Brooklyn or Queens (The can not be modified since we depend to much on it) it would require modyfying the service pattern which in this case would require the to go along with wherever you propose the to go. If you go along with the original plan with both the going to 125 Street, and as 2line said, 125 Street would need to have the same platform layout as QueensBoro Plaza since we can not have BMT trains on IRT platforms.

 

Why the hell would it need any of that? All new lines are built to BMT specs and have been since the Dual Contracts, and if we're building a brand new tunnel we might as well make it BMT gauge.

The Queens Boulevard line's western end has direct connections to Crosstown, 6 Avenue × 2, 8 Avenue, Broadway, and (a long time into the future) 2 Avenue. That's 6 connections in total. If it remains 4-tracked, one of those connections will have to give. The most likely loser is 6 Avenue, since it has 2 connections already.

 

I don't think 2 Av-63 will ever see service without a bypass of QBL. 53rd is crowded even with a local and an express, Broadway is crowded, and we can't exactly leave 21 St-Queensbridge without service (and making it a stubby terminal will work about as well as it did last time.) There's simply not enough capacity.

 

Nothing in the world beats what the IND did back then. The builders of today does what everyone else is doing. There's much less flexibility, ingenuity, and ambition. If a double-tracked line is the bare minimum of a functional subway service, that's what they'll do. In case of service disruptions, I guess they'll put in enough switches for on-demand single-tracking.

 

The dirty secret of the IND is that it was so expensive that we collectively agreed never to do it again. Also, much more lax attitudes towards eminent domain certainly help.

[2Line1291]

I just wanna say this. Correct me if I'm wrong but NYC has been spoiled by direct services. If all of the track way were designed that it wouldn't involve interlocking like DeKalb, E 180th St, Rogers Junction, then this would be a perfect subway system but that's not the case

[LTA1992]

The dirty secret of the IND is that it was so expensive that we collectively agreed never to do it again. Also, much more lax attitudes towards eminent domain certainly help.

The reason it was so expensive was not because of so-called "over-engineering". You have to look into the mindset of the creators as well as the time in which it was built. Its greatest problem was the fact that it was built in already developed areas, sans the Queens Boulevard Line. Because Phase One was proposed to run through such areas, it didn't have as strong support as the earlier lines of the IRT, BRT, and the Dual Systems Contracts. The subway is the key to development, and the only way to encourage the maximum amount of development was to bring rapid transit to new areas. You guys may not know this, but Real Estate played a large role in where subway lines were built or proposed. That is why the area around Utica Avenue is developed to the degree it is despite the lack of a Utica Avenue Subway, and why the B46 is as trafficked as it is. Wood, Harmon was the agency responsible for the sale of land throughout large portions of Brooklyn, Staten Island, and upper Manhattan, using planned lines as a selling point. Wood, Harmon was the primary advocate for a Utica Avenue line, even the areas south of Eastern Parkway were supportive of an "L" being built through their section. Meanwhile, Stuyvesant Avenue owners didn't want the subway at all. Had that not been an issue, Utica could have been built as part of the Dual Systems Contracts.

 

The Phase One IND, as most of us know, was built as a result of one mans grudge. But, thanks to that grudge, men like Daniel Turner and John Delaney were able to move into transit planning. My First Avenue Subway proposals stem from beliefs I share with those two men, as well as the man who designed the 1945 plans for SAS, Sydney Bingham. Due to that grudge, most lines were proposed and built near already existing rapid transit. The crowding on the Queens Boulevard Line comes from it built through largely undeveloped land much like the Flushing Line before it. The general public was pretty pleased with the lines proposed because a few of them were replacing "L"s that they found to be an eyesore. People who lived along the Concourse, as well as community groups and borough government were upset in the loss of the 4th track and the lack of a direct downtown routing. Store owners on the East Side of Manhattan were pretty upset by the lack of an East Side line and began to advocate for a 1st Avenue Line, the biggest supporter being Mr. Bloomingdale himself. (Yes, the founder of Bloomingdale's. In fact, the Bloomingdale's were always in support of rapid transit expansion in this city) Not long after that, the BOT revealed that an East Side Line would be included in the second part of the IND subway plan. When the Second Phase was released, where the lines would go was greatly praised. The problem was how a portion of these lines would be built. The biggest issue, was the economy. After WW1, inflation skyrocketed and the Great Depression made things worse. WW2 further compromised things. Had it not been for these factors, the entire IND could have actually been built despite sticking to the 5 cent fare. Now that I think about it, the IRT and BRT may have actually lasted until their leases ran out in 1966 since they both were running surpluses up until WW1. I mean, I doubt it since John Delaney thought about Unification as early as 1919. Had it not been for La Guardia gaining federal funding, even the first phase of the IND would not have been finished.

 

If Phase 1 was been built to undeveloped areas first, it is likely that it would have gotten the backing it needed to proceed relatively smoothly, it would have been a financial success. Funding would not have been as much of a problem.

 

*This feels very fragmented to me. It maybe because there is so much more I can say on that matter, but I don't want an entire page covered in this post.

[bobtehpanda]

The reason it was so expensive was not because of so-called "over-engineering". You have to look into the mindset of the creators as well as the time in which it was built. Its greatest problem was the fact that it was built in already developed areas, sans the Queens Boulevard Line.

 

The IRT and BMT built lines without going massively over-budget through already developed areas (see: BMT Broadway Line, BMT Nassau Line).

 

It was ridiculously over engineered. Forest Hills and 179th St are the best terminals we have in the system. They also cost a crapton of money to build. So did the massive flying junctions along 53rd, by Hoyt-Schermerhorn and at West 4 St. We also sank a crapton of money into building an express line directly around and under an existing subway line at 6th Avenue, when it probably would've been cheaper to move the entire thing to 5th Avenue (and it wouldn't have cost as much or impacted ridership - after all, 8th Av was a block west of the former 9th Av El.

 

The IND was a massive failure from a cost/effectiveness point of view. We put in a lot of crap for overly rosy assumptions about what could be built in the future, decided that good transfer connections were only important after we built everything already, and certain routings were changed for no good reason at all (the Crosstown Line was originally supposed to connect to the Franklin Shuttle). Most of the corridors built already had plans for them dating to the Dual Contracts, and had we just stuck with that model New York would have been significantly better off.

[Armandito]

Why hasn't the Franklin Shuttle been connected to the line?

[Lance]

No push around such an idea. Pity because it's such a good idea since it would give the G more connections that it desperately needs.

[Wallyhorse]

No push around such an idea. Pity because it's such a good idea since it would give the G more connections that it desperately needs.

Which if I ever got to build the Myrtle-Brighton line, it would include a transfer point to the and service as a second Brooklyn-Queens crosstown.

 

This would be a "Black " train that would start at Metropolitan and run on the existing Myrtle El to a rebuilt upper level of Myrtle Avenue, then on a short, rebuilt stretch of the old Myrtle El that would include a rebuilt Sumner Avenue station and a stop with a transfer to the at Beford-Nostrand, then onto the existing Franklin Avenue Shuttle line, absorbing that line and having it rebuilt to two tracks and 480' or 600' stations and then running as the full-time Brighton local to Coney Island (while the becomes the full-time Brighton express to Brighton Beach and the becomes a second Brighton Local to Coney Island).

[MTA Dude]

Which if I ever got to build the Myrtle-Brighton line, it would include a transfer point to the and service as a second Brooklyn-Queens crosstown.

 

This would be a "Black " train that would start at Metropolitan and run on the existing Myrtle El to a rebuilt upper level of Myrtle Avenue, then on a short, rebuilt stretch of the old Myrtle El that would include a rebuilt Sumner Avenue station and a stop with a transfer to the at Beford-Nostrand, then onto the existing Franklin Avenue Shuttle line, absorbing that line and having it rebuilt to two tracks and 480' or 600' stations and then running as the full-time Brighton local to Coney Island (while the becomes the full-time Brighton express to Brighton Beach and the becomes a second Brighton Local to Coney Island).

 

Would that be needed? I doubt that there are Myrtle riders that need Brighton and Franklin becuase that is what you are giving them. The reason the is surviving is because it has many transfers. That same reason goes for the Franklin Av shuttle. Also (and this applies to both), both have their own line. The has that entire stretch of Crosstown it needs to take care of, and the has Franklin Av. What will this new service get? Just Franklin. Useless, I tell ya.

 

Also, you are giving Coney Island Brighton riders a two seat ride to Manhattan when they can get one. Most of Brighton wants Broadway, and there are the few that need 6th Av, which they take the . It's fine the way it is, Brighton Exp, , Brighton Local to CI.

[Armandito]

Which if I ever got to build the Myrtle-Brighton line, it would include a transfer point to the and service as a second Brooklyn-Queens crosstown.

This would be a "Black " train that would start at Metropolitan and run on the existing Myrtle El to a rebuilt upper level of Myrtle Avenue, then on a short, rebuilt stretch of the old Myrtle El that would include a rebuilt Sumner Avenue station and a stop with a transfer to the at Beford-Nostrand, then onto the existing Franklin Avenue Shuttle line, absorbing that line and having it rebuilt to two tracks and 480' or 600' stations and then running as the full-time Brighton local to Coney Island (while the becomes the full-time Brighton express to Brighton Beach and the becomes a second Brighton Local to Coney Island).

Nobody wants a f***ing el outside their windows, and that's why many els in the past were destroyed...

[MTA Dude]

Nobody wants a f***ing el outside their windows, and that's why many els in the past were destroyed...

 

Thank you for teaching me something new!