Department of Subways - Proposals/Ideas

[CenSin]

Is there really? That's the first I've heard of it.

It was meant to go the other way though: over the bridge to New Jersey.

[2Line1291]

The problem with extending the local tracks is behind the wall at 174th St yard is the Manhattan Expressway (I-95)

[Javier]

I would create a tunnel from 145 Street to 137 Street City College so if the ever gets reroute via the or the switches at 96 start acting up this can be a one way ticket to Bronx.

Edited January 25, 2015 by Javier

[Armandito]

I would create a tunnel from 145 Street to 137 Street City College so if the ever gets reroute via the or the switches at 96 start acting up this can be a one way ticket to Bronx.

For that to happen, you'll need to pass through the Harlem-148th Street station and demolish the existing station entrance. As a matter of fact, you can't extend anywhere past that station anyway beacuse the tracks are located at-grade. Edited January 25, 2015 by lara8710

[Javier]

Whoops I meant extend it from 148 not 145.

[CenSin]

Whoops I meant extend it from 148 not 145.

His post still applies:

 

 

you'll need to pass through the Harlem-148th Street station and demolish the existing station entrance. As a matter of fact, you can't extend anywhere past that station anyway beacuse the tracks are located at-grade.

I went there to take a look, and like Flushing–Main Street, Middle Village–Metropolitan Avenue, or Canarsie–Rockaway Parkway, the exit is at the end of the station. At Harlem–148 Street, it is also the only exit.

[TrainFanInfinity]

So I know that the local tracks were supposed to go over the George Washington Bridge to New Jersey, but to where in it?

[CenSin]

So I know that the local tracks were supposed to go over the George Washington Bridge to New Jersey, but to where in it?

If there were any official proposals, I've never seen them. Only provisions were made on the bridge, but these provisions have been developed into lanes for gas guzzlers.

 

 

The problem with extending the local tracks is behind the wall at 174th St yard is the Manhattan Expressway (I-95)

Some construction would have to be done to construct a lower level. I'm not sure it's feasible, but they could start digging down for a short stretch, and have the local tracks curve over and merge with the I-95. If the tracks will be taking away two lanes on the bridge, taking away two lanes on the I-95 shouldn't be too much of an issue. The existence of a mass transit option that can carry more people across the bridge in volumes should reduce the need for cars and buses.

[2Line1291]

If there were any official proposals, I've never seen them. Only provisions were made on the bridge, but these provisions have been developed into lanes for gas guzzlers.

 

Some construction would have to be done to construct a lower level. I'm not sure it's feasible, but they could start digging down for a short stretch, and have the local tracks curve over and merge with the I-95. If the tracks will be taking away two lanes on the bridge, taking away two lanes on the I-95 shouldn't be too much of an issue. The existence of a mass transit option that can carry more people across the bridge in volumes should reduce the need for cars and buses.

I completely agree; taking away 2 out of 12 lanes from I-95 isn't too much compared to the volumes subway trains can carry. Too bad I-95 is 12 lanes from the Harlem River all the way to Exit 6 in New Jersey... But on the other hand I-95 is 6 lanes once in the Bronx so yeah.

[bobtehpanda]

If there were any official proposals, I've never seen them. Only provisions were made on the bridge, but these provisions have been developed into lanes for gas guzzlers.

 

Some construction would have to be done to construct a lower level. I'm not sure it's feasible, but they could start digging down for a short stretch, and have the local tracks curve over and merge with the I-95. If the tracks will be taking away two lanes on the bridge, taking away two lanes on the I-95 shouldn't be too much of an issue. The existence of a mass transit option that can carry more people across the bridge in volumes should reduce the need for cars and buses.

 

That's not necessarily true. Part of the reason the GWB carries so many people is that so many highways dump traffic into the GWB. Building a rail line would only be able to hit a few select areas and would cost a ton of money.

[CenSin]

That's not necessarily true. Part of the reason the GWB carries so many people is that so many highways dump traffic into the GWB. Building a rail line would only be able to hit a few select areas and would cost a ton of money.

I've heard some non-official proposals to demolish the bus terminal, build the rails, and run a line over the highway median to replace bus service. With no more buses from the terminal, a loss of 2 lanes would be a small problem since they would've been occupied by buses anyway. The air rights would be sold to the highest bidder to help fund the project.

Edited January 27, 2015 by CenSin

[Union Tpke]

I've heard some non-official proposals to demolish the bus terminal, build the rails, and run a line over the highway median to replace bus service. The air rights would be sold to the highest bidder to help fund the project.

that's a great idea. It would relieve a lot of congestion on the GWB, both cars, and buses.

[CenSin]

that's a great idea. It would relieve a lot of congestion on the GWB, both cars, and buses.

IMO, it's a New Jersey problem and the subway should probably never be extended there. New Jersey can solve its own mass transit problems with its own money.

[Union Tpke]

IMO, it's a New Jersey problem and the subway should probably never be extended there. New Jersey can solve its own mass transit problems with its own money.

it's still useful!

[Armandito]

The 42nd Street ran overnight till 1995. Other than for service disruptions, why was overnight service discontinued back then?

[Union Tpke]

The 42nd Street ran overnight till 1995. Other than for service disruptions, why was overnight service discontinued back then?

service cuts, monetary issues.

[bobtehpanda]

I've heard some non-official proposals to demolish the bus terminal, build the rails, and run a line over the highway median to replace bus service. With no more buses from the terminal, a loss of 2 lanes would be a small problem since they would've been occupied by buses anyway. The air rights would be sold to the highest bidder to help fund the project.

 

The GWB bus terminal is actually well under capacity, considering its main purpose was supposed to be a relief for the PABT (which for obvious reasons like location didn't pan out).

 

That being said, if Fordham Rd were to ever get a subway, through the 207 St yard to Dyckman would be the easiest way to do it. Dyckman already has four tracks, so all you'd need to do is possibly duplicate the tracks leading into the yard.

[2Line1291]

The GWB bus terminal is actually well under capacity, considering its main purpose was supposed to be a relief for the PABT (which for obvious reasons like location didn't pan out).

 

That being said, if Fordham Rd were to ever get a subway, through the 207 St yard to Dyckman would be the easiest way to do it. Dyckman already has four tracks, so all you'd need to do is possibly duplicate the tracks leading into the yard.

If this new Fordham Line would end at Bay Plaza then extending the Concourse Line to Bay Plaza would do the job since they're already provision for that but not to say i'm all against a Forham Line. Heck the more mass transit, less buses and cars on the road.

[bobtehpanda]

If this new Fordham Line would end at Bay Plaza then extending the Concourse Line to Bay Plaza would do the job since they're already provision for that but not to say i'm all against a Forham Line. Heck the more mass transit, less buses and cars on the road.

 

Gun Hill is well north of Fordham Road, so I don't think that it would do much for Bx12 passengers (especially for anyone going west of Fordham Road or looking to go to Fordham Plaza)

[Armandito]

If this new Fordham Line would end at Bay Plaza then extending the Concourse Line to Bay Plaza would do the job since they're already provision for that but not to say i'm all against a Forham Line. Heck the more mass transit, less buses and cars on the road.

I'd go with my earlier proposal to create a new subway line along Fordham Road and Pelham Parkway all on its own, except there won't be a station in Co-op City. Instead, the route will run to Pelham Bay only, and a new station will be built at 207th Street and Tenth Avenue with a free transfer to the train. Again, here's what my proposal was before:

I propose a new subway line instead of an or extension. I'd name it the (X) and it'll run between 207th Street and Co-op City via Fordham Road and Pelham Parkway via the yard approaches to the 207th Street Yard. After passing the yard into Manhattan, a new lower level will be created at 207th Street for these trains and this level will be built as an infill station along the yard approaches.

 

Manhattan:

Inwood-207th Street

 

Bronx:

University Avenue

Valentine Avenue

Fordham Plaza (Metro-North)

Southern Boulevard

Pelham Parkway

Williamsbridge Road

Eastchester Road

Pelham Bay Park

Co-op City-Earhart Lane

Just one more change: the tracks will go underneath the yard approaches and connections to the yard above will be built just short of the proposed lower level at the 207th Street station. Edited January 28, 2015 by lara8710

[Wallyhorse]

The 42nd Street ran overnight till 1995. Other than for service disruptions, why was overnight service discontinued back then?

Monteary issues and there really was no reason for it given the serves the same purpose, just with one stop added.  I never understood that one (running it in the overnights) myself.

[EduardoMestre]

Are most ideas on this thread concerning route suggestions and service offerings? I am wondering where to find out-of-the-box ideas on station improvements, and other thoughts on how to improve rider experience outside of simply expanding service. Thanks!

[EduardoMestre]

How many riders know about this math? Adding $19.05 or $38.10 makes your card come out even with bonus. Is this well known? Any way to disseminate this knowledge to more riders?

 

http://iquantny.tumblr.com/post/96700509489/how-memorizing-19-05-can-help-you-outsmart-the

[cl94]

Monteary issues and there really was no reason for it given the serves the same purpose, just with one stop added.  I never understood that one (running it in the overnights) myself.

 

For once, I have to agree. Late night service is designed to provide service to every station in the system (minus the 2 on Nassau Street that close), not necessarily every platform, with an acceptable local frequency (~6 tph on trunk lines, ~3 TPH elsewhere). Waste of 2+ people to have the running if the provides a redundant service (albeit with one additional stop), plus they can close everything at the shuttle end of Grand Central.

[CenSin]

I'd go with my earlier proposal to create a new subway line along Fordham Road and Pelham Parkway all on its own, except there won't be a station in Co-op City. Instead, the route will run to Pelham Bay only, and a new station will be built at 207th Street and Tenth Avenue with a free transfer to the train. Again, here's what my proposal was before:

Just one more change: the tracks will go underneath the yard approaches and connections to the yard above will be built just short of the proposed lower level at the 207th Street station.

I'm conflicted on what's the right approach for a Bronx crosstown. On one hand, Fordham Road happens to connect all the right dots. It touches the , , Metro-North Rail Road, , , , , and . (The connection will require a curve south that takes the line along Bruckner Expressway for a short distance.) On the other hand, it require building a part of the line in areas that might not be so welcoming of subway construction. This applies mostly to Fordham Road itself and the portion in Manhattan; once the line hits Bronx Park, it's smooth sailing.

 

An alignment that extends the local tracks at 168 Street starts a new line atop a highway, which avoids the NIMBY folks. This highway slices through the heart of the Bronx and can take the line as far as Throggs Neck without bending much along the way, but this only connects the (at 175 Street), , , , and only. The , Metro-North Rail Road, , and stations are too far away, and like your alignment, there is no transfer to the (which we will not extend into the Bronx through this new line for the sake of sanity).

 

Yet another alignment combined the best of the two. The line starts at Inwood, goes through Fordham Road, then turns south along Bronx River Expressway, and turns east along Cross Bronx Expressway to Parkchester. From there, it can continue to Thruggs Neck. The line would connect to all of the previously-mentioned routes. It also makes most of these connections at express stops such as East 180 Street and Parkchester. It also sticks to the heart of the Bronx by avoiding the fringes, which I feel makes the line more balanced.

 

All three of these proposals, of course, can also continue through Throggs Neck and over a bridge (or under a tunnel) to Whitestone where it'd presumably follow Clearview Expressway and end up as far as Jamaica Avenue and Hollis Court Boulevard. But for this extension to be useful, the would have to be extended to Bayside. The would have to be extended to Springfield Boulevard. And the would have to be extended to Queens Village. The was planned to extend to Springfield Boulevard via one of the LIRR right-of-ways, but to connect the Bronx crosstown line to it would require further extension down 211 Place, 212 Street, and along Springfield Boulevard to 141 Road. I'm not so sure about the feasibility of that since an extension that far would most likely involve an opportunistic reach into the John F. Kennedy Airport as well. And if it were completed that far, it would fulfill the role of providing transit along the periphery. (The other periphery line proposals would be the Triboro RX and the Rockaway line from LaGuardia Airport via Junction Boulevard.)