Department of Subways - Proposals/Ideas

[bobtehpanda]

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.)

 

Personally, I think Fordham Rd to Co-op is the best option, mostly because east of WPR is one of the few places where an El can actually be built in this city due to the wide right of way, reducing costs significantly. (I would just extend this new line or extension to Co-op in tandem with the to Bay Plaza, rather than just build a connection at PBP. The Bx12 is the third-busiest bus route in the city and by far the most important crosstown connection.

 

Honestly, I don't believe that a Throgs Neck rail route makes sense, since it's way too far east for it to make sense and doesn't hit any major business districts. What I would do as a far better use of limited resources would be a light rail route following the Q44 from Jamaica to the Bronx Zoo, and then extending to Fordham Plaza via the Bx9, as part of a larger light rail network.

[Armandito]

I made a map of my proposed Fordham Line here: https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?mid=zh758mgJc1tw.kbfgC00CSaFo

[Armandito]

The used to run as a shuttle between 148th Street and 135th Street during late nights till 1995. Why was the shuttle discontinued at the time?

Edited January 29, 2015 by lara8710

[RollOver]

The used to run as a shuttle between 148th Street and 135th Street during late nights till 1995. Why was the shuttle discontinued at the time?

 

More people from Harlem are on their way to the city and the current track layout at 135 St says otherwise.

[Union Tpke]

"

Re: Contract 1 IRT question

Posted by randyo on Thu Jan 19 13:39:14 2012, in response to Re: Contract 1 IRT question, posted by R30A on Wed Jan 18 22:41:22 2012.

With one minor exception, the IRT from both Bronx branches all the way the Atlantic Av Bkln was planned from the beginning. The minor change was that originally, the Bway branch was supposed to terminate at Bailey Av near 230 St to provide a connection to the Putnam Div Of the NYCRR. By the time the line reached upper Manhattan, however, the demographics of the Bronx had changed so that the Putnam Div was extended farther south and the Bailey Av location was deemed unsuitable so the route was modified to go straight up Bway to its present terminal at 242 St. Although I haven't seen any documentation, it seems that the 145/Lenox station was added as an afterthought since as originally planned, the junction N/O 135 St was only to be a lead to the 148 St Yd. Somewhere along the way it was suggested to build a station at 145 St since it was and still is a relatively main thoroughfare. The Bkln end of the line, part of Contract 2 was originally planned as a 2 track line to Nevins, 3 tracks from Nevins to N/O Atlantic and a 2 track island platform station at Atlantic during construction of the Bkln portion, the PSC instructed the IRT to include provisions for a line over the Manny B and so the line was expanded to 4 and 5 tracks by adding the local tracks outside the original 2 and 3 track subway shell and a lower level at Nevins. When the IRT was expanded under the dual contracts, the provisions for the Manny B line were used to the Clark St and 7 Av Lines since the BRT got the Manny B routes. There was also a rather superficial pseudo bellmouth at the N/E of Nevins off the local tk also for the Manny B so it seems that the route really wasn't finalized when the line was built. "

[Armandito]

There have been rumors about the coming back to service after the is rerouted to the SAS, but the hasn't made any official decisions on it. Here are my proposals on a revived :

 

Plan A: via Broadway Local weekdays only, between Ditmars Boulevard and Whitehall Street. Rush hours extended to Bay Parkway via Fourth Avenue/West End Local.

 

Plan B: same as Plan A, but rush hour service to Brooklyn will instead run via the Sea Beach Line to Kings Highway.

 

In both plans, the will run express in Manhattan on weekdays and trains will no longer stop at 49th Street during the day.

 

Do you agree with Plan A or Plan B?

Edited January 30, 2015 by lara8710

[T to Dyre Avenue]

I like Plan A better. It gives West End Line riders a choice of 6th Ave or Broadway service, whereas if the goes via the Sea Beach, it's just going to all the same places in Manhattan the is, only slower, so most Sea Beach riders will just pass it up in favor of the express . Those who want a Broadway or 4th Ave local stop won't, but that's not going to be a huge number of riders. Plus, the West End has higher ridership overall.

Edited January 30, 2015 by T to Dyre Avenue

[biGC323232]

I like Plan A better. It gives West End Line riders a choice of 6th Ave or Broadway service, whereas if the goes via the Sea Beach, it's just going to all the same places in Manhattan the is, only slower, so most Sea Beach riders will just pass it up in favor of the express . Plus the West End has higher ridership overall.

 

I agree with dyre ave...Plan A is not a bad idea...It will help 4 ave plus give west end a 6 Av or broadway option 

[P3F]

I would prefer Plan B. It would give Sea Beach riders a Lower Manhattan option. (Same logic could be applied to the Brighton.)

[CenSin]

I like Plan A better. It gives West End Line riders a choice of 6th Ave or Broadway service, whereas if the goes via the Sea Beach, it's just going to all the same places in Manhattan the is, only slower, so most Sea Beach riders will just pass it up in favor of the express . Those who want a Broadway or 4th Ave local stop won't, but that's not going to be a huge number of riders. Plus, the West End has higher ridership overall.

The West End option will also keep the merging delays off the Sea Beach line. It's always been the ’s problem; remember the when it ran to Bay Parkway or 9 Avenue? The junction south of 59 Street is really not suited for this kind of arrangement anyway.

[EduardoMestre]

As a lifelong New Yorker, I've often been flustered by the amount of trash in subway stations. The Pratt Institute in Brooklyn is currently brainstorming innovative ways to address this problem. Have an idea? Please contribute it here:

 

http://www.ideaful.co/challenge/How-to-reduce-trash-in-the-NYC-Subway-system

 

Thanks!

[Armandito]

That's why the experimented with removing trash cans from certain stations...

[RollOver]

I agree with dyre ave...Plan A is not a bad idea...It will help 4 ave plus give west end a 6 Av or broadway option 

 

 

The West End option will also keep the merging delays off the Sea Beach line. It's always been the ’s problem; remember the when it ran to Bay Parkway or 9 Avenue? The junction south of 59 Street is really not suited for this kind of arrangement anyway.

 

I don't agree with him fully, because having the on the West End Line will be the result of the same exact thing. West End and Sea Beach local customers want an express service to Midtown Manhattan via the Manhattan Bridge. They honestly don't care, as long as it's not going local on 4th Avenue and/or even worst, the Montague Street Tunnel through Lower Manhattan. I've told him that like countless times already. If a pulls up into a West End Line station and those (who want Broadway) get on it, they will make a mad dash over to the if they see it across the platform at 36 St or Pacific St, or the at DeKalb Av. At the end of the day, I'm all for the 2004-2010 service pattern for the Broadway Line and nothing more.

[RollOver]

I like Plan A better. It gives West End Line riders a choice of 6th Ave or Broadway service, whereas if the goes via the Sea Beach, it's just going to all the same places in Manhattan the is, only slower, so most Sea Beach riders will just pass it up in favor of the express . Those who want a Broadway or 4th Ave local stop won't, but that's not going to be a huge number of riders. Plus, the West End has higher ridership overall.

 

Here's another thing that I want to add...who the hell is to say that the train can't handle the extra load? Doesn't the run every 6 minutes out of Brooklyn during rush hour (if it's running on time)?

[Armandito]

I don't agree with him fully, because having the on the West End Line will be the result of the same exact thing. West End and Sea Beach local customers want an express service to Midtown Manhattan via the Manhattan Bridge. They honestly don't care, as long as it's not going local on 4th Avenue and/or even worst, the Montague Street Tunnel through Lower Manhattan. I've told him that like countless times already. If a pulls up into a West End Line station and those (who want Broadway) get on it, they will make a mad dash over to the if they see it across the platform at 36 St or Pacific St, or the at DeKalb Av. At the end of the day, I'm all for the 2004-2010 service pattern for the Broadway Line and nothing more.

The rush hour extension to Bay Parkway is supposed to replace the former service that used to run there before it was rerouted in 2010.

[RollOver]

The rush hour extension to Bay Parkway is supposed to replace the former service that used to run there before it was rerouted in 2010.

 

Nonsense.

[Armandito]

Nonsense.

Fine. To make the more useful in Brooklyn, I'd run the express between Ninth Avenue and Bay Parkway rush hours in the peak direction, stopping only at 62nd Street. This would resemble the current service pattern used by the and along the Concourse Line in the Bronx. Edited January 31, 2015 by lara8710

[RollOver]

I guess that wouldn't be so bad. Not sure though...

[Armandito]

I guess that wouldn't be so bad. Not sure though...

Why is that?

[RollOver]

It's just that the has to use the middle track south of Bay Pkwy to relay (while at the same time having the switch to/from the middle track) and both the and would merge with each other north of 9 Av, get held near 36 St to let an and or an go first, then split again.

[Armandito]

It's just that the has to use the middle track south of Bay Pkwy to relay (while at the same time having the switch to/from the middle track) and both the and would merge with each other north of 9 Av, get held near 36 St to let an and or an go first, then split again.

In that case, trains will be given priority because rush hour trains terminate there and won't be continuing any further.

[CenSin]

While on the surface, it would appear that the would cause either the and the or the and the to become delay-prone, the problem is actually worse if you put the on the Sea Beach line. A crossing south of 59 Street will hold up trains on both the express track and the local track. Nothing moves until the has crossed over. Going southbound, when the ran local via 4 Avenue and Sea Beach, the had to be held outside the station until the finished crossing to the Sea Beach tracks south of 59 Street. It'll be the same if it's a . The problem with the on the West End is lesser. If a is crossing, it holds up the and the behind it, but it doesn't do anything to the . If a is crossing, it holds up the and the behind it, but it doesn't do anything to the . That way, at least 2 trains can pull into 36 Street at once and with a cross-platform transfer. The key difference is that the junction at 36 Street has 3 tracks in each direction; the one at 59 Street only has 2.

 

The more options-oriented argument would be that West End has 6 Avenue service, and a Broadway service would complement it. Sea Beach already has Broadway service.

Edited January 31, 2015 by CenSin

[Armandito]

While on the surface, it would appear that the would cause either the and the or the and the to become delay-prone, the problem is actually worse if you put the on the Sea Beach line. A crossing south of 59 Street will hold up trains on both the express track and the local track. Nothing moves until the has crossed over. Going southbound, when the ran local via 4 Avenue and Sea Beach, the had to be held outside the station until the finished crossing to the Sea Beach tracks south of 59 Street. It'll be the same if it's a . The problem with the on the West End is lesser. If a is crossing, it holds up the and the behind it, but it doesn't do anything to the . If a is crossing, it holds up the and the behind it, but it doesn't do anything to the . That way, at least 2 trains can pull into 36 Street at once and with a cross-platform transfer. The key difference is that the junction at 36 Street has 3 tracks in each direction; the one at 59 Street only has 2.

 

The more options-oriented argument would be that West End has 6 Avenue service, and a Broadway service would complement it. Sea Beach already has Broadway service.

What about the relay at Bay Parkway? Since my proposal involves running the express along the West End Line rush hours in the peak direction, RollOver expressed doubts about the track layout at that station, since both Sixth Avenue and Broadway trains will have to cross each other so Broadway trains can be laid over on the express track and Sixth Avenue trains can continue to Coney Island on the local tracks. (BTW, Broadway service along the West End Line will operate bidirectional service during rush hours.) Edited February 1, 2015 by lara8710

[RollOver]

Oh, NOW I see what you're saying...So the express on the West End Line (including the ) is only during rush hours in the peak direction (Manhattan-bound in the morning rush and the other way around in the evening rush). I get it now.

 

There won't be any delays at Bay Parkway, as long as one train crosses one at a time and as long as it's scheduled properly.

[46Dover]

I made a map of my proposed Fordham Line here: https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?mid=zh758mgJc1tw.kbfgC00CSaFo

You want to remove the Bx12 SBS route lol?