Department of Subways - Proposals/Ideas

[CenSin]

I can see what you’re trying to do here, but you should probably illustrate it for everyone else. It’s basically a rearrangement of the switches to let the MTA juggle 2 trains without actually having 2 tracks while moving the fumigation problem to a station where the and won’t share tracks. I have doubts about the express track holding a full-length train between Ditmas Avenue and 18 Avenue, but this should be doable with the and with a margin of extra track left over.

[ChemWhizNYC]

I'm batting around a plan, without an eye to cost, for using bits of commuter rail to run new 2nd Av services:

(image omitted for spacing and loading)

 

: Coney Island to Wakefield (or Mt Vernon) via the Metro-North Harlem Line

: Kings Plaza to 125th & Broadway (or just Park) via Utica Ave & the LIRR Atlantic Branch

New, blue, : Valley Stream to Bayside (or wherever) via Northern Blvd & the LIRR Port Washington Branch

 

I see a number of issues with this like getting from Hanover Sq to Atlantic Terminal (I'd like to send the T & V through the Montague Tunnel...

 

But that's just it - don't go any further.

T hits Hanover Square, runs along the Montague Tunnel - my that has it run along the West End Line, like the old M train did, during Rush hour, because its main point is to do what? Relieve congestion on Lexington Avenue. Bringing the 2nd Ave line out to Brooklyn too far, and you open up more problems (ie, a stalled train in downtown Brooklyn, a signal problem further down the line, or that it's already crowded before it gets to Manhattan.)

T hits Hanover Square, runs past Broad Street (have it skip), run along the tracks from Broad through the Montague Tube, and continues past Atlantic.

 

I agree that (one of) the 2nd avenue lines needs to go to Queens - I disagree, however, taking it at 59th street. You have enough East-river crossings in the area. You'd do better, having it run EAST at 125th, and passing at Astoria / Ditmars, running past LaGuardia (it's a small airport) and then serving Northern queens. It could be the new Subway Series train, if it runs past Willets Point.

 

I disagree that the 2nd Ave line needs to run in the Bronx. To put that up (read: you need a bridge because of fault lines,) would require a massive destruction of more places in the south Bronx.

 

I like the idea of taking it west along 125th, down to Morningside Heights (or up to City College). You really need something connecting the norther East Side with the northern West Side, and whether that is Spanish Harlem and Washington Heights, or the ritsy Upper East + Upper West Side, it does work nicely. 

 

I think this might suit it a bit better. http://tinypic.com/r/30ud3di/8

[trainfanrod]

I WONDER IF THE MTA WOULD BUILD A BRIDGE BRING THE ELEVATEDAFTER 125TH AND THEN MAKE IT THAT WAY INTO BRONX FOR EXTENSION

[MysteriousBtrain]

I WONDER IF THE MTA WOULD BUILD A BRIDGE BRING THE ELEVATEDAFTER 125TH AND THEN MAKE IT THAT WAY INTO BRONX FOR EXTENSION

No future line will be an El anymore. This is the reason the 6th Avenue El was replaced with the subway line. And the reason the only El that exists now are the sections that belong to the .

[LTA1992]

Those were older designs that caused he stigma. I won't rule out the return of the "L" when there are better, quieter, and more asthetically pleasing designs in existence. I think people can realize that need trumps personal preference these days. I think that people need to get all of the information on day one and be shown examples of a better elevated structure that is stronger and not as intrusive in the airspace. If one does not exist, then one can be designed. I have faith in the people.

[trainfanrod]

So if they do a Utica Abe extension it will be an El

[Gong Gahou]

Not will be - it could be. At this point in time no one can say 100% that new subway construction will be elevated, because the reality is that there will be people who will fight for alternatives.

Edited May 12, 2015 by Gong Gahou

[Union Tpke]

 

 

Those were older designs that caused he stigma. I won't rule out the return of the "L" when there are better, quieter, and more asthetically pleasing designs in existence. I think people can realize that need trumps personal preference these days. I think that people need to get all of the information on day one and be shown examples of a better elevated structure that is stronger and not as intrusive in the airspace. If one does not exist, then one can be designed. I have faith in the people.

 

I FULLY AGREE! I believe that the future of transit in New York in Els! Look at cities in asia! There are quiter an more efficient Els! Point to the AIRTRAIN! It would save tons of money as well. When people think of els they think of the Third Avenue El. If you put an El on for example Hillside, property values could only go up as a result of the new transit options, not down.

[MysteriousBtrain]

I FULLY AGREE! I believe that the future of transit in New York in Els! Look at cities in asia! There are quiter an more efficient Els! Point to the AIRTRAIN! It would save tons of money as well. When people think of els they think of the Third Avenue El. If you put an El on for example Hillside, property values could only go up as a result of the new transit options, not down.

Idk the way Ny'ers are nowadays, I don't really see anyone wanting an el where they live, especially if you have to reroute traffic completely during construction.

[LTA1992]

That will happen anytime you build something whether it is above or below. You are doubting the people of this city way too much. And that's coming from a cynic.

[Union Tpke]

Also, if subway lines are being built I think that they should be cut and cover to save time and to avoid having subway stations so far underground wasting time.

[RollOver]

Deep down, I'm really proud of my own proposal of how the off-peak headways (as well as the aforementioned bottlenecks) should have been from the very beginning to the present day, since I'm treating every non-isolated line equally and/or trying to move trains at a much faster pace with little to no delays. The is indeed better off running 6 trains per hour (west of Rockaway Blvd) and 3 trains per hour (east of Rockaway Blvd) primarily because of the . Secondarily, ridership at Broad Channel and in the Rockaways is vastly low because the demand for transit is low anyway. As for the Lefferts Blvd branch, riders at those 3 stations don't understand that the local extension to and from Lefferts will give them 10 minute headways instead of the 20 minute headways they get now. At the same time, it would also mean all the Lefferts trains would go to Howard Beach instead, also giving 10 minute headways for Aqueduct, North Conduit and JFK instead of the 20 minute headways they get now. So obviously, all riders at 104, 111 and Lefferts almost certainly don't deserve to get regular service. Let them have all the "every other train" stuff they want (as punishment). I'm sorry for those heading to Aqueduct and JFK, however.

 

I'll illustrate the track layout between Ditmas and 18 Avenues on the Culver Line, the 135 Street station as well as the junction north of the aforementioned station, the track layout north (and also, south) of the Coney Island terminal, and the 9 Avenue area on the West End Line sometime this weekend or sometime during the next week. In the meantime, I'll continue going over the car assignment roster, each individual subway car, and the history of the subway system in general, and then I'll soon come to another conclusion.

[MysteriousBtrain]

Deep down, I'm really proud of my own proposal of how the off-peak headways (as well as the aforementioned bottlenecks) should have been from the very beginning to the present day, since I'm treating every non-isolated line equally and/or trying to move trains at a much faster pace with little to no delays. The is indeed better off running 6 trains per hour (west of Rockaway Blvd) and 3 trains per hour (east of Rockaway Blvd) primarily because of the . Secondarily, ridership at Broad Channel and in the Rockaways is vastly low because the demand for transit is low anyway. As for the Lefferts Blvd branch, riders at those 3 stations don't understand that the local extension to and from Lefferts will give them 10 minute headways instead of the 20 minute headways they get now. At the same time, it would also mean all the Lefferts trains would go to Howard Beach instead, also giving 10 minute headways for Aqueduct, North Conduit and JFK instead of the 20 minute headways they get now. So obviously, all riders at 104, 111 and Lefferts almost certainly don't deserve to get regular service. Let them have all the "every other train" stuff they want (as punishment). I'm sorry for those heading to Aqueduct and JFK, however.

 

I'll illustrate the track layout between Ditmas and 18 Avenues on the Culver Line, the 135 Street station as well as the junction north of the aforementioned station, the track layout north (and also, south) of the Coney Island terminal, and the 9 Avenue area on the West End Line sometime this weekend or sometime during the next week. In the meantime, I'll continue going over the car assignment roster, each individual subway car, and the history of the subway system in general, and then I'll soon come to another conclusion.

Yep. My ideas as well. I remember making my subway roster (and finished my bus roster a few weeks ago) using the car assignment history method. I even expanded a few old roll stocks like the R11 and R110s and gave them to my fantasy routes (like R110As (renamed R110) for my (8) and R110Bs (renamed R111) for my , along with 1 or 2 R111s to the .

Once again, I can't wait to see how "similar" our ideas are.

[biGC323232]

Deep down, I'm really proud of my own proposal of how the off-peak headways (as well as the aforementioned bottlenecks) should have been from the very beginning to the present day, since I'm treating every non-isolated line equally and/or trying to move trains at a much faster pace with little to no delays. The is indeed better off running 6 trains per hour (west of Rockaway Blvd) and 3 trains per hour (east of Rockaway Blvd) primarily because of the . Secondarily, ridership at Broad Channel and in the Rockaways is vastly low because the demand for transit is low anyway. As for the Lefferts Blvd branch, riders at those 3 stations don't understand that the local extension to and from Lefferts will give them 10 minute headways instead of the 20 minute headways they get now. At the same time, it would also mean all the Lefferts trains would go to Howard Beach instead, also giving 10 minute headways for Aqueduct, North Conduit and JFK instead of the 20 minute headways they get now. So obviously, all riders at 104, 111 and Lefferts almost certainly don't deserve to get regular service. Let them have all the "every other train" stuff they want (as punishment). I'm sorry for those heading to Aqueduct and JFK, however.

 

I'll illustrate the track layout between Ditmas and 18 Avenues on the Culver Line, the 135 Street station as well as the junction north of the aforementioned station, the track layout north (and also, south) of the Coney Island terminal, and the 9 Avenue area on the West End Line sometime this weekend or sometime during the next week. In the meantime, I'll continue going over the car assignment roster, each individual subway car, and the history of the subway system in general, and then I'll soon come to another conclusion.

 

Question...Would sending the Lefferts blvd  (A)'s to Rockaway pk be to much during the daytime hours...It would eliminate the rockaway pk shuttle so passengers would have a direct access to manhattan and wouldnt miss the mahattan bound   that the  sometimes send in  broad channel before the shuttle

[MysteriousBtrain]

Question...Would sending the Lefferts blvd (A)'s to Rockaway pk be to much during the daytime hours...It would eliminate the rockaway pk shuttle so passengers would have a direct access to manhattan and wouldnt miss the mahattan bound that the sometimes send in broad channel before the shuttle

It may work but it may also cause confusion on riders.

[biGC323232]

It may work but it may also cause confusion on riders.

Well the only confusion would be Rockaway Pk and Far rockaway...As other forum experts mentioned that sending the  to lefferts would be better and less confusion for riders getting to the airport...Basically its all about making sure you know what train going where before boarding...It was just a thought 

[MysteriousBtrain]

Well the only confusion would be Rockaway Pk and Far rockaway...As other forum experts mentioned that sending the to lefferts would be better and less confusion for riders getting to the airport...Basically its all about making sure you know what train going where before boarding...It was just a thought

True, but not everyone knows the system like us. While it won't be as confusing as the Lefferts/Rockaway combo, some people are likely to get the Rockaways confused.

But if it can work, go for it .

[LTA1992]

Or, we could just take half the trains, since they are going to lefferts anyway, and call it .

Edited May 13, 2015 by LTA1992

[RollOver]

For me, no. I'm fine with the current setup on the and for all the aforementioned reasons that I've said. It's just the midday, evening and Saturday frequencies of the being 9 trains per hour (west of Rockaway Blvd) and 4 to 5 trains per hour (east of Rockaway Blvd). If many of the Inwood, Washington Heights, Ozone Park, Richmond Hill, Howard Beach, Broad Channel, and Rockaway residents are already working in the CBDs during the middle of the day (and are off from work during the weekday evening and throughout the weekend), then there's no need for the to be running at the current headways it is doing now.

 

The same exact thing goes for the , , , and when those lines are running 8 trains per hour instead of 6 trains per hour during middays and evenings. And on weekends, their headways should all be 6 trains per hour as an equal. In my proposal world, both the East Side and West Side see 24 trains per hour (12 trains per hour on the local and 12 trains per  hour on the express), respectively, during middays and evenings. For weekends, both the East Side and West Side are lowered to 18 trains per hour, respectively (6 trains per hour on the local and 12 trains per hour on the express).

 

Remember, during weekends, all two-track, three-track, and four-track corridors are all lowered to 6 trains per hour, 12 trains per hour, and/or 18 trains per hour (just the way I made it). All of the flagging with track/signal maintainers and inspectors as well as G.Os affect virtually every line on weekends anyway. And this has been going on and on and on and on and on and on for years. I'm sure everybody here in this site knows this from day one. That's why I made the off-peak headways the way I did. Hell, even during middays, every outdoor line always have some kind of work being done (even if it's not a full closure).

 

Now, I'm almost finished with my car roster. Everything is almost the same, except that all 240 leftover R32s (222 in passenger service, 12 in work service, 4 that were preserved, and 2 more others) should have all equally been kept for passenger service and running the year round. In return, the becomes entirely R46s year round and the R42s remain on the / year round. This should have been done as soon as July 1st, 2010 hit. The future R179s can replace all the remaining R32s as 10-cars in sets of five on the and all remaining 48 R42s on the / as 8-cars in sets of four. Like the and , the should indeed also have 60 footers as well to lessen rush-hour/summer weekend beach crowd boarding and dwelling times. I can't wait to post the car assignments prior to July 1st, 2010 and the car assignments as of July 1st, 2010. The R44s should have been long gone before the last half of 2010 hit, since all the R160 cars were already in service by June 2010.

[Wallyhorse]

Those were older designs that caused he stigma. I won't rule out the return of the "L" when there are better, quieter, and more asthetically pleasing designs in existence. I think people can realize that need trumps personal preference these days. I think that people need to get all of the information on day one and be shown examples of a better elevated structure that is stronger and not as intrusive in the airspace. If one does not exist, then one can be designed. I have faith in the people.

Exactly.  That's why I still think if necessary, we could see the last part of Phase 2 (after the existing portion) be done as elevated with the terminal as such AND with provisions to go all the way across 125 as a crosstown along with provisions for a new bridge along 3rd Avenue that would allow for both an elevated Bronx branch of the SAS via a rebuilt Bronx 3rd Avenue El and even a rebuilt (to BMT/IND standards) 3rd Avenue El in the future.

 

I still see where BOTH a full SAS AND a rebuilt 3rd Avenue El may be necessary in the future (whether people want an el or not), especially if the level of building in Manhattan that is anticipated in the coming years happens.

[MysteriousBtrain]

Ok since we are ok with "reviving" Els, how about this alternative universe:

Instead of dismantling the 3rd Avenue El, instead, an extension would be built on Willis or Alexander Avenue and around Bruckner Blvd, a portal would be made connecting the 3rd Avenue line and the Lexington Avenue line on the local tracks. Now the 8 runs between Brooklyn Bridge and Gun Hill Road. Disregarding the today, would this work?

[LTA1992]

You use the word necessary a lot. A bit too much. Both of what you said are not so. What is needed is TWO branches of SAS in The Bronx. One to the South Bronx and one to the Northeast Bronx via Third and either Tremont, Allerton, or Burke Avenues or Fordham Road to serve Co-Op City and relieve cross-Bronx passengers from the Bx12.

[trainfanrod]

I agree with LTA

[bobtehpanda]

Those were older designs that caused he stigma. I won't rule out the return of the "L" when there are better, quieter, and more asthetically pleasing designs in existence. I think people can realize that need trumps personal preference these days. I think that people need to get all of the information on day one and be shown examples of a better elevated structure that is stronger and not as intrusive in the airspace. If one does not exist, then one can be designed. I have faith in the people.

 

The basic issue with els is that most roadways are far too narrow to accommodate them without blocking out lots of sunlight and creating major barriers. Unless you can somehow reduce the physical profile of elevated track and stations (which isn't likely given that trains are neither getting smaller nor lighter), you will still run into this fundamental problem.

[N6 Limited]

What about a double decked structure, one track per level?