Department of Subways - Proposals/Ideas

[pringle5095]

That is a horrible idea!

why is that?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Cone E Island]

why is that?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

1.) The / /  already has enough trains to run. It doesn't need another line to delay things.

 

2.) The tracks are elevated and doing construction there would be catastrophe traffic-wise.

 

3.) That would cause another Myrtle Ave situation and have an even more dangerous crossing considering the /  pass through there.

 

4.) Underground construction is way safer and would be much better to do it at Utica Ave on the Fulton Street line (through another platform)

Edited December 7, 2016 by Cone E Island

[T to Dyre Avenue]

I'd say sea beach because the MTA can extend the to bay pkway like the M did

And why would the MTA need to extend the and to Bay Parkway? The provides sufficient service for the West End Line and it doesn't need the and trains to also go there. When the ran to/from Bay Parkway, it ran half as frequently as the and combined do, and even that was more service than was needed, given how empty those trains were. Not to mention the merging delays that occurred at 36th St whenever the southbound D and M arrived at 36th St at the same time, which was quite often.

[CenSin]

Bringing this over from the Random Thoughts Thread:

Which is exactly why I would split this line into and , with both lines terminating at Chambers (save for a handful of rush-hour trains that would continue to Broad to fill gaps in the  schedule then and the handful of  trains that would continue to or begin at Broadway Junction because they are going to/coming from the yard).

You can’t make this work. Such a setup epitomizes inconvenience and inefficiency. Remember that the point of having any service is to serve the ridership, which a split at Chambers Street does not do. This split would be similar to Coney Island–Stillwell Avenue where the platforms can actually serve through service but acts as a terminal instead. In the mornings when I’m departing for Manhattan, I frequently see the pull in and then the train leaves before folks can make the transfer. It sucks for those who just got off the and wanted the , but from my perspective, my train needs to get going so I can get to work on time and I should not be delayed for a transfer. The MTA could hold trains, but that means every delay on the is transferred to the causing ripple effects. And since delays happen so frequently, you must choose between convenience of a transfer, or the on-time performance of other trains. You cannot have both.

[pringle5095]

Anyone else vying for a extension into the Bronx as a 207 St/Fordham Rd/Pelham Pkwy crosstown? No one denounced this when I last proposed it, and I have indeed looked at one fantasy map that claims the numbers justify it, so proposed stops would be:

 

Broadway (change for 1)

==The Bronx==

Cedar Av (change for MN)

Sedgwick Av (Fordham Rd)

University Av (Fordham Rd)

Jerome Av (change for 4)

Concourse (change for B,D)

3 Av-Fordham University (Fordham Rd)

Southern Blvd (Pelham Pkwy)

White Plains Rd (Change for 2)

Dyre Av (Change for 5)

Eastchester Rd-Jacobi Medical Center (Pelham Pkwy)

Pelham Bay Park (Change for 6)

Bay Plaza Shopping Center (Bartow Av)

[pringle5095]

Oh right, then there's the LaGuardia (not the one from Woodside that I first mentioned, but the 125 St Crosstown) and 86 St Lines.

 

125 St Line

 

==Manhattan==

Broadway (change for 1)

8 Av (change for A,B,C,D)

Madison Av (125 St)

Lexington Av (change for 4,5,6)

2 Av (change for T)

 

==Queens==

Astoria (change for N,W)

Steinway St (Astoria Blvd)

77 St (Astoria Blvd)

Terminals B and C (LaGuardia Airport)

Terminal D (LaGuardia Airport)

 

86 St Line

 

96 St (change for T)

2 Av (change for T)

3 Av 

Lexington Av (change for 4,5,6)

Madison Av 

Central Park

8 Av (change for B,C)

Columbus Av

Amsterdam Av

Broadway (change for 1)

West End Av

[MTA Bus]

My idea is to basically extend both the and the to 23rd Street. Since that part of Manhattan is expected to be a popular area in the next 5-10 years, I think that they should have at least some kind of subway service. The station would basically be like Jamaica Center, with the on top and the on bottom. Also, the would have a underground storage yard between 16th and 20th Streets, which the needs severely if they ever wanna add more service.

[CenSin]

My idea is to basically extend both the and the to 23rd Street. Since that part of Manhattan is expected to be a popular area in the next 5-10 years, I think that they should have at least some kind of subway service. The station would basically be like Jamaica Center, with the on top and the on bottom. Also, the would have a underground storage yard between 16th and 20th Streets, which the needs severely if they ever wanna add more service.

I think it would be easier if they built the storage yard for the as part of extending the further down. Currently, I believe the tracks end at around West 26 Street. Instead of trying to build more underneath the existing tracks (which could get costly), the would get its storage yard at 23 Street and another station with tail tracks somewhere along 14 Street that connects to the .

[MysteriousBtrain]

How to easily put 2 Av trains on the Nassau St line:

 

Modify the downtown tracks north of Chambers St and move the crossovers north of Chambers St a few feet north, allowing an easier extension of the two "express" tracks at Chambers St to a new level underground. These tracks would be used by the / . New lower levels would be at Fulton St (80 ft deep) and Broad St and both would have an island platform only. The upper level can be used by 2 Av trains and provide local service on 4 Av, either going to Bay Ridge or Coney Island. The layover tracks south of Broad St will also now be used as storage tracks, mainly for 2 Av train, but the / can store cars there if necessary. Granted, it may not be much space, but it's there.

Edited December 10, 2016 by ShadeJay

[Lance]

The question is though, what is gained by tying the 2nd Avenue line to Nassau St? Sure, you get a relatively easy terminal in Lower Manhattan, but on the other hand, such a connection limits inter-borough access. The only connection from Nassau St to Brooklyn is through Montague St and running another full-time service through the mess that is DeKalb Av is ill-advised. This does not take into account the massive amount of work required for a 2nd Avenue - Nassau St connection. That's one question you have to ask yourself: do the benefits outweigh the costs? I don't see it.

[Union Tpke]

Why would your give the West Side service over the needs of the outer boroughs?

 

I think it would be easier if they built the storage yard for the as part of extending the further down. Currently, I believe the tracks end at around West 26 Street. Instead of trying to build more underneath the existing tracks (which could get costly), the would get its storage yard at 23 Street and another station with tail tracks somewhere along 14 Street that connects to the .

[Wallyhorse]

The question is though, what is gained by tying the 2nd Avenue line to Nassau St? Sure, you get a relatively easy terminal in Lower Manhattan, but on the other hand, such a connection limits inter-borough access. The only connection from Nassau St to Brooklyn is through Montague St and running another full-time service through the mess that is DeKalb Av is ill-advised. This does not take into account the massive amount of work required for a 2nd Avenue - Nassau St connection. That's one question you have to ask yourself: do the benefits outweigh the costs? I don't see it.

Right:

 

Less we forget Nassau is a very narrow street around Fulton and that's why the Fulton Street station is on two levels.  

 

When I did my proposals of the SAS via Nassau, it was like this:

 

We would have a four-track setup where the SAS would join the Nassau line (going south) at Bowery, with the on what would be in a four-track setup the "express" tracks and the would use the "local" tracks, with the terminating full-time at Chambers and the continuing south of there to Broad Street and then a designated point in Brooklyn TBD (perhaps now running with the to 95th Street given the train's notorious problems in Brooklyn).  

 

This would be not too much different from my more recent idea of the "Brown " that would run 95th-Chambers with the also terminating the other way at Chambers as a meeting point between the lines except in this case the would remain on its own track and run on the SAS.  

[bobtehpanda]

Right:

 

Less we forget Nassau is a very narrow street around Fulton and that's why the Fulton Street station is on two levels.  

 

When I did my proposals of the SAS via Nassau, it was like this:

 

We would have a four-track setup where the SAS would join the Nassau line (going south) at Bowery, with the on what would be in a four-track setup the "express" tracks and the would use the "local" tracks, with the terminating full-time at Chambers and the continuing south of there to Broad Street and then a designated point in Brooklyn TBD (perhaps now running with the to 95th Street given the train's notorious problems in Brooklyn).  

 

This would be not too much different from my more recent idea of the "Brown " that would run 95th-Chambers with the also terminating the other way at Chambers as a meeting point between the lines except in this case the would remain on its own track and run on the SAS.  

 

The cognitive dissonance is astounding... replies to a post describing how routing SAS through DeKalb is a bad idea, with an idea to route the SAS through DeKalb..

[Wallyhorse]

The cognitive dissonance is astounding... replies to a post describing how routing SAS through DeKalb is a bad idea, with an idea to route the SAS through DeKalb..

I was simply noting my version that would not have required the kind of digging a prior post had suggested. 

[bobtehpanda]

I was simply noting my version that would not have required the kind of digging a prior post had suggested. 

 

The epitome of missing the forest for the trees.

[CenSin]

I noticed the rationale for extending the to Whitehall Street is also valid for extending the Lefferts Boulevard to Broadway Junction. For a mere 4-station extension from Euclid Avenue, the shuttle is granted (no pun intended) transfers to the and . It would go a long way in reducing the number of transfers to get to/from Lefferts Boulevard at night.

[checkmatechamp13]

I noticed the rationale for extending the to Whitehall Street is also valid for extending the Lefferts Boulevard to Broadway Junction. For a mere 4-station extension from Euclid Avenue, the shuttle is granted (no pun intended) transfers to the and . It would go a long way in reducing the number of transfers to get to/from Lefferts Boulevard at night.

 

And technically, you can keep it on the express track and make that a 1-station extension.

[CenSin]

And technically, you can keep it on the express track and make that a 1-station extension.

For the sake of eliminating the need to clear out a train, having it terminate that way is a good idea. The train can turn right back from the platform.

[Porter]

Does anyone think that skip-stop service on the corridor would be a good idea after tunnel repairs are finished?

[bobtehpanda]

Does anyone think that skip-stop service on the corridor would be a good idea after tunnel repairs are finished?

 

What would be the point? Skip-stop only really works if certain stations are much busier than others, but with current ridership trends you wouldn't be able to skip any stations.

[Porter]

What would be the point? Skip-stop only really works if certain stations are much busier than others, but with current ridership trends you wouldn't be able to skip any stations.

 

So if all the stations served by the get heavily populated (likely in the not-too-distant future), the could be retired in response?

[Around the Horn]

So if all the stations served by the get heavily populated (likely in the not-too-distant future), the could be retired in response?

Possibly, but I also don't think that all the stations would get ridership increases. If anything one or two stations might get converted from only or only to all stop.

[Caelestor]

So if all the stations served by the get heavily populated (likely in the not-too-distant future), the could be retired in response?

 

Possibly, but I also don't think that all the stations would get ridership increases. If anything one or two stations might get converted from only or only to all stop.

 

Skip-stop on the 7 Ave line was gradually retired as every station gained enough ridership and became too important to not serve. That said, itt's unlikely to happen on the Jamaica line because the head towards Downtown instead of Midtown.

Edited December 16, 2016 by Caelestor

[bobtehpanda]

Possibly, but I also don't think that all the stations would get ridership increases. If anything one or two stations might get converted from only or only to all stop.

 

I expect the ending of skip stop west of Broadway Junction within the next ten years, at the very least.

 

So if all the stations served by the get heavily populated (likely in the not-too-distant future), the could be retired in response?

 

Yes, but keep in mind that this is not really a big deal, because the only operates for an hour in each direction every weekday. The is, for all intents and purposes, a train with a slightly different stopping pattern.

[R42N]

Starting to become really excited for the Second Avenue Subway Opening! 

 

However, there is one service change that I would make that is different from what they are proposing, and it regards those four to five ’s that will "short-change” at 96th instead of 57th like they currently do. 

 

The reason short-change was in quotes was because it’s hard to call it a short-change when it goes on a completely different route for four stops. I understand why they have to do it, as Ditmars Blvd can’t accommodate all those trains, but my proposal re-routes those short-turns: 

 

The four (or trains under this proposal) will short turn at Queensboro Plaza, relaying on the express tracks south of 39th Avenue and heading back into service on the southbound tracks at Queensboro. 

 

Here are the Pros and Cons I see:

 

PROS:

 

1: The will stay on it’s intended route, so passengers that have been riding the to Astoria for 30 years won’t get confused as to why the train is running on a different route, especially since there are no signs posted. When it stops at 57th, regular passengers assume the train is going out of service or something.

 

2: Those ’s stop at Queensboro, so the passengers transferring to the Line (and there are a lot of people that do that) don’t have to double transfer to get to their final stop. Five extra trains to Queensboro from Manhattan on the would be nice for those transferring passengers. 

 

3: After deadheading on the Express Tracks, the trains will re-enter service at Queensboro empty, so transferring passengers won’t be faced with packed trains from the Astoria Line if they are lucky enough to find one of those trains. 

 

4: Keeps those four trains stoping at packed stations that are vital stops, like Lexington/59th, and 5th Avenue. 

 

5: Enhanced flexibility, as either the or can short-turn at Queensboro. Currently, it would be hard to have a short-turning as it would have to switch to the express tracks. 

 

6: Passengers going to Second Avenue probably wouldn’t board a south of 57th, as people would think that it’s going to Astoria, even if the display says differently, so the trains won’t be used much north of 57th. 

 

CONS:

 

1. Time wasted short turning or on the Astoria Express Tracks. 

 

2. Four fewer trains heading up via Second Avenue, but the isn’t going up there to help the , it’s going there because Ditmars can’t turn trains fast enough. 

 

------------

 

Ultimately, the current system with short-tuning ’s at 57th makes sense, it gets trains back downtown the fastest, and passengers just cross the platform for Astoria service, but 96th and Queensboro are about the same distance from each other (Queensboro is 3 stops and a river, 96th is 4 long stops). 

 

Between the choice of three over-packed stops that could use extra service and four stops that most passengers think the serves exclusively (and thus passengers might mistakenly pass up on the for a to be safe), the choice is obvious. 

 

For those interested, the short turned at Queensboro during the first Manhattan Bridge repairs frequently, so it’s definitely possible. 

 

What are your thoughts?