Department of Subways - Proposals/Ideas

[Caelestor]

I think we could improve terminals at several locations before extending any lines or line capacity.

 

Some suggestions:

• 95 St - make some storage tracks south of the station
• Jamaica Ctr - build double crossovers on both levels east of the station and relocate the switches on both levels to just west of the station
• Pelham Bay Pk - make some storage tracks north of the station
• 8 Av - make some storage tracks west of the station
• E 105 St - build an extra platform on the east side track, for trains that are terminating/originating from Canarsie Yard, and build a new switch from the two mainline tracks to that third track just north of the station
• Coney Island - relocate the switches to just east of the station
• 205 St - more storage tracks east of the station?

Flatbush Av , Astoria Blvd , and 207 St could be improved later. Also, storage tracks east of Queensbridge can be built to store eastbound short-turning trains and possibly provide provisions for a Queens Bypass later.

 

I know this'll probably not happen (especially the idea with Pelham Bay Pk storage tracks and the E 105 St platform) but we need to get these off the table before any real extensions can be proposed.

 

Agreed on 95 St, which is the main impediment for reliable service. There needs to be tail tracks to store trains so that departures are reliable.

 

Jamaica Center - Instead of expensive underground construction, better off extending the onto the LIRR row as planned, at least to a new terminal at Linden Road. The don't justify further construction at current service levels.

 

Pelham Bay Park - Might as well extend the to Co-op City while we're at it.

 

14 St / 8 Av - It might be more cost-effective to extend the to 41 St and build the infill stop on the .

 

Can't comment on the others.

[T to Dyre Avenue]

Here's an idea. Restore the K line yet it should start from Atlantic Ave in east new York Brooklyn via Broadway along side the J line and terminate at 57st and 6ave. Return the M line through the Montague st tunnel connecting with the R line to increase service on the 4ave line. Reestablish the G line to 71st Continental to maintain the Queens Blvd local service.

No on all of these. First of all, 57th & 6th is no longer a terminal station. It hasn't been one since 1989. So the K is out. Second of all, the old M was a poorly used service, so putting it back will do more harm than good. And the current 6th Ave M is far more popular. It will be even more so when the L tunnel shuts down in 2019. Ditto for the G to 71st/Continental. Having another local to serve Manhattan is far more useful than bringing back the G to Queens Blvd. Edited January 31, 2017 by T to Dyre Avenue

[CenSin]

• E 105 St - build an extra platform on the east side track, for trains that are terminating/originating from Canarsie Yard, and build a new switch from the two mainline tracks to that third track just north of the station

It’s probably easier to just rebuild 2 more tracks at Atlantic Avenue since that’s where the ridership begins to pick up. The structure is already there and you don’t have to take any storage tracks away.

 

Flatbush Av , Astoria Blvd

 

These should actually be priority stations to turn into better terminals since they are so taxed.

 

 

Additionally, the is going to require a better southern terminal. Projected train frequencies for phase 2 of the 2 Avenue Line was pegged at 19 trains per hour! As a frequent patron of the and , I can attest to the train bunching problems that occur during rush hours. 4 no-build options include:

• Sending trains up to 125 Street to meet the frequency target and boosting service to compensate in Astoria
• Allowing trains to use tracks 1 and/or 2 at Coney Island–Stillwell Avenue
• Allowing trains to terminate at Brighton Beach (might cause even more problems on the than the already has now)
• Running a 125 Street/Bay Parkway route via 6 Avenue express and 4 Avenue express as a weekday supplement

There are 2 build options as well:

• Building a short stretch of track north of 57 Street–7 Avenue to connect the local tracks to the express tracks and sending trains to 125 Street while boosting service, and with the possibility of rehabilitating City Hall’s lower level for terminal capacity at the southern end of the route.
• Building an efficient upper level for Ocean Parkway to terminate trains with the lower level passing trains to along to Coney Island

Somehow, all those trains coming from 125 Street must be turned back just as fast.

[Wallyhorse]

It’s probably easier to just rebuild 2 more tracks at Atlantic Avenue since that’s where the ridership begins to pick up. The structure is already there and you don’t have to take any storage tracks away.

 

These should actually be priority stations to turn into better terminals since they are so taxed.

 

 

Additionally, the is going to require a better southern terminal. Projected train frequencies for phase 2 of the 2 Avenue Line was pegged at 19 trains per hour! As a frequent patron of the and , I can attest to the train bunching problems that occur during rush hours. 4 no-build options include:

• Sending trains up to 125 Street to meet the frequency target and boosting service to compensate in Astoria
• Allowing trains to use tracks 1 and/or 2 at Coney Island–Stillwell Avenue
• Allowing trains to terminate at Brighton Beach (might cause even more problems on the than the already has now)
• Running a 125 Street/Bay Parkway route via 6 Avenue express and 4 Avenue express as a weekday supplement

There are 2 build options as well:

• Building a short stretch of track north of 57 Street–7 Avenue to connect the local tracks to the express tracks and sending trains to 125 Street while boosting service, and with the possibility of rehabilitating City Hall’s lower level for terminal capacity at the southern end of the route.
• Building an efficient upper level for Ocean Parkway to terminate trains with the lower level passing trains to along to Coney Island

Somehow, all those trains coming from 125 Street must be turned back just as fast.

In the case of the , I have as you know proposed splitting the into and that would give the Myrtle portion increased service, with the being the additional trains to 96th Street/2nd Avenue and eventually 125/Lex.

Edited January 31, 2017 by Wallyhorse

[CenSin]

In the case of the , I have as you know proposed splitting the into and that would give the Myrtle portion increased service, with the being the additional trains to 96th Street/2nd Avenue and eventually 125/Lex.

That’s not going to work for the purposes of this discussion.

 

The number given in prior MTA documents is 19 TPH after the completion of phase 2. Now do the math and the as it currently runs cannot possibly fulfill such a requirement. I would say 12 TPH is a maximum it can reasonably run to Coney Island. The other 7 TPH will have to be fulfilled by a route that runs a course able to provide room for 7 TPH. Logic:

1. The local tracks are maxed out along 6 Avenue, but not the express tracks, so naturally the route will start out via 6 Avenue express.
2. Then there is the question of where to go from there. The local tracks are off limits, so that rules out both the Culver and Broadway–Brooklyn lines. The only natural course is down the Manhattan Bridge.
3. To 4 Avenue or Brighton? Brighton has no terminal capacity with the running the way it does. But further down 4 Avenue along Sea Beach and West End, trains can be turned, so it will run down 4 Avenue.
4. Turn at 59 Street, Kings Highway, 9 Avenue, or Bay Parkway? The least disruptive station to turn trains is 9 Avenue, followed by Bay Parkway since through trains can use a different track than terminating trains.

The two potential problems are the fact that 3 routes will share 6 Avenue and 4 Avenue express, and that 57 Street will be a shared station with the for just that one stop. Even at 7 TPH, I’m not sure that is a good idea.

Edited January 31, 2017 by CenSin

[Around the Horn]

 

• Building an efficient upper level for Ocean Parkway to terminate trains with the lower level passing trains to along to Coney Island

Somehow, all those trains coming from 125 Street must be turned back just as fast.

Hmmm, what about additional crossovers that would allow   trains to terminate on the middle tracks at Ocean Parkway, without interfering with the  's terminal operation at Brighton Beach?

Edited January 31, 2017 by Around the Horn

[Caelestor]

That’s not going to work for the purposes of this discussion.

 

The number given in prior MTA documents is 19 TPH after the completion of phase 2. Now do the math and the as it currently runs cannot possibly fulfill such a requirement. I would say 12 TPH is a maximum it can reasonably run to Coney Island. The other 7 TPH will have to be fulfilled by a route that runs a course able to provide room for 7 TPH. Logic:

1. The local tracks are maxed out along 6 Avenue, but not the express tracks, so naturally the route will start out via 6 Avenue express.
2. Then there is the question of where to go from there. The local tracks are off limits, so that rules out both the Culver and Broadway–Brooklyn lines. The only natural course is down the Manhattan Bridge.
3. To 4 Avenue or Brighton? Brighton has no terminal capacity with the running the way it does. But further down 4 Avenue along Sea Beach and West End, trains can be turned, so it will run down 4 Avenue.
4. Turn at 59 Street, Kings Highway, 9 Avenue, or Bay Parkway? The least disruptive station to turn trains is 9 Avenue, followed by Bay Parkway since through trains can use a different track than terminating trains.

The two potential problems are the fact that 3 routes will share 6 Avenue and 4 Avenue express, and that 57 Street will be a shared station with the for just that one stop. Even at 7 TPH, I’m not sure that is a good idea.

 

The already can't fulfill the 14 tph that it was supposed to provide in Phase 1. The covers the slack because some trains have to go to the SAS due to terminal limitations at Astoria. I don't think adding more service involving switches along the 6 Ave and 63 St lines is good for operations.

 

Operationally speaking, the simplest solution is to run all trains up the SAS. This fully segregates the Broadway local and express services, improving reliability on the line. The northern terminal is already expected to be 3 tracks, so no limitations there. As for Astoria, the would become a full-time service, and effective capacity may increase since now only the has the line to itself. The issue becomes the southern terminals, as Whitehall St and Bay Ridge don't have the capacity to turn the combined 25 tph of the . In all honestly, Bay Ridge needs to be reconstructed because 10 tph is terribly low for a terminal, or otherwise the has to run some trains to and from Gravesend.  Another question to ask is how the is going to fit in, since projected service is expected to decrease to 14 tph during Phase 3 to accommodate the new service. The might get its 14 tph then, but more importantly the may be forced out from the SAS when this happens. 

 

The other alternative is that no additional trains are added in Phase 2, and trains became more crowded. This is probably the most likely scenario.

[P3F]

Just to note this, Bay Parkway is not too great of a terminal, since all southbound trains have to be fumigated before relaying.

Edited January 31, 2017 by P3F

[CenSin]

Just to note this, Bay Parkway is not too great of a terminal, since all southbound trains have to be fumigated before relaying.

It’s the second best terminal after 9 Avenue as I noted for this reason. But it still beats 8 Avenue and Kings Highway because through trains can use the express track. But using Bay Parkway would also require a .

Hmmm, what about additional crossovers that would allow   trains to terminate on the middle tracks at Ocean Parkway, without interfering with the  's terminal operation at Brighton Beach?

It will make the storage tracks too short. And the center tracks wouldn’t be usable as storage tracks either. Building the upper level of Ocean Parkway would remove two storage tracks from use, but the center tracks could still be used for storage.

Edited February 1, 2017 by CenSin

[P3F]

It should end at either Kings Highway/West 7 Street or Bay Parkway/86 Street. If Sea Beach has higher ridership, end it at Kings Highway. If West End has more riders, end it at Bay Parkway. Both terminals are bad in the sense that terminating trains must be fumigated, so that does not play a role.

 

Optimally, though, it would simply go down Culver.

[CenSin]

It should end at either Kings Highway/West 7 Street or Bay Parkway/86 Street. If Sea Beach has higher ridership, end it at Kings Highway. If West End has more riders, end it at Bay Parkway. Both terminals are bad in the sense that terminating trains must be fumigated, so that does not play a role.

 

Optimally, though, it would simply go down Culver.

Remember that the primary purpose is to serve Manhattan. 9 Avenue is the closest station to Manhattan where it can terminate.

[agar io]

Remember that the primary purpose is to serve Manhattan. 9 Avenue is the closest station to Manhattan where it can terminate.

 

The runs 8 tph and the has 9 tph, so a higher-frequency service to serve the SAS wouldn't interfere much with regular service if there were only 3-4 more tph added. The 9 Av short-turns would need to coordinate with both the and mainline though.

 

Even if this were feasible, I wouldn't do this until after the R179s arrive. About 50 or 60 R32s would need to be transferred to the so 40-48 of the 's R68s can go to the . This may require either a second crew member on the or shorter trains, but that's the price we're going to have to pay if we increase service to 96 St.

These should actually be priority stations to turn into better terminals since they are so taxed.

Now that I think about it, if we use 96 St as an overflow terminal for the , everything is fine on the northern end, at least until Phase 2 SAS opens. But I agree that it is heavily used.

Edited February 1, 2017 by agar io

[HenryB]

I doubt how popular the will be compared to (or SAS ). People like the SAS because it brings upper east side residents to the west side much easier than before. 

 

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

 

On the SAS .... One of the options would be swapping the northern terminals for and , where runs on Broadway express, and use 63st to the Queens with same extra s going to SAS.  goes to Astoria. This way the and are basically running independently without sharing tracks with anyone else ( all use 60st now, mixing of broadway express, broadway local, and queens blvd local). That would make the Broadway line to be a bit more reliable.

 

Down side.....no yards on the both sides of , and Astoria loses Broadway express service. 

Edited February 1, 2017 by HenryB

[Wallyhorse]

I doubt how popular the will be compared to (or SAS ). People like the SAS because it brings upper east side residents to the west side much easier than before. 

 

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

 

On the SAS .... One of the options would be swapping the northern terminals for and , where runs on Broadway express, and use 63st to the Queens with same extra s going to SAS.  goes to Astoria. This way the and are basically running independently without sharing tracks with anyone else ( all use 60st now, mixing of broadway express, broadway local, and queens blvd local). That would make the Broadway line to be a bit more reliable.

 

Down side.....no yards on the both sides of , and Astoria loses Broadway express service. 

You could do it where the and swap southern lines as well (since the has Concourse Yard), with:

 

The running 95th-Bay Ridge (and local on 4th Avenue with a stop at DeKalb before going over the Bridge) to 205 (at all times).

 

The replacing the as the Brighton Local and running via the tunnel the way the used to (and returning to being a 24/7 line).

 

The moving from Brighton to the West End as a 4th Avenue Express and skipping DeKalb.

 

That solves that issue.

Edited February 1, 2017 by Wallyhorse

[Lance]

And creates several others... Sometimes I wonder if you actually ride the trains you're so interested in rerouting all the time. If you did, you'd likely realize right away that overall, people like the current setup of the Southern Division. Riders will not appreciate having the as the only 6th Avenue service out of Stillwell Av. Brighton riders will not enjoy having the as the local, what with its penchant for being delayed all the time. West End riders may not mind having the over the as Canal St and Grand St are not that far from each other, but that's one small oasis of good in a sea of bad ideas.

 

This idea also does not take into account the operational logistics, which would have to be altered to accommodate the shift. By mixing up the lines as such, you force them to each become 24/7 services. While it would be nice to have the additional service, what would likely happen is that the MTA would implement a series of shuttles for late night operations. One of the most important aspects of the 2004 shift was that it removed the need for the much-hated West End shuttle. Shifting that over to the Brighton line as that would be the home of the is unacceptable.

 

Another thing you failed to take into consideration is the amount of switches that would need to be crossed over to get the lines as you wish. I don't know how often you've taken a train across the Manhattan Bridge, but upon hitting DeKalb Junction, the trains slow to a crawl under the best of circumstances. Forcing the to cross over to the 4th Avenue local tracks and the to the Brighton line from Whitehall would not improve that situation at all. In fact, I believe it would become much worse.

 

Finally, this doesn't solve the problem at hand, which really doesn't surprise me in the slightest. If the idea is to increase the output from 96 Street, wouldn't it be much easier to either add some short-turn trains or something of that nature? Of course, it wouldn't be a Wallyhorse plan if it didn't involve needlessly rearranging half of the subway, now would it?

[Around the Horn]

I doubt how popular the will be compared to (or SAS ). People like the SAS because it brings upper east side residents to the west side much easier than before. 

 

I think you underestimate the ridership it would get going to Midtown East (especially now that it just got up zoned for supertall office buildings)

[Caelestor]

I think you underestimate the ridership it would get going to Midtown East (especially now that it just got up zoned for supertall office buildings)

 

I think the will be popular, along with a from Queens will be popular. I think the will still have higher ridership because it directly serves Brooklyn and three top 5 ridership stations: Times Sq, Herald Sq, and Union Sq. PABT and Penn Station are also close by the stops.

[Around the Horn]

I think the will be popular, along with a from Queens will be popular. I think the will still have higher ridership because it directly serves Brooklyn and three top 5 ridership stations: Times Sq, Herald Sq, and Union Sq. PABT and Penn Station are also close by the stops.

 

I'd actually expect a  to get more ridership than the  right off the bat, and especially if it goes to Brooklyn somehow. Your point about the  is duly noted.

[Caelestor]

I'd actually expect a  to get more ridership than the  right off the bat, and especially if it goes to Brooklyn somehow. Your point about the  is duly noted.

 

Agreed on the , since current plans have the stuck within Manhattan. I firmly believe that after SAS Phase 3, the QBL Bypass should be built before Phase 4. The could probably resolve most of the present overcrowding on the by offering a third express option, this one into Midtown East.

[BayParkwayW]

Agreed on the , since current plans have the stuck within Manhattan. I firmly believe that after SAS Phase 3, the QBL Bypass should be built before Phase 4. The could probably resolve most of the present overcrowding on the by offering a third express option, this one into Midtown East.

Exactly. But I could still see the as popular if it would be easily extended past Hanover Sq into Brooklyn via Montague and 4th Avenue, or maybe some kind of Sea Beach Express.

Edited February 1, 2017 by BayParkwayW

[Wallyhorse]

I think you underestimate the ridership it would get going to Midtown East (especially now that it just got up zoned for supertall office buildings)

Which if built is a big reason why I suspect we eventually would need the full SAS AND a rebuilt Third Avenue Line.

[Wallyhorse]

And creates several others... Sometimes I wonder if you actually ride the trains you're so interested in rerouting all the time. If you did, you'd likely realize right away that overall, people like the current setup of the Southern Division. Riders will not appreciate having the as the only 6th Avenue service out of Stillwell Av. Brighton riders will not enjoy having the as the local, what with its penchant for being delayed all the time. West End riders may not mind having the over the as Canal St and Grand St are not that far from each other, but that's one small oasis of good in a sea of bad ideas.

 

This idea also does not take into account the operational logistics, which would have to be altered to accommodate the shift. By mixing up the lines as such, you force them to each become 24/7 services. While it would be nice to have the additional service, what would likely happen is that the MTA would implement a series of shuttles for late night operations. One of the most important aspects of the 2004 shift was that it removed the need for the much-hated West End shuttle. Shifting that over to the Brighton line as that would be the home of the is unacceptable.

 

Another thing you failed to take into consideration is the amount of switches that would need to be crossed over to get the lines as you wish. I don't know how often you've taken a train across the Manhattan Bridge, but upon hitting DeKalb Junction, the trains slow to a crawl under the best of circumstances. Forcing the to cross over to the 4th Avenue local tracks and the to the Brighton line from Whitehall would not improve that situation at all. In fact, I believe it would become much worse.

 

Finally, this doesn't solve the problem at hand, which really doesn't surprise me in the slightest. If the idea is to increase the output from 96 Street, wouldn't it be much easier to either add some short-turn trains or something of that nature? Of course, it wouldn't be a Wallyhorse plan if it didn't involve needlessly rearranging half of the subway, now would it?

Which exposes the real problem going back to when the line that is the way the in Brooklyn was built.  That line was built to be 95th Street to Astoria because it uses the local track throughout.  The failure to have that line go to a yard is why we saw the flip 30 years ago.  

 

The next best option, which would NOT require any of the changes I propose would be to do the necessary work that would allow trains to more easily go to or from the express track to/from the 60th Street tunnel north of 57th/7th.  Doing that eliminates having the having to go to the local/express track and allows for a more smooth ride without changing anything other than the (excluding late nights) using the express all the way in Manhattan.  

[Around the Horn]

Which if built is a big reason why I suspect we eventually would need the full SAS AND a rebuilt Third Avenue Line.

Not happening. Real estate will stop that in its tracks...

[T to Dyre Avenue]

You could do it where the D, Q and R swap southern lines as well (since the D has Concourse Yard), with:

The D running 95th-Bay Ridge (and local on 4th Avenue with a stop at DeKalb before going over the Bridge) to 205 (at all times).

The R replacing the Q as the Brighton Local and running via the tunnel the way the M used to (and returning to being a 24/7 line).

The Q moving from Brighton to the West End as a 4th Avenue Express and skipping DeKalb.

That solves that issue.

Except that's not the issue we're looking to solve. We're looking to find the most efficient and cost-effective way to provide more service to the SAS, without over-serving or delaying the existing Broadway and 6th Ave services in Manhattan and Brooklyn.

And creates several others... Sometimes I wonder if you actually ride the trains you're so interested in rerouting all the time. If you did, you'd likely realize right away that overall, people like the current setup of the Southern Division. Riders will not appreciate having the as the only 6th Avenue service out of Stillwell Av. Brighton riders will not enjoy having the as the local, what with its penchant for being delayed all the time. West End riders may not mind having the over the as Canal St and Grand St are not that far from each other, but that's one small oasis of good in a sea of bad ideas.

 

This idea also does not take into account the operational logistics, which would have to be altered to accommodate the shift. By mixing up the lines as such, you force them to each become 24/7 services. While it would be nice to have the additional service, what would likely happen is that the MTA would implement a series of shuttles for late night operations. One of the most important aspects of the 2004 shift was that it removed the need for the much-hated West End shuttle. Shifting that over to the Brighton line as that would be the home of the is unacceptable.

 

Another thing you failed to take into consideration is the amount of switches that would need to be crossed over to get the lines as you wish. I don't know how often you've taken a train across the Manhattan Bridge, but upon hitting DeKalb Junction, the trains slow to a crawl under the best of circumstances. Forcing the to cross over to the 4th Avenue local tracks and the to the Brighton line from Whitehall would not improve that situation at all. In fact, I believe it would become much worse.

 

Finally, this doesn't solve the problem at hand, which really doesn't surprise me in the slightest. If the idea is to increase the output from 96 Street, wouldn't it be much easier to either add some short-turn trains or something of that nature? Of course, it wouldn't be a Wallyhorse plan if it didn't involve needlessly rearranging half of the subway, now would it?

He doesn't. And yes, his plan will create more delays and require trains to run less frequently, not more. And yes, people do like the current Southern Division setup that's been in place since 2004. A good thing, given that they had to put up with 18 years of service diversions, because the City failed to properly maintain the Manhattan Bridge for decades prior to 1986.

 

However, the current setup doesn't make it very easy to run the at 19 tph in order to accommodate the crowds on 2nd Ave. This is because there isn't a suitable place to short-turn trains in Manhattan or on the Brighton Line without fouling up the other services the must interact with, especially during rush hours. There is one silver lining in Wally's plan and that is the suggestion to run the over the West End Line. Because then, you could short-turn some trains at 9th Ave or Bay Pkwy and accommodate the crowds using SAS now as well as those who will when Phase 2 is up and running. The problem with rerouting the to West End is that the would have to go somewhere else. West End ridership doesn't warrant two full time services. So either the has to go somewhere else in south Brooklyn, such as the Brighton Local. Or another service has to be implemented to provide the extra SAS service that the current via Brighton Local cannot. Swapping the and , allows the to stay just the way it is now and will cut down on switching delays between DeKalb and the Manhattan Bridge, which would allow trains to run more frequently than they do now and would make it possible to operate short-turn trains.

 

Of course I'm fully aware that putting the back on the Brighton Line will create two major issues. One would be that Brighton would only have direct service to the 6th Ave Line only. The other issue, which would result from the first, would require significantly more riders to transfer for Broadway or 6th Ave at Atlantic or DeKalb, potentially overwhelming those two stations. The MTA would need to be able to expand the Atlantic-Barclays complex to be able to handle the larger crowds. If that's not possible (lack of underground space/egress?), then either it'll have to be extra service or a separate supplemental service to accommodate the increased SAS crowds.

Edited February 1, 2017 by T to Dyre Avenue

[Around the Horn]

Agreed on the , since current plans have the stuck within Manhattan. I firmly believe that after SAS Phase 3, the QBL Bypass should be built before Phase 4. The could probably resolve most of the present overcrowding on the by offering a third express option, this one into Midtown East.

 

If I could, I'd build Phase 3 and the QBL Bypass simultaneously.