Department of Subways - Proposals/Ideas

[engineerboy6561]

That would be great; the only question is how to handle connections to the QBL. The IND Second System had a plan for a super-express bypass on the QBL that would parallel the LIRR tracks in Queens. If that were to get built then we could basically revive Whitepot Junction and rebuild the old two outer tracks on the mainline as far as Woodside, then connecting to the QBL down there. Otherwise, the less ambitious (but probably easier to implement) proposal would be to drop the line into a tunnel just past Metropolitan Av, then run under Yellowstone Blvd to 71st-Continenental.

[pringle5095]

I thought the ran from Broadway Junction to 57th-6th?

It did, once upon a time. However, the we are speaking of was the mid-late 1980s version which ran from 168 St-Chambers St

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[T to Dyre Avenue]

It was originally the Q to 207th, which actually ran in '89 due to a flood and asbestos contamination on 8th Ave. Then they proposed it for a permanent service in '91, but people opposed it because only the is supposed to run up there, so they came up with the orange A, but that was opposed too.

I'll bet if they had shown the service with an orange A in the first place and touted a direct ride from Inwood and Washington Heights to Rockefeller Center and Herald Square, they probably would have gotten away with it. With the Manhattan Bridge south side tracks out of service at the time, it wouldn't have been impossible to run. But they didn't and (thankfully) with all four tracks in service now, we'll probably never know if the orange A would have been a success or not.

[bobtehpanda]

That would be great; the only question is how to handle connections to the QBL. The IND Second System had a plan for a super-express bypass on the QBL that would parallel the LIRR tracks in Queens. If that were to get built then we could basically revive Whitepot Junction and rebuild the old two outer tracks on the mainline as far as Woodside, then connecting to the QBL down there. Otherwise, the less ambitious (but probably easier to implement) proposal would be to drop the line into a tunnel just past Metropolitan Av, then run under Yellowstone Blvd to 71st-Continenental.

 

From what I understand the QBL has provision for conversion of Woodhaven to express and turnouts at 63 Dr-Rego Park, which would be perfect for RBB.

 

'under Yellowstone Blvd to 71st Continental' perfectly describes the Program for Action Plan for the eastern end of the QB bypass.

[engineerboy6561]

From what I understand the QBL has provision for conversion of Woodhaven to express and turnouts at 63 Dr-Rego Park, which would be perfect for RBB.

 

'under Yellowstone Blvd to 71st Continental' perfectly describes the Program for Action Plan for the eastern end of the QB bypass.

Converting Woodhaven to express would be awesome; the issue would be turning shuttle trains at Woodhaven; you'd wind up building a lower level. Alternately, we could divert the down that way from QBL, but then points east of Woodhaven would have to rely on the for local service.

Edited June 15, 2017 by engineerboy6561

[Wallyhorse]

Converting Woodhaven to express would be awesome; the issue would be turning shuttle trains at Woodhaven; you'd wind up building a lower level. Alternately, we could divert the down that way from QBL, but then points east of Woodhaven would have to rely on the for local service.

Or perhaps do that by making the 24/7 between Whitehall and Rockaway Park (late nights between 34th Street and Rockaway Park) as part of a re-work that perhaps could include the and swapping southern terminals (since the has Concourse Yard).

[Around the Horn]

Or perhaps do that by making the 24/7 between Whitehall and Rockaway Park (late nights between 34th Street and Rockaway Park) as part of a re-work that perhaps could include the and swapping southern terminals (since the has Concourse Yard).

 

We told you why that won't work already.

[engineerboy6561]

Or perhaps do that by making the 24/7 between Whitehall and Rockaway Park (late nights between 34th Street and Rockaway Park) as part of a re-work that perhaps could include the and swapping southern terminals (since the has Concourse Yard).

The core problems with that are twofold, the way I see it. First of all, Concourse Yard can barely hold all the trains you need for the ; your spare factor is a little under three trains, which is lower than I would like. Second of all, there's not really a good spot for the to cross over to the local tracks other than the 36th and 59 St crossovers, leaving the upper 4 Av local stations with no service unless you bring back the   to 9 Av full time. Also, the core problem remains that you can't really run more than 24-25tph on the QBL local line, and the stops in between Woodhaven and 71 Av need better local service than they'll get with just the .

[BreeddekalbL]

That would be great; the only question is how to handle connections to the QBL. The IND Second System had a plan for a super-express bypass on the QBL that would parallel the LIRR tracks in Queens. If that were to get built then we could basically revive Whitepot Junction and rebuild the old two outer tracks on the mainline as far as Woodside, then connecting to the QBL down there. Otherwise, the less ambitious (but probably easier to implement) proposal would be to drop the line into a tunnel just past Metropolitan Av, then run under Yellowstone Blvd to 71st-Continenental.

 

 

From what I understand the QBL has provision for conversion of Woodhaven to express and turnouts at 63 Dr-Rego Park, which would be perfect for RBB.

 

'under Yellowstone Blvd to 71st Continental' perfectly describes the Program for Action Plan for the eastern end of the QB bypass.

 

 

Converting Woodhaven to express would be awesome; the issue would be turning shuttle trains at Woodhaven; you'd wind up building a lower level. Alternately, we could divert the down that way from QBL, but then points east of Woodhaven would have to rely on the for local service.

 

would the conversion of Woodhaven to express have a provision to say if they wanted to do service CTA style in the middle of the LIE/HHE (the liam kid from rethinknyc was surprised when i told him it was from the program of action and he got a planning degree from Rutgers?! didn't the planning curriculum teach the program for action?) 

[Around the Horn]

would the conversion of Woodhaven to express have a provision to say if they wanted to do service CTA style in the middle of the LIE/HHE (the liam kid from rethinknyc was surprised when i told him it was from the program of action and he got a planning degree from Rutgers?! didn't the planning curriculum teach the program for action?) 

 

I don't see why a planning curriculum would specifically teach the Program for Action...

[BreeddekalbL]

I don't see why a planning curriculum would specifically teach the Program for Action...

 

i would think they would at least go over it in depth if the kid went for city planning degree

[T to Dyre Avenue]

Or perhaps do that by making the 24/7 between Whitehall and Rockaway Park (late nights between 34th Street and Rockaway Park) as part of a re-work that perhaps could include the and swapping southern terminals (since the has Concourse Yard).

  

Or perhaps don't do that...

The core problems with that are twofold, the way I see it. First of all, Concourse Yard can barely hold all the trains you need for the ; your spare factor is a little under three trains, which is lower than I would like. Second of all, there's not really a good spot for the to cross over to the local tracks other than the 36th and 59 St crossovers, leaving the upper 4 Av local stations with no service unless you bring back the   to 9 Av full time. Also, the core problem remains that you can't really run more than 24-25tph on the QBL local line, and the stops in between Woodhaven and 71 Av need better local service than they'll get with just the .

The could stop at DeKalb, then run down the 4th Ave local tracks like it does now during overnight hours, so it is possible to run the local to 95th St. But that's not the point I'm making here. We don't need to mess with the 4th Ave line services in Brooklyn to accommodate Rockaway Beach riders in Queens. Extending either the or train onto the abandoned Rockaway branch would have to impact local service at only two stations - 67th and 71st. Honestly I don't think it would be that big of an impact if 67th Ave had just the or stopping there if the other train is rerouted onto Rockaway. Its ridership is quite a bit lower than 63rd Drive, Woodhaven Blvd and Grand Ave, all of which would still have both the and . In fact, Woodhaven should also have the and , because it should be converted into an express station, as it had been designed to do.

[bobtehpanda]

Converting Woodhaven to express would be awesome; the issue would be turning shuttle trains at Woodhaven; you'd wind up building a lower level. Alternately, we could divert the down that way from QBL, but then points east of Woodhaven would have to rely on the for local service.

 

To be fair, east of 63 Dr - Rego Park is a total of two stops, one of which is an express stop, so the could definitely handle 67 Av and Forest Hills on its own. People at Forest Hills who want 6 Av should be taking the anyways.

 

i would think they would at least go over it in depth if the kid went for city planning degree

 

College teaches practical learning, not history. (Unless you're going for a history degree.)

[BreeddekalbL]

College teaches practical learning, not history. (Unless you're going for a history degree.)

i know but it was part of "city planning" just like robert moses 

[Wallyhorse]

The core problems with that are twofold, the way I see it. First of all, Concourse Yard can barely hold all the trains you need for the ; your spare factor is a little under three trains, which is lower than I would like. Second of all, there's not really a good spot for the to cross over to the local tracks other than the 36th and 59 St crossovers, leaving the upper 4 Av local stations with no service unless you bring back the   to 9 Av full time. Also, the core problem remains that you can't really run more than 24-25tph on the QBL local line, and the stops in between Woodhaven and 71 Av need better local service than they'll get with just the .

The real problem is when they built, it never occurred to them to have a proper yard between 95th and Astoria, the route of the old   and/or make connections from Bay Ridge to the express tracks and Sea Beach to the local tracks.  

[Porter]

There has to be some excuse we could find to run a brown train through the Montague tunnel again... There just has to be... Why let that Nassau Line connection go to waste?

[Lance]

There has to be some excuse we could find to run a brown train through the Montague tunnel again... There just has to be... Why let that Nassau Line connection go to waste?

How about, instead of looking for excuses to run a Nassau - 4th Avenue service, one should look into practical reasons for running such a service. We know that 4th Avenue service is inadequate, especially on the local tracks. However, there is a problem as to which service should run down there to help out the . The is an option, but adding to its already fairly long route would create yet another long local that takes forever to go somewhere. With the option of shifting the back downtown a non-starter, it looks like the better option would be to create a new route. Of course, the question lies in the details. Where would this new line go? How would it impact existing services? And most importantly, will riders use it? I don't have the answers to those questions; just something to ponder on.

 

The real problem is when they built, it never occurred to them to have a proper yard between 95th and Astoria, the route of the old   and/or make connections from Bay Ridge to the express tracks and Sea Beach to the local tracks.  

When the lines were built, an additional yard was not deemed necessary. The BMT only needed one yard to service all of their trains for the Broadway subway and they obviously didn't care much about dead-heading. Also remember, the BMT was barely surviving throughout most of its existence as a private company. Hylan's actions stifled the company in the '20s during his tenure as mayor, the Great Depression killed most plans for expansion across the board and the five-cent fare reduced any revenue the BMT would've made.

 

  

...Extending either the or train onto the abandoned Rockaway branch would have to impact local service at only two stations - 67th and 71st. Honestly I don't think it would be that big of an impact if 67th Ave had just the or stopping there if the other train is rerouted onto Rockaway. Its ridership is quite a bit lower than 63rd Drive, Woodhaven Blvd and Grand Ave, all of which would still have both the and . In fact, Woodhaven should also have the and , because it should be converted into an express station, as it had been designed to do.

My problem with extending the or lines down to the Rockaways is that it takes an already long local and makes it even longer. Both lines suffer due to their lengths and any such extension will only exacerbate these issues. In my opinion, we're looking at this from the wrong approach. Rather than give some halfhearted direct service between Manhattan and the Rockaways, extending the Rockaway Park shuttle along the ROW should be looked into. That is, until some sort of bypass line could be built for the Rockaway Beach line to connect to. After all, we know that any rider coming from the RBB line would likely bail at the first opportunity for the or express. Why run services that people won't utilize to their fullest potential?

[Porter]

How about, instead of looking for excuses to run a Nassau - 4th Avenue service, one should look into practical reasons for running such a service. We know that 4th Avenue service is inadequate, especially on the local tracks. However, there is a problem as to which service should run down there to help out the . The is an option, but adding to its already fairly long route would create yet another long local that takes forever to go somewhere. With the option of shifting the back downtown a non-starter, it looks like the better option would be to create a new route. Of course, the question lies in the details. Where would this new line go? How would it impact existing services? And most importantly, will riders use it? I don't have the answers to those questions; just something to ponder on.

 

That's why I was a huge proponent of a brown service. I had wanted it to originate at a reconfigured/remodeled Chambers Street Station or perhaps the Essex Street Station; the former has the capacity and tracks to spare (and is in desperate need of a renovation). It could even be a peak-hour-only service or something. A Chambers terminus would essentially be recreating the brown diamond service.

Edited June 16, 2017 by Skipper

[Union Tpke]

How about, instead of looking for excuses to run a Nassau - 4th Avenue service, one should look into practical reasons for running such a service. We know that 4th Avenue service is inadequate, especially on the local tracks. However, there is a problem as to which service should run down there to help out the . The is an option, but adding to its already fairly long route would create yet another long local that takes forever to go somewhere. With the option of shifting the back downtown a non-starter, it looks like the better option would be to create a new route. Of course, the question lies in the details. Where would this new line go? How would it impact existing services? And most importantly, will riders use it? I don't have the answers to those questions; just something to ponder on.

 

When the lines were built, an additional yard was not deemed necessary. The BMT only needed one yard to service all of their trains for the Broadway subway and they obviously didn't care much about dead-heading. Also remember, the BMT was barely surviving throughout most of its existence as a private company. Hylan's actions stifled the company in the '20s during his tenure as mayor, the Great Depression killed most plans for expansion across the board and the five-cent fare reduced any revenue the BMT would've made.

 

My problem with extending the or lines down to the Rockaways is that it takes an already long local and makes it even longer. Both lines suffer due to their lengths and any such extension will only exacerbate these issues. In my opinion, we're looking at this from the wrong approach. Rather than give some halfhearted direct service between Manhattan and the Rockaways, extending the Rockaway Park shuttle along the ROW should be looked into. That is, until some sort of bypass line could be built for the Rockaway Beach line to connect to. After all, we know that any rider coming from the RBB line would likely bail at the first opportunity for the or express. Why run services that people won't utilize to their fullest potential?

 

The should be extended, not an extended shuttle. That would reduce the desire for people to use the line and would lengthen travel times. While it is not ideal, it is better than that option. Where would this shuttle terminate?

[Around the Horn]

That's why I was a huge proponent of a brown service. I had wanted it to originate at a reconfigured/remodeled Chambers Street Station or perhaps the Essex Street Station; the former has the capacity and tracks to spare (and is in desperate need of a renovation). It could even be a peak-hour-only service or something. A Chambers terminus would essentially be recreating the brown diamond service.

 

A Bay Ridge-Lower Manhattan route would be a colossal failure. Its at least a 65/35 split in ridership Midtown/Downtown from Bay Ridge and ironically it would probably get more ridership on weekends than weekdays.

[T to Dyre Avenue]

How about, instead of looking for excuses to run a Nassau - 4th Avenue service, one should look into practical reasons for running such a service. We know that 4th Avenue service is inadequate, especially on the local tracks. However, there is a problem as to which service should run down there to help out the . The is an option, but adding to its already fairly long route would create yet another long local that takes forever to go somewhere. With the option of shifting the back downtown a non-starter, it looks like the better option would be to create a new route. Of course, the question lies in the details. Where would this new line go? How would it impact existing services? And most importantly, will riders use it? I don't have the answers to those questions; just something to ponder on.

 

My problem with extending the or lines down to the Rockaways is that it takes an already long local and makes it even longer. Both lines suffer due to their lengths and any such extension will only exacerbate these issues. In my opinion, we're looking at this from the wrong approach. Rather than give some halfhearted direct service between Manhattan and the Rockaways, extending the Rockaway Park shuttle along the ROW should be looked into. That is, until some sort of bypass line could be built for the Rockaway Beach line to connect to. After all, we know that any rider coming from the RBB line would likely bail at the first opportunity for the or express. Why run services that people won't utilize to their fullest potential?

  

It's true that an extended or train would be making a long local line even longer. And both lines have multiple merges. But I feel as though having a line going to Midtown Manhattan from the Rockaways without going through Brooklyn and Lower Manhattan first, like the does, is preferable to extending the Rock Park shuttle up to Queens Blvd. With the shuttle option, everyone has to transfer. That's likely to be a harder sell, because that's what they have to do now with the existing local and limited bus services, as well as on the proposed SBS service. Wheras on an extended or , some people might stay on. The majority might bail at the first opportunity, which is why I suggest making Woodhaven Blvd into an express station. Not to mention it would also relieve the crowding at Roosevelt Ave.

A Bay Ridge-Lower Manhattan route would be a colossal failure. Its at least a 65/35 split in ridership Midtown/Downtown from Bay Ridge and ironically it would probably get more ridership on weekends than weekdays.

Over time, I've come to believe that a restored Nassau St-Montague Tunnel train would be of limited use to South Brooklyn riders. But now with the City having just implemented a ferry service between Bay Ridge and Pier 11 on Wall St, with multiple stops in between, I'm starting to reconsider that. There must be some demand for extra public transit between Bay Ridge and Wall St if the City is now running a ferry between them. With multiple stops and a runtime of about 45 minutes, I doubt the new ferry could be that much faster than a train extended onto the 4th Ave local would be. Perhaps the J's running to and from Bay Ridge can short-turn at Broadway Junction so that it doesn't become a very long local service. This new ferry could be a game changer if it's successful. And if so, then Transit should give serious consideration to running a Bay Ridge-Nassau St service.

 

Midtown would certainly be much more popular of a destination, but Bay Ridge riders already have the for direct subway service. If that's too slow, they have cross-platform transfers to the and further up 4th Ave, plus the and at DeKalb. Running another service to/from Bay Ridge and Midtown, but on the express tracks and the Manhattan Bridge would be difficult, if not impossible, without impacting the other 4th Avenue and Bridge trains.

[Around the Horn]

  Over time, I've come to believe that a restored Nassau St-Montague Tunnel train would be of limited use to South Brooklyn riders. But now with the City having just implemented a ferry service between Bay Ridge and Pier 11 on Wall St, with multiple stops in between, I'm starting to reconsider that. There must be some demand for extra public transit between Bay Ridge and Wall St if the City is now running a ferry between them. With multiple stops and a runtime of about 45 minutes, I doubt the new ferry could be that much faster than a train extended onto the 4th Ave local would be. Perhaps the J's running to and from Bay Ridge can short-turn at Broadway Junction so that it doesn't become a very long local service. This new ferry could be a game changer if it's successful. And if so, then Transit should give serious consideration to running a Bay Ridge-Nassau St service.

 

Midtown would certainly be much more popular of a destination, but Bay Ridge riders already have the for direct subway service. If that's too slow, they have cross-platform transfers to the and further up 4th Ave, plus the and at DeKalb. Running another service to/from Bay Ridge and Midtown, but on the express tracks and the Manhattan Bridge would be difficult, if not impossible, without impacting the other 4th Avenue and Bridge trains.

The ferry is only going to Wall Street because that's where all of the other NYC Ferry routes terminate, and going from Bay Ridge to Midtown by ferry would take forever (unless it was Bay Ridge to the West Side without the diversion to Red Hook and DUMBO)

 

Right now the ferry's ridership is going through the roof on weekends (going straight to Governor's Island helps) but weekday, and particularly rush hour, ridership is very low.

[RR503]

It's true that an extended or train would be making a long local line even longer. And both lines have multiple merges. But I feel as though having a line going to Midtown Manhattan from the Rockaways without going through Brooklyn and Lower Manhattan first, like the does, is preferable to extending the Rock Park shuttle up to Queens Blvd. With the shuttle option, everyone has to transfer. That's likely to be a harder sell, because that's what they have to do now with the existing local and limited bus services, as well as on the proposed SBS service. Wheras on an extended or , some people might stay on. The majority might bail at the first opportunity, which is why I suggest making Woodhaven Blvd into an express station. Not to mention it would also relieve the crowding at Roosevelt Ave.

Over time, I've come to believe that a restored Nassau St-Montague Tunnel train would be of limited use to South Brooklyn riders. But now with the City having just implemented a ferry service between Bay Ridge and Pier 11 on Wall St, with multiple stops in between, I'm starting to reconsider that. There must be some demand for extra public transit between Bay Ridge and Wall St if the City is now running a ferry between them. With multiple stops and a runtime of about 45 minutes, I doubt the new ferry could be that much faster than a train extended onto the 4th Ave local would be. Perhaps the J's running to and from Bay Ridge can short-turn at Broadway Junction so that it doesn't become a very long local service. This new ferry could be a game changer if it's successful. And if so, then Transit should give serious consideration to running a Bay Ridge-Nassau St service.

Midtown would certainly be much more popular of a destination, but Bay Ridge riders already have the for direct subway service. If that's too slow, they have cross-platform transfers to the and further up 4th Ave, plus the and at DeKalb. Running another service to/from Bay Ridge and Midtown, but on the express tracks and the Manhattan Bridge would be difficult, if not impossible, without impacting the other 4th Avenue and Bridge trains.

Short turning Js at Broadway Jct would leave stations east of there with less service, something they need badly seeing as with skip stop, they're already only getting 6tph. To add 4th av service, I'd just extend the south to 95th, 9th, Bay Parkway or 86th (whichever is most efficient, and given more cars of course). Edited June 17, 2017 by RR503

[BreeddekalbL]

since we are debating extra 4th ave service why not extend the (W)'s in the rush hour from whitehall to say 86th on the or via the west end

[Deucey]

Instead of building the to terminate at Hanover Square, why not merge it with the Jamaica Line on Broad Street and use Montague to service 4th Av?