Department of Subways - Proposals/Ideas

[Around the Horn]

That's going to be one hell of a turn from Main St to Jewel Av, if you're also planning a station at that intersection 

[engineerboy6561]

That's going to be one hell of a turn from Main St to Jewel Av, if you're also planning a station at that intersection 

That's a fair concern. What might make more sense is to just drop the Jewel Av stop, then run a shuttle as follows:

 

Melbourne Av (Y)

Jewel Av 

Union Turnpike

Briarwood/Van Wyck , on lower level

Jamaica/Van Wyck

Sutphin Blvd

Parsons/Archer

 

That would basically completely cover the Q44SBS in Queens, and avoid the hairpin curve at Jewel Av

Edited June 22, 2017 by engineerboy6561

[Porter]

It's possible. It would just become a matter of where to send this hypothetical service. 4th Avenue, the local tracks specifically, is the only South Brooklyn line that could use more service. Running this service anywhere else would likely just add more service where it is not needed. Of course, we're looking at this from a present perspective. Who knows how ridership patterns will be in the 22nd century?

 

Sounds good to me! SAS Phase 5 from Hanover Square to Bay Ridge it is.

 

It really isn't. The brand new tunnel makes sense because it allows you to fully utilize SAS's capacity, whereas using Montague caps southern SAS capacity at DeKalb's remaining capacity, which isn't a whole lot. Building a tunnel under a whole lot of nothing (the river) is also a lot cheaper than trying to weave additional capacity in and out of DeKalb; if that was feasible, then they would have done it during the countless modifications to DeKalb in the past.

 

Yeah, having a dedicated tunnel would be ideal in a perfect world where funds flow freely. Where would the line go once it reaches Brooklyn from this dedicated tunnel? It would probably be a lot more expensive than a new tunnel anyway.

[bobtehpanda]

Sounds good to me! SAS Phase 5 from Hanover Square to Bay Ridge it is.

 

 

Yeah, having a dedicated tunnel would be ideal in a perfect world where funds flow freely. Where would the line go once it reaches Brooklyn from this dedicated tunnel? It would probably be a lot more expensive than a new tunnel anyway.

 

Fulton St currently has four tracks flowing into two. The Fulton local is the most obvious candidate, since Fulton could handle the extra capacity and the Brooklyn IRT is the only subway section regarded as at capacity during the peak hour.

 

Ripping up downtown Brooklyn to try and squeeze capacity out of DeKalb is way more expensive than digging under a bunch of empty water.

[Wallyhorse]

Fulton St currently has four tracks flowing into two. The Fulton local is the most obvious candidate, since Fulton could handle the extra capacity and the Brooklyn IRT is the only subway section regarded as at capacity during the peak hour.

 

Ripping up downtown Brooklyn to try and squeeze capacity out of DeKalb is way more expensive than digging under a bunch of empty water.

Which is why I build a new Schermerhorn Street tunnel that would have trains from the SAS stop at what currently is the Transit Museum (Court Street) then come in on the currently-unused local track at Hoyt.  

[BreeddekalbL]

ok who's idea was it on twitter to share an idea 

to where the AND  share the 60th street tunnel and run via line the W is express

the gets switched to ditmars blvd 

the runs via the then runs via the to 63rd street and local 

 

EDIT: found the link

 https://twitter.com/c3pohara/status/877988580492103681

Edited June 23, 2017 by BreeddekalbL

[RR503]

Foreseen issues:

1. You'd have to totally redo queensboro plaza to achieve those routings efficiently, a not-insignificant task.

2. You'd have to convert all platforms/tracks on the 7 to B division specs, and then reconstruct platforms on the Astoria line to serve A division cars.

3. Unless you swapped the N and R south of Canal (which would lead to yard issues with the N, unless corona got a rebuild), you'd get R trains crossing exp-local at 42nd, obstructing Ns which would be crossing local-exp, causing massive delays.

4. By rerouting R trains away from Queens Plaza, you're eliminating vital transfers for QB riders, making their lives more complicated.

[T to Dyre Avenue]

ok who's idea was it on twitter to share an idea

to where the N AND W share the 60th street tunnel and run via 7 line the W is express

the 7 gets switched to ditmars blvd

the R runs via the Q then runs via the F to 63rd street and local

 

EDIT: found the link

https://twitter.com/c3pohara/status/877988580492103681

Well I do like that it would cut my current three-legged commute down to two legs. I'd take the Q16 to Main St-Flushing to the or and get off at Canal St or City Hall for work. Longer, wider R160 subway cars with 40 pairs of exit doors to handle the huge Flushing/Corona/Jackson Heights crowds instead of the current 33 offered by the smaller R188 and R62A cars (unless it's R68 cars, in which case we'd lose a pair of side doors per train and have only 32 per train). No more transferring at crazy, overcrowded Times Square. With the second transfer cut out, I'd probably have no reason (under normal circumstances) to get on the super-crowded or trains. What's not to like about that?

 

Foreseen issues:

1. You'd have to totally redo queensboro plaza to achieve those routings efficiently, a not-insignificant task.

2. You'd have to convert all platforms/tracks on the 7 to B division specs, and then reconstruct platforms on the Astoria line to serve A division cars.

3. Unless you swapped the N and R south of Canal (which would lead to yard issues with the N, unless corona got a rebuild), you'd get R trains crossing exp-local at 42nd, obstructing Ns which would be crossing local-exp, causing massive delays.

4. By rerouting R trains away from Queens Plaza, you're eliminating vital transfers for QB riders, making their lives more complicated.

Ah, yes, there's all that stuff, lol. But all joking aside, yes numbers 1 and 2 are significant reconstruction projects that would require lots of money and cause lots of headaches for North Queens commuters. Though it would not be the first time an IRT line got converted to B-Division specs. The Astoria line stations hosted narrow IRT and BMT el cars until 1949, when joint-IRT/BMT operations were ended.

 

For number 3, the map in the Twitter link does show the and as the locals and the and as the expresses. That would certainly simplify Broadway Line operations in Manhattan, because the crossing from local to express at 34th would be eliminated. On the other hand, we would then have the and having to merge at 36th St in Queens. And we'd also have to have the and merge then split up somewhere between DeKalb and Pacific, so the can still go local to Bay Ridge and the express to Coney Island. It's either that or swap the and completely in Brooklyn too. Since both lines would have a yard in Queens in this scenario, that really wouldn't be an issue. But then the Astoria wouldn't have a yard anywhere near the line. That would be a major issue. One that could easily make it a non-starter.

 

For number 4, the QBL would lose its direct connection to the and at Lexington, but from my own experience traveling through there (former line rider from 2012-15), it looked like there were always far more people who wanted Astoria over Forest Hills. That said, it was a major transfer point for , and riders (including myself), so the loss of the at Lex-59 wouldn't be a small one.

Edited June 24, 2017 by T to Dyre Avenue

[RR503]

For number 4, the QBL would lose its direct connection to the and at Lexington, but from my own experience traveling through there (former line rider from 2012-15), it looked like there were always far more people who wanted Astoria over Forest Hills. That said, it was a major transfer point for , and riders (including myself), so the loss of the at Lex-59 wouldn't be a small one.

I actually took part in a station survey a few weeks ago focusing on that station, and it seemed that the Astoria/QBL split was pretty even, with R trains also arriving more crowded than N/Ws (though that was probably a function of the R's longer headways).

[HenryB]

Someone suggested to send to Manhattan (http://www.nyctransitforums.com/forums/topic/50592-mayoral-hopeful-paul-massey-wants-to-f-with-the-g-train/).

I wonder... beyond the demand during the closure.... is it worth to build a connection to send the crosstown line to Manhattan (e.g. by 53st tunnel in this case)? 

 

 

[Caelestor]

Someone suggested to send to Manhattan (http://www.nyctransitforums.com/forums/topic/50592-mayoral-hopeful-paul-massey-wants-to-f-with-the-g-train/).

I wonder... beyond the demand during the closure.... is it worth to build a connection to send the crosstown line to Manhattan (e.g. by 53st tunnel in this case)? 

 

 

 

I'm against it because the 63 St capacity needs to be used for the Queens Bypass line.

[HenryB]

I'm against it because the 63 St capacity needs to be used for the Queens Bypass line.

 

 

that's 53st ( currently used by ), not 63st ( currently )

[RR503]

that's 53st ( currently used by ), not 63st ( currently )

...which has no capacity to spare because the E and M use it.

 

When we start coming up for solutions for the L closure that are a hindrance to other commuters, we need to check ourselves. Despite all the media hullabaloo, their lives are not more important than others.

[HenryB]

...which has no capacity to spare because the E and M use it.

 

When we start coming up for solutions for the L closure that are a hindrance to other commuters, we need to check ourselves. Despite all the media hullabaloo, their lives are not more important than others.

 

 

This is not only for the closure. In fact I doubt it could be done before is reopened, even decides to do it. It is a long term solution for Crosstown riders who travel to midtown.

[CenSin]

The IND designers did the right thing by making it very hard to send the to Manhattan. The should never be connected to Manhattan. Think of how often the has to use the Crosstown Line to avoid Manhattan messes during rush hour. That line is almost completely segregated and should stay that way.

[Lawrence St]

The basically saves the when all hell breaks loose in Manhattan.

[bobtehpanda]

What if, to relieve the Astoria Line, we send the up 21st St? Stops would be as follows;

 

Court Sq - 23 St (new platforms required)

21 St - Queensbridge

35 Av

30 Av/Astoria Blvd

[Caelestor]

What if, to relieve the Astoria Line, we send the up 21st St? Stops would be as follows;

 

Court Sq - 23 St (new platforms required)

21 St - Queensbridge

35 Av

30 Av/Astoria Blvd

 

Not a bad idea. Leaves room for an extension along 125 St in Manhattan via Randalls Island. Probably a better version of the proposed Triboro RX since LIC, Williamsburg, and Downtown Brooklyn are served.

[CenSin]

Not a bad idea. Leaves room for an extension along 125 St in Manhattan via Randalls Island. Probably a better version of the proposed Triboro RX since LIC, Williamsburg, and Downtown Brooklyn are served.

It’s not a better TriboroRX, it doesn’t even have great transfers in the lower part of Brooklyn. The only thing you can really transfer to are the , , , and . It misses the , , , , , , , and .

[Around the Horn]

It’s not a better TriboroRX, it doesn’t even have great transfers in the lower part of Brooklyn. The only thing you can really transfer to are the , , , and . It misses the , , , , , , , and .

 

You could fix that though by building a transfer passage from Fulton Street  /Lafayette Av  to Atlantic-Barclays under Fort Greene Place.

 

Triboro RX should still be built though. 

Edited June 25, 2017 by Around the Horn

[RailRunRob]

You could fix that though by building a transfer passage from Fulton Street /Lafayette Av to Atlantic-Barclays under Fort Greene Place.

 

Triboro RX should still be built though.

Indeed definitely needed I can't tell you how many times I get asked how to get to the from the Eastern Parkway Line and having to direct to the , or a walk and A second fare. RX is not even a question I know we spoke a few times on a 3rd FRA compliant system that can easily be activated and integrated into the existing system i.e. Overground. I won't beat a dead horse there. to Astoria isn't a bad idea either makes sense there's some capacity that can be used. Why not!

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using NYC Transit Forums mobile app

Edited June 25, 2017 by RailRunRob

[Brooklyn]

Indeed definitely needed I can't tell you how many times I get asked how to get to the from the Eastern Parkway Line and having to direct to the , or a walk and A second fare. RX is not even a question I know we spoke a few times on a 3rd FRA compliant system that can easily be activated and integrated into the existing system i.e. Overground. I won't beat a dead horse there. to Astoria isn't a bad idea either makes sense there's some capacity that can be used. Why not!

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using NYC Transit Forums mobile app

 

Probably does need to happen...the distance is a pain, but looking at street level maps, I think it can be mitigated if they build a passageway from the B and Q platform (St. Felix place) to the westernmost side of the G platform. So you'd have a Canal Street type arrangement, basically (hate that transfer by the way).

 

Another cost saving (but inferior) transfer could be at Hoyt/Schermerhorn to the 2/3 lines...that wouldn't be too much of a dig and it would help out the A/C lines too--something like that would have helped today, especially.

 

Regarding Queens, going to Astoria would be a decent idea--someone had suggested building a side platform at Queens Plaza, bringing in the G then having it joining the N train as an elevated.....not a bad idea.

 

21st st would be neat too---lots more development would happen in that part of Astoria.

 

But generally, I think the G can be a little more useful than it is if the connections were better and it got extended more in Queens.

[Around the Horn]

Probably does need to happen...the distance is a pain, but looking at street level maps, I think it can be mitigated if they build a passageway from the B and Q platform (St. Felix place) to the westernmost side of the G platform. So you'd have a Canal Street type arrangement, basically (hate that transfer by the way).

 

Another cost saving (but inferior) transfer could be at Hoyt/Schermerhorn to the 2/3 lines...that wouldn't be too much of a dig and it would help out the A/C lines too--something like that would have helped today, especially.

 

Regarding Queens, going to Astoria would be a decent idea--someone had suggested building a side platform at Queens Plaza, bringing in the G then having it joining the N train as an elevated.....not a bad idea.

 

21st st would be neat too---lots more development would happen in that part of Astoria.

 

But generally, I think the G can be a little more useful than it is if the connections were better and it got extended more in Queens.

 

Good luck with building that portal...

 

Me personally, I would extend the to Corona or Flushing via Northern Blvd with stops in Woodside, Jackson Heights and East Elmhurst.

[BreeddekalbL]

Good luck with building that portal...

 

Me personally, I would extend the to Corona or Flushing via Northern Blvd with stops in Woodside, Jackson Heights and East Elmhurst.

 

i can agree with a northern blvd subway, plus what is your take on building cta style in the middle of the LIE/HHE?

[CenSin]

Mind you, the is a crosstown. Whatever route it goes, it should fulfill the ideal of connecting as many stops in Queens and Brooklyn as possible whether they be on existing lines or line yet to be built. Connecting the to Astoria isn’t necessarily the only way to eliminate the 3-seat Astoria-Flushing-Crosstown () link. They could also connect Queens Plaza to Queensboro Plaza and restore service to Queens Boulevard. Of course, the Queens bypass would also have to be built to move some traffic off the Queens Boulevard trunk as well.

Edited July 1, 2017 by CenSin