Department of Subways - Proposals/Ideas

[Around the Horn]

I like the portion of the plan however, the portion is hot garbage.

[BreeddekalbL]

yep the NQRW idea is smart, THE EGFM idea is garbage especially moving the onto the express track  can those queens express tracks handle a 3rd service? and if im not mistaken i played with reverse switching the and services didn't y'all tell me that Lexington 53rd street the old way was a death trap?

[RR503]

Yeah. Also will have to cross the local track to get to the 11th st cut. 

[T to Dyre Avenue]

Along with the having to cross to/from the local tracks at Queens Plaza for the 53rd St Tunnel (I saw on Subchat he revised his proposal to keep the at Court Square downthread).

 

That said, I just can't see it as a workable plan. Too many switching conflicts. If anything, it would be (somewhat) easier to make the express in Manhattan, not Queens. Run the and as the Broadway locals and the and as the express trains. Basically, swap the and between 57th St and DeKalb Ave. But even that service plan wouldn't be without its own issues. Switching conflicts with the and going via the 63rd St Tunnel and having the , and stopping at DeKalb on the same tracks would be two such issues. I'd prefer to keep the local in Brooklyn and the express, opposite of how it would be in Manhattan, by having the switch from the Bridge tracks to the 4th Ave local tracks somewhere between DeKalb and Atlantic-Barclays and the switching from the Tunnel tracks to the 4th Ave express tracks within the same area (obviously not at the same, exact location), but that could present switching conflicts too. Is it even possible to operate the express to/from the Tunnel in Brooklyn and the local to/from the Bridge? Or do you have to run both the and local in Brooklyn? Or have the remain local and the remain express?

 

Maybe in this case, it's just best to leave well enough alone...

Edited July 17, 2017 by T to Dyre Avenue

[BreeddekalbL]

well the  would be goin through the 60th with the why would there be switching conflicts with the(F)? and i do agree with the keep the express via 2nd ave subway but wouldn't taking the off astoria cause the people of astoria to moan and call Costa(their councilman) to stop it?

[RR503]

Eh probably not. There are no skipped stops for riders until after Midtown, and those going to FiDi would have to get a local anyway so...

[BreeddekalbL]

Eh probably not. There are no skipped stops for riders until after Midtown, and those going to FiDi would have to get a local anyway so...

 

Fidi?

[HenryB]

Fidi?

 

 

FInancial DIstrict ?

[T to Dyre Avenue]

well the  would be goin through the 60th with the why would there be switching conflicts with the(F)? and i do agree with the keep the express via 2nd ave subway but wouldn't taking the off astoria cause the people of astoria to moan and call Costa(their councilman) to stop it?

  

If the stays in the 60th, but gets moved to the express tracks in Queens, then there certainly would be switching conflicts. Only they would be with the and lines at Queens Plaza. If the stays local in Queens, but gets rerouted to the 63rd, then there would be a conflict with the at 36th St. The point is that the current local via 60th St Tunnel causes the least amount of switching conflicts, so why change it?

FInancial DIstrict ?

It will always be "Financial District," "Wall Street area" or (for less specific purposes) "Lower Manhattan" to me. Never "FiDi". And no "SoHa" or "SoBro" either. I will always call them Harlem and the South Bronx, just as they should be.

[HenryB]

Even have issue. How could broadway local and 60th Street handle 30TPH.....?
 

[BreeddekalbL]

If the stays in the 60th, but gets moved to the express tracks in Queens, then there certainly would be switching conflicts. Only they would be with the and lines at Queens Plaza. If the stays local in Queens, but gets rerouted to the 63rd, then there would be a conflict with the at 36th St. The point is that the current local via 60th St Tunnel causes the least amount of switching conflicts, so why change it?

It will always be "Financial District," "Wall Street area" or (for less specific purposes) "Lower Manhattan" to me. Never "FiDi". And no "SoHa" or "SoBro" either. I will always call them Harlem and the South Bronx, just as they should be.

 

Yes leave the as is at 60th street  to minimize switching conflicts and as the QB local

 

and i agree stop following these stupid renaming concepts  it will always be South Bronx Little Italy Financial District.

 

this subchat  guy has an even worse plan

http://www.subchat.com/read.asp?Id=1443346

 

True.

 

Also, I've decided to revise me plan as follows:

 

- stays off QB, still goes only to Court Sq

 

- stays on 63rd Street, but remains 10 TPH

 

- stays on 53st Street, 10 TPH

 

-A new QB Local, the (Y), runs from 71st-Continental, along 63st and down the Broadway express/Man Bridge, then becomes the new 4th Ave local to Bay Ridge. is cut back to 9th Ave in Brooklyn. The (Y) will have 10 TPH.

 

 

 

 

So basically, it'll all go like this:

 

QB Local: (M/Y) 20 TPH

QB Express: (E/F/R) 30 TPH

Astoria: 20 TPH

SAS: (N/Q) 20 TPH

 

This is how the tunnels stack up:

 

53rd st: (E/M) 20 TPH

63 st: (F/Y) 20 TPH

60 st: (R/W) 30 TPH

 

This gives 70 TPH between Queens and Manhattan. E/F/R all still run express, with the intention of the R express to take pressure off the E.

 

 

Even have issue. How could broadway local and 60th Street handle 30TPH.....?

 

 

How ?

The and stay express and go via 2nd ave subway while and go via 60th street tunnel and would get expanded service

[T to Dyre Avenue]

Even have issue. How could broadway local and 60th Street handle 30TPH.....?

 

  

How ?

The and stay express and go via 2nd ave subway while and go via 60th street tunnel and would get expanded service

Bear in mind that except the , each of the Broadway lines inter-lines with at least one 6th Ave subway line, so if you run 15 tph on any of the Broadway services, you need to take into account how much service can be operated on the 6th Ave services. And in the case of the short-turn , how many trains can be turned back at Whitehall St or City Hall Lower Level.

[Around the Horn]

Oh, dear god...

-A new QB Local, the (Y), runs from 71st-Continental, along 63st and down the Broadway express/Man Bridge, then becomes the new 4th Ave local to Bay Ridge. is cut back to 9th Ave in Brooklyn. The (Y) will have 10 TPH.

So basically, it'll all go like this:

QB Local: (M/Y) 20 TPH
QB Express: (E/F/R) 30 TPH
Astoria: 20 TPH
SAS: (N/Q) 20 TPH

This is how the tunnels stack up:

53rd st: (E/M) 20 TPH
63 st: (F/Y) 20 TPH
60 st: (R/W) 30 TPH

This gives 70 TPH between Queens and Manhattan. E/F/R all still run express, with the intention of the R express to take pressure off the E.

 

Why do people keep forgetting that the switch from local to express at Atlantic is 5MPH with wheel detectors? That would absolutely kill OTP...

[RR503]

Fidi?

 Apologies -- was late and I was abbreviating.

 

I also vote for leaving QB alone, sending to 96th, and expanding service. Any that can't turn at whitehall should go to some SBK terminal -- 4th ave local is begging for more service, and there's been space for more ever since the brown was nixed. 

[BreeddekalbL]

i would like to ask since supposedly there was plans to convert the irt 7th ave line 59th street station with express service how would it be done? IINM there are no provisions 

Edited July 24, 2017 by BreeddekalbL

[Lance]

Of course there were no provisions. The IRT line predates the 8th Avenue IND by about three decades. To answer your question, it would've involved flanking out the downtown tracks to accommodate a center platform for the express trains. As the downtown local track would demolish the original platform, a new one would've also been built under this proposal. In the end, it would've likely resembled the two 34 Street stations on the 7th and 8th Avenue lines. To coincide with this idea, 72 Street would've been converted into a local station, which meant there would not have been a cross-platform transfer point between Times Square and 96 Street.

[MassTransitHonchkrow]

You guys think it'd make sense to route the back into Queens Boulevard once the train shutdown begins (given it should be graced with a full set of cars)?

I think it should be local from Forest Hills to Hoyt but express afterwards up till Kings Hwy.

trains already provide part time service to Kings Hwy during rush hours.

The that normally terminate at Kings Hwy should jump express afterwards (assuming local trains are still available).

I think the should replace the part-time train at 179th and run express to Queens Plaza

Customers seeking a connection to 53rd Street can Xfer there.

This assumes that ordinary service isn't changed.

 

Eric Shields | #MassTransitHonchkrow [emoji611]

Transit Eccentric and Level 5 Google Local Guide for Southern NY. [emoji625][emoji901][emoji562]

Please upvote anything that resonates with you! [emoji667][emoji637]

[Lance]

Why? Using the pretense of the 14th Street tunnel closure to justify extending the back to Queens Blvd just doesn't make any sense. Riders using the as a bridge during the tunnel closure will only take it to Broadway for the and , Court Sq for the and or Hoyt-Schermerhorn for the and . Nowhere in there do I see a benefit for displaced Canarsie riders if the runs to Forest Hills. Also, adding the back to Queens Blvd means something has to be cut on the other local lines. I see your plan is for the to run as the pre-1988 train as an express to 179 Street. Again, what's the end goal here? If this is solely to fit the extended here, it's a non-starter. Riders overwhelmingly want service to Manhattan, which is why the services there are practically the same as they've been since 2001.

[Around the Horn]

You also physically cannot run the express from Hoyt to Church or Kings Highway. The tracks from Crosstown only connect to the upper level at Bergen.

[Wallyhorse]

Why? Using the pretense of the 14th Street tunnel closure to justify extending the back to Queens Blvd just doesn't make any sense. Riders using the as a bridge during the tunnel closure will only take it to Broadway for the and , Court Sq for the and or Hoyt-Schermerhorn for the and . Nowhere in there do I see a benefit for displaced Canarsie riders if the runs to Forest Hills. Also, adding the back to Queens Blvd means something has to be cut on the other local lines. I see your plan is for the to run as the pre-1988 train as an express to 179 Street. Again, what's the end goal here? If this is solely to fit the extended here, it's a non-starter. Riders overwhelmingly want service to Manhattan, which is why the services there are practically the same as they've been since 2001.

Once the is shut down, having the run on QP also allows for transfers to the at Queens Plaza as well as OOS to the and .  

[RR503]

 

Once the   is shut down, having the   run on QP also allows for transfers to the   at Queens Plaza as well as OOS to the   and  . 

....And also messes up and service with terminating trains. 

Edited July 24, 2017 by RR503

[Lance]

Once the is shut down, having the run on QP also allows for transfers to the at Queens Plaza as well as OOS to the and .  

How many people are willing to take that circuitous route though? The end goal of these riders is to get to Manhattan, not to take a tour of the IND. Court Sq provides ample opportunities to transfer for Manhattan-bound services with the and .

[Wallyhorse]

How many people are willing to take that circuitous route though? The end goal of these riders is to get to Manhattan, not to take a tour of the IND. Court Sq provides ample opportunities to transfer for Manhattan-bound services with the and .

Which to me is going to be a disaster and why I would have OOS transfers from the at Fulton to all of the lines at Atlantic-Barclays and encourage riders (especially those looking for lower Manhattan to do that or use the at Hoyt-Schermerhorn.  

 

....And also messes up and service with terminating trains. 

In my version, as noted before the and all go to 179 as locals (with if there is congestion the option to move any train on the local to the express after Parsons Boulevard) while the is express all the way.  That solves that issue of the conga line.  

[BreeddekalbL]

.i know i've suggested to some hipster to take the while the was shut down and he threw hissy fit cause he wanted the MTA to do the longer closure to make it convenient for the community. i went in on him  and he got mad when i suggested a whole boat load of alternatives to him.

[RR503]

In my version, as noted before the and all go to 179 as locals (with if there is congestion the option to move any train on the local to the express after Parsons Boulevard) while the is express all the way.  That solves that issue of the conga line.  

    I don't understand. You are reducing the two useful services -- and -- to make way for something that serves literally no purpose. NO ONE will use transfers at Queens Plaza. It gets you Broadway, sure, but you already have the , and covering midtown, and let's face it, few riders will plan their commutes around the given its unreliability, and even fewer will opt for a walk outdoors. Get over it. And even worse, you're screwing Eastern Queens riders while doing it by moving their s to the express track, forcing them to transfer, creating roosevelt v2. You can't plan subway service because it's cool or it's novel, or you miss a service pattern. The time for on Queens Boulevard has passed. Pragmatism must rule, not romanticism.