Department of Subways - Proposals/Ideas

[RR503]

Thank you thats the game plan I was trying yo propose. Theres no more express but at least the will be run Lexington Express to Utica Ave. The isnt merging with the trains in the bronx anymore just the . I propose the <2> peak express stopping at 241st, Nereid, 233rd, 225th, 219th and Gun Hill; then going express stopping at 180th, 3rd Av and Grand Concourse. For PM peak express its the reverse.

So extra...

 

I'll let you go back a page or 2 to see why this is wholly unnecessary

[2Line1291]

So extra...

 

I'll let you go back a page or 2 to see why this is wholly unnecessary

I will let you be entitled to your opinion and I'll be entitled to mines.

[LongLiveRock]

And here is another idea of reconfiguring the junction at 149 St-Grand Concourse.

The  runs through a new tunnel parallel to the existing one, which allows for a new full-sized 145 St station. 

The  would no longer serve 148 St-Lenox Term and instead be rerouted through the new tunnel, and a new connection to the Jerome Line, to 161 St-Yankee Stadium, with rush hour local service to Bedford Park Blvd*.  

The  runs peak exp between 149 St-Grand Concourse and Bedford Park Blvd*.  

The  would no longer stop at 149 St-GC and it will merge between the latter and 3 Av-149 St. A major downside is that it won't stop at 149 St-GC, one of the Bronx's high ridership stops.  

 

 

And, uh, what happens to 145th and Harlem-148th?

[quadcorder]

And, uh, what happens to 145th and Harlem-148th?

He said... 2 and 3 would run to a new, full-size 145th station which replaces 148th. (I'm unsure if this would go over well with those who live near the west end of 148th.)

[T to Dyre Avenue]

My answer to the Culver Exp problem:

 remains local until my proposed Bushwick-Queens line is built, which would necessitate the  replacing the  on Myrtle, freeing up 6 Av local capacity. 

 is extended to Dyker Heights-86 St via Fort Hamilton Pkwy and 10 Av, with an extension to 71 Av once the Rockaway Spur is built.

A new 6 Av  is added after the Bushwick-Queens line is built and runs from Rockaway Park to Church Av via QB/6 Av/Culver Local.

The  is revived, running from 168 St to Richmond Av in Staten Island, but it would run via 8 Av Exp, Worth St/Brooklyn Bridge, Culver Exp, my proposed Fort Hamilton Line with a spur splitting off at 68 St for a new tunnel to Staten Island, where it would run via Forest Av/Victory Blvd to Richmond.

 

There will be enough capacity on the 6th Ave Local tracks for the , and H services? Even with the having to switch between the express and the local tracks at some point along the 6th Ave Line?

[MetroTransitTee]

I honestly believe they should extend the 4 down Utica Avenue to Kings Plaza.

[quadcorder]

Seems like a fine idea, but I'll play the devil's advocate. How many more people do you want to cram under Park Ave between 14th and 42nd streets If you want to build Utica, I think it makes more sense to split off Fulton - though that has capacity issues that might be difficult to solve before a potential SAS phase 4 tunnel from Water St to Schermerhorn St.

 

Suppose this was built - I think it should be at least built to IND standards pending platform shaving (like the Pelham line) for potential future connection to Fulton Street, and with appropriate bellmouths. But building it to Eastern Parkway for now seems smart.

[P3F]

No. The  would remain exp on 6 Av, then replace the by running through Houston-South 4 St on the EXPRESS tracks and via a new subway under Flushing Av. The 6 Av  would replace the   as the 6 Av Local via 53 St. 

Something still needs to run via Brighton Express.

[P3F]

The would run with the through South 4 St, then would run to Bedford-Nostrand Avs on the . From there, a new connection would be built to connect with the Franklin Shuttle. The shuttle tracks would be CONNECTED to the Brighton Express tracks at Prospect Park, while the current Brighton tracks south of 7 Av would instead widen to connect to the current shuttle tracks. In other words, the would stop on the center tracks and stops on the outer tracks. The would run to Coney Island as the Brighton Exp, while Brighton Beach would have a new upper level to terminate

What a great way to make the Brighton Express half an hour slower, all while spending tons of money.

 

If you want to connect Franklin Av to Bedford-Nostrand, that's fine. Extend the .

 

But there just isn't a point in rerouting the Brighton Express over a line where its presence would only cause delays with the .

Edited September 7, 2017 by P3F

[CenSin]

I might be mistaken, but isn't the Brighton Express already slow due to trains having to slowly crawl through Dekalb? Also, it would only share tracks with the  from Broadway to Bedford-Nostrand. OR it could be rerouted in a new lower level tunnel that would only stop at Bedford-Nostrand and then replace the existing shuttle and so on.

Why not leave the Brighton express as-is? The current alignment takes people exactly where they need to be without detours.

[CenSin]

The  would no longer serve 148 St-Lenox Term and instead be rerouted through the new tunnel, and a new connection to the Jerome Line, to 161 St-Yankee Stadium, with rush hour local service to Bedford Park Blvd*.

The feasibility of engineering this is suspect. The corner of 147 Street and Malcolm X Boulevard is literally 200 feet from the water. There are a lot of things to move around and under an already-developed area.

[LGA Link N Train]

I honestly believe they should extend the 4 down Utica Avenue to Kings Plaza.

Upon further study, the is a better option to extend down Utica

 

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

[RR503]

Upon further study, the is a better option to extend down Utica

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

Correct -- the provisions go to the local tracks.

[P3F]

Well, the Brighton Express will no longer crawl through Dekalb Jct like it does today.  

Except it doesn't. The usually goes through the junction without stopping, and even if it does stop, it's usually for not more than 2-3 minutes.

 

This is going northbound, mind you. I don't take the southbound through DeKalb every day, but when I do it's generally good.

[Around the Horn]

Well, the Brighton Express will no longer crawl through Dekalb Jct like it does today.  

 

So your logic is that because it will no longer be stopping for a minute at DeKalb, its OK to make people's commutes a half an hour longer?

[RR503]

The  will replace the   to New Lots, where it could be extended to Spring Creek-Flatlands Av, with a stop at Linden Blvd. It would be very difficult to send the  down Utica because it has to underpin the local tracks. 

 

At the very least they should build a stop at Livonia in the yard. It's high time they did that. 

[CenSin]

A Flushing rezoning for more high-density residential buildings has been proposed pretty recently. Combined with the airport connection to Mets–Willets Point, how is the MTA supposed to add enough capacity to bring commuters from the Flushing end of the line to Manhattan? Only so much TPH can be added to a pair of tracks.

[T to Dyre Avenue]

Agreed 1000% (and no, that's not a typo)! The train is jammed enough as it is! And combined with the building taking place in Long Island City, the line is going to reach a breaking point. Apparently, it WOULD kill City Planning to communicate with the MTA when new development projects get proposed by subway lines.

[RR503]

Agreed 1000% (and no, that's not a typo)! The train is jammed enough as it is! And combined with the building taking place in Long Island City, the line is going to reach a breaking point. Apparently, it WOULD kill City Planning to communicate with the MTA when new development projects get proposed by subway lines.

LOL I agree. 

 

One thing that bothers me is the relative innefectiveness of CBTC in NYC vs elsewhere. Most systems get a solid bump of 8 or 10 tph when they install, and it usually allows ~40tph to be run. Why isn't this the case in NYC? Badly designed terminals? 

[bobtehpanda]

LOL I agree. 

 

One thing that bothers me is the relative innefectiveness of CBTC in NYC vs elsewhere. Most systems get a solid bump of 8 or 10 tph when they install, and it usually allows ~40tph to be run. Why isn't this the case in NYC? Badly designed terminals? 

 

Terminals, mostly.

 

It's also that CBTC at 40TPH requires either nearly robot-like efficiency on the part of humans, or actual robots driving the trains, neither of which is going to happen here.

[CenSin]

Agreed 1000% (and no, that's not a typo)! The train is jammed enough as it is! And combined with the building taking place in Long Island City, the line is going to reach a breaking point. Apparently, it WOULD kill City Planning to communicate with the MTA when new development projects get proposed by subway lines.

Suppose someone entertained the idea of increasing capacity west of 33 Street on the Flushing Line… I would assume such a project entails branching off to a rebuilt northern platform at Queensboro Plaza. Extra trains would terminate there to keep up the TPH between Queensboro Plaza and Flushing. The limitation is that the Flushing Line still has the same capacity as 1 pair of tracks. An expensive rebuild of a platform that was demolished adds very little to capacity.

 

Methinks a Queens trunk (not the Queens bypass along the LIRR) is warranted. It should be built before any rezoning in Flushing. Already, there are new high-density developments around the train station, and it’s only going to add to the crowding problem.

[bobtehpanda]

Suppose someone entertained the idea of increasing capacity west of 33 Street on the Flushing Line… I would assume such a project entails branching off to a rebuilt northern platform at Queensboro Plaza. Extra trains would terminate there to keep up the TPH between Queensboro Plaza and Flushing. The limitation is that the Flushing Line still has the same capacity as 1 pair of tracks. An expensive rebuild of a platform that was demolished adds very little to capacity.

 

Methinks a Queens trunk (not the Queens bypass along the LIRR) is warranted. It should be built before any rezoning in Flushing. Already, there are new high-density developments around the train station, and it’s only going to add to the crowding problem.

 

I'm a little bit confused. Boost capacity on the western side by... building a new platform to terminate services from the east?

 

IIRC the main constraint is the less than ideal terminal setup at Flushing-Main St. The easiest way to solve that would be to have the same setup as the , where two tracks continue east to, say, Broadway LIRR. Coincidentally that would also make rational bus network planning a bit easier. But basically none of this will ever happen.

[CenSin]

He's talking about terminating Main St-bound "(7)" trains at Queensboro, not 33rd, so it's terminating services from the west.

No. I’m actually talking about terminating westbound trains at Queensboro Plaza. The article I read a while back stated that the bottleneck was Queensboro Plaza.

 

 

IIRC the main constraint is the less than ideal terminal setup at Flushing-Main St. The easiest way to solve that would be to have the same setup as the , where two tracks continue east to, say, Broadway LIRR. Coincidentally that would also make rational bus network planning a bit easier. But basically none of this will ever happen.

I suspect that a much more rational setup would have to also include 2 branches at the Flushing end to divide up the mobs between 149 Avenue (College Point branch) and Roosevelt Avenue (Bayside branch). If not that, then darn good intermodal facility at 162 Street / Northern Boulevard. I don’t foresee the MTA having the ability to build one in Flushing or at Murray Hill.

[bobtehpanda]

No. I’m actually talking about terminating westbound trains at Queensboro Plaza. The article I read a while back stated that the bottleneck was Queensboro Plaza.

 

 

I suspect that a much more rational setup would have to also include 2 branches at the Flushing end to divide up the mobs between 149 Avenue (College Point branch) and Roosevelt Avenue (Bayside branch). If not that, then darn good intermodal facility at 162 Street / Northern Boulevard. I don’t foresee the MTA having the ability to build one in Flushing or at Murray Hill.

 

I feel like you could get away with one at Murray Hill if the stop were at 149 St. But nothing too fancy, just a similar setup to the Dan Ryan stations in Chicago.

 

 

I feel like there's enough room at Broadway LIRR for intermodal.

 

I agree on a northern branch, which would be necessary at some point, but tbh I have never really liked the idea of it dead ending at College Point. How would it get there, in a way that is faster than the current direct bus lines available? Would it be able to cross the East River into the Bronx?

Edited September 9, 2017 by bobtehpanda

[CenSin]

I agree on a northern branch, which would be necessary at some point, but tbh I have never really liked the idea of it dead ending at College Point. How would it get there, in a way that is faster than the current direct bus lines available? Would it be able to cross the East River into the Bronx?

To be really useful though, the College Point branch has to run through populated areas. The original proposal for the branch has it making a hook-like shape via 149 Street and 14 Avenue which would do the job; any frankly, any subway would be faster than a bus slogging through Main Street or Roosevelt Avenue.

 

I don’t know about crossing into the Bronx to serve Throggs Neck though; it’s not really under the Flushing Line’s purview.