Department of Subways - Proposals/Ideas

[RR503]

Agreed on not sending the to the Bronx. Me personally would have it go to Whitestone, while an extension of the on 10 Av/86 St/Northern Blvd would cover College Point. I would have the terminate at Main St while the goes to Whitestone, or both could continue to the aforementioned destination.

 

 

I would do one of them to Bayside. 

[Wallyhorse]

Agreed on not sending the to the Bronx. Me personally would have it go to Whitestone, while an extension of the on 10 Av/86 St/Northern Blvd would cover College Point. I would have the terminate at Main St while the goes to Whitestone, or both could continue to the aforementioned destination.

If any line from Queens goes to The Bronx, I would do it with the as I have previously noted, extending the Astoria line to a new stop at 20th Avenue and over new bridge(s) to Food Service Drive that would have transfers to the and at East 180 and the at Westchester/Elder Avenue before terminating at Jacobi Medical Center.

[Wallyhorse]

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 .

I have previously noted my idea of connecting the Brighton Line to the Myrtle Avenue Line that would include rebuilding the upper level of Myrtle Avenue for train service as well as a small stretch of the old Myrtle EL south of Broadway that would include a stop at Sumner Avenue the old Myrtle EL did, then with a transfer to the at most likely Bedford-Nostrand before going over a rebuilt (to two tracks) Franklin shuttle line (with 600' platforms) this new line would absorb and serving as a 24/7 Brighton Local (as most likely a "Black " train) to Coney Island while the becomes a 24/7 Brighton Express to Brighton Beach and the becomes a second Brighton local on weekdays to Coney Island.  Such to me would if nothing else serve the original principles of locals within the boroughs and Expresses to Manhattan (other than the on weekdays in this format). 

Edited September 10, 2017 by Wallyhorse

[quadcorder]

I have previously noted my idea of connecting the Brighton Line to the Myrtle Avenue Line that would include rebuilding the upper level of Myrtle Avenue for train service as well as a small stretch of the old Myrtle EL south of Broadway that would include a stop at Sumner Avenue the old Myrtle EL did, then with a transfer to the at most likely Bedford-Nostrand before going over a rebuilt (to two tracks) Franklin shuttle line (with 600' platforms) this new line would absorb and serving as a 24/7 Brighton Local (as most likely a "Black " train) to Coney Island while the becomes a 24/7 Brighton Express to Brighton Beach and the becomes a second Brighton local on weekdays to Coney Island.  Such to me would if nothing else serve the original principles of locals within the boroughs and Expresses to Manhattan (other than the on weekdays in this format). 

Please, no. This "original principle" was discovered NOT to be satisfactory, since a huge number of trips from local stations go to Manhattan. This is why there is no service to Court St (transit museum), why G trains were dropped in favor of M trains in Queens, and why the Franklin Avenue line was converted to a shuttle in the first place. There is very little demand between the Myrtle Avenue corridor and the Brighton line compared to the demand between either and Manhattan.

[Wallyhorse]

Please, no. This "original principle" was discovered NOT to be satisfactory, since a huge number of trips from local stations go to Manhattan. This is why there is no service to Court St (transit museum), why G trains were dropped in favor of M trains in Queens, and why the Franklin Avenue line was converted to a shuttle in the first place. There is very little demand between the Myrtle Avenue corridor and the Brighton line compared to the demand between either and Manhattan.

My plan would have this "Black " be a 24/7 line from Metropolitan to CI (absorbing the entire Franklin shuttle line), however, that would would be one of TWO locals on Brighton to Coney Island on weekdays, as the would become the second local on Brighton to CI (swapping roles with the on Brighton, with the becoming a full-time 24/7 line to Brighton Beach, extended weekends and holidays to CI).  This "Black " would become a second Brooklyn-Queens crosstown and I suspect would see a lot of use since it would also allow those on the current - only section to be able to also access the at Franklin Avenue and other lines as well as those on Brighton who have to switch to the shuttle at Prospect Park no longer having to do that.

[Lance]

It doesn't matter how many trains you run on any given line. If the trains don't go to where riders want to go, all you've created is a high-frequency shuttle that will only ferry riders to other lines. Frequent service on one line matters very little if that time savings is lost by forcing riders to transfer in order to get to their destinations.

[CenSin]

I suspect

Your suspicion is suspect.

[CenSin]

If Kew Gardens–Union Turnpike has yard tracks underneath the station, wouldn’t it be less disruptive to connect the Queens bypass there?

 

Let’s consider that doing a Forest Hills–71 Avenue connection (east of the station) would be very disruptive since it requires taking tracks out of service to make the connection; it would also be less flexible by connecting only to the local tracks.

[P3F]

If Kew Gardens–Union Turnpike has yard tracks underneath the station, wouldn’t it be less disruptive to connect the Queens bypass there?

 

Let’s consider that doing a Forest Hills–71 Avenue connection (east of the station) would be very disruptive since it requires taking tracks out of service to make the connection; it would also be less flexible by connecting only to the local tracks.

That means the bypass would need to have its own tunnel between about 70th Avenue (just west of the LIRR station at Forest Hills) and Union Turnpike. It is not possible to run bypass tracks through the Forest Hills LIRR station without removing half of the LIRR's capacity at that location.

[CenSin]

That means the bypass would need to have its own tunnel between about 70th Avenue (just west of the LIRR station at Forest Hills) and Union Turnpike. It is not possible to run bypass tracks through the Forest Hills LIRR station without removing half of the LIRR's capacity at that location.

They could run underneath the Queens Boulevard Line until Kew Gardens–Union Turnpike. I’m not sure how easy it would be for a tunnel to be built underneath Queens Boulevard alongside the yard leads from Forest Hills–71 Avenue

[LGA Link N Train]

Who remembers the Midtown Manhattan crosstown line from the 1968 Program for action. That should be connected to the Montauk branch with mini connections to RBB and a Bushwick line, and (MAYBE) the AirTrain

 

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

[LGA Link N Train]

It should be a light-rail on the Lower Montauk, from LIC to Jamaica. As for Airtrain, I dunno if it should be extended or not. I mean, we had Emperor Andrew with his LGA AirTrain from Willets Point...and we've seen how stupid that proposal was.

You're right, but should it have a connection with the current system???

 

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

[LGA Link N Train]

I say no because it will should be a light-rail, which is separate from the rest of the system.

[emoji19] [emoji19] [emoji19] [emoji19] that closes a door on certain opportunities

 

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

[CenSin]

A link that is exclusive to airport patrons and serves nobody else? What community would agree to that?

[LGA Link N Train]

A link that is exclusive to airport patrons and serves nobody else? What community would agree to that?

Never said that it was exclusive to Airport Customers

 

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

[LGA Link N Train]

So what? It's not heavy rail like the rest of the subway lines.

But still, have a connection in case of emergencies

 

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

[RR503]

It should be a light-rail on the Lower Montauk, from LIC to Jamaica. As for Airtrain, I dunno if it should be extended or not. I mean, we had Emperor Andrew with his LGA AirTrain from Willets Point...and we've seen how stupid that proposal was. 

 

It's actually illegal to put light rail per se on the LMB -- you'd interrupt freight service because light rail vehichles can't share track with freight. Because of common carrier obligations, and the paramount nature of interstate commerce, any action to add non-freight compatible service to the branch would be prohibited by the STB. You'd have to do any Lower Montauk trainsit service as a true heavy-rail endeavour, run by the LIRR or something, and with no physical connections to the subway system. 

Another idea I had in mind for ppl saying Nassau or 4 Av service should supplement the   along with horrible proposals on supplementing the  .

Preferred Option: The  via 4 Av/West End Lcl to Bay Pkwy  D. Would keep Midtown service as-is. 

Not Recommended

Second Option:  truncated to Whitehall with the  , with the  taking its place to 95 St. This would make the  reliable, but would take away Midtown access from Bay Ridge. The  would have to use the first option I mentioned. 

Third Option:  to Bay Pkwy,  to 95 St  . Would be just as empty as the old  and might clog up Dekalb Junction.

Fourth Option:  via Fourth Av Local. Would jam the  up with little-to no benefits.

Fifth Option:  to 9 Av and turning the  at Broad. Again, just as useless as the   and would screw up skip-stop by having one train faster than the other. 

Worst Option:  Nassau Loop or "Brown   Bankers Special." Would also be useless as the  and would bottleneck Chambers St.  is cut to Chambers, and loses access to Fulton, a major transfer spot?! And solely created just because the current    would become too LONG. 

 

Your first is exactly what I'd do (except I'd send it somewhere on the N so you pick up 45 and 53rd). 

 

The 2nd-6th.......

[P3F]

It's actually illegal to put light rail per se on the LMB -- you'd interrupt freight service because light rail vehichles can't share track with freight.

There are at least two ways to get around this.

 

1) Have a time sharing agreement between the Light Rail (or subway line) and Freight Railroad; this is done at the northern end of the Newark Light Rail's western branch.

 

2) Evict the freight railroad from the Lower Montauk Branch and rebuild the line to Light Rail or subway line standards.

Edited September 15, 2017 by P3F

[RR503]

There are at least two ways to get around this.

 

1) Have a time sharing agreement between the Light Rail (or subway line) and Freight Railroad; this is done at the northern end of the Newark Light Rail's western branch.

 

2) Evict the freight railroad from the Lower Montauk Branch and rebuild the line to Light Rail or subway line standards.

1 is impossible because of Fresh Pond Yard which switches cars for all of LI and therefore requires service all day.

 

2 is illegal. Disrupting commerce and forcing abandonment are 2 things that would not go over well with the STB. Any new owner of a rail line is required to serve customers on that line by law and the MTA obviously couldn't do that.

[P3F]

2 is illegal. Disrupting commerce and forcing abandonment are 2 things that would not go over well with the STB. Any new owner of a rail line is required to serve customers on that line by law and the MTA obviously couldn't do that.

The freight railroad could run on the main line during late nights, if regular LIRR service is infrequent enough.

 

Anyway, since you decided to mention it, please provide a link to the law that declares disallowing the New York and Atlantic Railway from using the Lower Montauk Branch is illegal.

Edited September 15, 2017 by P3F

[Union Tpke]

Hello? DMUs?

http://home2.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/lower-montauk-rail-study-may2017.pdf

[RR503]

The freight railroad could run on the main line during late nights, if regular LIRR service is infrequent enough.

 

Anyway, since you decided to mention it, please provide a link to the law that declares disallowing the New York and Atlantic Railway from using the Lower Montauk Branch is illegal.

 

They can't. As I said, they need to switch cars all day. And guess what. They have a legal right to do so. 

 

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/49/10907

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/49/10901

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/11/1170

https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/events/labor_law/2012/03/railway_airline_labor_law_committee_midwinter_meeting/mw2012rla_edelman.authcheckdam.pdf

 

Gamble.....failed. I work on the LMB for the MTA (as a consultant). 

 

Hello? DMUs?

http://home2.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/lower-montauk-rail-study-may2017.pdf

 

Perfectly legal as long as crash compliant. 

Edited September 16, 2017 by RR503

[LGA Link N Train]

Well as I mentioned before it should be a light-rail because IDK which subway line would go there.

Light rail stops are at:

Long Island City

Maspeth-Grand Av

Ridgewood-Fresh Pond

Glendale-Atlas Park Shops

Forest Park-Union Tpke

Richmond Hill-Myrtle Av

Jamaica Station (Terminus)

Potential Extension:

Hollis-193 St

Queens Village-218 St

Belmont Park

IMO this is the only use I can think of for the Lower Montauk.

Or build a new subway line in a similar fashion as the

 

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

[RR503]

Or build a new subway line in a similar fashion as the

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

I literally just said that was illegal. Subway cars CAN NOT share tracks with freight. Subway crashworthiness standards are dictated by the FTA and freight by the FRA, and given the laws above, converting the tracks to FTA standards is out of the question.

[R68OnBroadway]

I literally just said that was illegal. Subway cars CAN NOT share tracks with freight. Subway crashworthiness standards are dictated by the FTA and freight by the FRA, and given the laws above, converting the tracks to FTA standards is out of the question.

 You might be able to use modified subway cars (ex. SIR R44s) that are compliant with FRA standards, but the only chance we have of something like that happening soon is with the R211 contract, or with whatever contract replaces the 62/62As.