Department of Subways - Proposals/Ideas

[bobtehpanda]

12 hours ago, LGA Link N train said:

I found a proposal that brings the BMT 4th Avenue line to Staten Island under 67 Street.  I thought of reviving it to serve the then continue under Victory Blvd. I guess it could cost up to $20 Billion  (I could be wrong though). Anyways, let me know your feedback 

 

1 hour ago, biGC323232 said:

I dont understand why the mta never built a subway to staten island...but yes good idea....gold mine

The problem is that unless you build a tunnel that is basically a straight shot from Battery to SI, with maybe one stop in the vicinity of Red Hook or Governor's Island, it's not time competitive with the ferry let alone the express bus, even if it was a 4th Av express. People are generally only willing to tolerate commutes up to an hour and some change.

[RR503]

8 hours ago, MysteriousBtrain said:

Stealing this from the random thoughts to prepare for a brain exercise:

This is by no means serious, but here's a way I would reconstruct the B division in today's standards:

- as well as same

slightly less service+no 179 St service (Yeah yeah Jamaica and other forms of ridership can't handle a loss but again this is an exercise)

would run via 53 St at all times. Late nights via 63 St and local.

runs between Forest Hills and Metropolitan Av via 63 St at all times. Late nights unchanged.

between 179 St and Coney Island via Broadway/63 St/QBL exp. Some rush trips via 2 Av still.

unchanged

late night service cut to Atlantic Ave via express north of 36 St.

Astoria to Bay Parkway via local. Short turns and all late night trips to Whitehall Street. (If possible, maybe merge late night and service)

 

My question is what does this gain you? 

-Youre removing Broadway service from Queens Plaza.

-You're making 63rd st service patterns confusing.

-You're doing exactly what I warned against doing to 53 in my above post. 

If I was restructuring the B div, I would start by sending  to 96 as its main terminal, the  to Astoria/Kings Kighway (sea beach) at doubled tph (nights and weekends to CI replacing  rush hour  to 179 to eliminate the conga line), eliminating skip stop on  and replace it with express between Broadway and Myrtle, with the not-express going local to Marcy, and sending the  to lefferts. 

Unrelated, but what do y'all think of express on the  between 96 and 137 or 157? 

[Lance]

11 hours ago, MysteriousBtrain said:

Stealing this from the random thoughts to prepare for a brain exercise:

This is by no means serious, but here's a way I would reconstruct the B division in today's standards:

- as well as same

slightly less service+no 179 St service (Yeah yeah Jamaica and other forms of ridership can't handle a loss but again this is an exercise)

would run via 53 St at all times. Late nights via 63 St and local.

runs between Forest Hills and Metropolitan Av via 63 St at all times. Late nights unchanged.

between 179 St and Coney Island via Broadway/63 St/QBL exp. Some rush trips via 2 Av still.

unchanged

late night service cut to Atlantic Ave via express north of 36 St.

Astoria to Bay Parkway via local. Short turns and all late night trips to Whitehall Street. (If possible, maybe merge late night and service)

 

I should hope this is not serious. Otherwise riders would have you running for the hills. A reduction Queens Blvd express service, a severe reduction in Astoria service and the very real possibility of severe overcrowding along 53rd Street with tumbleweeds blowing through 63rd Street. You should pitch this to the MTA for the next round of draconian service cuts.

2 hours ago, RR503 said:

Unrelated, but what do y'all think of express on the  between 96 and 137 or 157? 

Not recommended. especially if the northern end of the express run is 157 Street. Both 116 Street and 137 Street have high ridership with Columbia University and City College at their respective stops. Having trains bypass these stations would be counterproductive as it would tip the balance in distribution and would cause more overcrowding on the local trains.

[Coney Island Av]

On 11/1/2017 at 12:57 PM, LGA Link N train said:

I found a proposal that brings the BMT 4th Avenue line to Staten Island under 67 Street.  I thought of reviving it to serve the then continue under Victory Blvd. I guess it could cost up to $20 Billion  (I could be wrong though). Anyways, let me know your feedback 

I would do the branch on the Culver Line since dekalb cant spare a lot of trains. In this plan, a new  train would run from 168 St to Staten Island via 8 Av Exp, and Culver Exp. The line will run via the proposed Cross-Harbor Tunnel to St. George, where the line could either continue on Victory Blvd, or run along Castleton Av before swinging south and terminating at Victory Blvd. The  would get diverted to Jamaica to make room in the Cranberry Tubes, as well as to provide Midtown service along the Jamaica EL and Bway-Bklyn. The  would replace the  on Fulton.  Getting back to Staten Island, I feel it should be not very important compared to major projects such as SAS and the RBB because those areas are more demanding. But eventually, it should be considered. 

[RR503]

21 minutes ago, D to 96 St said:

I would do the branch on the Culver Line since dekalb cant spare a lot of trains. In this plan, a new  train would run from 168 St to Staten Island via 8 Av Exp, and Culver Exp. The line will run via the proposed Cross-Harbor Tunnel to St. George, where the line could either continue on Victory Blvd, or run along Castleton Av before swinging south and terminating at Victory Blvd. The  would get diverted to Jamaica to make room in the Cranberry Tubes, as well as to provide Midtown service along the Jamaica EL and Bway-Bklyn. The  would replace the  on Fulton.  Getting back to Staten Island, I feel it should be not very important compared to major projects such as SAS and the RBB because those areas are more demanding. But eventually, it should be considered. 

If you put the  on Jamaica without also putting it on 6th, you're instantly halving tph on 6th ave local -- and then, in consequence, Queens Boulevard. 

DeKalb has room for trains from Montague. Remember that  ? Which ran with the  ? That capacity is still there, waiting to be exploited. 

Finally, if you do the line from Culver, you're dragging SI riders well into brooklyn for no good reason, making the service *that* much more inefficient and uncompetitive. 

[LGA Link N Train]

2 hours ago, D to 96 St said:

I would do the branch on the Culver Line since dekalb cant spare a lot of trains.

I think we both know that a solution is needed for Dekalb 

In this plan, a new  train would run from 168 St to Staten Island via 8 Av Exp, and Culver Exp.

Why not start it in the Bronx or 207??

The line will run via the proposed Cross-Harbor Tunnel to St. George, where the line could either continue on Victory Blvd, or run along Castleton Av before swinging south and terminating at Victory Blvd.

Agreed 

The  would get diverted to Jamaica to make room in the Cranberry Tubes, as well as to provide Midtown service along the Jamaica EL and Bway-Bklyn.

I like that plan but my friends in school oppose to that

The  would replace the  on Fulton. 

I personally support that plan but my friends also oppose that saying that it would take away the trainsit museum when (I got some plans up my sleeves) 

Getting back to Staten Island, I feel it should be not very important compared to major projects such as SAS and the RBB because those areas are more demanding. But eventually, it should be considered. 

I fully support RBB. As for SAS, I feel that the section between 63 - and 40 Streets should be built as a 4 - 6 track cavern making 55 and 42 Streets look like express stations. And yes, the Staten Island proposal should be considered 

 

[LGA Link N Train]

20 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

 

The problem is that unless you build a tunnel that is basically a straight shot from Battery to SI, with maybe one stop in the vicinity of Red Hook or Governor's Island, it's not time competitive with the ferry let alone the express bus, even if it was a 4th Av express. People are generally only willing to tolerate commutes up to an hour and some change.

I'm proposing it as a branch from the BMT 4th Avenue line after 59 and running underneath 67 and Victory Blvd from St. George. Besides if you don't have a car or can't catch a bus in Staten Island, then you're screwed 

[bobtehpanda]

1 hour ago, LGA Link N train said:

I'm proposing it as a branch from the BMT 4th Avenue line after 59 and running underneath 67 and Victory Blvd from St. George. Besides if you don't have a car or can't catch a bus in Staten Island, then you're screwed 

It's still not time competitive with the ferry or the express bus. What's the point of spending billions on a train that is no better than current options?

This also ignores the fact that there isn't really capacity through DeKalb to shove a lot more trains through.

Edited November 3, 2017 by bobtehpanda

[LGA Link N Train]

12 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

It's still not time competitive with the ferry or the express bus. What's the point of spending billions on a train that is no better than current options?

This also ignores the fact that there isn't really capacity through DeKalb to shove a lot more trains through.

Well, something does need to be resolved at Dekalb, right now (If I'm correct) the train tracks are the only one with left over capacity. Besides while no subway is needed in Staten Island now (it'd be better to anticipate rather than to react) 

[LGA Link N Train]

Question for everyone, what's the best way to Fix capacity on the Dekalb Junction? ??? I'm trying to come up with a plan for it

[Wallyhorse]

16 hours ago, RR503 said:

If you put the  on Jamaica without also putting it on 6th, you're instantly halving tph on 6th ave local -- and then, in consequence, Queens Boulevard. 

DeKalb has room for trains from Montague. Remember that  ? Which ran with the  ? That capacity is still there, waiting to be exploited. 

Finally, if you do the line from Culver, you're dragging SI riders well into brooklyn for no good reason, making the service *that* much more inefficient and uncompetitive. 

Which is why I came up with my original plan of doing a / split where the runs from Metropolitan to Chambers (with a limited number of rush-hour trains continuing to and starting from Broad Street) and the running from Chambers to 95th-Bay Ridge, running the old  "Bankers Special" route 24/7 (eliminating the late-night shuttle as part of it) with it set up so with limited exceptions one line is meeting the other with a direct cross-platform transfer between the split line at Chambers (the rush-hour trains to/from Broad would be because the would retain the current / 12 TPH at peak times while this new would be maxed at 8 TPH). 

[Coney Island Av]

RR503 the  would run via Worth St/East Broadway to Union Av. The Jamaica EL from Marcy Av to Myrtle Av will be fully demolished. In its place a new S 4 St-Bway subway will have stops at the following:

Marcy Av   

Union Av    

Manhattan Av 

Flushing Av 

Myrtle Av  

After the tracks will ascend and continue along the existing trackage. 

As for Dekalb we could either send the  or  to Bay Pkwy or Bay Ridge-95 St 

And building a tunnel from Bklyn is the only affordable option since constructing it from the harbor is very expensive. 

LGA Link N Train

The problem is whether fixing Dekalb will be feasible. Flatbush may have to be torn up. 

It terminates at 168 St because it could continue across the GWB to Fort Lee. 

 

[bobtehpanda]

On 11/3/2017 at 7:55 AM, LGA Link N train said:

Question for everyone, what's the best way to Fix capacity on the Dekalb Junction? ??? I'm trying to come up with a plan for it

Brighton:

 local part time express

4th Av:

local Sea Beach West End

Cross platform transfer available at DeKalb.

Edited November 8, 2017 by bobtehpanda

[CenSin]

11 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

Brighton:

 local part time express

4th Av:

local Sea Beach West End

Cross platform transfer available at DeKalb.

The more-frequent  should probably run on the Sea Beach Line. My hunch is that it has better throughput due to less switch traversal and less curves to travel through. Maintaining frequencies on the Sea Beach Line would also cost less since the run time along Sea Beach is less than along the West End.

[RR503]

17 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

Brighton:

 local part time express

4th Av:

local Sea Beach West End

Cross platform transfer available at DeKalb.

Issue with that is unless you send  local on 4th (which you can't do because of issues with capacity on the wall track at DeKalb), no easy xfers will be available between the  and . Atlantic Barclays is a lot of walking. I would actually posit that the time you save in switching delays is eaten up and more by walking/additional xfer time.

[bobtehpanda]

3 hours ago, RR503 said:

Issue with that is unless you send  local on 4th (which you can't do because of issues with capacity on the wall track at DeKalb), no easy xfers will be available between the  and . Atlantic Barclays is a lot of walking. I would actually posit that the time you save in switching delays is eaten up and more by walking/additional xfer time.

I'm not very convinced by the necessity of this. For 6th Avenue expresses, the use cases are covered. Headed Downtown? Take the at DeKalb. Need an express ride to Union Square? Take the (4)(5). Need to go to Midtown? Transfer at Herald.

It's a little bit more complicated for the Broadway expresses, since everyone would need to either walk or take the to get to a 6th Avenue train. On a side note, I've always thought that they should connect Prince St with Bway-Lafayette.

[RR503]

40 minutes ago, bobtehpanda said:

I'm not very convinced by the necessity of this. For 6th Avenue expresses, the use cases are covered. Headed Downtown? Take the at DeKalb. Need an express ride to Union Square? Take the (4)(5). Need to go to Midtown? Transfer at Herald.

It's a little bit more complicated for the Broadway expresses, since everyone would need to either walk or take the to get to a 6th Avenue train. On a side note, I've always thought that they should connect Prince St with Bway-Lafayette.

All of your 6th->broadway options save for the  require walking. Right now, it’s all cross-platform. That is a time sink, an inconvenience, and is sure to cause stair crowding. 

As for broadway->6, it is indeed a bit more complicated. We’re going from painless cross platforms to long hauls through intermediaries or passageways. And while I also support prince -> Bway laffayette, it doesn’t help anyone going from the  to  — prince is a local stop. 

[R68OnBroadway]

On 11/2/2017 at 10:27 PM, bobtehpanda said:

It's still not time competitive with the ferry or the express bus. What's the point of spending billions on a train that is no better than current options?

This also ignores the fact that there isn't really capacity through DeKalb to shove a lot more trains through.

 The only way to build a practical subway line to SI would be to extend Broadway or Nassau to St. George, and that would be unbelievably expensive. The ferry is the best there is.

Edited November 9, 2017 by R68OnBroadway

[CenSin]

9 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

Need an express ride to Union Square? Take the (4)(5).

LMAO! You call that an express ride? From Atlantic Avenue–Barclays Center to 14 Street–Union Square, the train is basically making the same station stops as the (R). It only skips Canal Street, Prince Street/Bleecker Street, and 8 Street/Astor Place. A dash across the bridge directly from Atlantic Avenue–Barclays Center to Canal Street and then 14 Street–Union Square is preferable to a long ride through Manhattan’s bowels.

That / ride may technically be express, but it has none of the benefits of taking the or .

[bobtehpanda]

4 hours ago, CenSin said:

LMAO! You call that an express ride? From Atlantic Avenue–Barclays Center to 14 Street–Union Square, the train is basically making the same station stops as the (R). It only skips Canal Street, Prince Street/Bleecker Street, and 8 Street/Astor Place. A dash across the bridge directly from Atlantic Avenue–Barclays Center to Canal Street and then 14 Street–Union Square is preferable to a long ride through Manhattan’s bowels.

That / ride may technically be express, but it has none of the benefits of taking the or .

Google Maps times it as a whole 2 minutes longer.

[P3F]

29 minutes ago, bobtehpanda said:

Google Maps times it as a whole 2 minutes longer.

The times it as 4 minutes longer. In any case, the Lexington line is stuffed during rush hours. It doesn't need a major influx of riders who could formerly take routes with more capacity.

[CenSin]

19 hours ago, RR503 said:

As for broadway->6, it is indeed a bit more complicated. We’re going from painless cross platforms to long hauls through intermediaries or passageways. And while I also support prince -> Bway laffayette, it doesn’t help anyone going from the  to  — prince is a local stop. 

At that point, anyone on the from Brighton can use the to get to Canal Street, Astor Place, 14 Street–Union Square, and 23 Street. 28 Street and Broadway is a short walk from the south end of 34 Street–Herald Square, and any station other Broadway station can be access by using the transfer there. Still a transfer between Broadway–Lafayette Streets and Prince Street would be useful for a number of other scenarios as well as a transfer between 7 Avenue and 57 Street–7 Avenue. The lack of these obvious transfers nickels and dimes New Yorkers’ valuable time by forcing them to stay on a train that they would otherwise not need to be on or crowding the small number of transfer stations with poor circulation of passengers.

[CenSin]

5 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

Google Maps times it as a whole 2 minutes longer.

Let’s not forget to add the time to walk the passageways to make the transfer. Non-one-seat rides add a huge transfer penalty.

[bobtehpanda]

4 hours ago, CenSin said:

Let’s not forget to add the time to walk the passageways to make the transfer. Non-one-seat rides add a huge transfer penalty.

The proposal isn't a solution for convenient rides, it's a solution for pumping through as many trains per hour at DeKalb. Reduces conflicts and unreliability.

[RR503]

But decreases usability. Again, will we really save 4 mins by doing this? Because if we aren’t, we’re adding to many people’s commutes. 

Yes, this gets a crap load of trains through the interlocking, but we must consider at what cost. Queens Boulevard and Culver would see service increases if we pumped 30tph up crosstown, and made the manhattan services express, but that removes useful service from many. Throughput can’t always be the priority.