Jump to content

Department of Subways - Proposals/Ideas


Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, CDTA said:

Here's a thought. What about connecting PATH from WTC to Atlantic Terminal, and up the Atlantic Branch? This would be much more useful than the Atlantic Branch in its current form, and it'd allow people from NJ to get a one seat ride to a new office hub, Downtown Brooklyn. You don't have to do any work on the Atlantic Branch itself because PATH is FRA compliant, and you could easily from there expand it to JFK, providing for the first time a one seat ride to downtown, Floral Park, and Valley Stream, not only providing eastern Queens with vital rail service but also allowing the LIRR to speed up service and focus on its main job of commuting customers from LI. You wouldn't have to really do any work either aside from JFK because again, PATH is FRA compliant so you don't need to do anything special for them to run.

Look at the World Trade Center station. How do you propose to extend service from there? The path east is blocked directly by the Vehicle Security Center parking garage under the Oculus. Even if not, the trackage of the WTC station is incompatible with the extension, and the Oculus closed around the WTC makes it almost impossible to rebuild.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 12.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
27 minutes ago, LGA Link N train said:

LMAO, how about stop whining about cost AND ACTUALLY BUILD IT

My general philosophy is that the cost is usually irrelevant in the long run. Just judge a project on two merits: will it increase ridership significantly and/or reduce existing congestion if built. Fortunately, nearly all subway projects currently proposed meet this criteria.

That said, be careful of projects with excessively large station caverns. Not only do they usually lead to cost overruns, they don't affect the underlying ridership and they also lead to construction delays.

Edited by Caelestor
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, LGA Link N train said:

LMAO, how about stop whining about cost AND ACTUALLY BUILD IT

 

18 hours ago, Caelestor said:

My general philosophy is that the cost is usually irrelevant in the long run. Just judge a project on two merits: will it increase ridership significantly and/or reduce existing congestion if built. Fortunately, nearly all subway projects currently proposed meet this criteria.

That said, be careful of projects with excessively large station caverns. Not only do they usually lead to cost overruns, they don't affect the underlying ridership and they also lead to construction delays.

"Cost is irrelevant, except for the part where somebody has to pay for it in the first place!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you were running for mayor what subway projects to expand or improve service would you support

I would support  14 projects 

1. Finish the 2nd ave subway 

Obviously this needs to be finished and in phase 3 and 4 to cut down on costs i would use the existing provisions built in the 70s i know the neighborhoods especially chinatown would be hemming and hawing at me but u have to get the costs down. Pocket track would be built at 34th to allow for a potential queens bypass service and allow for potential springboard for 125 street crosstown service and bronx service

2. Extend the archer ave subway as it was proposed 

    2a. Extending the (F) train to little neck pkwy

I believe in filling a transit gap  those communities deserve greater access to transit

(J) and (Z) would be extended to hollis and the (E) would be extended to rosdale

The (F) would be extended to little neck pkwy in 2 phases to Braddock ave then to little neck pkwy 

3. Extend the (3)  to spring creek 

Simple extension with minimal cost

4 extend the (L) to  125 and broadway 

The new extended (L) would run up 10th ave and amsterdam 

Would be extended in 3 phases 

First to 34th street hudson

Second would be to 72nd

3rd would be up to 125 and broadway 

Where at 125 and broadway  would connect to completed 2nd ave subway crosstown line 

5. intergrate SIR To subway(remove its fra certification) and extend the (R) or (W)to staten island

To reduce its maintainence costs on SIR I would remove railroad certification  and intergrate with subway rolling stock and operations wise, also i would build the staten island tunnel which would carry (R) or (W) service into si along clove road, Victory blvd and Richmond ave to Si mall, as a result of extension to staten island to make room For extended (R) or(W) service a pocket track  will be built after 95th street

If the (R) is extended into si

The (W) can terminate at 9th ave and whithall steeet 

If the (W) is extended into si

The every 5th (R) train terminates at whitehall 

All other (R) trains will terminate at si college subway station 

 

6. rebuild rogers junction 

To improve capicity on irt eastern pkwy line  the junction needs to be rebuilt

Projects 7 and 8 are contingent on this

 

7. irt utica ave extension

(4)  train would ve divertes down utica ave with service to kings plaza 

 

8. (2)(5)  extension from flatbush 

2 would be extended down flatbush to kings plaza and 5 would be extended down nostrand to voorhies

 

9. Restoring subway service in 3rd ave bronx 

To right a wrong from the previous generation the 2nd ave subway would be extended into the bronx along the old routing of the 3rd ave el 

 

10. service along the L.I.E H.H.E 

To get people service in those areas rather then having them cram onto bus services into either jamaica or flushing

To use this service you can use the (R) on the LIE HHE line and to replace it at forest hills you can restore the (G) any capicity concern you could terminate every 5th G train at queens plaza 

 

11 one seat ride to lga which is extending the (N) to lga

It is logical to extend the N to lga because it would be faster from the cbd of Manhattan to lga rather then go out to flushing then to go back

 

12 queens bypass 

Constructing a queens bypass can springboard into a  one seat ride to jfk via the rbb from full 2nd ave subway or help queens blvd service 

 

13 rockaway beach branch restoration with a conversion of woodhaven blvd station to serve express and relieve Roosevelt ave station

I laid out my arguements in the famous rbb thread regarding the benefits for the people also you can improve acess to the transit desert in forest park. Also you can relieve express service at roosevelt

To use the restored rbb service would be the (M) that will terminate at jfk  and (A) trains would concentrate on far rockaway with every 5th train terminating at jfk which would extend the (C) train to lefferts 

 

14. introducing lrt routes 

1st 3 routes would be a north shore lrt in Staten island and a brooklyn waterfront lrt  and lrt along fordham road. hopefully it can springboard into an lrt network like toronto if the lrt is going to do street running it will get a protected row or grass covered row like in eurpoe like in a mention about Fordham road in the bus thread 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I made a few updates to my fantasy nyc subway map, and I really want more ppl to critique it so I can get suggestions for making maps.

Link- http://app.enmodal.co/?id=8b1c3d7330d9a94f

The (2) and (5) would be extended to Voorhies in order to better serve South Brooklyn, and possibly take relief off of the (Q)

The (3) will be extended to Bedford Park Blvd on the Jerome line to provide adequate service near the west Bronx. It will also be extended to Kings Plaza to provide transit access in a large desert called East Flatbush.

The (4) will run as the Jerome Av Express from BPB to 125 St rush hrs. Now I know that many Jerome Av line stops have high ridership but the (3) would cover those stops and the (4) would stop at BPB anyways. It would also take over the New Lots line and be extended to Lefferts Blvd, replacing (A) service there. I might remove this at some point and have it go to Spring Creek.

(5) service will be permanently rerouted to Wakefield-241 St and be extended to the aforementioned destination. This eliminates the need to have branching, and also the need to run it late nights.

(6) service extended to Co-op-City to connect with the (D)

(7) service will be extended to Bayside-Bell Blvd to serve the aforementioned neighborhood.

A new :8: service would take over Dyre and connect to the Pelham line and run via Lex Av local to Brooklyn Bridge. 

(9) is revived, express north of 96 St and goes to Red Hook. This would better serve a developing neighborhood, and also provide Battery Park City and Governors Island a one-seat ride to the rest of Manhattan. 

(A) serves the Rockaways only to provide increased service to the casino and JFK Airport.

(B) is extended to Gun Hill Rd and also rerouted to the Culver line. It would curve down Ft Hamilton Pkwy to 68 St and go into SI. This would solve the F express issue and link SI with a one-seat ride to Midtown. 

(C) is extended to Fort Lee, NJ and runs via Fulton St Exp to Cambria Hts. This would involve relocating the bus terminal and better serving SE Queens. 

(D) is extended to Co-op City and is rerouted to the Brighton Line to replace (B) service. This would provide the Bronx with a good crosstown line at a cheap cost. 

(E) is extended to Laurelton-Springfield Blvd to serve SE Queens. This would shift LIRR service to St. Albans in return.

(F) is extended to Springfield Blvd and I'm also thinking about extending the line further to Little Neck Pkwy & Jamaica Av.

(G) is re-extended to Forest Hills-71 Av.

(J) service is extended to Hollis, and will run via 4 Av Local to Bay Ridge-95 St.

A new (K) service will run as a "branch" of the (G). This would bring the (K) up a new Lafayette extension to the Myrtle EL, and also will serve Dyker Heights and Boro Park since those are underserved.

(L) is extended to College Point-127 St via 10 Av-86 St-Northern. 

(M) is extended via the RBB to Howard Beach and is also extended from its current terminus at Metropolitan to Flushing-Main. While many think RBB is useless, I still feel it will improve access. This won't really overload the (E) because (N) service can be increased to cope with the passengers.

(N) is rerouted to 63 St and Queens Blvd, but will go up the LIE to Springfield. This will serve a large transit desert with more service. 

A new (P) service is created and runs from Throgs Neck to Broadway Jct. 

(Q) is extended cheaply to Broadway-125 St, acting as another crosstown line. 

(R) is rerouted to the Astoria line and is extended to LGA. 

Franklin (S) is extended to Bedford-Nostrand.

(T) is extended to Gun Hill Rd, running via 3 Av to make up for the loss of service. It will also be extended down Fulton St to Cambria Heights with the (C), but acts as a local. 

yD35xgl.png service runs on the Queens Bypass from Jamaica-179 St and goes to Coney Island via the West End to replace (D) service. This will provide a very fast route parallel to QB that will reduce crowding.

(W) is extended to LGA, and runs via Fulton St Local to Cross Bay Blvd. 

(X) will act as a crosstown line, running from 145 St to St. George on the proposed RX route. This will be the only line to run thru all 5 boroughs.

Last but not least, the (Z) will head into Queens via a new subway under Flushing Av in order to provide a quick-one seat ride to Lower Manhattan from Flushing.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, D to 96 St said:

I made a few updates to my fantasy nyc subway map, and I really want more ppl to critique it so I can get suggestions for making maps.

Link- http://app.enmodal.co/?id=8b1c3d7330d9a94f

The (2) and (5) would be extended to Voorhies in order to better serve South Brooklyn, and possibly take relief off of the (Q)

The (3) will be extended to Bedford Park Blvd on the Jerome line to provide adequate service near the west Bronx. It will also be extended to Kings Plaza to provide transit access in a large desert called East Flatbush.

The (4) will run as the Jerome Av Express from BPB to 125 St rush hrs. Now I know that many Jerome Av line stops have high ridership but the (3) would cover those stops and the (4) would stop at BPB anyways. It would also take over the New Lots line and be extended to Lefferts Blvd, replacing (A) service there. I might remove this at some point and have it go to Spring Creek.

(5) service will be permanently rerouted to Wakefield-241 St and be extended to the aforementioned destination. This eliminates the need to have branching, and also the need to run it late nights.

(6) service extended to Co-op-City to connect with the (D)

(7) service will be extended to Bayside-Bell Blvd to serve the aforementioned neighborhood.

A new :8: service would take over Dyre and connect to the Pelham line and run via Lex Av local to Brooklyn Bridge. 

(9) is revived, express north of 96 St and goes to Red Hook. This would better serve a developing neighborhood, and also provide Battery Park City and Governors Island a one-seat ride to the rest of Manhattan. 

(A) serves the Rockaways only to provide increased service to the casino and JFK Airport.

(B) is extended to Gun Hill Rd and also rerouted to the Culver line. It would curve down Ft Hamilton Pkwy to 68 St and go into SI. This would solve the F express issue and link SI with a one-seat ride to Midtown. 

(C) is extended to Fort Lee, NJ and runs via Fulton St Exp to Cambria Hts. This would involve relocating the bus terminal and better serving SE Queens. 

(D) is extended to Co-op City and is rerouted to the Brighton Line to replace (B) service. This would provide the Bronx with a good crosstown line at a cheap cost. 

(E) is extended to Laurelton-Springfield Blvd to serve SE Queens. This would shift LIRR service to St. Albans in return.

(F) is extended to Springfield Blvd and I'm also thinking about extending the line further to Little Neck Pkwy & Jamaica Av.

(G) is re-extended to Forest Hills-71 Av.

(J) service is extended to Hollis, and will run via 4 Av Local to Bay Ridge-95 St.

A new (K) service will run as a "branch" of the (G). This would bring the (K) up a new Lafayette extension to the Myrtle EL, and also will serve Dyker Heights and Boro Park since those are underserved.

(L) is extended to College Point-127 St via 10 Av-86 St-Northern. 

(M) is extended via the RBB to Howard Beach and is also extended from its current terminus at Metropolitan to Flushing-Main. While many think RBB is useless, I still feel it will improve access. This won't really overload the (E) because (N) service can be increased to cope with the passengers.

(N) is rerouted to 63 St and Queens Blvd, but will go up the LIE to Springfield. This will serve a large transit desert with more service. 

A new (P) service is created and runs from Throgs Neck to Broadway Jct. 

(Q) is extended cheaply to Broadway-125 St, acting as another crosstown line. 

(R) is rerouted to the Astoria line and is extended to LGA. 

Franklin (S) is extended to Bedford-Nostrand.

(T) is extended to Gun Hill Rd, running via 3 Av to make up for the loss of service. It will also be extended down Fulton St to Cambria Heights with the (C), but acts as a local. 

yD35xgl.png service runs on the Queens Bypass from Jamaica-179 St and goes to Coney Island via the West End to replace (D) service. This will provide a very fast route parallel to QB that will reduce crowding.

(W) is extended to LGA, and runs via Fulton St Local to Cross Bay Blvd. 

(X) will act as a crosstown line, running from 145 St to St. George on the proposed RX route. This will be the only line to run thru all 5 boroughs.

Last but not least, the (Z) will head into Queens via a new subway under Flushing Av in order to provide a quick-one seat ride to Lower Manhattan from Flushing.

 

A few thoughts: 

 Sending the (3) via the (4) is a lost opportunity. The (3) is the sole IRT line (minus the shuttle and (7) of course) that can be extended to better serve the Bronx. I would fold 148th into Lenox Yard, lengthen 145th, and construct a new line to the Bronx that would curve  crosstown and go under either the CBE, Tremont, or Fordham. A (D) extension to Co-Op City still also makes sense and should be built as well. 

(4) in Bronx should be left as-is. Extending it to Lefferts seems pointless. If you want to eliminate the Lefferts branch, you would have to have the (C) use the outer platforms of Hoyt and from there build a new extension to the (F) at Jay to avoid merging with the (A) until West 4th ( (C) would be via Rutgers). If you ended the (W) at Euclid though it could allow for (C) service to Lefferts as it limits the amount of merging. I am not advocating this, and for now, the best you can do with improving Rockaway service is to sending maybe 2/3 of trains there. Building a new el would also be a huge issue as we have seen how Astoria has thrown shitfits, and ENY would probably be no different. 

No line to SI should be built. From Manhattan cost will be astronomical, from Brooklyn the ride will be pointless as you are dragging riders into Brooklyn. It is easier and cheaper to improve bus service and encourage people to use the ferry. It's larger, has a nice view, and is free.

The (L) should not be extended to Queens. Instead, a new trunk line should be built (a 4 track express one). 

(5) in the Bronx should be left alone.

Swapping the (N) and (R) makes little sense. A new yard adds more money to the price of a LGA extension. Sending any train via 63rd will cause issues as backups will ensue due to trains switching tracks. 

(Z) to Flushing is senseless as most riders head to Midtown.  This also goes for why an extended (G) could only work on weekends and evenings. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll bite. Comments in red. 

2 hours ago, D to 96 St said:

I made a few updates to my fantasy nyc subway map, and I really want more ppl to critique it so I can get suggestions for making maps.

Link- http://app.enmodal.co/?id=8b1c3d7330d9a94f

The (2) and (5) would be extended to Voorhies in order to better serve South Brooklyn, and possibly take relief off of the (Q)

Yes. Good idea. 

The (3) will be extended to Bedford Park Blvd on the Jerome line to provide adequate service near the west Bronx. It will also be extended to Kings Plaza to provide transit access in a large desert called East Flatbush.

I'm with you on the SBK extension, and the Jerome ave. one, but if you're gonna do (4) express on Jerome, you should make 161st an express stop -- otherwise riders south of Burnside will have no access to the Lex. 

The (4) will run as the Jerome Av Express from BPB to 125 St rush hrs. Now I know that many Jerome Av line stops have high ridership but the (3) would cover those stops and the (4) would stop at BPB anyways. It would also take over the New Lots line and be extended to Lefferts Blvd, replacing (A) service there. I might remove this at some point and have it go to Spring Creek.

(4) to Lefferts seems like overkill. If you're building a new trunk anyway to SE queens, just demolish the el. No need for it anymore. The (4) is already a long line, and adding a branch to nowhere with a zillion sharp curves just doesn't seem necessary. 

(5) service will be permanently rerouted to Wakefield-241 St and be extended to the aforementioned destination. This eliminates the need to have branching, and also the need to run it late nights.

This also overloads 241st st. Keep it at Dyre, especially given that you plan to rob Pelham to feed this. 

(6) service extended to Co-op-City to connect with the (D)

Sure. I question the need for 2 lines to Co op city, but this map seems to be assuming unlimited funding, so why not. 

(7) service will be extended to Bayside-Bell Blvd to serve the aforementioned neighborhood.

Yes

A new :8: service would take over Dyre and connect to the Pelham line and run via Lex Av local to Brooklyn Bridge. 

See comments on the (5) to 241, and also keep in mind that the area of the Pelham line whose frequencies you're halving has ridership many times that of the entire Dyre avenue line. You're accomplishing nothing at best; a mindless service cut at worse. 

(9) is revived, express north of 96 St and goes to Red Hook. This would better serve a developing neighborhood, and also provide Battery Park City and Governors Island a one-seat ride to the rest of Manhattan. 

Assuming that you can now run 30tph on Broadway local with the new terminal, sure. 

(A) serves the Rockaways only to provide increased service to the casino and JFK Airport.

Yes

(B) is extended to Gun Hill Rd and also rerouted to the Culver line. It would curve down Ft Hamilton Pkwy to 68 St and go into SI. This would solve the F express issue and link SI with a one-seat ride to Midtown. 

There's not enough space on 6th ave local for the (B)(F) and (M) without all services taking frequency cuts. SI also doesn't need subway service *that* badly, and this plan would be taking SIers on a boomerang through brooklyn before bringing them to Manhattan -- something of little use to residents. 

(C) is extended to Fort Lee, NJ and runs via Fulton St Exp to Cambria Hts. This would involve relocating the bus terminal and better serving SE Queens. 

OK. I mean there are some governmental issues with a subway to NJ, and traffic issues with removing lanes from the GWB, but I can see the logic.

(D) is extended to Co-op City and is rerouted to the Brighton Line to replace (B) service. This would provide the Bronx with a good crosstown line at a cheap cost. 

This isn't really a useful crosstown. You're too far north to serve any of the major markets. Try sending the (A) across Fordham Road. 

(E) is extended to Laurelton-Springfield Blvd to serve SE Queens. This would shift LIRR service to St. Albans in return.

Yes

(F) is extended to Springfield Blvd and I'm also thinking about extending the line further to Little Neck Pkwy & Jamaica Av.

Yes

(G) is re-extended to Forest Hills-71 Av.

Using what track capacity? And to serve which market? We've been through this before -- (G) to forest hills is trains for the sake of trains. 

(J) service is extended to Hollis, and will run via 4 Av Local to Bay Ridge-95 St.

That'll be one loooooong line. Choose one extension. 

A new (K) service will run as a "branch" of the (G). This would bring the (K) up a new Lafayette extension to the Myrtle EL, and also will serve Dyker Heights and Boro Park since those are underserved.

This helps riders in those areas....not at all. The (G) doesn't go to Manhattan, and only makes a glancing blow on downtown BK. Riders will just transfer to other services. A Jamaica/Myrtle to (G) connection could be done easier and cheaper with a Broadway to Lorimer transfer. 

(L) is extended to College Point-127 St via 10 Av-86 St-Northern. 

Yes

(M) is extended via the RBB to Howard Beach and is also extended from its current terminus at Metropolitan to Flushing-Main. While many think RBB is useless, I still feel it will improve access. This won't really overload the (E) because (N) service can be increased to cope with the passengers.

:/. You must realize at this point that repeating something doesn't make it true. Just because you put another service on QB express doesn't make it any less crowded. In fact, because you'll be diluting (E) and (F) train service with another, you'll have commuters passing up 2 trains at major transfer points in order to get the service they want, adding to crowding. There is no way this can work capacity wise, unless you put a transfer stop on your bypass. Even then though, the market is barely there -- you're already flooding the Rockaway lines with train service with your Fulton st changes. 

(N) is rerouted to 63 St and Queens Blvd, but will go up the LIE to Springfield. This will serve a large transit desert with more service. 

And also overcrowd Queens Boulevard, while removing Broadway service from LIC. Bad idea. NE Queens is getting subway with your (7) and (L). If you must have a LIE line, send it down from the (L) at willets pt. We should be looking to divert traffic from queens boulevard, not send more people there. I also think that Broadway in a larger context needs to be addressed. With SAS phase 3 open in this scenario, we have 63rd st full with 15/15 from (F)/SAS(V). Local tracks have (N) to LGA (I honestly don't understand why the (N) and (R) can't be left alone by railfans -- what's the issue), (W) to LGA, and (R) to 71st. That's too many services. I think that if you're gonna go all out as you are on subway expansion, why don't you create a stub terminal at, say, Columbus circle, so that a full 60tph can be handled on Broadway (ignoring Dekalb issues). Then you could have (N) 59th to CI, (Q) 125/Broadway to CI, (W) LGA to _____ and (R) 71st to 95. That's a theoretical 15tph on all services, and no more merging. 

A new (P) service is created and runs from Throgs Neck to Broadway Jct. 

You're diluting SAS too much. Unless you go for four tracks, you're limiting frequency to 10tph -- ie not enough. This extension also serves an area of low density/industry, begging the question "why are we doing this?" Eliminate, and increase service on you're other SAS branches (all of which I like) 

(Q) is extended cheaply to Broadway-125 St, acting as another crosstown line.

Yep.  

(R) is rerouted to the Astoria line and is extended to LGA. 

See above -- what is with railfans and the (N)(R) 

Franklin (S) is extended to Bedford-Nostrand.

From a connectivity, cool, but what's the market? Not opposed, just curious. 

(T) is extended to Gun Hill Rd, running via 3 Av to make up for the loss of service. It will also be extended down Fulton St to Cambria Heights with the (C), but acts as a local. 

Long route. You sure you don't want to make the (T) end at Euclid and the (C) local to Cambria? I don't really see the need for 4 tracks all the way out there...

yD35xgl.png service runs on the Queens Bypass from Jamaica-179 St and goes to Coney Island via the West End to replace (D) service. This will provide a very fast route parallel to QB that will reduce crowding.

Bypass sounds good, but I don't see the need for the whole (B)(D) SI thing, and therefore the (T) via West End thing. Just send it to Fulton, and then the (W) to SBK. 

(W) is extended to LGA, and runs via Fulton St Local to Cross Bay Blvd. 

See above

(X) will act as a crosstown line, running from 145 St to St. George on the proposed RX route. This will be the only line to run thru all 5 boroughs.

Kill the SI extension 

Last but not least, the (Z) will head into Queens via a new subway under Flushing Av in order to provide a quick-one seat ride to Lower Manhattan from Flushing.

This won't be faster than, say, the (7) or (l) to the (2) or (3). Cut. Keep with the (J). 

 

Overall, spectacular work! You clearly have a vision. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, RR503 said:

I'll bite. Comments in red. 

 

(3)(4)- I agree with you on converting 161 St into an express stop. I agree that the EL should just be demolished. 

(5):8:- Honestly, I've got mixed reviews with the (5) and :8:. I'm personally unfamiliar with IRT frequencies. The (5) would merge less if it went to Wakefield (only 2 times). The :8: would only merge once with the (6). But the :8: would have a lower TPH, and all (6) trains would run express from 3 Av to Hunts Point, but local east of there. 

(B)- It would switch to the (F) after Broadway-Lafayette, and new crossovers will be installed. Honestly, no train to SI will be perfect. This was technically a cheap, but imperfect solution. But ppl have to adapt to super-long commutes from over there that last up to two hrs alone. 

(C)- I understand jurisdiction but building an extension of the HBLR to SI will ALSO be under it too. 

(D)- Honestly, the (A) across Fordham Road would only make one long route even longer. This would also be expensive due to a lot of rock you'd have to tunnel thru. 

(G)- Nothing will cover 67 Av if the (M) is sent to RBB and (N) to LIE. A crosstown route on QB would be beneficial since going crosstown is very hard in the city. 

(J)- You're right. I'll cut the (J) to Broad St. 

(K)- I agree and I'll cut this out.

(M)- The thing is that the glorified QB Bypass won't happen for 100 years. There needs to be a short-term solution, but the only one I can think of is making the (Z) express. 

(N)(R)- What I'm trying to find is a solution that would not screw up Broadway. Sending the (N) up SAS will not work in my scenario. But if we even get to Phase 3, there will already be an IN-SYSTEM transfer constructed between Lex/63 and Lex/59. You would also still have the (R)(W) in LIC to compensate. Honestly I'm not a fan of stub-end terminals. Building these types of terminals is a waste when in reality it could be used to provide more service elsewhere. 

(P)- Honestly, this is the only cheap way to have these types of expansions. I am open to express tracks north of 63rd below the current ones but it would just add onto cost. However, I think exp tracks the full length of SAS is worth it in the long run. 

Franklin (S)- This can be disposed of.

(T)- The Fulton St Extension would be 4 tracks to Cross Bay Blvd, then it would be 3-tracks to Cambria Heights for rush hr peak express service. But yeah, I agree there might not be demand. I might cut the (T) to Cross Bay. 

yD35xgl.png(W)- Honestly with the (W) on Fulton it gives riders more options, whereas SAS only gives two options for Manhattan. Same with SBK. 

(X)- Why? It would share tracks with the (B) from Bay Ridge to St. George. Plus, it is extended to SI rush hrs only, and also link the two SI routes (Main Line and North Shore) to Manhattan.

(Z)- Agree, I'll keep it with (J)

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/29/2017 at 1:28 PM, D to 96 St said:

(3)(4)- I agree with you on converting 161 St into an express stop. I agree that the EL should just be demolished. 

Great!

(5):8:- Honestly, I've got mixed reviews with the (5) and :8:. I'm personally unfamiliar with IRT frequencies. The (5) would merge less if it went to Wakefield (only 2 times). The :8: would only merge once with the (6). But the :8: would have a lower TPH, and all (6) trains would run express from 3 Av to Hunts Point, but local east of there. 

(2)(5) and (4) run approx. = frequencies allowing for pretty 1:1 merges, so not terribly much of an issue. Moving the Dyre line to the (6) would eliminate a merge, yes, but a. that merge is not terrible as NYC subway merges go (cough Dekalb cough) and b. the new terminal for (5) service would not be able to handle the combined tph (28) of (2) and (5) service. Nereid isn't an alternative, as fumigating on active tracks just adds to delays. Finally, once again, you're screwing both Dyre and Hunts pt west with both less service, and less express service. I'd keep service patters as they are. 

(B)- It would switch to the (F) after Broadway-Lafayette, and new crossovers will be installed. Honestly, no train to SI will be perfect. This was technically a cheap, but imperfect solution. But ppl have to adapt to super-long commutes from over there that last up to two hrs alone. 

Ah, I see now. As a Culver rider, I love the idea of exp. service, but I frankly think that rebuilding the chrystie st. area again for these xovers and then the SAS-Manhattan Bridge connection may be just too complex. That said, the East side is primed for a massive amount of office development, and having convenient SBK-East Side service would be quite useful. That said, the Grand street xfer will be there, so this may do little for connectivity in the long run. 

As for attaching SI to Culver, I see the logic (only SBK corridor with exp. capacity), but again, wonder if worth the cost. I disagree with people who say the fact that bus/ferry service is faster obviates the need for a subway to SI -- if that was true, the subway wouldn't be used outside of weekday rush hours -- but I do wonder if a SI rail link wouldn't be better with, say HBLR or something. 

(C)- I understand jurisdiction but building an extension of the HBLR to SI will ALSO be under it too. 

Ah perfect, you cover the above. PANYNJ could do construction, but NYCTA's charter would need to be amended IIRC. Interesting proposal. My only qualm is whether the transportational benefit of relocating a bus terminal across the river is enough to justify a subway line. It'd be great if there was a way to add some non-bus catchment to the idea. 

(D)- Honestly, the (A) across Fordham Road would only make one long route even longer. This would also be expensive due to a lot of rock you'd have to tunnel thru. 

True, but you could also do a crosstown as a branch of the (1) (your (9) can turn east maybe?). It's more about the location of crosstown than the service running on it. 

(G)- Nothing will cover 67 Av if the (M) is sent to RBB and (N) to LIE. A crosstown route on QB would be beneficial since going crosstown is very hard in the city. 

See my last post for how I feel about sending more passenger to the QB corridor. Also the (G) isn't a crosstown route. It's a 'let's go right next to the east river but not into Manhattan route. 

(J)- You're right. I'll cut the (J) to Broad St. 

Great. 

(K)- I agree and I'll cut this out.

Ditto. 

(M)- The thing is that the glorified QB Bypass won't happen for 100 years. There needs to be a short-term solution, but the only one I can think of is making the (Z) express. 

I mean if you're gonna go with realistic timelines, few of these projects will happen this millennia. 

(N)(R)- What I'm trying to find is a solution that would not screw up Broadway. Sending the (N) up SAS will not work in my scenario. But if we even get to Phase 3, there will already be an IN-SYSTEM transfer constructed between Lex/63 and Lex/59. You would also still have the (R)(W) in LIC to compensate. Honestly I'm not a fan of stub-end terminals. Building these types of terminals is a waste when in reality it could be used to provide more service elsewhere. 

The (R)(W) don't allow easy transfers for (E) riders to the Broadway lines. I'm not a fan of stub-ends either, but it's the only way to fix broadway without either shafting frequency on 63rd, shafting LIC, or shafting the Broadway line entirely. I think that in this age of high ridership, we need to limit a pair of tracks to a maximum of two services. Running three on one pair just doesn't provide the frequency we need these days. 

(P)- Honestly, this is the only cheap way to have these types of expansions. I am open to express tracks north of 63rd below the current ones but it would just add onto cost. However, I think exp tracks the full length of SAS is worth it in the long run. 

The (p) serves a marginal market at best. You want to help those areas of the BX? Try SBS, or hell LRT. Subway is unnecessary. 

Franklin (S)- This can be disposed of.

Cool. 

(T)- The Fulton St Extension would be 4 tracks to Cross Bay Blvd, then it would be 3-tracks to Cambria Heights for rush hr peak express service. But yeah, I agree there might not be demand. I might cut the (T) to Cross Bay. 

I would do that, and make it 3 tracks beyond Euclid at most. Remember that these riders already have the entire Fulton line to be express on. 

yD35xgl.png(W)- Honestly with the (W) on Fulton it gives riders more options, whereas SAS only gives two options for Manhattan. Same with SBK. 

It does, But that's quite the mergy mess you're creating. I think as long as SAS ups its transfer game in Manhattan (link with the (2)(3) at wall, and the Boro Hall complex from Court St. at the very least) it should be fine. The (W) on Fulton is just over-complicating service patterns for little benefit. 

(X)- Why? It would share tracks with the (B) from Bay Ridge to St. George. Plus, it is extended to SI rush hrs only, and also link the two SI routes (Main Line and North Shore) to Manhattan.

(x) will have to share tracks with freight, so it can't share with the (B)

(Z)- Agree, I'll keep it with (J)

Great

 

 

 

I'm trying to not to be so close minded in terms of fiscal/logistical feasibility -- do you want me to? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/28/2017 at 10:16 PM, BreeddekalbL said:

If you were running for mayor what subway projects to expand or improve service would you support

I would support  14 projects 

1. Finish the 2nd ave subway 

Obviously this needs to be finished and in phase 3 and 4 to cut down on costs i would use the existing provisions built in the 70s i know the neighborhoods especially chinatown would be hemming and hawing at me but u have to get the costs down. Pocket track would be built at 34th to allow for a potential queens bypass service and allow for potential springboard for 125 street crosstown service and bronx service

I don't know why you'd need a pocket track.

On 12/28/2017 at 10:16 PM, BreeddekalbL said:

2. Extend the archer ave subway as it was proposed 

    2a. Extending the (F) train to little neck pkwy

I believe in filling a transit gap  those communities deserve greater access to transit

(J) and (Z) would be extended to hollis and the (E) would be extended to rosdale

The (F) would be extended to little neck pkwy in 2 phases to Braddock ave then to little neck pkwy 

LNP is way too far out, and I say that as someone who lived there. The farthest the (F) needs to go is Springfield.

You don't need both the (F) to Springfield and the (J) to Hollis. Besides, the (J) is too slow for anyone to use it from Hollis.

On 12/28/2017 at 10:16 PM, BreeddekalbL said:

4 extend the (L) to  125 and broadway 

The new extended (L) would run up 10th ave and amsterdam 

Would be extended in 3 phases 

First to 34th street hudson

Second would be to 72nd

3rd would be up to 125 and broadway 

Where at 125 and broadway  would connect to completed 2nd ave subway crosstown line 

I don't actually think it needs to go up as far as that. In my ideal plan it goes across 86th St, and even then the West Side IRT is only at capacity up to 96th St.

On 12/28/2017 at 10:16 PM, BreeddekalbL said:

5. intergrate SIR To subway(remove its fra certification) and extend the (R) or (W)to staten island

To reduce its maintainence costs on SIR I would remove railroad certification  and intergrate with subway rolling stock and operations wise, also i would build the staten island tunnel which would carry (R) or (W) service into si along clove road, Victory blvd and Richmond ave to Si mall, as a result of extension to staten island to make room For extended (R) or(W) service a pocket track  will be built after 95th street

If the (R) is extended into si

The (W) can terminate at 9th ave and whithall steeet 

If the (W) is extended into si

The every 5th (R) train terminates at whitehall 

All other (R) trains will terminate at si college subway station 

It would take way too long for someone going from the SI mall to Manhattan.

On 12/28/2017 at 10:16 PM, BreeddekalbL said:

10. service along the L.I.E H.H.E 

To get people service in those areas rather then having them cram onto bus services into either jamaica or flushing

To use this service you can use the (R) on the LIE HHE line and to replace it at forest hills you can restore the (G) any capicity concern you could terminate every 5th G train at queens plaza 

There's no need for the (G) to go all the way to Forest Hills. The HHE has nothing around it and there's not enough room. If you were doing that, I'd suggest a parallel road like Jewel or 73rd which is actually closer to the middle of that underserved area.

On 12/28/2017 at 10:16 PM, BreeddekalbL said:

13 rockaway beach branch restoration with a conversion of woodhaven blvd station to serve express and relieve Roosevelt ave station

I laid out my arguements in the famous rbb thread regarding the benefits for the people also you can improve acess to the transit desert in forest park. Also you can relieve express service at roosevelt

To use the restored rbb service would be the (M) that will terminate at jfk  and (A) trains would concentrate on far rockaway with every 5th train terminating at jfk which would extend the (C) train to lefferts 

Forest Park is not a transit desert; you can get from Jamaica Av to Queens Blvd in 20 minutes on the bus. There's not really a point.

On 12/28/2017 at 10:16 PM, BreeddekalbL said:

 

14. introducing lrt routes 

1st 3 routes would be a north shore lrt in Staten island and a brooklyn waterfront lrt  and lrt along fordham road. hopefully it can springboard into an lrt network like toronto if the lrt is going to do street running it will get a protected row or grass covered row like in eurpoe like in a mention about Fordham road in the bus thread 

BQX has honestly been a waste of oxygen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/29/2017 at 6:22 AM, D to 96 St said:

I made a few updates to my fantasy nyc subway map, and I really want more ppl to critique it so I can get suggestions for making maps.

Link- http://app.enmodal.co/?id=8b1c3d7330d9a94f

The (2) and (5) would be extended to Voorhies in order to better serve South Brooklyn, and possibly take relief off of the (Q)

I don't understand the obsession with Voorhies, just because some guy in 1929 thought it would be a great idea. Av U is basically as far south as you need to go to make all the major bus connections, and it's not very far from Voorhies at all.

Quote

A new :8: service would take over Dyre and connect to the Pelham line and run via Lex Av local to Brooklyn Bridge. 

The (6) needs all the service it can get. Hard pass.

Quote

(9) is revived, express north of 96 St and goes to Red Hook. This would better serve a developing neighborhood, and also provide Battery Park City and Governors Island a one-seat ride to the rest of Manhattan. 

An express that doesn't go anywhere? The Red Hook subway is just a gentrifier's wet dream, it's not actually useful.

Quote

(A) serves the Rockaways only to provide increased service to the casino and JFK Airport.

The Rockaways is so low ridership that I would just terminate all Lefferts trains at Howard Beach.

Quote

(B) is extended to Gun Hill Rd and also rerouted to the Culver line. It would curve down Ft Hamilton Pkwy to 68 St and go into SI. This would solve the F express issue and link SI with a one-seat ride to Midtown. 

This is too expensive and still too slow compared to existing options.

Quote

(C) is extended to Fort Lee, NJ and runs via Fulton St Exp to Cambria Hts. This would involve relocating the bus terminal and better serving SE Queens. 

If you thought no one used GWB, wait til you see this abandoned ghost town of a terminal.

NJ can get subway trains when they've been paying MTA taxes for 50 years.

Quote

(D) is extended to Co-op City and is rerouted to the Brighton Line to replace (B) service. This would provide the Bronx with a good crosstown line at a cheap cost. 

It's not really crosstown given that you stop halfway in the middle of the borough. Fordham is the more important corridor by far.

Quote

(F) is extended to Springfield Blvd and I'm also thinking about extending the line further to Little Neck Pkwy & Jamaica Av.

LNP is way too far out.

Quote

(G) is re-extended to Forest Hills-71 Av.

So that everybody can just storm off at express stops with a barely busy train by the time you get to Court Square? History repeats itself.

Quote

(J) service is extended to Hollis, and will run via 4 Av Local to Bay Ridge-95 St.

The (J) is way too slow for anyone out of Hollis to actually use it, and you don't need both this and the (F). The (F) is the better choice because of the better bus connections.

Quote

A new (K) service will run as a "branch" of the (G). This would bring the (K) up a new Lafayette extension to the Myrtle EL, and also will serve Dyker Heights and Boro Park since those are underserved.

This is so unhinged it's laughable. There's no point to bring the el aboveground.

Quote

(L) is extended to College Point-127 St via 10 Av-86 St-Northern. 

Not necessary; poor connections to the rest of Queens. End it at Flushing-Main St.

Quote

(M) is extended via the RBB to Howard Beach and is also extended from its current terminus at Metropolitan to Flushing-Main. While many think RBB is useless, I still feel it will improve access. This won't really overload the (E) because (N) service can be increased to cope with the passengers.

They will all slam the express, and unless you can somehow change the fact that the express is at track capacity (and it's going to need all that extra CBTC as well) this is pointless. RBB is not a transit desert.

Quote

(N) is rerouted to 63 St and Queens Blvd, but will go up the LIE to Springfield. This will serve a large transit desert with more service. 

LIE's too difficult to build around and nothing is actually there.

Quote

A new (P) service is created and runs from Throgs Neck to Broadway Jct. 

Throgs Neck really doesn't need a subway service.

Quote

Last but not least, the (Z) will head into Queens via a new subway under Flushing Av in order to provide a quick-one seat ride to Lower Manhattan from Flushing.

This is just plain kooky.

 

By the way, your map link doesn't seem to work.

Edited by bobtehpanda
Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, LGA Link N train said:

http://app.enmodal.co/?id=bee8c6ac61a8337f made a simple subway expansion map.

Note that I made the (7) extension that RPA Proposed, please keep in mind that I'm not advocating for it

You have the line diverging at West 27 Street. You do know that the existing tracks end at 26 Street, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, CenSin said:

You have the line diverging at West 27 Street. You do know that the existing tracks end at 26 Street, right?

yes. I just fixed the error, thanks.

By the way whats more important. A northern Blvd Subway or the Queens Bypass?

Edited by LGA Link N train
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, CenSin said:

The (7) train would be less crowded if Northern Boulevard had subway service siphoning away ridership. But the Queens Boulevard Line would also be less crowded if a bypass were built.

Ah, this is a difficult one, but since I sent the (E) to Laurelton then hopefully that would result in increased service in the LIRR Port Washington Branch

Edited by LGA Link N train
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, LGA Link N train said:

Ah, this is a difficult one, but since I sent the (E) to Laurelton then hopefully that would result in increased service in the LIRR Port Washington Branch

¿Que? 

The Port Washington Branch’s service levels have nothing to do with (E) trains to Laurelton. Anyway, the lines capacity is limited by single track beyond Great Neck, and the ability of the LIRR to turn trains there. 

Oh, and did I forget to mention? The LIRR costs 3x subway. You need to reduce fares (and build stations west of Flushing) before you can hope for the LIRR to have any impact on (7) ridership.

Happy 2018!!! 

Edited by RR503
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, LGA Link N train said:

yes. I just fixed the error, thanks.

By the way whats more important. A northern Blvd Subway or the Queens Bypass?

They're both must-build in my opinion. I recommend building the Queens Bypass first because it can be connected to the 63 St line on the west end and the QBL on the east end. A Northern Blvd subway necessitates another East River tunnel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's a reason why I have the Northern Blvd line make a "hook-shape" to serve College Point/Whitestone instead of ending it in Flushing.

You see, the (L) will successfully relieve the (7) WEST of Main St. But there are still many commuters EAST of Flushing coming from the aforementioned neighborhoods, including Bayside. 

In order to fully relieve the (7) and provide service to those without subways, that is why I sent the (L) there, and (7) to Bayside. It would greatly cut down on bus transfers as a result, and allow bus service to fill in the remaining gaps. It's the same deal with an (F) extension to Springfield. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/1/2018 at 6:21 AM, D to 96 St said:

There's a reason why I have the Northern Blvd line make a "hook-shape" to serve College Point/Whitestone instead of ending it in Flushing.

You see, the (L) will successfully relieve the (7) WEST of Main St. But there are still many commuters EAST of Flushing coming from the aforementioned neighborhoods, including Bayside. 

In order to fully relieve the (7) and provide service to those without subways, that is why I sent the (L) there, and (7) to Bayside. It would greatly cut down on bus transfers as a result, and allow bus service to fill in the remaining gaps. It's the same deal with an (F) extension to Springfield. 

Eh, serving College Point basically only diverts College Point riders. An (L) to Jamaica from Flushing, on the other hand, manages to intercept literally all passengers from east of the Van Wyck, and basically with a (7) and (F) to Springfield leaves every neighborhood in Eastern Queens a 15 minute bus ride from a subway station.

8 hours ago, LGA Link N train said:

I'm trying to think of an SAS-Third Av proposal but I don't know where to put the northern Terminal. Gun Hill Rd, Burke Av?

Does anyone know where I can put A logical terminal in my proposal

Fordham Plaza probably makes the most sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.