Jump to content

Department of Subways - Proposals/Ideas


Recommended Posts


  • Replies 12.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

This is a bit expensive, but what do ya'll think of the proposed South 4th St trunk line? It would've been this massive hub in Williamsburg where lines going to Flatbush, Eastern Queens (far as the Nassau County line), and Bushwick met. People have proposed this several times in the past before, but I'll share what I think of it. 

This will be ONE LONG POST, but it has to be in that format because the plan has so many moving parts to it that I cannot simply explain it in a short fragment. 

I would do it like this:

Phase 1: (B)(E)yD35xgl.png are extended to Union Av-Broadway (uses the existing S 4 St shell, with a transfer to the (G)).

New stops for the (B) include Houston St-2 Av (pre-built), Av C, Berry St, and finally Union Av.

New stops for the (E) include Chambers St (connection to the (4)(5)(6)(J)(Z)), Chatham Square (connection to the (T)), East Broadway (connection to the (F)), Grand St, Berry St (B), Marcy Av, and Union Av. 

The yD35xgl.png will have the same stops as the (B), with the exception of Houston St-2 Av. 

The (D) will replace the (B) on Brighton and likewise with the (W) replacing the (D) on West End. 

(J)(M)(Z) are unaffected and will continue to operate like today. 

Phase 2: (B) is extended to Queens Blvd-Union Tpke (transfers to the (E)(F)), (brownM) is rerouted back to Nassau.

New stops for the (B) include: Myrtle Av-Bushwick Av, Myrtle-Wyckoff Avs, Cypress Hills St, Woodhaven Blvd, and finally Union Tpke

The Jamaica EL from Marcy Av to Myrtle Av is torn down, (J)(brownM)(Z) are rerouted to the new subway under South 4 St.

The (brownM) will follow the (B) to Union Tpke, however, it would run local, making local stops at stations identical to present-day stops (Marcy, Manhattan Av, Flushing, Myrtle, Central, Knickerbocker, Forest, Fresh Pond), but will have new stops east of Cypress Hills St (73 Pl, 80 St, Metropolitan Av). As mentioned above, it will stop at express stations too (see above with (B) stations). 

The (J)(Z) will ascend to the present-day elevated tracks east of Myrtle Av, and continue skip-stop to Jamaica. 

Phase 3: (B) is extended all the way to Lakeview Rd-Langdale St (right on the Nassau County line), (brownM) is extended to 188 St-Fresh Meadows. 

New stops for the (B)(brownM) include: 135 St-Kew Gardens Hills (local), Main St (local), Parsons Blvd (express), 167 St (local), Utopia Pkwy (local), and 188 St-Fresh Meadows (express, (brownM) terminus). The (B) will make all stops east of 188 St, stopping at Francis Lewis Blvd, Bell Blvd, Springfield Blvd, Winchester Blvd, Commonwealth Blvd, Little Neck Pkwy, 263 St-Glen Oaks, and finally Lakeview Rd-Langdale St. 

Phase 4: (E)yD35xgl.png are extended to Kings Plaza-Av U. 

The (E) will be local, while the yD35xgl.png will be express. 

Stops for the (E)yD35xgl.png are as following: Manhattan Av (local), Flushing Av (local), Myrtle Av (express), Lafayette Av (local), Halsey St (local), Fulton St-Utica Av (express), Prospect Pl (local), Eastern Pkwy-Utica Av (express, with a transfer to (3)(4)), Empire Blvd (local), Winthrop St (local), Linden Blvd-Church Av (express), Beverley Rd (local), Av D (local), Kings Highway-Av H (express), Flatlands Av-Av K (local), Av N (local), and finally Kings Plaza-Av U (express/local terminus).

Phase 5: (J)(Z) are rerouted to a new subway under Bushwick Av.

The Jamaica EL from Myrtle Av to Cypress Hills will be torn down and replaced with a parallel subway running under Bushwick/Jamaica Avs.

The (J)(Z) will operate express together west of Myrtle Av, however, east of Myrtle Av to Broadway Junction, the subway would be four tracks, with the (J) operating local, and (Z) operating express.

Stops for the (J)(Z) are as following: Marcy Av (local), Union Av (express), Manhattan Av (local), Flushing Av (local), Myrtle-Bushwick Avs (express), Lafayette Av (local), Gates Av (local), Halsey St (local), Chauncey St (local), Broadway Junction (express, with transfers to the (A)(C)(L)(T)), Arlington Av (local), and Highland Blvd (local). East of Highland Blvd, the line will ascend to an elevated, connecting to the existing portion, with the (Z) stopping at Woodhaven and going express to Jamaica, and the (J) making stops it currently does so today, fully local. 

Things to note + Reasoning:

There are few reasons as to why the South 4 St trunk line is beneficial. Firstly, its branches provides access to those in underserved areas (eg. East Flatbush and Eastern Queens), and provides much faster service to Manhattan than today. It eliminates all bottlenecks on the Jamaica line (Myrtle Av and Cypress Hills), which will reduce wear/tear and speed up commutes. Secondly, it would better serve the densifying areas of Bushwick and Williamsburg, which are already growing at a rapid rate today. For example, Marcy Av is 115th in terms of ridership, which is arguably very high considering the high-rise developments is making the density grow bigger and bigger. Despite its big cost, I think it would be worth it given the high-density areas the extensions would run through. 

One thing to note is that the South 4 St subway could potentially have branches off the Crosstown/Canarsie lines connecting to the subway. These branches would be included, but are optional to build IMO. If they were included a new Crosstown line (K) and a new Canarsie line (O) would run to 188 St (connecting to Myrtle-Union Tpke line) and Kings Plaza (connecting to Utica Av Subway) respectively. One benefit of the Crosstown Branch is that it would replace the former Myrtle Av EL to Downtown Brooklyn, which has since been demolished. 

The (brownM) is rerouted back to Nassau because the (B) will provide Midtown access along Myrtle, thus eliminating the need for the 6 Av (M). The (brownM) will run from 188 St, as stated before, to Coney Island-Stillwell Av, replacing the (D) on West End. The (W) will temporarily replace it until the second phase of the plan goes into effect. 

Another few things to note are that the (B) extension under Myrtle Av/Union Tpke would emerge to an elevated line after Francis Lewis Blvd and stay that way until the terminus at Lakeview Rd. The (E)yD35xgl.png extension under Utica Av would emerge to an elevated viaduct, a few blocks south of Eastern Pkwy. The latter is optional and could stay underground the whole way if people discourage it. However, building the majority of the two lines as an elevated would reduce costs. 

The trunk line from Marcy Av to Myrtle Av would be six tracks total. Berry St would be a four-tracked station. However, Myrtle Av would be an eight-tracked station, with (B)(J)(brownM)(Z) trains stopping on the upper level, and (E)yD35xgl.png trains on the lower level. Meanwhile, the local stations (Marcy Av, Manhattan Av, and Flushing Av) will be four tracks total, with the two express tracks bypassing the station. I'm explaining this because ya'll might wonder "why are you running three services on one track pair, it causes congestion." 

And one final thing: I try to be realistic as possible, even with expensive extensions like this one. I don't pull a Wally and automatically think "anything is possible, cost won't stop anything." In fact, based on the length of the routes, I already know that this would be quite expensive, even moreso than the Northern Blvd extension I've proposed on here. That's why I try to cut corners by saying "the branches off Canarsie and Crosstown are optional" and so on to reduce costs. 

Overall, I think this is a good plan, but I want to hear your thoughts on this. Sorry for the long post. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The biggest problem is getting to South 4 Street and finishing the station. The street above is not very wide, and as far as I know, only the length directly under Union Avenue has been built. I presume the diagonal blocks were to be demolished to continue the line east.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Coney Island Av It’s also very expansive, and that’s a good thing. I keep trying to visualize your extensions in my head, but it’s not so easy. It would be great if you could do a map showing them. It sounds like some lines are being built as relief lines while others are being built as replacements. A map would help show what’s being built as a relief line and what’s being built as a replacement. Phase 4, the E/V extension to Kings Plaza via S. 4th St, Stuyvesant and Utica Avenues was the easiest to visualize and seems like the most realistic and doable of the five phases. I think that should move up to Phase 1.

@CenSin Do subway lines necessarily have to follow under city streets? If dug deep enough, can’t they shortcut their way over to the unfinished S. 4th St station? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

@CenSin Do subway lines necessarily have to follow under city streets? If dug deep enough, can’t they shortcut their way over to the unfinished S. 4th St station? 

Except the South 4 Street station shell is on the upper level—right under the street.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Coney Island Av I agree with your plan 100% but it requires A LOT of underpinning and with current  (MTA) standards, it's impossible. But what I admire about this plan is that it adresses some major factors and it would make our city a better place. It may even ease congestion on the (L) line which is another thing I admire. But out of your entire plan, Phases 1 and 5 seem the most doable to me. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@CenSin Oh wow, I didn’t realize S. 4th was that close to the surface. Continuing further east from there probably would have required a new street. Or doing what Toronto did, which to build parts of its subway lines in pathways parallel to the streets. 

I do have to say, if that station and the underwater tunnel it would have led to had been built, it sure would have come in handy today with the upcoming (L) shutdown. Heck even if it was only S. 4th and another station at Bushwick Ave and Meserole St to connect with the (L) at Montrose Ave, that would have made a world of difference. Oh well, so much for that...

Edited by T to Dyre Avenue
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Based on what everyone's saying about S 4 St, I'll also note a few more things.

8 hours ago, CenSin said:

The biggest problem is getting to South 4 Street and finishing the station. The street above is not very wide, and as far as I know, only the length directly under Union Avenue has been built. I presume the diagonal blocks were to be demolished to continue the line east.

I see your point about South 4 St, and yes it was unfinished. And from looking at Google Maps, the line from South 4 St/Union Av to Flushing Av/Beaver St would have to underpin diagonal blocks since there's no direct street. 

7 hours ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

@Coney Island Av It’s also very expansive, and that’s a good thing. I keep trying to visualize your extensions in my head, but it’s not so easy. It would be great if you could do a map showing them. It sounds like some lines are being built as relief lines while others are being built as replacements. A map would help show what’s being built as a relief line and what’s being built as a replacement. Phase 4, the E/V extension to Kings Plaza via S. 4th St, Stuyvesant and Utica Avenues was the easiest to visualize and seems like the most realistic and doable of the five phases. I think that should move up to Phase 1.

I want to create a map/track diagram for my proposals, but I need to get Adobe Illustrator for free somehow. I really want to get it though. And FYI, the (E)yD35xgl.png extension to Kings Plaza would run via Malcolm X Blvd instead of Stuyvesant. The rest of the streets you mentioned will be the same. Phases 1 and 5 are replacements, while Phases 2/3/4 are relief lines that provide access to underserved neighborhoods. 

Phase 1 will be cheap, however, Phases 2/3 will be the most expensive of the bunch given the length of the extension under Myrtle Av/Union Turnpike will be quite long. 

I've considered swapping Phases 2/3 with Phase 4 and you're probably right. However, Phase 4 cannot be constructed first, as Phase 1 involves building all the tunnels from the 2nd/6th/8th Av lines under Houston/Worth St respectively to get to Brooklyn in the first place. 

5 hours ago, LGA Link N train said:

@Coney Island Av I agree with your plan 100% but it requires A LOT of underpinning and with current  (MTA) standards, it's impossible. But what I admire about this plan is that it adresses some major factors and it would make our city a better place. It may even ease congestion on the (L) line which is another thing I admire. But out of your entire plan, Phases 1 and 5 seem the most doable to me. 

It will definitely take a lot of relief off of the (L). It will reduce lots of congestion, and would potentially even relieve the QBL too given the express (B) from Queens to Manhattan. 

Phase 4 would also be one of the most doable because it's basically the IND version of the proposed Utica Av extension, except it involves the (E)yD35xgl.png instead of the (3)(4)

Phase 5 is mainly intended as a replacement line for the Jamaica EL, so that's why it'll also be doable. 

And you are right about underpinning. However, underpinning is somewhat common in the NYC Subway (e.g. the (2)(3)(4)(5)(A)(B)(C)(D)(G)(N)(Q)(R) have to pass over each other around Atlantic), but it will only have to do such for the following sections:

From Union Av to Flushing Av (line passes under diagonal streets) 

Between Chauncey St and Broadway Junction (Bushwick-Aberdeen on the (L) is on the same street as the line the (J)(Z) would run through)

At Kew Gardens-Union Turnpike on the (E)(F) (not that big of a deal given it'll just act as a lower level). 

And this would be several decades from now, and even at the minimum if Phase 1 is constructed, MTA will still be way more advanced in building extensions. So underpinning won't really be that big of a deal IMO. It's not like an elevated, which the community hates. 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Coney Island Av said:

I want to create a map/track diagram for my proposals, but I need to get Adobe Illustrator for free somehow. I really want to get it though. And FYI, the (E)yD35xgl.png extension to Kings Plaza would run via Malcolm X Blvd instead of Stuyvesant. The rest of the streets you mentioned will be the same. Phases 1 and 5 are replacements, while Phases 2/3/4 are relief lines that provide access to underserved neighborhoods.

You’ll so just fine with Microsoft Office Publisher or Inkscape. However, if your starting file is a PDF, you must use Inkscape to convert it to an EMF so that it can be used in Publisher. Inkscape is probably the better way to go for free. Some of my early maps were done entirely in Publisher and I spent a lot of time fighting the lack of grid snapping for control points and a complete absence of layers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

some ideas I have/would like feedback for

 

Extension for the (L)

After 8 Av

Washington St/14 St

23 St/10 Av

34 St - Hudson Yards/ 10 Av (7)

42 St/10 Av

50 St/10 Av

57 - 59 sts John Jay College/ 10 Av - Amsterdam Av

66 St- Lincoln Center/ Amsterdam Av

72 St/ Amsterdam Av- Broadway (1)(2)(3)

79 St/ Amsterdam Av

Central Park West/ 86 St (B)(C)

Madison Av/ 86 St

Lexington Av/86 St (4)(5)(6)

2 Av/86 St (Q)(T)

Queens

21 St/ 30 Av

31 St/30 Av (N)(W)

Steinway St/30 Av

50 St/30 Av

73 St/30 Av

81-82 Sts 30 Av

94 St/30 Av

Astoria Blvd/30 Av

East Elmhurst Ditmars Blvd/Astoria Blvd

Extension for the (3)

148 St station replaced by shuttle or use to terminate some (3)

After 145 st (3)

161 St - Yankee Stadium/ Jerome Av (B)(D)(4)

Anderson Av- Shakespeare Avs 

Nelson Av/168 St

170 St/Dr MLK Blvd

174 St/ DR MLK Blvd

Tremont Av/ DR MLK Blvd

Burnside Av/ DR MLK Blvd

183 St/ Dr MLK Blvd

Fordham Road/ DR MLK Blvd

192 St- Kingsbridge Road/ DR MLK Blvd

Sedgwick Av/ Kingsbridge Road

230 St/Bailey Av

238 St/Bailey Av

Van Cortlandt Park S/Bailey Av

 

Brooklyn

After New Lots Av

Essex St/ Linden Blvd

Crescent St/ Linden Blvd

Fountain Av/ Linden Blvd

Howard Beach- Conduit Av/ Linden Blvd

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, subwaykid256 said:

some ideas I have/would like feedback for

 

Extension for the (L)

After 8 Av

Washington St/14 St

23 St/10 Av

34 St - Hudson Yards/ 10 Av (7)

42 St/10 Av

50 St/10 Av

57 - 59 sts John Jay College/ 10 Av - Amsterdam Av

66 St- Lincoln Center/ Amsterdam Av

72 St/ Amsterdam Av- Broadway (1)(2)(3)

79 St/ Amsterdam Av

Central Park West/ 86 St (B)(C)

Madison Av/ 86 St

Lexington Av/86 St (4)(5)(6)

2 Av/86 St (Q)(T)

Queens

21 St/ 30 Av

31 St/30 Av (N)(W)

Steinway St/30 Av

50 St/30 Av

73 St/30 Av

81-82 Sts 30 Av

94 St/30 Av

Astoria Blvd/30 Av

East Elmhurst Ditmars Blvd/Astoria Blvd

Extension for the (3)

148 St station replaced by shuttle or use to terminate some (3)

After 145 st (3)

161 St - Yankee Stadium/ Jerome Av (B)(D)(4)

Anderson Av- Shakespeare Avs 

Nelson Av/168 St

170 St/Dr MLK Blvd

174 St/ DR MLK Blvd

Tremont Av/ DR MLK Blvd

Burnside Av/ DR MLK Blvd

183 St/ Dr MLK Blvd

Fordham Road/ DR MLK Blvd

192 St- Kingsbridge Road/ DR MLK Blvd

Sedgwick Av/ Kingsbridge Road

230 St/Bailey Av

238 St/Bailey Av

Van Cortlandt Park S/Bailey Av

 

Brooklyn

After New Lots Av

Essex St/ Linden Blvd

Crescent St/ Linden Blvd

Fountain Av/ Linden Blvd

Howard Beach- Conduit Av/ Linden Blvd

 

 

 

Sounds like not a good idea to me, you're extending the (L) train way too much, it would have so much problems on that line similar to how long the (2) is today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, subwaykid256 said:

some ideas I have/would like feedback for

Extension for the (L)

After 8 Av

Washington St/14 St

23 St/10 Av

34 St - Hudson Yards/ 10 Av (7)

42 St/10 Av

50 St/10 Av

57 - 59 sts John Jay College/ 10 Av - Amsterdam Av

66 St- Lincoln Center/ Amsterdam Av

72 St/ Amsterdam Av- Broadway (1)(2)(3)

79 St/ Amsterdam Av

Central Park West/ 86 St (B)(C)

Madison Av/ 86 St

Lexington Av/86 St (4)(5)(6)

2 Av/86 St (Q)(T)

Queens

21 St/ 30 Av

31 St/30 Av (N)(W)

Steinway St/30 Av

50 St/30 Av

73 St/30 Av

81-82 Sts 30 Av

94 St/30 Av

Astoria Blvd/30 Av

East Elmhurst Ditmars Blvd/Astoria Blvd

Extension for the (3)

148 St station replaced by shuttle or use to terminate some (3)

After 145 st (3)

161 St - Yankee Stadium/ Jerome Av (B)(D)(4)

Anderson Av- Shakespeare Avs 

Nelson Av/168 St

170 St/Dr MLK Blvd

174 St/ DR MLK Blvd

Tremont Av/ DR MLK Blvd

Burnside Av/ DR MLK Blvd

183 St/ Dr MLK Blvd

Fordham Road/ DR MLK Blvd

192 St- Kingsbridge Road/ DR MLK Blvd

Sedgwick Av/ Kingsbridge Road

230 St/Bailey Av

238 St/Bailey Av

Van Cortlandt Park S/Bailey Av

 

Brooklyn

After New Lots Av

Essex St/ Linden Blvd

Crescent St/ Linden Blvd

Fountain Av/ Linden Blvd

Howard Beach- Conduit Av/ Linden Blvd

I have numerous times proposed an extension for the (L) myself via 10th Avenue, but mine would be like this:

23rd Street-10th Avenue
33rd Street
41st Street (Transfer to (7) if the 10th Avenue station on that line is ever built as that station would be on 41st/10th)
49th-50th Street
58th Street-Roosevelt Hospital
66th Street-Lincoln Center
72nd Street (Terminal, transfer to (1)(2)(3)) with provisions to later continue up Amsterdam Avenue (and exits at 73rd and 75th on Amsterdam in addition to the Broadway Line exits at 72nd).

Washington St. is too close to the Hudson River.  My way (especially with deep boring) if possible has such an extension going gradually in a diagonal mode between 14th/8th and 23rd/10th, which would be three tracks and designed to be a short-turn terminal.  I don't see a need now for the (L) to go above 72nd.  I would also include provisions on 14th to later go to New Jersey if so desired.

The (3) extensions you propose are interesting, but on the Bronx end, I would mainly want to do such where such a line joins the Jerome Avenue Line, preferably before the 161-Yankee Stadium stop which would give Jerome riders a west side option they currently don't have (yes, they do have the (D) a block away in many cases, but this would be different).  On the Brooklyn side, I actually looked a while back at doing a (3)(4) extension that would have two lines continue to a new upper level above the existing Rockaway (A) tracks, stopping at Aqueduct-North Conduit before terminating at JFK-Howard Beach going as I remember a route similar to yours.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Wallyhorse said:

The (3) extensions you propose are interesting, but on the Bronx end, I would mainly want to do such where such a line joins the Jerome Avenue Line, preferably before the 161-Yankee Stadium stop which would give Jerome riders a west side option they currently don't have (yes, they do have the (D) a block away in many cases, but this would be different).

Preferably, the split would be above 161 Street–Yankee Stadium. That way, the crowds are split between six different platforms—2 for each line, and will be more manageable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, CenSin said:

Preferably, the split would be above 161 Street–Yankee Stadium. That way, the crowds are split between six different platforms—2 for each line, and will be more manageable.

Good point, as long as the (3) had its own stop at Yankee Stadium, however, some going to Woodlawn probably would want the (3) and (4) to be on the same platform so they could use either train.  That said, the idea of the (3) being on a separate platform at Yankee Stadium would work. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎5‎/‎28‎/‎2018 at 7:13 PM, Coney Island Av said:

I've considered swapping Phases 2/3 with Phase 4 and you're probably right. However, Phase 4 cannot be constructed first, as Phase 1 involves building all the tunnels from the 2nd/6th/8th Av lines under Houston/Worth St respectively to get to Brooklyn in the first place. 

It will definitely take a lot of relief off of the (L). It will reduce lots of congestion, and would potentially even relieve the QBL too given the express (B) from Queens to Manhattan. 

Phase 4 would also be one of the most doable because it's basically the IND version of the proposed Utica Av extension, except it involves the (E)yD35xgl.png instead of the (3)(4)

Oops...I should've said first phase after building the tunnel. Either way, it would have been a big help if we had these today, both for the (L) train and the B46 bus.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, N6 Limited said:

What if they extended the (A) Lefferts Branch south on Lefferts Blvd, and looped it back west to Aqueduct via Linden Blvd, that way all service can serve Lefferts and go to JFK?

Personally I don't see why you would need to go back onto Linden. You can just connect at Lefferts AirTrain, which is not very far from the current subway line.

The only issue I see is that you'd be extending Rockaways mileage even more, and on top of that you'd knock out the entire southwest corner of Liberty and Lefferts building that el curve. And you'd stop serving Resorts World Casino/Aqueduct.

Edited by bobtehpanda
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/29/2018 at 12:54 AM, subwaykid256 said:

some ideas I have/would like feedback for

 

Extension for the (L)

After 8 Av

Washington St/14 St

23 St/10 Av

34 St - Hudson Yards/ 10 Av (7)

42 St/10 Av

50 St/10 Av

57 - 59 sts John Jay College/ 10 Av - Amsterdam Av

66 St- Lincoln Center/ Amsterdam Av

72 St/ Amsterdam Av- Broadway (1)(2)(3)

79 St/ Amsterdam Av

Central Park West/ 86 St (B)(C)

Madison Av/ 86 St

Lexington Av/86 St (4)(5)(6)

2 Av/86 St (Q)(T)

Queens

21 St/ 30 Av

31 St/30 Av (N)(W)

Steinway St/30 Av

50 St/30 Av

73 St/30 Av

81-82 Sts 30 Av

94 St/30 Av

Astoria Blvd/30 Av

East Elmhurst Ditmars Blvd/Astoria Blvd

Extension for the (3)

148 St station replaced by shuttle or use to terminate some (3)

After 145 st (3)

161 St - Yankee Stadium/ Jerome Av (B)(D)(4)

Anderson Av- Shakespeare Avs 

Nelson Av/168 St

170 St/Dr MLK Blvd

174 St/ DR MLK Blvd

Tremont Av/ DR MLK Blvd

Burnside Av/ DR MLK Blvd

183 St/ Dr MLK Blvd

Fordham Road/ DR MLK Blvd

192 St- Kingsbridge Road/ DR MLK Blvd

Sedgwick Av/ Kingsbridge Road

230 St/Bailey Av

238 St/Bailey Av

Van Cortlandt Park S/Bailey Av

 

Brooklyn

After New Lots Av

Essex St/ Linden Blvd

Crescent St/ Linden Blvd

Fountain Av/ Linden Blvd

Howard Beach- Conduit Av/ Linden Blvd

 

 

 

The (L) extension is not a bad idea at all. It will make it less of a walk to get to Samsung 837. From walking around an avenue and 2 blocks to walking just a small block!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm in the middle of proposing a fantasy map so I'll need your input on the following extensions that I've proposed and are bit controversial. I need input so when I finish up my fantasy map, I'll know what to revise. 

RBB reactivation

(G) to Forest Hills-71 Av

SAS to Throgs Neck + Express Tracks

(F)(N)yD35xgl.png via 63rd

Culver Extension to Staten Island

(L) extension via 10 Av, 86 St, and Northern Blvd (alignments east of Flushing-Main St) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Coney Island Av said:

I'm in the middle of proposing a fantasy map so I'll need your input on the following extensions that I've proposed and are bit controversial. I need input so when I finish up my fantasy map, I'll know what to revise. 

RBB reactivation

(G) to Forest Hills-71 Av

SAS to Throgs Neck + Express Tracks

(F)(N)yD35xgl.png via 63rd

Culver Extension to Staten Island

(L) extension via 10 Av, 86 St, and Northern Blvd (alignments east of Flushing-Main St) 

Wait,  didn't you propose these before?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/9/2018 at 10:44 AM, Coney Island Av said:

I'm in the middle of proposing a fantasy map so I'll need your input on the following extensions that I've proposed and are bit controversial. I need input so when I finish up my fantasy map, I'll know what to revise. 

RBB reactivation

(G) to Forest Hills-71 Av

SAS to Throgs Neck + Express Tracks

(F)(N)yD35xgl.png via 63rd

Culver Extension to Staten Island

(L) extension via 10 Av, 86 St, and Northern Blvd (alignments east of Flushing-Main St) 

Why? You of all people should know my shpeel on the RBB, so I'll leave that unwritten, but I don't understand the need to run 3 services on 63. 

If we're allowed to build, I'd do the following: 

-53rd becomes all 8th Avenue services (whether that be all to 8th express, all to 8th local, or half and half is immeterial) to Queens Boulevard.

-63rd becomes all 6th Avenue Local to QB. 

-60th runs all trains to a reconstructed Astoria terminal (new switches south of Astoria Boulevard and a diamond crossover south of Ditmars instead of the current layout). 

-Broadway Express takes Second Avenue north of 72. 

-SAS mainline goes to a lower level of 72, and then either turns east under 75th St to run under 36th Ave/Sunnyside Yards/Northern Boulevard in Queens OR continues under Second Ave to 86th St, then turning east to follow Astoria Boulevard to Flushing. 

-New transfers between QBP and QP, Lex/63 and Lex/59. 

The above plan allows all services to run +/- 15tph, limits merging, and opens/preserves new single seat markets (Queens/East Side, UES/Midtown West).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, RR503 said:

-SAS mainline goes to a lower level of 72, and then either turns east under 75th St to run under 36th Ave/Sunnyside Yards/Northern Boulevard in Queens OR continues under Second Ave to 86th St, then turning east to follow Astoria Boulevard to Flushing. 

Except I would do that tunnel via 79th instead of 75th with a three-track station at York-1st Avenues.  That can be a short-turn terminal for some SAS trains in your proposal and it also serves one of the most densely populated areas in the country.  

Not sure you can do 75th anyway as you have a Con Ed plant running from 75th to 76th Streets between York Avenue and the East River (I grew up around there). 

Edited by Wallyhorse
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, KK 6 Ave Local said:

Would it benefit to have some kind of high-speed rail in the city (think RER and Overground), like in between the categories of commuter rail and subway?

With the speed of travel between the points well within the city limits, I would say that something like the LIRR from Jamaica to Penn Station would be welcome. My list of places that should be connected (in no particular order) with little to no intervening stations:

  • all of Staten Island
  • Coney Island
  • Flatlands
  • Marine Park
  • Canarsie
  • Howard Beach
  • Far Rockaway
  • South Jamaica
  • Oakland Gardens
  • Whitestone
  • East Elmhurst
  • Throggs Neck
  • Castle Hill
  • Eastchester
  • Wakefield
  • Norwood
  • Kingsbridge

These are places where travel times are in excess of 35 minutes to Manhattan by subway. Where existing rail infrastructure can manage, fares should be lowered and new services should be provided. Where existing rail infrastructure cannot manage or does not exist, construction of additional infrastructure would be needed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Someone, please explain to me why this is batshit crazy. I came up with the following late last night:

-Connect WTC to Cortlandt in order to send the (E) via the (R) in Lower Manhattan.

-Use provisions at Whitehall to connect this recaptured (R) line to Fulton Local

-Replace Broadway via Montague service with Nassau via Montague service, half running through to the Jamaica line, half terminating on Essex middle (would require some junction reconstruction) in order to provide +/- 30tph via tunnel.

The late-night logic behind this was that City Hall's curve is both slow and limiting of capacity. What's more, few use the (R) to commute from Brooklyn to Midtown, thus suggesting that connection's elimination. Fulton Street, too, deserves more, better service, but cannot get the same given its current track situation. The utilization of the current tunnel route from Cortlandt to Whitehall for (C) and (E) trains would facilitate the amelioration of both these situations and would do so with relatively minimal infrastructure investment. 

The replacement of 4th local to Broadway service with Nassau service, is, of course, the major route-related sticking point of all this. But, if I may argue for it, few use the (R) to get to midtown from South Brooklyn -- the line is more of a means to a transfer. Thus, its replacement with a service that has slightly improved transfer options (serves Fulton Center/Brooklyn Bridge/Delancey unlike (R)) and a wider variety of Lower Manhattan destinations (both Financial District and central Chinatown) would, in my opinion, be less onerous than one would think. 

Operationally, however, the plan even for me breaks down. The (E) would be considerably lengthened (unless it short turns at an improved Whitehall or some new terminal in Downtown Brooklyn), Jamaica line service would be dragged down to South Brooklyn, and the flexibility afforded by the current bridge/tunnel pairing would have to be at least partially sacrificed (you could keep flat junctions, but reroutes would not be anywhere near as simple as they are today). 

Edit: as an alternate to the (E) recapture thing, you could obviously also just send the (R) as is today down Fulton, if you’re cool with the ~24tph cap limit. 

Anyway, I'd love to hear your thoughts. 

Edited by RR503
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.