Department of Subways - Proposals/Ideas

[Around the Horn]

So this weekend, there's this GO on the :

Quote

TRACK MAINTENANCE | 9:45 PM Fri, Jun 15 to 5 AM Mon, Jun 18
No  trains between Essex St and Broad St in Manhattan

 and  trains provide alternate service

 service operates between Jamaica Center and Essex St.

How possible would it be to extend the  to West 4th Street via the  and turn a three seat ride to Lower Manhattan ( -  -  or ) to just two

(  -  or )?

Obviously the  would have to merge with the  and  to relay, but I feel like with 10 minute weekends headways it could potentially be done on paper...

Edited June 15, 2018 by Around the Horn

[T to Dyre Avenue]

23 hours ago, Around the Horn said:

People in Bay Ridge who want Midtown almost never stay on the  all the way there... They usually transfer at 59th, 36th or Atlantic to an express.

As for the current scenario, I feel like a rush hour only Nassau service could provide the additional trains needed to shuttle Bay Ridge riders to express stations and provide service to Lower Manhattan as well. I don't honestly see the same need outside of rush hour. Something like the , six trains per hour in the peak direction arriving in Lower Manhattan from 8AM to 9AM and departing from 4:45PM to 6:15PM could work.

Agreed. I've previously suggested that same reason to replace the  with the  on the 4th Ave Local. But other posters (here and on other forums) have stated it's important to preserve the one-seat ride to Midtown that the  provides. But if people are going to bail on the  in Brooklyn at the first chance they get or take the X27 or X28 express buses, does it really matter? At least if the  or  go down in Manhattan, south Brooklyn riders have an alternative in an extended ,  or @RR503's proposed Nassau ( H ) service.

6 hours ago, RR503 said:

Oh, totally. Queens is orders of magnitude worse.

That said, with the tubes you mentioned at capacity (along with the Manhattan and Williamsburg Bridges) you’re eventually gonna start having some not-so-minor problems. The way those lines were built makes some of them infinitely preferable because of their transfer choices and speed (that’s why Montague is empty), so unless you mess with service to level the playing field, so to speak, you’re never gonna get full utilization on all of them. This is where weird proposals like mine come in. 4th local is currently served by a train which has decent Lower Manhattan/Downtown Brooklyn/Chinatown/SoHo/Washington Square coverage, but is never used as such as it connects with so many other, faster means of accessing those areas along 4th. Thus it makes sense to run a service that has obscene transfer density (Nassau) in its place to best capture that market’s needs. Fulton, on the other hand, is off in its own little universe. Save for the ,  and  at Hoyt and Jay and then the messy Fulton xfers it (and its counterpart in 8th Avenue) really doesn’t do well in providing connectivity. A BMT service — like the  — could help ameliorate that by providing an exit route from the relative infrastructural isolation of the IND. 

This is also why I’m not as hot on SAS to Fulton Local as I was before. If you want to truly take a load off the Brooklyn IRT, you have to make your alternate route easily accessible to BMT Southern Div riders. Fulton isn’t, and SAS as per today’s design only will be at Grand St. In light of that, I think examining the proposals in which SAS gets sent over the Manhattan Bridge in the place of the  which are sent via Williamsburg, or takes over Montague in the place of the  (which itself is sent to Fulton) may be beneficial — you can thus make SAS that much more relevant to the rest of the system. 

And with SAS to Fulton Local, we'll have to wait till after Phase 4 has been completed. Given how long it took to get the first three stations on the UES open and the timetable to get to 125th St, we'll be waiting a very long time to get the SAS to Brooklyn. At least if the  or  is connected to the Fulton St local tracks at Schermerhorn, that would take far less time. Still not sure how easy it would be to shoehorn connecting tracks from the Montague Tunnel to Schermerhorn, so anyone who is familiar with the underground geology of downtown Brooklyn, please feel free to weigh in.

4 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

Grand St gives you 4 Av express and Brighton express, which is good enough. I actually like that the transfer for South Brooklyn - SAS is at Grand St, since it places a useful transfer point away from Atlantic and Fulton and City Hall, which are major chokepoints right now. Most systems tend to avoid giant monolithic transfer stations because passenger volume increases exponentially as you add more lines.

The problem I have is that this results in no new net capacity to Brooklyn that we don't already have and just aren't using (Nassau to 4th), and there isn't really a need for net capacity, and that need is certainly not in the Southern Division of the BMT. It'd be very expensive without much to show for it.

I'd like to think that a connection from Hoyt-Schermerhorn to the Montague St Tunnel would result in some new net capacity. Especially because then you can eliminate the merge between the  and  at Hoyt and both trains can run express, while the  or  runs local to Euclid in place of the .

One additional benefit to connecting the  to Schermerhorn would be that it would give the  a yard at one end of the line - Pitkin - and allow it to go back to Astoria. Without having to construct storage/staging space for revenue trains at 38th St Yard in Sunset Park. So rerouting the  also helps to bolster the case to eliminate the  switching between express and local at 34th and send it to 2nd Ave with the .

Edited June 15, 2018 by T to Dyre Avenue

[Around the Horn]

1 hour ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

Agreed. I've previously suggested that same reason to replace the  with the  on the 4th Ave Local. But other posters (here and on other forums) have stated it's important to preserve the one-seat ride to Midtown that the  provides. But if people are going to bail on the  in Brooklyn at the first chance they get or take the X27 or X28 express buses, does it really matter? At least if the  or  go down in Manhattan, south Brooklyn riders have an alternative in an extended ,  or @RR503's proposed Nassau ( H ) service.

I personally think the current  is fine outside of rush hour, but the Nassau  would work as a rush hour supplement quite well...

I seem to remember Wally or someone else coming up with a Nassau  that did something similar... I'd personally use the K label for a Bay Ridge-Nassau service since H is the internal label for the Rockaway Park Shuttle.

[T to Dyre Avenue]

Sure, K works just as well too. I (and many others) have previously suggested the rush hour Nassau service, yet there are others who seem to think it’s wasteful. 

It was someone else who suggested the Nassau K. I forget their handle, but they created a brown K bullet for the proposal. It may even be in this thread, though I’d probably have to go very far back to find it. 

Edited June 16, 2018 by T to Dyre Avenue

[LGA Link N Train]

Personally, this is what I'd suggest. 

or take over the 4 Avenue local service. 

or terminate at Euclid via Fulton Local and City Hall lower leveI is converted for either the or

Either way, the sucks!

[RR503]

2 hours ago, Around the Horn said:

I personally think the current  is fine outside of rush hour, but the Nassau  would work as a rush hour supplement quite well...

I seem to remember Wally or someone else coming up with a Nassau  that did something similar... I'd personally use the K label for a Bay Ridge-Nassau service since H is the internal label for the Rockaway Park Shuttle.

If it weren’t for the fact that the  is the only easy way of adding tph to Fulton, I’d be keeping it and extending the . But connecting the Whitehall provisions with A1/2 near Hoyt Schermerhorn is a relatively simple and merge-free means of getting Fulton the service levels it deserves. 

The whole  or now  thing is my attempt at creating a service to replace the  on 4th. A  extension seems unwise given the length of the route that’d create, thus the most sensical option is the addition of a service ending on Nassau from the south. While Chambers allows for such termination in its current configuration, its operation at more than 6 or 7 tph (levels too low for 4th local, even though the line is just a shuttle to various transfer points) would create an operational nightmare, thus the creation of a new terminal along Nassau is necessary. I suggested Essex solely because it’s already almost configured for terminal operation on the middle track, and it provides connection the the  and . 

The resulting service pattern (assuming a minimum of deinterlining is conducted to capture capacity on 8th ave) would be something like the following:

 as today 

 via QB local/53/8th exp/Fulton exp to Lefferts

 as today 

 168 to WTC via 8th/CPW local. 

 as today

 as today 

 as today 

 via 63; all else normal 

 96 to CI via Sea Beach

 as today 

 Astoria to Euclid via Fulton local 

 merged into  

 as today; extended to 9th ave or Bay Pkwy rush hours 

Brown  Essex to 95

[bobtehpanda]

11 hours ago, RR503 said:

In a perfect world, I'd agree with you about transfers. The issue is that we've built out a system predicated on hub transfer points, so the integration of disaggregated transfers has become difficult. This is especially true with SAS, a route which has only three convenient transfer locations below 72nd St -- 14th, Houston and Grand. If the line is to be more than a shuttle for East Side residents, it has to achieve a greater level of integration, which can be accomplished only with route recapturing or additional transfer points. In the context of the South Brooklyn discussion, this restriction of transfer options to just Grand St will decrease the line's efficacy at relieving the  in Brooklyn, and will transform the  and  into a bridge service from South Brooklyn points to Grand Street. So while avoiding core transfer points may sound good on paper, I think it may lead to an operational mess. 

About capacity, my apologies for being unclear if I was, but the proposal doesn't add capacity to the BMT -- it's dealing with the Fulton local capacity issue. In essence what is happening is Whitehall St trains are being sent via a new tunnel built using the provisions there to Hoyt Schermerhorn, and Nassau Line trains are taking over Montague/4th Local. That's +/- 30tph of new Brooklyn capacity sent to Fulton local. 

Nassau can already go to 4th local. I wouldn't consider that "new" capacity by any stretch of the word. In fact, without any new cross-river capacity, this doesn't actually add new capacity anywhere, it just shuffles it around in a manner akin to the 11th St connection.

Likewise, I don't see the utility of connecting Eighth Av or Broadway to Fulton, over SAS. With SAS, Fulton riders can pick between local service to the East Side via Second and express service to the West Side via Eighth. With Eighth Av, you are giving them a more inconvenient version of the service that they already have, that not that many people are going to use, akin to the and on Queens Blvd. With Broadway, you are giving them the a service they already have with a quick level change at Jay St-Metrotech.

I think you are underselling the Grand St option. Transfer to the IRT at Atlantic from either Brighton or 4th Av is not particularly convenient, whereas Grand St will be a quick level change to relatively undercrowded East Side trains via Second. In addition, running SAS parallel to the Brooklyn IRT will give people in that general east-west corridor an alternative to the Brooklyn IRT, particularly those at local stops and those transferring from buses. And I think the Grand St - South Brooklyn point is kind of moot, since that is exactly what those services are today.

[bobtehpanda]

9 hours ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

And with SAS to Fulton Local, we'll have to wait till after Phase 4 has been completed. Given how long it took to get the first three stations on the UES open and the timetable to get to 125th St, we'll be waiting a very long time to get the SAS to Brooklyn. At least if the  or  is connected to the Fulton St local tracks at Schermerhorn, that would take far less time. Still not sure how easy it would be to shoehorn connecting tracks from the Montague Tunnel to Schermerhorn, so anyone who is familiar with the underground geology of downtown Brooklyn, please feel free to weigh in.

The issue is that there is a lot more in the way of a Montague - Fulton connection than a SAS connection. SAS just has the transit museum, which to me is a non-issue since it is literally a former subway station, whereas Montague would somehow have to get around the Brooklyn IRT, and depending on the relative depths of those lines that may not even be possible. They run very close to each other; I would assume this is a rough approximation of where these trains run.

[T to Dyre Avenue]

The  is the deepest line at Borough Hall, so if the connection is made just after Borough Hall (where the  travels under Columbus Park) onto Adams St/Boerum Place, I think it would be doable.

[bobtehpanda]

2 hours ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

The  is the deepest line at Borough Hall, so if the connection is made just after Borough Hall (where the  travels under Columbus Park) onto Adams St/Boerum Place, I think it would be doable.

You'd still have to sever service to build the thing, and there isn't a whole lot of room before you start messing with the Brooklyn IRT. This is even tighter than SAS - Nassau in terms of leeway.

[W4ST]

2 minutes ago, bobtehpanda said:

You'd still have to sever service to build the thing, and there isn't a whole lot of room before you start messing with the Brooklyn IRT. This is even tighter than SAS - Nassau in terms of leeway.

Could just south of Whitehall Street be a feasible place to build the connection? I believe there is a bellmouth there that was intended for a line along Atlantic Avenue. It would be an at-grade junction but if all trains went through the new tunnel from Whitehall, I think it could work.

[RR503]

13 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

Nassau can already go to 4th local. I wouldn't consider that "new" capacity by any stretch of the word. In fact, without any new cross-river capacity, this doesn't actually add new capacity anywhere, it just shuffles it around in a manner akin to the 11th St connection.

This is the point you're missing. The basis for this entire plan is a new set of tunnels under the river from Hoyt-Schermerhorn to the bellmouths at Whitehall. Nassau/4th service is thus isolated from Broadway/Fulton, allowing for both to run into Brooklyn at 30ish tph. 

13 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

 Likewise, I don't see the utility of connecting Eighth Av or Broadway to Fulton, over SAS. With SAS, Fulton riders can pick between local service to the East Side via Second and express service to the West Side via Eighth. With Eighth Av, you are giving them a more inconvenient version of the service that they already have, that not that many people are going to use, akin to the and on Queens Blvd. With Broadway, you are giving them the a service they already have with a quick level change at Jay St-Metrotech.

Off the bat, there's the fact that SAS Phase 4 probably will not be built within our lifetimes. I can guarantee you that Fulton will reach its breaking point before then. I agree that connecting 8th to Fulton via these tunnels would be a waste, but a Broadway service is absolutely a defensible choice.

The current transfer at Jay is neither a level change nor simple, and the  platform at Jay is narrow enough to create harrowing crowding situations even in the off-peak. Moreover, a stopless tunnel from Hoyt to Whitehall -- Court is probably not deep enough to avoid eminent domaining a good number of houses beyond the end of Schermerhorn -- would in all likelihood make up for any time penalties caused by the 's serpentine route through Lower Manhattan, making it a competitive alternative for travelers going as far as Midtown. If we assume 5 minutes from Hoyt to Whitehall, and then current train speeds beyond there, the  would take:

-15 mins to Canal/Church, vs 13 via  

-18 mins to Union Square, vs 19 via  to  

-22 mins to Herald Square, vs 23 via  to  

-25 mins to Times Square, vs 22 via  

So maybe more competitive than you think...

13 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

 I think you are underselling the Grand St option. Transfer to the IRT at Atlantic from either Brighton or 4th Av is not particularly convenient, whereas Grand St will be a quick level change to relatively undercrowded East Side trains via Second. In addition, running SAS parallel to the Brooklyn IRT will give people in that general east-west corridor an alternative to the Brooklyn IRT, particularly those at local stops and those transferring from buses. And I think the Grand St - South Brooklyn point is kind of moot, since that is exactly what those services are today.

I just did the Brighton to IRT transfer. Sure, it's not perfect, but it isn't PABT to TSQ. Just a few weird jogs. And while South Brooklyn riders may be attracted to the easier interchange at Grand, you miss the connection with the Brooklyn IRT itself (which is a tad too far from Fulton for them to be considered to have overlapping service regions, IMO). And while you may be able to suck some riders off buses at Nostrand and Utica with SAS on Fulton Local, you must keep in mind that your SAS service is, well, local -- for its entire route, mind you -- while the  are express. Whether that translates into a disparity in travel time remains to be seen, but it is indeed something to keep in mind. 

I think the real flaw with SAS to Fulton is the fact that such a pattern would completely miss serving many high-density areas in Brooklyn. As much as I believe that Fulton deserves more service, a cursory glance at a population map shows that the real areas of density outside of the Jamaica/Canarsie corridors are in Sunset Park, along the edges (especially the south one) of Prospect Park, and along Eastern Parkway. While SAS/Fulton would serve the latter area well, residents of the former two would be forced to continue using the Brooklyn IRT, or (ab)use the  as bridge services even moreso than they do today. Sending SAS via the Manhattan Bridge in the place of the  (which would take over Williamsburg, I guess) or via Nassau to 4th Local allows single transfer access to all of those areas, and allows SAS to access a greater spread of destinations than it would have along Fulton. I also think there's something to be said for the fact that both of those options would obviate the need to built out all of Phase 4, a not insignificant cost and time saving in our current construction environment. 

[LGA Link N Train]

19 hours ago, RR503 said:

If it weren’t for the fact that the  is the only easy way of adding tph to Fulton, I’d be keeping it and extending the . But connecting the Whitehall provisions with A1/2 near Hoyt Schermerhorn is a relatively simple and merge-free means of getting Fulton the service levels it deserves. 

The whole  or now  thing is my attempt at creating a service to replace the  on 4th. A  extension seems unwise given the length of the route that’d create, thus the most sensical option is the addition of a service ending on Nassau from the south. While Chambers allows for such termination in its current configuration, its operation at more than 6 or 7 tph (levels too low for 4th local, even though the line is just a shuttle to various transfer points) would create an operational nightmare, thus the creation of a new terminal along Nassau is necessary. I suggested Essex solely because it’s already almost configured for terminal operation on the middle track, and it provides connection the the  and . 

The resulting service pattern (assuming a minimum of deinterlining is conducted to capture capacity on 8th ave) would be something like the following:

 as today 

 via QB local/53/8th exp/Fulton exp to Lefferts

 as today 

 168 to WTC via 8th/CPW local. 

 as today

 as today 

 as today 

 via 63; all else normal 

 96 to CI via Sea Beach

 as today 

 Astoria to Euclid via Fulton local 

 merged into  

 as today; extended to 9th ave or Bay Pkwy rush hours 

Brown  Essex to 95

I agree though I'd change up a few things

Stays as is in Manhattan since the is the internal equivalent to the Rockaway Park Shuttle. 

Could be that that you mentioned so it could be  

stays as is but extended to Euclid via Fulton Local.

But then whats the secondary service for the QBLocal? I'd suggest the but I know that most people on the forums won't agree with me on that

[Coney Island Av]

Anyways, I've suggested sending the  to Fulton but not the . I wouldn't send both to Fulton- one should go to the latter while the other goes to SBK. 

I think the  via Whitehall thingy is overkill, so all that should be done is sending the  to Fulton. The former would require rearranging tracks, making reroutes more harder, and would sever the  south of City Hall. The latter only requires a simple track connection between Court St and Lawrence St, and is much more cheaper/simple to do. 

I do agree that the current  hauls like garbage and is notoriously delayed. That's why we have a ton of old threads with ideas for extending the  or  to South Brooklyn. But since no one uses the one-seat ride to Midtown, I think it will be a good investment to replace the  with Nassau service. If riders will bail, Nassau will ultimately provide more transfer options than the , so it makes the most sense as a feeder. 

Despite how long the line will be, I think it would make sense to just extend both the  to Bay Ridge-95 St. The  could also be extended to Bay Pkwy for additional rush hour service. The  will be rerouted to Fulton St, allowing the  to go express to Lefferts. In turn, the  can get based out of Pitkin, and could then run from Astoria to Euclid Av. The  could then support the  on SAS or run via 63rd to QBL. 

Another reason why extending the  to 95 St in place of the  is beneficial is because the  have less merges and less bottlenecks/congestion (one bottleneck at Myrtle for , several bottlenecks for the ). In fact, this will give riders in Bay Ridge more frequent service. 

But let's say we get to Phase 4, and the  is extended to Hanover Square. Since Fulton would already have the , I would suggest capturing the LIRR Atlantic Branch, and reroute  service to Jamaica. Capturing the LIRR Atlantic Branch would allow for an express to Lower Manhattan for Jamaica riders, and would relieve Fulton/QBL. This won't do any harm to normal LIRR service because after ESA is built, the line is slated to be truncated into a shuttle between Atlantic Terminal and Jamaica. Now that the subway is taking over it, this frees up TPH on LIRR tracks. New track connections will be built so the  and  could swap with each other at any given time.

Overall though, sending the  to Fulton would be good for the short-term when the  is not around. However, in the long-term, SAS to Fulton is the best option. The  to Fulton basically parallels my proposed IND Utica Av line (eg. the  goes to Kings Plaza while in the long-term, the platforms are shaved back, and the  would take its place.) 

Sorry for the long post. 

 

 

[bobtehpanda]

Just now, W4ST said:

Could just south of Whitehall Street be a feasible place to build the connection? I believe there is a bellmouth there that was intended for a line along Atlantic Avenue. It would be an at-grade junction but if all trains went through the new tunnel from Whitehall, I think it could work.

Then you'd be building a new tunnel under the river, but why would you build a new tunnel just to connect it to tracks that are fully spoken for when it comes to capacity?

The solution to a patchy network is not adding more patches.

[bobtehpanda]

8 hours ago, RR503 said:

This is the point you're missing. The basis for this entire plan is a new set of tunnels under the river from Hoyt-Schermerhorn to the bellmouths at Whitehall. Nassau/4th service is thus isolated from Broadway/Fulton, allowing for both to run into Brooklyn at 30ish tph. 

Off the bat, there's the fact that SAS Phase 4 probably will not be built within our lifetimes. I can guarantee you that Fulton will reach its breaking point before then. I agree that connecting 8th to Fulton via these tunnels would be a waste, but a Broadway service is absolutely a defensible choice.

The current transfer at Jay is neither a level change nor simple, and the  platform at Jay is narrow enough to create harrowing crowding situations even in the off-peak. Moreover, a stopless tunnel from Hoyt to Whitehall -- Court is probably not deep enough to avoid eminent domaining a good number of houses beyond the end of Schermerhorn -- would in all likelihood make up for any time penalties caused by the 's serpentine route through Lower Manhattan, making it a competitive alternative for travelers going as far as Midtown. If we assume 5 minutes from Hoyt to Whitehall, and then current train speeds beyond there, the  would take:

-15 mins to Canal/Church, vs 13 via  

-18 mins to Union Square, vs 19 via  to  

-22 mins to Herald Square, vs 23 via  to  

-25 mins to Times Square, vs 22 via  

So maybe more competitive than you think...

I just did the Brighton to IRT transfer. Sure, it's not perfect, but it isn't PABT to TSQ. Just a few weird jogs. And while South Brooklyn riders may be attracted to the easier interchange at Grand, you miss the connection with the Brooklyn IRT itself (which is a tad too far from Fulton for them to be considered to have overlapping service regions, IMO). And while you may be able to suck some riders off buses at Nostrand and Utica with SAS on Fulton Local, you must keep in mind that your SAS service is, well, local -- for its entire route, mind you -- while the  are express. Whether that translates into a disparity in travel time remains to be seen, but it is indeed something to keep in mind. 

I think the real flaw with SAS to Fulton is the fact that such a pattern would completely miss serving many high-density areas in Brooklyn. As much as I believe that Fulton deserves more service, a cursory glance at a population map shows that the real areas of density outside of the Jamaica/Canarsie corridors are in Sunset Park, along the edges (especially the south one) of Prospect Park, and along Eastern Parkway. While SAS/Fulton would serve the latter area well, residents of the former two would be forced to continue using the Brooklyn IRT, or (ab)use the  as bridge services even moreso than they do today. Sending SAS via the Manhattan Bridge in the place of the  (which would take over Williamsburg, I guess) or via Nassau to 4th Local allows single transfer access to all of those areas, and allows SAS to access a greater spread of destinations than it would have along Fulton. I also think there's something to be said for the fact that both of those options would obviate the need to built out all of Phase 4, a not insignificant cost and time saving in our current construction environment. 

IIRC, Phase IV is actually the phase expected to bring the most passengers, moreso than any of the other phases individually, because Water St is so dense and underserved. As far as that goes, I don't believe that's an issue.

Likewise, the boost you could do to  services after de-interlining the northern end of Broadway is more than sufficient enough to handle projected passenger volumes at Grand St.

But I will concede the rest of the points.

[T to Dyre Avenue]

19 hours ago, RR503 said:

This is the point you're missing. The basis for this entire plan is a new set of tunnels under the river from Hoyt-Schermerhorn to the bellmouths at Whitehall. Nassau/4th service is thus isolated from Broadway/Fulton,allowing for both to run into Brooklyn at 30ish tph. 

Off the bat, there's the fact that SAS Phase 4 probably will not be built within our lifetimes. I can guarantee you that Fulton will reach its breaking point before then. I agree that connecting 8th to Fulton via these tunnels would be a waste, but a Broadway service is absolutely a defensible choice.

The current transfer at Jay is neither a level change nor simple, and the  platform at Jay is narrow enough to create harrowing crowding situations even in the off-peak. Moreover, a stopless tunnel from Hoyt to Whitehall -- Court is probably not deep enough to avoid eminent domaining a good number of houses beyond the end of Schermerhorn -- would in all likelihood make up for any time penalties caused by the 's serpentine route through Lower Manhattan, making it a competitive alternative for travelers going as far as Midtown.

I think I may have missed that point too, which is why I suggested connecting the Fulton St local tracks to Montague. I’ll admit, at first I was skeptical of the need for a new East River tunnel to relieve the Fulton St Line. I do think the  and  merging at Schermerhorn is a bottleneck for that line, but are we really getting to the point where we need a new East River tunnel to relieve it?

11 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

Then you'd be building a new tunnel under the river, but why would you build a new tunnel just to connect it to tracks that are fully spoken for when it comes to capacity?

The solution to a patchy network is not adding more patches.

Are they? I was under the impression that the   merge at Hoyt limits capacity and that if it weren’t for that, you could run additional trains. But then you’d need the Fulton Local service to go elsewhere, as it originally did when they ran the HH shuttle train from Euclid to Court St (now the Transit Museum) from 1936-46. That would be where a new tunnel or track connection would come in. 

Honestly, I think the current setup is a patch. The original idea the City had to not run Fulton and QBL local trains into Manhattan just didn’t work, so that’s why we have the current setup on Fulton (same can be said for QBL thanks to both the 11th St cut and the 63rd St tunnel connection). But it slows down and limits service on both the  and . Having the Fulton local tracks run elsewhere would solve those problems. But why wait until after the next time Halley’s Comet comes around to get that solution?

10 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

IIRC, Phase IV is actually the phase expected to bring the most passengers, moreso than any of the other phases individually, because Water St is so dense and underserved. As far as that goes, I don't believe that's an issue.

Likewise, the boost you could do to  services after de-interlining the northern end of Broadway is more than sufficient enough to handle projected passenger volumes at Grand St.

But I will concede the rest of the points.

But Phase 4 will pass over or under quite a few lines without connecting to them. The exception will be the  at Grand. The  will be too far east to make an easy connection to the other lines. And any other passengers from South Brooklyn who need to get to the Water St area, will need to make their way to the  or  at Atlantic or DeKalb first before transferring to the  at Grand. Either that or take the  (or possibly ) to Whitehall and walk...if it’s close enough. 

Edited June 17, 2018 by T to Dyre Avenue

[KK 6 Ave Local]

18 hours ago, Coney Island Av said:

Anyways, I've suggested sending the  to Fulton but not the . I wouldn't send both to Fulton- one should go to the latter while the other goes to SBK. 

I think the  via Whitehall thingy is overkill, so all that should be done is sending the  to Fulton. The former would require rearranging tracks, making reroutes more harder, and would sever the  south of City Hall. The latter only requires a simple track connection between Court St and Lawrence St, and is much more cheaper/simple to do. 

I do agree that the current  hauls like garbage and is notoriously delayed. That's why we have a ton of old threads with ideas for extending the  or  to South Brooklyn. But since no one uses the one-seat ride to Midtown, I think it will be a good investment to replace the  with Nassau service. If riders will bail, Nassau will ultimately provide more transfer options than the , so it makes the most sense as a feeder. 

Despite how long the line will be, I think it would make sense to just extend both the  to Bay Ridge-95 St. The  could also be extended to Bay Pkwy for additional rush hour service. The  will be rerouted to Fulton St, allowing the  to go express to Lefferts. In turn, the  can get based out of Pitkin, and could then run from Astoria to Euclid Av. The  could then support the  on SAS or run via 63rd to QBL. 

Another reason why extending the  to 95 St in place of the  is beneficial is because the  have less merges and less bottlenecks/congestion (one bottleneck at Myrtle for , several bottlenecks for the ). In fact, this will give riders in Bay Ridge more frequent service. 

But let's say we get to Phase 4, and the  is extended to Hanover Square. Since Fulton would already have the , I would suggest capturing the LIRR Atlantic Branch, and reroute  service to Jamaica. Capturing the LIRR Atlantic Branch would allow for an express to Lower Manhattan for Jamaica riders, and would relieve Fulton/QBL. This won't do any harm to normal LIRR service because after ESA is built, the line is slated to be truncated into a shuttle between Atlantic Terminal and Jamaica. Now that the subway is taking over it, this frees up TPH on LIRR tracks. New track connections will be built so the  and  could swap with each other at any given time.

Overall though, sending the  to Fulton would be good for the short-term when the  is not around. However, in the long-term, SAS to Fulton is the best option. The  to Fulton basically parallels my proposed IND Utica Av line (eg. the  goes to Kings Plaza while in the long-term, the platforms are shaved back, and the  would take its place.) 

Sorry for the long post. 

 

 

Other SAS trains should divert the  to Williamsburg, as the current SBK track pairing isn't very efficient according to vanshnookenraggen. 

[RR503]

On 6/16/2018 at 5:55 PM, Coney Island Av said:

Anyways, I've suggested sending the  to Fulton but not the . I wouldn't send both to Fulton- one should go to the latter while the other goes to SBK. 

You can't have it both ways unless you want merging at a flat junction south of Whitehall. If you think Fulton would be getting too much service with both  and , you can turn one at City Hall and/or Whitehall. 

On 6/16/2018 at 5:55 PM, Coney Island Av said:

But let's say we get to Phase 4, and the  is extended to Hanover Square. Since Fulton would already have the , I would suggest capturing the LIRR Atlantic Branch, and reroute  service to Jamaica. Capturing the LIRR Atlantic Branch would allow for an express to Lower Manhattan for Jamaica riders, and would relieve Fulton/QBL. This won't do any harm to normal LIRR service because after ESA is built, the line is slated to be truncated into a shuttle between Atlantic Terminal and Jamaica. Now that the subway is taking over it, this frees up TPH on LIRR tracks. New track connections will be built so the  and  could swap with each other at any given time.

I actually really like this idea. Attach ENY to Broadway Junction proper, reopen Woodhaven, and build a new El stop at Utica, and you thus have a really fast, functional route to Jamaica -- one that could finally provide the capacity needed to extend the subway further into Queens. 

Of course, integrating this replacement (and NYCTA system in general) into the LIRR fare system is a must -- you don't want to cut off LIRR riders' Brooklyn access -- but that is certainly something that falls into the category of 'things that should be done anyway.'

On 6/17/2018 at 10:36 AM, T to Dyre Avenue said:

I think I may have missed that point too, which is why I suggested connecting the Fulton St local tracks to Montague. I’ll admit, at first I was skeptical of the need for a new East River tunnel to relieve the Fulton St Line. I do think the  and  merging at Schermerhorn is a bottleneck for that line, but are we really getting to the point where we need a new East River tunnel to relieve it?

It's less about the marginal throughput impact that that merge has and more about the intrinsic limits of splitting a double track feeder into four track line. All the areas along Fulton are growing at a good clip. Bed Stuy is gentrifying, ENY is rapidly becoming the next big thing in NYC development, and even the Rockaways now are feeling the hipster love. The  may not be the , but they sure as hell aren't getting less crowded. I don't think of this tunnel as an immediate priority, but I do think it's a fun idea to consider in the long run. 

[LGA Link N Train]

@RR503 @Coney Island Av @KK 6 Ave Local and everyone else. If you ask me, I think that building a new tunnel to Fulton should be top priority. Rerouting the  via Fulton and Astoria would be a vast improvement. Heck, it's also beneficial for the and lines if you think about it. Sending the via Astoria would get rid of the awful merge at 34 Street and will allow the to run via SAS. Personally, for putting a secondary QB local service, I'd say the since long island city and Greenpoint are gentrifying right now but since most people in the forums won't agree with that, let's just say the could go back to QBL as a secondary local. Keep in mind that everything I typed is all Pre-SAS

 

 

[LGA Link N Train]

https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?mid=1cT5ICZwn2QtnNd95ccTdrVzDYT7B7E0h&ll=40.78693714644697%2C-74.02126060263822&z=12

Since everyone is talking about the and how it can be improved. I incorperated it into this map i was working on

[EphraimB]

I'm working on a 2080 Subway Map: https://drive.google.com/open?id=12wgjZQjUEuVfkyD3JeR3HtnUk0dHiaJ9&usp=sharing

[Coney Island Av]

6 minutes ago, EphraimB said:

I'm working on a 2080 Subway Map: https://drive.google.com/open?id=12wgjZQjUEuVfkyD3JeR3HtnUk0dHiaJ9&usp=sharing

Are you seriously keeping that  extension to Reeds Lane? 

 

[LegoBrickBreaker101]

20 minutes ago, EphraimB said:

I'm working on a 2080 Subway Map: https://drive.google.com/open?id=12wgjZQjUEuVfkyD3JeR3HtnUk0dHiaJ9&usp=sharing

*Instantly sees that the first and only thing on the map so far is the ridiculous  extension...

 

Edited June 18, 2018 by LegoBrickBreaker101

[R68OnBroadway]

Just came up with a crazy-shit idea on how to build a Fordham Road line without worsening the  's problems:

Lenox Yard is converted into a storage yard for the  , which now branches off after 145th to the old Lenox station on the  . The connection to the IRT is removed. 145th could be lengthened if possible.

Meanwhile, a portion of the local tracks are demolished to be connected to the express tracks before 155th, allowing the  to take over for the  .

At 168th, the  now terminates using the  's former tracks, and the  captures the  north of 168th with a cross-platform transfer. After 207th, the  now crosses into the Bronx under Fordham Road to Co-Op city. Stops at Jerome-Grand Concourse, Fordham Plaza, Southern Blvd-Bronx Zoo, White Plains Road, Ben Nolan Way, Eastchester Rd, Bay Plaza/Co-op City South, and Co-Op city North at Co-Op City Blvd. A  extension would also run to Co-op city.

As for the issue of yard connectivity, you could just link up the storage tracks at 168th with the  's tracks and build bypass tracks for the stations to avoid the wider platforms, assuming the tunnel is kept to B div specifications.

This plan gives many improvements, like:

-adds more A-div and B-div connections:

-Shortens both the  and  

-Creates a cross-Bronx line mimicking the Bx12 (SBS on this route can be eliminated but local service would be retained) that has a cheap connection to Manhattan

-With the  now at 207th, Rogers can be deinterlined without taking direct yard access from the  (  could be moved to Pitkin if feasible, which could get rid of the issue of building station bypass tracks. 

-gives the  a better terminal

-allows for any SAS service into the Bronx to be routed up Third or Webster