Department of Subways - Proposals/Ideas

[KK 6 Ave Local]

15 hours ago, TheNewYorkElevated said:

It has been years since I've done a proposal on this thread. 

A  train service to Coney Island. Every summer, select  trains would go to Coney Island making all stops with the . The purpose is that it serves residents throughout the Crosstown line for a one seat ride to the beaches and amusements when the Island is at it's peak, and alleviate overcrowding on the . 

Another suggestion is to draw out plans of where the 2nd Avenue Subway should go in Brooklyn should the  ever consider extending the line in the future. I imagine a 4-track 5th Avenue Subway with a connection to the  train around 36th Street and ending at Bay Ridge where the  is. Maybe even an elevated line on the Staten Island Expressway with a tunnel under the Verrazano-Narrows and heading underground afterwards ending at the Mall. 

 

I think it should run on FH Pkway to serve more people. So the  (U) ( V ) will go on a new tunnel where the  branches off to serve the Atlantic Branch. The (U) ( V ) go down on 7th Ave one express, one local and at 20th Street, they switch to McDonald Ave, then on to the Parkway. This allows for connections to the , , and  at seperate stops.

Edited June 28, 2018 by KK 6 Ave Local

[RR503]

SAS provides a one in a lifetime opportunity to integrate a wholly new trunk line into Brooklyn. You *really* want to send that capacity down a new line that duplicates a perfectly adequate existing structure? Why not send that capacity somewhere that needs such capacity — for example, the Atlantic Avenue corridor. Or if you actually have to send it down into SBK, why not recapture Nassau or the Manhattan Bridge north tracks and use what’s already there? A 4 track line down 5th Avenue — one that will be fed by a trunk with 2 tracks — reeks of wasteful planning. 

[KK 6 Ave Local]

1 hour ago, RR503 said:

SAS provides a one in a lifetime opportunity to integrate a wholly new trunk line into Brooklyn. You *really* want to send that capacity down a new line that duplicates a perfectly adequate existing structure? Why not send that capacity somewhere that needs such capacity — for example, the Atlantic Avenue corridor. Or if you actually have to send it down into SBK, why not recapture Nassau or the Manhattan Bridge north tracks and use what’s already there? A 4 track line down 5th Avenue — one that will be fed by a trunk with 2 tracks — reeks of wasteful planning. 

I agree. 5th Avenue doesn't need more service. The S4 Street subway and Atlantic Ave would be a much better use of the SAS. However, there is one thing I agree on- Building to Staten Island. I think the best way to do this would be my FH Parkway line.

[W4ST]

1 hour ago, KK 6 Ave Local said:

I agree. 5th Avenue doesn't need more service. The S4 Street subway and Atlantic Ave would be a much better use of the SAS. However, there is one thing I agree on- Building to Staten Island. I think the best way to do this would be my FH Parkway line.

IMO a line to Staten Island would be best off if it came from the Manhattan Bridge, as it would bring passengers to Midtown faster, as opposed to Downtown, which is easily accessible via the Staten Island Ferry. 

They could work to create a track connection such that a line to Staten Island merges with the 4th Avenue Express at 59th Street. Then, the West End line could become part of the 4th Avenue Local. (This could be controversial though) The new line (probably the  or  , with the  going along West End) would have 15 tph, although if more is needed a tunnel under 3rd Avenue could be possible.

This line could be used to reactivate the North Shore Line.

Edited June 28, 2018 by W4ST

[Wallyhorse]

On 6/26/2018 at 8:56 PM, Coney Island Av said:

Since many ideas have been thrown around lately, I'd figure I'd post my take on it. My take is somewhat deinterlining, though not entirely. 

 should stay as-is.

The  should be moved to 8 Av Express service south of 59th, which frees up capacity on the 8 Av local tracks and eliminates merging at Canal St. It'll also be extended to Lefferts via Fulton St Exp. 

The M should be rerouted to 63rd with the F. 

N will go up SAS with the Q. 

R is diverted to Astoria, thus reducing any sort of impact on Broadway. To replace C service on Fulton Local, the R would be rerouted there. Late nights, the R would be truncated to a shuttle between 57 St-7 Av and Astoria.

J/Z are both extended to Bay Ridge-95 St via 4 Av Local all times to replace R service. W will either stay as-is or be extended to 9 Av or Bay Pkwy. 

Instead of diverting the  to QBL, I would create a new rush hour  service running from Forest Hills-71 Av to WTC, almost identical to the  (albeit via QBL local). This would separate the expresses/locals from each other, and allow for supplemental service to the  on QBL to make up for the loss of  service. The  via QBL on the other hand, would require a merge with the  between 42 St-Port Authority and 50 St. Although you could keep the  local to QBL, it'll still merge at Canal. In my plan, however, the  (expresses) and  (locals) are completely segregated from each other, and the only thing required is a crossover switch north of 50 St to allow the  to merge to the express without conflicting with  service.  Now you may say, "you're just moving the problem to 50 St" but this is different because the  won't be holding up the  anymore, nor will it hold up the  in any way. 

I would extend the  as-is to Bay Ridge because it would be more simpler to do than making an entirely different line. I do see points that the  will be one long route, but line length will be irrelevant since you could easily terminate a few  trains at Chambers or Broad if it really proved to be a problem. 

Now for the . The  to me is a service that's always treated poorly solely due to the fact that it doesn't go to Manhattan. It wasn't even cut back due to the latter reason in the first place, it was only cut back either most of time/permanently because the  needed to fit, and also due to cost-cutting back in 2010. If ridership was really the problem, it would've been cut back much sooner. Anyways, I would (as mentioned earlier) at the very least send it to Queens Plaza. Despite the fact it would only be able to turn 12 TPH as @RR503 pointed out, I don't think the  would need to get a significant boost in TPH, given that's it's only being extended one stop, and 12 TPH would be just fine if it really did need an increase. Extending it to Queensboro Plaza and/or 21 St-Queensbridge would require new tunnels. as opposed to sending it to Queens Plaza, where only a simple crossover switch would be necessary. 

Long story short, to sum it up, this is my plan for *somewhat* deinterlining QBL/Broadway. 

- increased to 10 TPH, rerouted to 8 Av Exp and Fulton St Exp to Lefferts

- unchanged, both 15 TPH

- extended to Queens Plaza, 12 TPH

- 6-10 TPH, new rush hour service to Forest Hills

- 12 TPH, extended to Bay Ridge

- rerouted to 63rd, 10-12 TPH

- rerouted to SAS, 10-12 TPH

- diverted to Astoria, 10 TPH

Sorry for the long post. 

 

I don't think that would so easily work as Broadway riders will still want their service (especially from Jamaica).  I do like the idea, however, there is ONE small problem with that:

What do you do with those on CPW looking specifically for 50th Street-8th Avenue?

That's another issue as with the express, no stop at 50th for trains going to/coming from CPW.  Yes, you could either take the or to 7th Avenue and take the , but that is a major PITA for many as would be taking the or to 42nd and cross over to take the  (or in rush hours).  

You might have to placate the handful of riders specially looking for 50th from CPW by replacing the with the  (yes, I would bring back double letters) that would run Chambers-168th as most likely a 2-4 TPH supplement.

As for the , the problem with turning at Queens Plaza is that it would interfere with other lines. 

What might be a way to extend the is after Court Square, it goes above ground around 45th and Jackson Avenue to a new above-ground station at Queens Plaza that connects to the other lines there, with such either terminating there OR either:

Makes a big left turn and terminates in a new portion of Queensboro Plaza (remember, Queensboro Plaza used to be twice as big as it is now) that is one track on each of two levels OR two tracks on a new upper level above the Queensbound portion of the  and . Most likely, such would be on the  side of the current Queensboro Plaza Station.

OR

Continues above the QB tracks until those turn off and continues across Northern Boulevard, connecting to the Astoria tracks and continuing to Ditmars Boulevard.

The latter option would give Astoria riders new connections to the 6th and 8th Avenue lines at BOTH Queens Plaza and Court Square as well as the  at Court Square.

As for the , the idea of having it run along a new connection to the Fulton Line would be a good option and give riders on Fulton a Broadway option they don't currently have.  That would allow to have the run on most likely a 4/3 split between Far Rockaway and Rockaway Park (even split when 8 TPH or less) and the  being a 24/7 Lefferts Line (and all three lines running as Fulton Locals late nights).  Re-routing the other way to Astoria would put the back on its more natural line on Broadway.

The / from Bay Ridge is a long route which is why I was looking at doing such as a split route with Chambers as the terminal for both halves of the split.  You might have to do it where in rush hours, some and trains short-turn at Essex from Bay Ridge and at Chambers from Jamaica Center. 

As for re-routing the , that to me is a non-starter because while yes, you would have the local , you lose 6th Avenue service stopping at Queens Plaza and Court Square.  Yes, you could operate the express to Jamaica Center, but that can only work if the Eastern Division stations are extended to handle 600-foot trains (or at least 540-foot trains that are nine cars that can work at most Eastern Division stations). You also would need to make the a 24/7 line to work.  

 

Sending the up to 96th to help out the would work as well as long as the  and  can serve Astoria with enough trains in this.  

[officiallyliam]

Quite frankly, @Wallyhorse, I don't particularly want to respond to this - it's nothing you haven't brought up before and it's nothing that hasn't been debated on these forums on several occasions. I don't understand your fascination with "supplement" services that hardly run as a way to "placate" individuals or, at most, tens of riders. But here goes:

15 minutes ago, Wallyhorse said:

I don't think that would so easily work as Broadway riders will still want their service (especially from Jamaica).  I do like the idea, however, there is ONE small problem with that:

Really? How many are actually using the from QBL to Manhattan - but especially from Jamaica? This question will apply to several more of your points: but where do you derive these conclusions on ridership for which you are so famous?

17 minutes ago, Wallyhorse said:

What do you do with those on CPW looking specifically for 50th Street-8th Avenue?
That's another issue as with the express, no stop at 50th for trains going to/coming from CPW.  Yes, you could either take the or to 7th Avenue and take the , but that is a major PITA for many as would be taking the or to 42nd and cross over to take the  (or in rush hours). 

You tell them either to make use of the very easy cross-platform interchange at 53rd and 7th, use the parallel line, or depending where in the 50th Street walkshed they're going, walk from either 42nd or 59th.

This is why I suggested a simple solution for the 8th Avenue lines: south of 59th, the and would be express and and local; along CPW the and would be local and and express as usual. CPW would get the same service and 8th Avenue riders would be able to use capacity that is thrown away today by the Canal merge. And yet, you suggest this:

21 minutes ago, Wallyhorse said:

You might have to placate the handful of riders specially looking for 50th from CPW by replacing the with the  (yes, I would bring back double letters) that would run Chambers-168th as most likely a 2-4 TPH supplement.

Remind me, who exactly will be placated by a train running every 20 to 30 minutes? If I'm at 86th Street looking to get to 50th, you really think I'm going to wait 25 minutes, watching downtown trains go by, just so I can get to 50th Street? The double letter revival is creative though, even for you - but totally unnecessary and certainly potentially confusing.

25 minutes ago, Wallyhorse said:

The / from Bay Ridge is a long route which is why I was looking at doing such as a split route with Chambers as the terminal for both halves of the split.  You might have to do it where in rush hours, some and trains short-turn at Essex from Bay Ridge and at Chambers from Jamaica Center. 

@RR503 has covered this one already, above - please provide reasoning why Chambers is the ideal location for the Nassau split.

26 minutes ago, Wallyhorse said:

As for re-routing the , that to me is a non-starter because while yes, you would have the local , you lose 6th Avenue service stopping at Queens Plaza and Court Square.  Yes, you could operate the express to Jamaica Center, but that can only work if the Eastern Division stations are extended to handle 600-foot trains (or at least 540-foot trains that are nine cars that can work at most Eastern Division stations). You also would need to make the a 24/7 line to work.  

Again, cry me a river! 6th Avenue service is available through a cross-platform transfer at 7th & 53rd - but segregating 8th Avenue trains to 53rd and 6th Avenue trains to 53rd allows the capacity that theoretically exists today to be actually used effectively. Why are you so vehemently against using capacity in a way that balances demand with operational effectiveness, and instead choose to use the subway system to provide point-to-point service for every subway rider?

I - and I believe, most people here - love debating transit proposals and talking about how we might see the subway in the future. But again, I think I can speak for most people in saying that there's no fun in talking at length about the same exact proposals - proposals which have been proven time and time again to be either operationally infeasible, not what riders are asking for or want, or some combination of that. Talking every other day about why the shouldn't become the and , or why trains shouldn't end at Chambers Street, or why running a train every half hour down 8th Avenue just to let three people get to 50th Street quite simply takes the fun out of an otherwise enjoyable conversation about how the subway could be changed.

[AlgorithmOfTruth]

1 hour ago, Wallyhorse said:

I don't think that would so easily work as Broadway riders will still want their service (especially from Jamaica).  I do like the idea, however, there is ONE small problem with that:

What do you do with those on CPW looking specifically for 50th Street-8th Avenue?

That's another issue as with the express, no stop at 50th for trains going to/coming from CPW.  Yes, you could either take the or to 7th Avenue and take the , but that is a major PITA for many as would be taking the or to 42nd and cross over to take the  (or in rush hours).  

You might have to placate the handful of riders specially looking for 50th from CPW by replacing the with the  (yes, I would bring back double letters) that would run Chambers-168th as most likely a 2-4 TPH supplement.

As for the , the problem with turning at Queens Plaza is that it would interfere with other lines. 

What might be a way to extend the is after Court Square, it goes above ground around 45th and Jackson Avenue to a new above-ground station at Queens Plaza that connects to the other lines there, with such either terminating there OR either:

Makes a big left turn and terminates in a new portion of Queensboro Plaza (remember, Queensboro Plaza used to be twice as big as it is now) that is one track on each of two levels OR two tracks on a new upper level above the Queensbound portion of the  and . Most likely, such would be on the  side of the current Queensboro Plaza Station.

OR

Continues above the QB tracks until those turn off and continues across Northern Boulevard, connecting to the Astoria tracks and continuing to Ditmars Boulevard.

The latter option would give Astoria riders new connections to the 6th and 8th Avenue lines at BOTH Queens Plaza and Court Square as well as the  at Court Square.

As for the , the idea of having it run along a new connection to the Fulton Line would be a good option and give riders on Fulton a Broadway option they don't currently have.  That would allow to have the run on most likely a 4/3 split between Far Rockaway and Rockaway Park (even split when 8 TPH or less) and the  being a 24/7 Lefferts Line (and all three lines running as Fulton Locals late nights).  Re-routing the other way to Astoria would put the back on its more natural line on Broadway.

The / from Bay Ridge is a long route which is why I was looking at doing such as a split route with Chambers as the terminal for both halves of the split.  You might have to do it where in rush hours, some and trains short-turn at Essex from Bay Ridge and at Chambers from Jamaica Center. 

As for re-routing the , that to me is a non-starter because while yes, you would have the local , you lose 6th Avenue service stopping at Queens Plaza and Court Square.  Yes, you could operate the express to Jamaica Center, but that can only work if the Eastern Division stations are extended to handle 600-foot trains (or at least 540-foot trains that are nine cars that can work at most Eastern Division stations). You also would need to make the a 24/7 line to work.  

 

Sending the up to 96th to help out the would work as well as long as the  and  can serve Astoria with enough trains in this.  

The subway is not a "one size fits all" system—ultimately, you will have to tailor the services available to you to make it work. Rapid transit in NYC operated by the MTA isn't concerned with addressing needs on an individual basis; it's the masses that prevail.

[Coney Island Av]

Since we're talking about deinterlining, I might as well share my thoughts on Alon Levy's Plan.

In my opinion, he goes way too far with deinterlining. This is why:

Firstly, sending the  back to Nassau is a non-starter. Ridership will drop like a rock, and Delancey-Essex/Myrtle-Wyckoff will become overwhelmed. The  will be overcrowded going into Manhattan. The real thing that limits capacity is not the  itself, it's the Myrtle Av bottleneck and the curve at Cypress Hills. Fixing those would be a better investment than otherwise. 

Secondly, the  cannot terminate at Bergen St without tearing up Boerum Hill. Smith St isn't that wide and building new track connection might require the demolition of several buildings for such a high cost. But again, the only thing that limits capacity is Coney Island-Stillwell. It's inability to turn 15 TPH results in a handful of s terminating at Kings Highway. In fact, he doesn't even realize the  could simply go express and the  can go local without building any new connections. But overall, the  should be left alone.

Untangling CPW is not necessary. It will only result in Grand Concourse and/or Inwood riders having slower commutes to Manhattan. And he cannot blame the  as an alternative because the  and  go to separate places. The merges aren't really that severe, so why would they even need a service increase?

Having the  go to Wakefield/Dyre and  to Woodlawn is also a non-starter. 149 St-GC will become an overcrowding nightmare. They should be left as-is IMO. 

Same case in Brooklyn with the  to Flatbush and  to New Lots and  to Utica. I don't see the need to deinterline the IRT because only the expresses share tracks with each other. In other words, the  and  are completely isolated from the  respectively. 

As for QBL, deinterlining isn't necessary. CBTC signals would increase capacity just enough so that the routes don't need to be changed. 

The only places where I either completely agree or partially agree with deinterlining are the following:

Broadway: 

 to either QBL or SAS,  to SAS,  to Astoria,  eliminated

8 Av: 

 8 Av Express,  8 Av Express (south of 59 St),  8 Av local

Dekalb (partially):

: BPB or 145 St to Coney Island via Sea Beach, late nights to Atlantic Av

: Norwood-205 St to Coney Island via West End (unchanged)

: 96 St or Forest Hills-71 Av to Brighton Beach 

: 96 St to Coney Island (unchanged)

 

 

[T to Dyre Avenue]

On 6/28/2018 at 3:56 PM, RR503 said:

SAS provides a one in a lifetime opportunity to integrate a wholly new trunk line into Brooklyn. You *really* want to send that capacity down a new line that duplicates a perfectly adequate existing structure? Why not send that capacity somewhere that needs such capacity — for example, the Atlantic Avenue corridor. Or if you actually have to send it down into SBK, why not recapture Nassau or the Manhattan Bridge north tracks and use what’s already there? A 4 track line down 5th Avenue — one that will be fed by a trunk with 2 tracks — reeks of wasteful planning. 

Agreed. But one of my concerns whenever someone has in the past suggested connecting SAS into Nassau St is the resulting idea of either duplicating or replacing an existing South Brooklyn service. If the  or another SAS line could connect to the Atlantic Branch, that would be more effective.

On 6/28/2018 at 7:22 PM, W4ST said:

IMO a line to Staten Island would be best off if it came from the Manhattan Bridge, as it would bring passengers to Midtown faster, as opposed to Downtown, which is easily accessible via the Staten Island Ferry. 

They could work to create a track connection such that a line to Staten Island merges with the 4th Avenue Express at 59th Street. Then, the West End line could become part of the 4th Avenue Local. (This could be controversial though) The new line (probably the  or  , with the  going along West End) would have 15 tph, although if more is needed a tunnel under 3rd Avenue could be possible.

This line could be used to reactivate the North Shore Line.

There isn’t enough capacity on the Manhattan Bridge and the Broadway express tracks for a third service...unless you run trains on all three lines at less than 10 tph during the rush.

[KK 6 Ave Local]

On 6/28/2018 at 7:22 PM, W4ST said:

IMO a line to Staten Island would be best off if it came from the Manhattan Bridge, as it would bring passengers to Midtown faster, as opposed to Downtown, which is easily accessible via the Staten Island Ferry. 

They could work to create a track connection such that a line to Staten Island merges with the 4th Avenue Express at 59th Street. Then, the West End line could become part of the 4th Avenue Local. (This could be controversial though) The new line (probably the  or  , with the  going along West End) would have 15 tph, although if more is needed a tunnel under 3rd Avenue could be possible.

This line could be used to reactivate the North Shore Line.

Vanshnookenraggen, on his website, has proposed having a SAS service replacing the  on Fourth Express and Sea Beach, while the  moves to Fourth Local and Staten Island. Moving the  to Fulton could make this worth it. This new SAS service would run via Montague because of the added capacity with the  moving. The  would continue to run via the Bridge.

However, this would make it just like the  is now (besides the SI line)

Edited June 30, 2018 by KK 6 Ave Local

[KK 6 Ave Local]

30 minutes ago, KK 6 Ave Local said:

Vanshnookenraggen, on his website, has proposed having a SAS service replacing the  on Fourth Express and Sea Beach, while the  moves to Fourth Local and Staten Island. Moving the  to Fulton could make this worth it. This new SAS service would run via Montague because of the added capacity with the  moving. The  would continue to run via the Bridge.

However, this would make it just like the  is now (besides the SI line)

This plan is what I was talking about. It also features other discussion-worthy topics.

[LGA Link N Train]

50 minutes ago, KK 6 Ave Local said:

This plan is what I was talking about. It also features other discussion-worthy topics.

You do realize that this was posted years ago and some of the ideas he proposed are not even feasible, either way, some of it is discussion worthy 

Edited June 30, 2018 by LGA Link N train
My phone posts for me before I even got a chance to type anything

[T to Dyre Avenue]

8 hours ago, KK 6 Ave Local said:

Vanshnookenraggen, on his website, has proposed having a SAS service replacing the  on Fourth Express and Sea Beach, while the  moves to Fourth Local and Staten Island. Moving the  to Fulton could make this worth it. This new SAS service would run via Montague because of the added capacity with the  moving. The  would continue to run via the Bridge.

However, this would make it just like the  is now (besides the SI line)

But then the  would have to run local all the way through Brooklyn plus merge with the  and  before entering DeKalb northbound. Southbound, it would have to merge with the  or whichever SAS service is routed through there. It’s not worth it.

[T to Dyre Avenue]

On 6/30/2018 at 10:13 AM, Coney Island Av said:

Since we're talking about deinterlining, I might as well share my thoughts on Alon Levy's Plan.

In my opinion, he goes way too far with deinterlining. This is why:

Firstly, sending the  back to Nassau is a non-starter. Ridership will drop like a rock, and Delancey-Essex/Myrtle-Wyckoff will become overwhelmed. The  will be overcrowded going into Manhattan. The real thing that limits capacity is not the  itself, it's the Myrtle Av bottleneck and the curve at Cypress Hills. Fixing those would be a better investment 

...

As for QBL, deinterlining isn't necessary. CBTC signals would increase capacity just enough so that the routes don't need to be changed. 

The only places where I either completely agree or partially agree with deinterlining are the following:

Broadway: 

 to either QBL or SAS,  to SAS,  to Astoria,  eliminated

8 Av: 

 8 Av Express,  8 Av Express (south of 59 St),  8 Av local

Dekalb (partially):

: BPB or 145 St to Coney Island via Sea Beach, late nights to Atlantic Av

: Norwood-205 St to Coney Island via West End (unchanged)

: 96 St or Forest Hills-71 Av to Brighton Beach 

: 96 St to Coney Island (unchanged)

For everyone who’s advocating for the return of seven-day  service, this version of straight-railing DeKalb would be a good way to provide it.

However, I’d much prefer the  to go to 2nd Ave over Queens Blvd via 63rd. The reason is so that we don’t have the  and  merging both at Lex and at 36th. There’s already lots of merging delays at 36th with the  and . 

Do you have a link for Levy’s plan? While I’ve read that he believes there are lots of flaws with the current service pattern (and there certainly is plenty of room for improvement), I don’t recall seeing anything about putting the  back on Nassau St. I certainly hope not either, for the same reasons you stated. 

As for the IRT, they should leave it alone in the Bronx. But Brooklyn is a different story. The current setup there is not working very well. Having the  merge with the , then having the  merge with the  immediately after, limits the number of trains that can run, forces switches to be overused, resulting in said switches and the signals governing them to malfunction. There has to be a better way. Hopefully not one that requires major reconstruction. We can’t just say the current setup is fine just the way it is “because one-seat rides.” 

Edited July 2, 2018 by T to Dyre Avenue

[P3F]

1 hour ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

For everyone who’s advocating for the return of seven-day  service, this version of straight-railing DeKalb would be a good way to provide it.

You mean, "this version of straight-railing DeKalb would require it."

In return, the  would be in the situation of the current . Why even bother keeping the  name? Just call it  and be done with it. The overall sentiment though, is akin to robbing Peter to pay Paul.

Edited July 2, 2018 by P3F

[Coney Island Av]

7 hours ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

For everyone who’s advocating for the return of seven-day  service, this version of straight-railing DeKalb would be a good way to provide it.

However, I’d much prefer the  to go to 2nd Ave over Queens Blvd via 63rd. The reason is so that we don’t have the  and  merging both at Lex and at 36th. There’s already lots of merging delays at 36th with the  and . 

Do you have a link for Levy’s plan? While I’ve read that he believes there are lots of flaws with the current service pattern (and there certainly is plenty of room for improvement), I don’t recall seeing anything about putting the  back on Nassau St. I certainly hope not either, for the same reasons you stated. 

As for the IRT, they should leave it alone in the Bronx. But Brooklyn is a different story. The current setup there is not working very well. Having the  merge with the , then having the  merge with the  immediately after, limits the number of trains that can run, forces switches to be overused, resulting in said switches and the signals governing them to malfunction. There has to be a better way. Hopefully not one that requires major reconstruction. We can’t just say the current setup is fine just the way it is “because one-seat rides.” 

 

https://pedestrianobservations.com/2018/06/12/how-deinterlining-can-improve-new-york-city-transit/

This is his map. Off the bat you can notice the  to Metropolitan, the  terminating at Bergen, the  being revived and acting like a deinterlined  (terminating at 2 Av), the  being toyed with in the Bronx, etc. 

Also, he has a shuttle running from 148 St to 135 St, however, this will delay  service as 135 St only has the crossover switch north of the station. The only reason it worked out before the  was extended to Times Square is because it was during late nights when the  wasn't running as often. 

 

[T to Dyre Avenue]

12 hours ago, P3F said:

You mean, "this version of straight-railing DeKalb would require it."

In return, the  would be in the situation of the current . Why even bother keeping the  name? Just call it  and be done with it. The overall sentiment though, is akin to robbing Peter to pay Paul.

It’s true that the  would have to run seven days a week if it runs via the Sea Beach Line. I don’t disagree there are other ways to run a weekend  if the ridership is there.

5 hours ago, Coney Island Av said:

This is his map. Off the bat you can notice the  to Metropolitan, the  terminating at Bergen, the  being revived and acting like a deinterlined  (terminating at 2 Av), the  being toyed with in the Bronx, etc. 

Also, he has a shuttle running from 148 St to 135 St, however, this will delay  service as 135 St only has the crossover switch north of the station. The only reason it worked out before the  was extended to Times Square is because it was during late nights when the  wasn't running as often. 

 

Thanks for the link. Yes I agree Levy goes overboard on de-interlining. My biggest concern with reverse branching is that you wind up with too much service in some areas and not enough in others and there ends up being nothing you can do about it because you don’t always have a place where you can turn any extra trains *cough 72nd/2nd cough*

[KK 6 Ave Local]

16 hours ago, P3F said:

You mean, "this version of straight-railing DeKalb would require it."

In return, the  would be in the situation of the current . Why even bother keeping the  name? Just call it  and be done with it. The overall sentiment though, is akin to robbing Peter to pay Paul.

And now it actually makes sense to leave a line with only weekday service because it's an express on Brighton  version of the full-time .

[bobtehpanda]

9 hours ago, Coney Island Av said:

 

https://pedestrianobservations.com/2018/06/12/how-deinterlining-can-improve-new-york-city-transit/

This is his map. Off the bat you can notice the  to Metropolitan, the  terminating at Bergen, the  being revived and acting like a deinterlined  (terminating at 2 Av), the  being toyed with in the Bronx, etc. 

Also, he has a shuttle running from 148 St to 135 St, however, this will delay  service as 135 St only has the crossover switch north of the station. The only reason it worked out before the  was extended to Times Square is because it was during late nights when the  wasn't running as often. 

 

I dislike the  plan; unlike nearly every other de-interlining, the majority of Jamaica passengers are headed to Midtown, and this de-interlining would force most people to change trains. IIRC, Eliot Sanders had a 40 year vision which showed that the between Delancey and Broadway Lafayette would become overcrowded with Jamaica passengers. And there is no clear need to send that many trains hurtling down the Culver Line.

[Caelestor]

10 hours ago, Coney Island Av said:

 https://pedestrianobservations.com/2018/06/12/how-deinterlining-can-improve-new-york-city-transit/

This is his map. Off the bat you can notice the  to Metropolitan, the  terminating at Bergen, the  being revived and acting like a deinterlined  (terminating at 2 Av), the  being toyed with in the Bronx, etc. 

Also, he has a shuttle running from 148 St to 135 St, however, this will delay  service as 135 St only has the crossover switch north of the station. The only reason it worked out before the  was extended to Times Square is because it was during late nights when the  wasn't running as often. 

 

The whole purpose of reviving the  is to send it to Church Ave and turn the  express. Unless the city commits to massive redevelopment along the Culver Line, which admittedly there's been talk of doing so, there's really no reason to take the  off 6 Ave.

The IRT in the Bronx shouldn't be deinterlined until Rogers Junction in Brooklyn, which is the greater bottleneck, is fixed, but Alon leaves it for last anyways.

[CenSin]

Has anyone figured out how the is going to terminate at Bergen Street?

[KK 6 Ave Local]

28 minutes ago, CenSin said:

Has anyone figured out how the is going to terminate at Bergen Street?

Absolutely not. 

[CenSin]

While y’all are busy figuring out how to deinterline the system, San Francisco’s BART is planning on interlining the system for capacity and more resilience against failures.

https://sf.streetsblog.org/2014/12/01/bart-will-study-second-transbay-tube-west-side-extension/comment-page-1/

This system, strangely, resembles the IRT system with reverse branching on either end of the trunk.

[officiallyliam]

On 6/28/2018 at 5:54 PM, KK 6 Ave Local said:

I agree. 5th Avenue doesn't need more service. The S4 Street subway and Atlantic Ave would be a much better use of the SAS. However, there is one thing I agree on- Building to Staten Island. I think the best way to do this would be my FH Parkway line.

On 6/28/2018 at 3:56 PM, RR503 said:

SAS provides a one in a lifetime opportunity to integrate a wholly new trunk line into Brooklyn. You *really* want to send that capacity down a new line that duplicates a perfectly adequate existing structure? Why not send that capacity somewhere that needs such capacity — for example, the Atlantic Avenue corridor. Or if you actually have to send it down into SBK, why not recapture Nassau or the Manhattan Bridge north tracks and use what’s already there? A 4 track line down 5th Avenue — one that will be fed by a trunk with 2 tracks — reeks of wasteful planning. 

I've been contemplating various subway extensions in the last few days, and I think that SAS presents both an opportunity to increase capacity in Brooklyn (which is definitely necessary), but also to finally connect Staten Island in a proper way. Staten Island is both the least developed and fastest-growing out of all the five boroughs: if we continue to leave it isolated, we'll end up choking on congestion and crippling roadways, and increasing the already-critical pressure on subway lines between Brooklyn and Queens and Manhattan. The last time this was officially proposed was back in the 1950s, and before that by the IRT, but I think it is once again time to propose one of the larger perennial fantasies in NYC planning: a direct rail tunnel from Lower Manhattan to Staten Island.

Yes, it seems infeasible and impractical, but since first proposed, we've set more precedent for tunnels with long underwater sections; the Transbay Tube is an example of a tunnel of similar length and character. Tunneling to St. George would then allow an SAS train - let's say the - to capture the SIR line and run down the length of the island to Tottenville. And while it might not seem on the surface like the best investment given current ridership and population of SI, I'd be confident that with inevitable future growth such a tunnel would be a good use of money. If we have the opportunity - a new subway line ending in Lower Manhattan - we shouldn't wait until congestion on roads and the ferry reaches breaking point to do something about it.

The to SI raises the question of SAS northern capacity, because of the requisite line-sharing with trains. Obviously it's too late to solve the 72nd Street problem easily, but there are ways around this: I'd suggest, of course, that the MTA leave provisions for a new Queens tunnel branching off of SAS in Midtown south of 63rd, but that's a longer-term need (as has been discussed at length, there is spare Manhattan-Queens capacity that could be unlocked on existing lines). An easier proposal would be to alter the design of either 42nd or 55th Street stations with two terminal tracks, to allow trains from the south to terminate in Midtown - allowing for higher southern capacity than would be possible with current designs, and possibly for a future four-track expansion (the way Sixth Avenue was done).

So to recap, and for service patterns: the would run unchanged, the would run to Tottenville via the new tunnel, and a second SAS service could run via the Atlantic Branch out to Jamaica. One of these trains would end in Midtown; if the terminal was designed well enough, you could probably get around 36 tph on the lower half of the line (so 18 on each branch), given the straight alignment and good stop spacing. While SAS can certainly be used to improve things in Brooklyn, it also presents a great opportunity to connect SI - one that shouldn't be ignored.

 

[engineerboy6561]

I have a fun one for you guys; it's also something I've wanted to see for a really long time: a four-track trunk on 2 Av carrying four different lines, some from Queens and some from the Bronx. The (P) and the (U) would be the expresses, with the  and (Y) running local. Express stops are in bold below, while local stops are in regular text.

The Bronx line would start off carrying the (P) on two tracks at Bay Plaza, with stops at Edson/Bartow Avs, Gun Hill Rd/Fenton Av (connection to  with rear exits on Eastchester Rd, Boston Rd, White Plains Rd , and a four-track station at Norwood-205 St  beneath the existing tracks. The  would begin service at Norwood-205 St, and then the line would continue south, with the  running local and the (P) running express, stopping at Bedford Park Blvd/Webster Av, Fordham Plaza, 3Av/183 St, 3 Av/Tremont Av, 3 Av/Claremont Pkwy, 3Av/169 St, 3 Av/Boston Rd, 3 Av/156 St, 3 Av/149 St with connections to the  , and 138 St/3 Av. with a connection to the  before running under the East River. 

The Queens line would start at Francis Lewis Bl/26 Av with two tracks, carrying the (U). It would stop at 157 St/23 Av, Willets Pt Blvd/150 St, Willets Pt Blvd/Parsons Blvd, and 28 Av/College Pt Blvd before running under Flushing Bay and stopping at LGA terminal D. LGA Terminal D would be a four-track station, and the (Y) would terminate there. West of Terminal C the line would stop at LGA Central Terminal, 23 Av/82 St, Astoria Blvd/Hazen St, Astoria Blvd/Steinway St, Astoria Blvd/31 St with a connection to the  , and Randall's Island before crossing the East River at around 125 St.

In Manhattan the Ditmars Blvd and 3 Av lines would merge into a single four-track trunk on 2 Av, carrying the (P) and (U) on the express tracks, with the  and (Y) on the local tracks, stopping at 125 St-2Av, 116 St, 106 St, 96 St 86 St, 79 St (infill, may be worth skipping), 72 St, 66 St, 59 St with passage to 59-Lex   , 51 St, 42 St-2 Av  with new  station if possible, 34 St, 28 St, 23 St, 14 St-2 Av with a connection to the 3 Av  stop, St. Mark's Pl, and Houston St-2 Av.

South of there, run a two-track line carrying the  and continuing under Chrystie/Pearl Sts and stops at Grand St , St. James Pl, Fulton/Water Sts, and South Ferry with  connections before continuing to Tottenville to connect with the SIR (shamelessly bumming that from OfficiallyLiam's post right behind mine).

Turn the main trunk line carrying the (P) (U) and (Y) east under the river, and continue it with stops at Metropolitan/Wythe Avs, Metropolitan Av/Roebling St, Metropolitan Av/Lorimer St with a connection to the , Graham Av/Grand Av, Graham Av/Montrose Av, Graham Av/Flushing Av/Broadway with  connection, and Graham Av/Myrtle Av/Broadway with  connection. Split the trunk line here; send four tracks to Kings Plaza via Utica Av and another four via a new Broadway/Jamaica Av line.

The Utica Av line would carry the (P) on the express tracks and the (Y) on the local tracks, and stop at Utica/Lafayette Avs, Utica Av/Halsey St, Utica Av/Fulton St with connection to  using the existing station shell, Utica Av/St Marks St, Utica Av/Eastern Pkwy with connection to , Utica Av/Empire Blvd, Utica Av/Winthrop St, Utica Av/Church Av, Utica Av/Beverly Rd, Utica Av/Foster Av, Utica Av/Kings Highway, Utica Av/Flatlands Av, Utica Av/Av M, Utica Av/Av S, and finally Kings Plaza.

The Broadway/Jamaica Av line would carry the  on the local tracks and the (U) on the express tracks, and stop at Broadway/Gates Av, Broadway/Halsey Av, Broadway/Chauncey St, Broadway Junction with connections to the , Jamaica Av/Arlington Av, Jamaica Av/Elton St, Jamaica Av/Highland Blvd, Jamaica Av/Crescent St, Jamaica Av/75 St, Jamaica Av/85 St, Jamaica Av/Woodhaven Blvd, Jamaica Av/104 St, Jamaica Av/111 St, Jamaica Av/121 St, Sutphin Blvd  with  connection, and Parsons/Archer with  connection.

 and  trains would terminate at Parsons/Archer, while the (U) would continue on a two-track line out to Springfield Blvd via Merrick Blvd, with stops at Liberty Av, 110 Av, Linden Blvd, Baisley Blvd, Farmers Blvd, and Springfield Blvd as the terminus.

The Nassau St Elevated line would be demolished east of the BQE, and a new portal would be built in the block bounded by Rodney St, Broadway, S 5th St, and Keap St to bring the  underground; the Hewes St station would be rebuilt underground, and the new underground Lorimer St station would connect to the Broadway  station. The new underground Broadway/Jamaica Av corridor would be built to IND standards.

This is really ambitious, but it would accomplish a lot of things; The NE Queens branch would connect Northeastern Queens to the subway system, providing redundancy for Flushing, while tying LGA into the subway system in a way that actually makes sense (as opposed to an AirTrain from Flushing to LGA), and the Bronx branch would provide a crosstown option in the Bronx on Gun Hill Rd, and the connections with the  and  would provide west side access to Manhattan, to go along with east side access from the  and  , while also taking a load off the Bx15 and providing the Bronx a proper four-track express service.

The Manhattan trunk would take a huge load off the Lex, especially considering the Bronx connections, and the Brooklyn setup would provide massive relief on the western Brooklyn part of the  , as it would now be possible to get a one-fare ride into Manhattan from any station west of Broadway Junction by taking the B20/24/26/38/52/57/ from the area around basically any L station between Lorimer St and Broadway Junction to a stop on the Broadway/2 Av corridor (or just walk if you're near the Graham Av or Grand St stations on the  . The Utica Av corridor takes a huge load off the B46 (and the split ends of the B41), and the Jamaica Av corridor gets rid of the Crescent St curves while providing one-seat rides from SE Queens into Manhattan.

Edited July 3, 2018 by engineerboy6561