Department of Subways - Proposals/Ideas

[CenSin]

1 hour ago, Caelestor said:

I actually don't think that a transfer to South Ferry is necessary. Financial District riders along Water St should just take the  nearby for West Side access. Chatham Square riders can be serviced by the Grand St and Houston St transfers, albeit inconveniently.

In response to my post, you sort of make the case for a transfer. Inconvenience detracts from the point of building the line in the first place. The will be the very first Manhattan trunk route with no connections to the IRT other than a single transfer to the Lexington Avenue line at its northern terminal. There’s nothing south of 55 Street to make east side access any easier, and the planned line is essentially a dangling dead end. Ferry riders will be forced to use the Lexington Avenue line as the sole provider of east side service. That’s fine and dandy when assuming that everything always works without a hiccup; folks “just” have to walk an extra 2 or 3 avenue blocks to/from the Lexington Avenue line. But should that line ever be closed for construction or suffer from any malfunction, the only other alternative is an entire station away.

This distance from the proposed 2 Avenue alignment along Water Street to the nearest west side line is the same as the distance between the proposed 10 Avenue station on the Flushing line and the Times Square complex. If 10 Avenue was justified on grounds of convenience (for a planned bus terminal), surely an extension to South Ferry is justified. In the mean time after the Hanover Square station is built, I suppose riders could just walk to South Ferry or to Wall Street () like folks are doing now to get to 10 Avenue from Times Square.

[KK 6 Ave Local]

Here's an idea that just might work:

Move the SAS to 3rd or Madison south of 63rd (preferably Madison)

It's one of my crazier ideas, but hey, you never know.

Edited July 7, 2018 by KK 6 Ave Local
zucc

[W4ST]

58 minutes ago, KK 6 Ave Local said:

Here's an idea that just might work:

Move the SAS to 3rd or Madison south of 63rd (preferably Madison)

It's one of my crazier ideas, but hey, you never know.

That would be too close to the Lexington Avenue Line, and wouldn’t really cover new areas. The center of Manhattan already has lots of service, the eastern edge needs more service.

[Caelestor]

7 hours ago, CenSin said:

In response to my post, you sort of make the case for a transfer. Inconvenience detracts from the point of building the line in the first place. The will be the very first Manhattan trunk route with no connections to the IRT other than a single transfer to the Lexington Avenue line at its northern terminal. There’s nothing south of 55 Street to make east side access any easier, and the planned line is essentially a dangling dead end. Ferry riders will be forced to use the Lexington Avenue line as the sole provider of east side service. That’s fine and dandy when assuming that everything always works without a hiccup; folks “just” have to walk an extra 2 or 3 avenue blocks to/from the Lexington Avenue line. But should that line ever be closed for construction or suffer from any malfunction, the only other alternative is an entire station away.

This distance from the proposed 2 Avenue alignment along Water Street to the nearest west side line is the same as the distance between the proposed 10 Avenue station on the Flushing line and the Times Square complex. If 10 Avenue was justified on grounds of convenience (for a planned bus terminal), surely an extension to South Ferry is justified. In the mean time after the Hanover Square station is built, I suppose riders could just walk to South Ferry or to Wall Street () like folks are doing now to get to 10 Avenue from Times Square.

After thinking of it some more, I'd rather see a transfer between Wall Street  and Hanover Sq . Another southern transfer stop is needed when 6 Ave is shut down and  is unavailable. As you mentioned the IRT transfer (with the  available across the platform at Nevins St) is more valuable than a connection to the local .

 

8 hours ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

That’s exactly it. These transfers will be inconvenient. Almost an entire avenue block from the  to the ? An underground passage from the  to GCT? With no free transfer to the ? Not to mention the  in Phase 4 passing over or under several existing lines with no connection to them or that there will be less service below 63rd St vs above 63rd (one of the pitfalls of reverse branching).

There's a decent chance that the SAS capacity north of 63 St will be used up by the  before Phase 3 ever comes online and new plans have to be drawn up.

[bobtehpanda]

8 hours ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

That’s exactly it. These transfers will be inconvenient. Almost an entire avenue block from the  to the ? An underground passage from the  to GCT? With no free transfer to the ? Not to mention the  in Phase 4 passing over or under several existing lines with no connection to them or that there will be less service below 63rd St vs above 63rd (one of the pitfalls of reverse branching).

It's only a half avenue block to the  . Which is roughly the same distance as the current transfer to the .

There is a free transfer to the , but that's not the primary focus of the line. The main focus is getting all those East Side Access riders herded onto the  . Depending on where you are in GCT the walk is not that much longer. 

[KK 6 Ave Local]

So if SAS will be pretty much isolated the whole way instead of 14-42 like other lines (sans Bway), then could a Queens Branch and a second Brooklyn Branch be added instead of just Fulton-Bronx?

[LGA Link N Train]

3 hours ago, KK 6 Ave Local said:

So if SAS will be pretty much isolated the whole way instead of 14-42 like other lines (sans Bway), then could a Queens Branch and a second Brooklyn Branch be added instead of just Fulton-Bronx?

A Queens branch is possible via 63 and could remove the from QBL.

I'm going to agree with whoever made the SAS-Atlantic idea. 

[KK 6 Ave Local]

29 minutes ago, LGA Link N train said:

A Queens branch is possible via 63 and could remove the from QBL.

I'm going to agree with whoever made the SAS-Atlantic idea. 

I was thinking of the bypass, not QBL local. But something should replace that annoying  train.

 

[RR503]

SAS needs to be split into two lines -- Bway Exp extension above 72nd, and a new Manhattan trunk below that -- something that could connect to a new Queens line. Yes, the current design includes a 63rd st connection, but running a service thus is a great way to set the current, overinterlined B division service plan in stone. Much better, IMO, to build a new Queens-bound tunnel under 79th st to finally give that borough direct East Side access. 

Generally, SAS's placement on the eastern flank of Manhattan means it must intercept as many travel flows as possible outside of the core. While making an east side shuttle is sure to relieve the  coming from the UES, the reality is that, given current development patterns, the source of crowding on that corridor will not be as much UES, but people from other locales trying to get to East Midtown. SAS's current design is singularly incapable of mitigating that sort of crowding. Thus, for the line to be an effective anything, it is imperative that it is extended to the Bronx/Queens/Brookyn with a cornucopia of connections therein. 

[LGA Link N Train]

3 hours ago, RR503 said:

SAS needs to be split into two lines -- Bway Exp extension above 72nd, and a new Manhattan trunk below that -- something that could connect to a new Queens line. Yes, the current design includes a 63rd st connection, but running a service thus is a great way to set the current, overinterlined B division service plan in stone. Much better, IMO, to build a new Queens-bound tunnel under 79th st to finally give that borough direct East Side access. 

Generally, SAS's placement on the eastern flank of Manhattan means it must intercept as many travel flows as possible outside of the core. While making an east side shuttle is sure to relieve the  coming from the UES, the reality is that, given current development patterns, the source of crowding on that corridor will not be as much UES, but people from other locales trying to get to East Midtown. SAS's current design is singularly incapable of mitigating that sort of crowding. Thus, for the line to be an effective anything, it is imperative that it is extended to the Bronx/Queens/Brookyn with a cornucopia of connections therein. 

Is this something youd suggest?

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1z4vb4o4cjIAayT2l33AFtx2IOvjBj1aL&usp=sharing

[RR503]

5 minutes ago, LGA Link N train said:

Is this something youd suggest?

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1z4vb4o4cjIAayT2l33AFtx2IOvjBj1aL&usp=sharing

No. The whole point of splitting SAS is to allow the optimization of Manhattan trunk capacity. The plan you’ve laid out — which, as far as I can see, is no different from what was discussed before — keeps the capacitally restrictive interlining (SAS via 63 and via SAS n/o 72) that I’m trying to obviate. I’m thinking towards a new underriver line that goes east after stopping at a LL of 72nd, then into Queens on either Broadway (running under QB local) or 30th Ave. 

[LGA Link N Train]

1 minute ago, RR503 said:

No. The whole point of splitting SAS is to allow the optimization of Manhattan trunk capacity. The plan you’ve laid out — which, as far as I can see, is no different from what was discussed before — keeps the capacitally restrictive interlining (SAS via 63 and via SAS n/o 72) that I’m trying to obviate. I’m thinking towards a new underriver line that goes east after stopping at a LL of 72nd, then into Queens on either Broadway (running under QB local) or 30th Ave. 

ok, I adjusted the map so that anyone can edit, think you can edit it and show me what you mean?

[R68OnBroadway]

My plan for SAS- trunk is listed first then branches.

The line will start in the Bronx at Fordham Plaza and will run under Webster Avenue vs 3rd due it its straighter path and wider roadway. Note that the ,  and (P) services will all be turquoise. 

TRUNK:

Fordham Plaza  

(possible  stop at where 185th St would be if it reached Webster)

180th Street  

Tremont Av  

Claremont Pkwy  

168th St

161st St-Melrose

3rd Av-149th Street   (line runs on 3rd south of here)

3rd Av-138th St  

125th St-3rd Av  (  at 2nd Av with  at Lexington/3rd, passageway connects the two)

(  join in on a local upper level from 125th while the  run on the lower level as expresses)

116th Street  

106th Street  

96th Street  

86th Street

79th Street  

72nd Street  (P) - (  and (P) can be on a level underneath the  and  , making it a 3 level station or they can be on outer local tracks of the new lower level)

(  branch off to Broadway, from here  run express and  (P) run local)

59th Street  (P) ,  can also stop here is feasible

53rd Street  (P) (I have only the locals stopping here as a way of getting more people off the express to redistribute loads)

42nd Street  (P) , passageway to GCT

34th Street  (P) (expresses can be added if needed)

23rd Street   (P) 

14th Street  (at 3rd Av)  (P)

(list continues in next post due to only 75 emojis allowed)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited July 8, 2018 by R68OnBroadway

[R68OnBroadway]

Houston St  + all 2nd services

Grand St  + all 2nd services

Chatham Sq, Seaport, Hanover Sq (all 2nd services). From here the  and (P) would branch off to Brooklyn, with the  running to Euclid via Fulton Local and the (P) running via Court St after the tunnel to Red Hook. However, the Transit Museum will not be removed and the tracks will be built behind the walls of the station, later merging into the tracks past the tunnel.

Now we have the  and  , which will stop at SF before continuing to Staten Island (yes, I think we should build there). The  would recapture the SIR while the  will run under Victory Blvd and Richmond to the ETC. Since I'm not familiar with SI, we could have someone like Deucey say where stops could be built.

Branches:

125th St branch would carry the  and stop at every transfer point. 

 and (P) would branch off north of 72nd and stop at 79th/1st before heading to Queens via Broadway and later Northern as a super-express before capturing the PW branch north of Flushing. 

 

 

 

[officiallyliam]

2 hours ago, LGA Link N train said:

ok, I adjusted the map so that anyone can edit, think you can edit it and show me what you mean? 

I think this is the idea:
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1AUldHnWYI71L7LYC3UTa6rdCpnH4BQfo&usp=sharing

[P3F]

Whenever somebody proposes extending the  through Montague and into southern Brooklyn, it's usually met with the response of "but the  doesn't go where people want to go, in Manhattan." Does the  go where people want to go? Sure, it goes to Midtown. However, the  takes 10 minutes longer to get there from Brooklyn (Atlantic/DeKalb) than the  and , both of which are accessible by cross-platform transfers. In addition, there are other transfers available to the  and  lines in Brooklyn. As a result of this, most riders who originate at an  station transfer to another line instead of staying on to Midtown.

So... by the same logic, so what if the  doesn't go where people want to go? It has connections to the  and  below Canal Street, and would connect to the  and  if extended through Montague. People could use the extended service in the same way the  is used today - the first seat of a two-seat ride. It has been discussed many times why one-seat rides for everybody are not possible, and it's not like passengers won't touch anything other than a one-seat ride. 

This all doesn't really help in the near future, since the  will likely be extended via Montague during the  shutdown, and extending the  wouldn't be great in that situation. This was just something to deflect the argument that the  shouldn't be extended because it "doesn't go where people want to go". That is all.

Edited July 8, 2018 by P3F

[LGA Link N Train]

This is more of an idea rather than a Proposal, but What if the  and some other SAS Line, ran via Atlantic Avenue, with one line going to Jamaica and South eastern Queens and the other line Branches off to go to the Rockaways via RBB in an effort of also Shortening the line a little bit

[Union Tpke]

9 hours ago, LGA Link N train said:

This is more of an idea rather than a Proposal, but What if the  and some other SAS Line, ran via Atlantic Avenue, with one line going to Jamaica and South eastern Queens and the other line Branches off to go to the Rockaways via RBB in an effort of also Shortening the line a little bit

The Atlantic Branch should be part of regional rail.

 

[KK 6 Ave Local]

9 hours ago, LGA Link N train said:

This is more of an idea rather than a Proposal, but What if the  and some other SAS Line, ran via Atlantic Avenue, with one line going to Jamaica and South eastern Queens and the other line Branches off to go to the Rockaways via RBB in an effort of also Shortening the line a little bit

That's what I was thinking. But where would the two other lines go? I like @R68OnBroadway's idea of running them to SI, but I think they would go to NJ first. Or, they can use South Fourth Street.

 

Edited July 8, 2018 by KK 6 Ave Local

[KK 6 Ave Local]

While a new Northeastern Queens branch is an extremely good idea, the Queens Bypass should be utilized in some way to provide fast service from Jamaica and Forest Hills to Midtown. Maybe an 8th Ave  train would work instead of Second Ave? RBB would be utilized by a rerouted , part of this new service pattern for B'way:

 Somewhere on 125th- Coney Island

 Somewhere on 125th- Coney Island

 Astoria- Euclid on 15 tph

 Whitehall- Rockaway Park (One of two SAS trains on Atlantic Ave would serve Far Rockaway, while the  become Lefferts-Only, and the other goes to Cross Island Pkwy with an  extension)

[LGA Link N Train]

2 hours ago, Union Tpke said:

The Atlantic Branch should be part of regional rail.

 

Like I said, it's just an idea. Not some official proposal 

[T to Dyre Avenue]

On 7/7/2018 at 2:45 AM, Caelestor said:

There's a decent chance that the SAS capacity north of 63 St will be used up by the  before Phase 3 ever comes online and new plans have to be drawn up.

It’s probably not likely that they’ll need 30 tph worth of  service on upper 2nd Ave. Even if it were, they’d then have to figure out where to turn the extra  and  trains in Brooklyn, because they won’t be able to run all of them to Stillwell Ave. 

On 7/7/2018 at 11:11 AM, LGA Link N train said:

A Queens branch is possible via 63 and could remove the from QBL.

I'm going to agree with whoever made the SAS-Atlantic idea. 

It certainly is possible, and I would suggest that as a second choice if building a QBL bypass line is proven to be both impractical and too costly. The big disadvantage, however, is the merge at 36th St between the  and the SAS-QBL service.

12 hours ago, P3F said:

Whenever somebody proposes extending the  through Montague and into southern Brooklyn, it's usually met with the response of "but the  doesn't go where people want to go, in Manhattan." Does the  go where people want to go? Sure, it goes to Midtown. However, the  takes 10 minutes longer to get there from Brooklyn (Atlantic/DeKalb) than the  and , both of which are accessible by cross-platform transfers. In addition, there are other transfers available to the  and  lines in Brooklyn. As a result of this, most riders who originate at an  station transfer to another line instead of staying on to Midtown.

So... by the same logic, so what if the  doesn't go where people want to go? It has connections to the  and  below Canal Street, and would connect to the  and  if extended through Montague. People could use the extended service in the same way the  is used today - the first seat of a two-seat ride. It has been discussed many times why one-seat rides for everybody are not possible, and it's not like passengers won't touch anything other than a one-seat ride. 

This all doesn't really help in the near future, since the  will likely be extended via Montague during the  shutdown, and extending the  wouldn't be great in that situation. This was just something to deflect the argument that the  shouldn't be extended because it "doesn't go where people want to go". That is all.

Excellent points. I’ve either agreed with or outright suggested extending the  to South Brooklyn in the past for those reasons. I know I’ve people bail on the  in Brooklyn at the first chance they get.

[Wallyhorse]

On 7/6/2018 at 4:37 PM, Caelestor said:

The  transfer will absolutely be used by riders to get to 8 Ave or LIC and for QBL riders to access destinations along 1 Ave and 2 Ave. At 42 St, I do see an underground passage being built, but not necessarily a free transfer to GCT.

I actually don't think that a transfer to South Ferry is necessary. Financial District riders along Water St should just take the  nearby for West Side access. Chatham Square riders can be serviced by the Grand St and Houston St transfers, albeit inconveniently.

That can be fixed by adding an OOS transfer between the SAS and the Fulton Street complex.

[Wallyhorse]

On 7/6/2018 at 6:09 PM, T to Dyre Avenue said:

That’s exactly it. These transfers will be inconvenient. Almost an entire avenue block from the T to the E/M? An underground passage from the T to GCT? With no free transfer to the 7? Not to mention the T in Phase 4 passing over or under several existing lines with no connection to them or that there will be less service below 63rd St vs above 63rd (one of the pitfalls of reverse branching).

It will be used by those looking for the 8th Avenue Line in particular.  Albeit a long walk, it likely also will be used by some, especially in bad weather looking to walk from 55th/2nd on the SAS to as far south and west as 50th/Lex.

15 hours ago, R68OnBroadway said:

My plan for SAS- trunk is listed first then branches.

The line will start in the Bronx at Fordham Plaza and will run under Webster Avenue vs 3rd due it its straighter path and wider roadway. Note that the ,  and (P) services will all be turquoise. 

TRUNK:

Fordham Plaza H/T 

(possible H stop at where 185th St would be if it reached Webster)

180th Street H 

Tremont Av H/T

Claremont Pkwy H 

168th St H

161st St-Melrose H/T

3rd Av-149th Street 2/5/H/T  (line runs on 3rd south of here)

3rd Av-138th St 6/H

125th St-3rd Av 4/5/6/H/N/Q/T ( H/T at 2nd Av with N/Q at Lexington/3rd, passageway connects the two)

(N/Q  join in on a local upper level from 125th while the H/T run on the lower level as expresses)

116th Street N/Q

106th Street N/Q 

96th Street N/Q 

86th Street H/N/Q/T

79th Street N/Q

72nd Street H/K/N/P/Q/T  - ( K and (P) can be on a level underneath the T and H , making it a 3 level station or they can be on outer local tracks of the new lower level)

( N/Q branch off to Broadway, from here T/H run express and K/P run local)

59th Street H/K/T/P can also stop here is feasible

53rd Street E/K/M/P/6 (I have only the locals stopping here as a way of getting more people off the express to redistribute loads)

42nd Street H/K/P/T , passageway to GCT

34th Street K/P (expresses can be added if needed)

23rd Street K/P 

14th Street L (at 3rd Av) H/K/P/T

(list continues in next post due to only 75 emojis allowed)

There is no way you could have a three-level station anywhere on 2nd Avenue in all likelihood.  The third level would likely be close to 150 feet underground.

For this to work in my view, you would need to build an additional subway line on 1st Avenue that would run with your 125th Street stop for the and .  This would likely as I would do it be where one line is coming from the Bronx (possibly a replacement for the 3rd Avenue EL) and the other coming from LGA with stops on Randalls Island that would have its 1st Manhattan stop at 124th Street (due to street configurations there) as follows (with where possible, underpasses between 1st and 2nd Avenue allowing for free transfers between the 1st Avenue line and SAS):

124th Street

116th Street

106th Street

96th Street  (station runs from 94th to 97th Street for access to Metropolitan Hospital)

86th Street  (station runs from 86th to 89th Street)

79th Street --  and are on a station running from 79th to 82nd Street, and (P) are on another new trunk line coming from Queens on a lower level that is a three-track station on 79th Street between York and 1st Avenues (this could be the bypass line), with the latter line then heading south on 1st Avenue while the former go to the SAS (though with connections that the line coming from Queens on 79th can also go to the SAS if necessary.

The and (P) at this point take over on 1st Avenue, stopping at 72nd/1st while the and go to 2nd Avenue on a lower level at 72nd/2nd.  There would be a provision for the and  to if necessary access the 1st Avenue line here.   The and are the main 2nd Avenue line.

The and (P) then make a stop at 60th Street-1st Avenue.  Depending on where it is placed above or below the 60th Street tunnel, this could also include a new station at 60th from York-1st Avenues on the .  At this point, the and (P) join the and on the SAS, making the turn at 57th.

From there, the SAS runs like this:
55th Street -- H/K/P/T with transfers to the  

42nd Street -- H/K/P/T with transfers to the and being able to walk underground all the way from 2nd Avenue to Madison Avenue.

34th Street -- H/K

23rd Street -- H/K

14th Street -- H/K/P/T with transfers to the at 3rd Avenue.

St. Mark's Place -- H/K

Houston Street -2nd Avenue -- H/K/P/T with a transfer to the at 2 Avenue.  I would also have it where there is a direct connection to the Culver line where the (P) could be sent to run with the and become the Culver Express. while there would also at this point be a connection to the Nassau Street Line where the  could be sent to run with the (J),

After that, stops are at:

Grand Street --   (remaining SAS Lines) 

Chatham Square --  

Seaport --

Hanover Square -- terminates here, continues to Brooklyn via a new Schermerhorn Street tunnel to meet up with the Fulton Street Line.
 

[bobtehpanda]

1 hour ago, Wallyhorse said:

There is no way you could have a three-level station anywhere on 2nd Avenue in all likelihood.  The third level would likely be close to 150 feet underground.

Based on what, exactly? There's no need to go East Side Access levels of deep, and East Side Access was only that deep to avoid shoring up Park Av buildings. That wasn't even an issue on Second Avenue.