Department of Subways - Proposals/Ideas

[RR503]

My entry in the B division wet dream contest:

- Division-wide deinterlining/capacity capture (fix 8th/Broadway)

- Broadway Exp via 2nd Ave to 125/Bway and up Webster in the Bx

- SAS to Jamaica via 79th St/Broadway/Woodside Ave/Queens Bypass

- SAS to Staten Island Railroad via huge tunnel

-  train to Flushing via 86th St/Astoria Boulevard OR via 30th Ave/Newtown Road/Northern Boulevard 

-  train to Euclid via State St tunnel/Fulton local

-  train to 21st St-Queensbridge (or to wherever the above-extended  stops on 21st St)

-  extension to Laurelton

-  extension to Springfield Boulevard

- Construction of an express track on the  line between Alabama Avenue and Woodhaven Boulevard (predicated on Myrtle-Essex CBTC)

[Union Tpke]

2 hours ago, RR503 said:

My entry in the B division wet dream contest:

- Division-wide deinterlining/capacity capture (fix 8th/Broadway)

- Broadway Exp via 2nd Ave to 125/Bway and up Webster in the Bx

- SAS to Jamaica via 79th St/Broadway/Woodside Ave/Queens Bypass

- SAS to Staten Island Railroad via huge tunnel

-  train to Flushing via 86th St/Astoria Boulevard OR via 30th Ave/Newtown Road/Northern Boulevard 

-  train to Euclid via State St tunnel/Fulton local

-  train to 21st St-Queensbridge (or to wherever the above-extended  stops on 21st St)

-  extension to Laurelton

-  extension to Springfield Boulevard

- Construction of an express track on the  line between Alabama Avenue and Woodhaven Boulevard (predicated on Myrtle-Essex CBTC)

It is the Staten Island Railway. 

[AlgorithmOfTruth]

3 hours ago, RR503 said:

My entry in the B division wet dream contest:

- Division-wide deinterlining/capacity capture (fix 8th/Broadway)

- Broadway Exp via 2nd Ave to 125/Bway and up Webster in the Bx

- SAS to Jamaica via 79th St/Broadway/Woodside Ave/Queens Bypass

- SAS to Staten Island Railroad via huge tunnel

-  train to Flushing via 86th St/Astoria Boulevard OR via 30th Ave/Newtown Road/Northern Boulevard 

-  train to Euclid via State St tunnel/Fulton local

-  train to 21st St-Queensbridge (or to wherever the above-extended  stops on 21st St)

-  extension to Laurelton

-  extension to Springfield Boulevard

- Construction of an express track on the  line between Alabama Avenue and Woodhaven Boulevard (predicated on Myrtle-Essex CBTC)

Would this be a  originating from Coney Island–Stillwell Avenue? What I'm thinking is: –Broadway Express via Brighton Local, Broadway Express, 2nd Avenue Local, 125th Street Local, Webster Avenue Local. Is this the routing configuration you have in mind? I was a bit thrown off when you wanted to send the trains up 2nd Avenue, then have them curve northwest onto 125th Street to Broadway. The reason why is because I'm thinking how you're going to get those trains onto Webster Avenue from there. If you have them run on 2nd Avenue to 125th Street, you could send them over the river into The Bronx and up Webster Avenue to Gun Hill Road.

[Coney Island Av]

My take: 

- train to Gun Hill Rd via 3rd and via Brighton Express to Brighton Beach

- to Flushing/College Point/Whitestone via 86 St, Broadway, and Northern Blvd Express

- train rerouted to Flushing via proposed Northern Blvd  extension (runs local), extended to Dyker Heights in Brooklyn

- to Euclid via Atlantic Av Tunnel/Fulton Local, also rerouted back to Astoria and extended to LGA

- to 125 St-Broadway 

- to Forest Hills-71 Av via 63rd or 125 St-Broadway 

- rerouted to SAS, captures Atlantic Branch to Jamaica

- via 63 St/Queens Bypass to Jamaica, also extended to Kings Plaza via Utica Av Exp

- to Laurelton, extended into Brooklyn as a local alongside the  to Kings Plaza

- to Springfield 

- rerouted to Williamsburg/Eastern Queens via South 4th, Myrtle Av, and Union Turnpike Express

- rerouted to Staten Island via Culver Express, extended to Co-op City

- extended to Bay Pkwy rush hours via 4th Av Local, West End Local

- sent back to Nassau, runs to Coney Island via 4th Av Exp, peak express on West End, also runs as a local to Fresh Meadows while  is express

- truncated to Essex St, replaces  service to Bay Ridge

(Optional)

-A new  service runs as a supplemental service to the , running via the proposed Myrtle Av-Union Turnpike Line mentioned above to join the  and  out to Fresh Meadows. It would finally replace the old Myrtle Av line (which was demolished decades ago). This however, is optional, and isn't necessarily mandatory.

I'm now gonna list all of my reasoning for all of this:

I prefer sending the  via 3rd because it's more centric in the transit desert than Webster is. And the reason why the  and  aren't flipped is because sending the  into the Bronx will only make it even longer of a route. The , on the other hand, would be a much shorter line. 

The  should be extended as-is to Flushing, with provisions to extend the line further east to Whitestone/College Point. However, I'd send it via Broadway instead of 30th because it's a much wider street, and sending it via 30th would require going via Newtown (which is narrow). I also sent the  via the  because it needs a more efficient terminal, and would provide a direct connection from Northeastern Queens to Brooklyn. It will also serve the developing Sunnyside Yards, and would gain more connections in Queens. 

The  to Laurelton,  to Springfield,  to Fulton, and  to South Brooklyn should all be self-explanatory. 

The reason why I don't send the  via a wholly new tunnel under 79th is because capacity through 63rd is just wasted in doing such. It would be more cheaper/more preferable to send it via 63rd because the existing infrastructure is already there, plus it uses up that large remainder of capacity. Yes, it would interfere with the , but if the tubes are running below capacity, the addition of the  will certainly not pose a problem and there would still be more room for interlining. 

Now for the . Yes, I know it will merge with the . But Queens needs all the extra service it can get, even moreso than SAS. Something has to take the 's place, and it cannot be the current . However, I guess I should clarify that there's really no perfect solution to this. One will be a pain in the heave-hoes operationally, while another would just ignore customer preferences. 

Building the new South 4th St trunk line that would involve the  trains will ultimately accomplish much more. Despite its cost, this would reduce congestion on the  (cough cough Bedford Av), provide access to those in underserved neighborhoods, and would be able to handle new growth in Williamsburg/Bushwick. It will also allow SAS to take over the north tracks of the Manhattan Bridge so that it can be better integrated into the system. 

Now for the Staten Island thingy. Yes, I do know it goes via Brooklyn instead of being direct. But, a tunnel under the harbor is completely non-realistic and costs will be too astronomical for it to be viable. The point of building it off of Culver is because the infrastructure is already in place. And if any line went to SI I would make it go towards the center of the island, as it sorely lacks any kind of heavy rail. The SIR should be left alone, and the North Shore Branch should be rebuilt as either heavy or light rail. I'm not really a fan of BRT-style service on the North Shore. Anyways the  and  would run together south of Fort Hamilton Pkwy, with the  running express and the  running local. The  will terminate at Dyker Heights-86 St while the  continues under the harbor to St. George. From there the  would run via Castleton/Jewett Avs or Victory Blvd to Richmond Av, where a park-and-ride terminus would be located. This is more beneficial than capturing SIR because it serves areas that SIR doesn't access, would be more cheaper, gives SI riders a one-seat ride, and finally allows for the return of Culver Express service. 

Any thoughts? Sorry for the long post. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[officiallyliam]

8 minutes ago, Coney Island Av said:

Yes, I do know it goes via Brooklyn instead of being direct. But, a tunnel under the harbor is completely non-realistic and costs will be too astronomical for it to be viable.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transbay_Tube

We've done it before. We can do it again. The Culver route is circuitous; it'll never be the proper connection that Staten Island deserves to have.

8 minutes ago, Coney Island Av said:

The point of building it off of Culver is because the infrastructure is already in place.

Hardly - it'll still involve branching off of Culver where there are no provisions, tunneling under Brooklyn in areas that already have subway service, plus the tunnel under the narrows. And it won't link to Saint George, which is essentially the downtown - or CBD - of SI.

Let's instead make it so building things here doesn't cost such an absurd amount, and connect Staten Island to the city for real. A much better use of money, IMO, then attempting to replace the perfectly-workable Jamaica line with another overbuilt nightmare and risk doing what we did with the Third Avenue line.

Edited July 9, 2018 by officiallyliam

[Caelestor]

2 minutes ago, AlgorithmOfTruth said:

Would this be a  originating from Coney Island–Stillwell Avenue? What I'm thinking is: –Broadway Express via Brighton Local, Broadway Express, 2nd Avenue Local, 125th Street Local, Webster Avenue Local. Is this the routing configuration you have in mind? I was a bit thrown off when you wanted to send the trains up 2nd Avenue, then have them curve northwest onto 125th Street to Broadway. The reason why is because I'm thinking how you're going to get those trains onto Webster Avenue from there. If you have them run on 2nd Avenue to 125th Street, you could send them over the river into The Bronx and up Webster Avenue to Gun Hill Road.

North of 116 St, SAS would split into two branches: 125 St branch to Broadway, and 3 Ave / Webster Ave to Fordham Plaza. For the latter branch trains could also run up 3rd Ave or Park Ave / MNR, but Webster Ave is the easiest to built under because it would be a straight line.

I like the proposal of having the take over the Montague St tunnel / Bay Ridge trains and sending the  to the Fulton St line, but is it even possible to build a tunnel between Whitehall St and South St with the Joralemon St tunnel in the way?

[AlgorithmOfTruth]

4 minutes ago, Caelestor said:

North of 116 St, SAS would split into two branches: 125 St branch to Broadway, and 3 Ave / Webster Ave to Fordham Plaza. For the latter branch trains could also run up 3rd Ave or Park Ave / MNR, but Webster Ave is the easiest to built under because it would be a straight line.

I like the proposal of having the take over the Montague St tunnel / Bay Ridge trains and sending the  to the Fulton St line, but is it even possible to build a tunnel between Whitehall St and South St with the Joralemon St tunnel in the way?

Sounds like a noble idea, I like the proposal. However, is there any realistic chance that The Bronx segment would be constructed in our lifetimes? If I had to take an educated guess based on the length of time it took to complete SAS Phase I, which took 10 years, what are we looking at? 50 years? I'll be in retirement by then.

[RR503]

27 minutes ago, Coney Island Av said:

The  should be extended as-is to Flushing, with provisions to extend the line further east to Whitestone/College Point. However, I'd send it via Broadway instead of 30th because it's a much wider street, and sending it via 30th would require going via Newtown (which is narrow). I also sent the  via the  because it needs a more efficient terminal, and would provide a direct connection from Northeastern Queens to Brooklyn. It will also serve the developing Sunnyside Yards, and would gain more connections in Queens.

30th and Newtown are both about the width of Smith St in Brooklyn -- the road which carries IND Culver from Jay to Carroll. 

I don't think you need the  with the . In the era of reasonable stop spacing, expresses are really only useful as ways to cram more capacity into a given corridor. While Flushing is certainly transportationally needy, I don't think that it -- or its development potential -- can justify expense of such a 4-track trunk, especially given that the area already has the . If you need to spend that sum on 4-tracking a line, spend it on SAS. Back to the , the LIC/Brooklyn connections are certainly useful, but the volumes of people that would use them are not such that can't be handled by an extension of crosstown to a transfer with the  at 21st St and 30th Avenue (or in your scheme, Broadway)

33 minutes ago, Coney Island Av said:

The reason why I don't send the  via a wholly new tunnel under 79th is because capacity through 63rd is just wasted in doing such. It would be more cheaper/more preferable to send it via 63rd because the existing infrastructure is already there, plus it uses up that large remainder of capacity. Yes, it would interfere with the , but if the tubes are running below capacity, the addition of the  will certainly not pose a problem and there would still be more room for interlining.

Ah, you see but you do not contextualise! As has been discussed repeatedly on these forums, that latent capacity on 63 is not by any stretch of logic an absolute reality -- it is simply one created by the  going via 53. In this world, where we can shove all these expansions down peoples' throats, I think it's safe to say that a rejiggering of B division service is a given, so that we have:

-2 Sixth local services via 63 to Queens Boulevard

-2 8th Avenue services via 53 to QB

-2 8th Av services to CPW

-2 6th Express to CPW

-2 Broadway Exp to SAS

-2 Broadway local to 60th/Astoria

How you assemble the merges at 145, 59, 50, and 36 is frankly a matter of personal taste and prioritisation, but the above actually gives you a whole 2 track trunk line's worth of core capacity....for free! 

Anywya, because of the above, adding a SAS track pair in the core without a matching northern connection adds no capacity whatsoever -- it simply forces interlining and the existence of capacity shadows. That, in short, is why I sent SAS via 79 -- I want the line to be an effective investment. 

40 minutes ago, Coney Island Av said:

Now for the . Yes, I know it will merge with the . But Queens needs all the extra service it can get, even moreso than SAS. Something has to take the 's place, and it cannot be the current . However, I guess I should clarify that there's really no perfect solution to this. One will be a pain in the heave-hoes operationally, while another would just ignore customer preferences.

The  via 63 to QB is rapidly becoming the new RBB, I see... 

Given the above, there is no capacital reason to send a service in that pattern. It is simply an additional pair of unnecessary merges, and a restriction of core capacity. There is also no transfer value in such a design. The only reason the  is on QB is because it serves as that line's connection to Lex express. Even today, I think that justification wilts in the face of operational reality -- something even more true if SAS is going to Queens -- but that isn't the point here. It's that the  will add no value transportationally to the corridor. In this case it's simply filler tph, a job better done by a service from the above plan. 

46 minutes ago, Coney Island Av said:

Building the new South 4th St trunk line that would involve the  trains will ultimately accomplish much more. Despite its cost, this would reduce congestion on the  (cough cough Bedford Av), provide access to those in underserved neighborhoods, and would be able to handle new growth in Williamsburg/Bushwick. It will also allow SAS to take over the north tracks of the Manhattan Bridge so that it can be better integrated into the system. 

Williamsburg and Bushwick are problems of operational impotence more than they are of any deficiency in corridor capacity. The 's throughput could be increased by a third or more if it had a proper terminal and -- crucially -- enough electricity to run more than 20tph. The  suffer from a pair of sharp curves which restrict throughput, and the fact that the Nassau services do not go to Midtown. Indeed, despite all of the strum und drang about that area, the simple fact of the matter is that the  and  are WELL below their capacity even at current frequencies. Given all that, I really don't think one can make the case for a South 4th St trunk -- especially not when it's  designed with the level of reverse branching yours is. 

 

[Around the Horn]

So wait... This would start in Canarsie, travel across Brooklyn and 14th Street, turn up 10th Avenue, then back crosstown on 86th Street and Northern Blvd to Flushing?

That's pretty darn long. Where are we putting the second yard that the would need to handle the additional trains necessary for this extension?

[engineerboy6561]

1 hour ago, RR503 said:

 

Williamsburg and Bushwick are problems of operational impotence more than they are of any deficiency in corridor capacity. The 's throughput could be increased by a third or more if it had a proper terminal and -- crucially -- enough electricity to run more than 20tph. The  suffer from a pair of sharp curves which restrict throughput, and the fact that the Nassau services do not go to Midtown. Indeed, despite all of the strum und drang about that area, the simple fact of the matter is that the  and  are WELL below their capacity even at current frequencies. Given all that, I really don't think one can make the case for a South 4th St trunk -- especially not when it's  designed with the level of reverse branching yours is. 

 

I'd think that the South 4th St trunk would be worth building, along with an overhaul of the Jamaica Line, creating a four-track trunk from Myrtle Av out to Parsons/Archer that could then be extended into SE Queens. If you have the  providing local service and one of the 2 Av lines (my earlier proposal had that as the (P) operating express) then you'd wind up pulling some people off the  and a few more off the Fulton corridor between Utica and Euclid, as well as heavily decompressing the  east of the Atlantic Avenue stop. In that scenario you might also be able to potentially send the  up the Williamsburg trunk and then up 2 Av as a local, leaving the  and  running full-time over the Williamsburg bridge and directly connecting the Jamaica Line to midtown.

That would most likely take a pretty big load off Fulton west of Broadway Junction, which is at capacity due to the Cranberry tubes being two tracks, and the reverse branching would basically be nonexistent; the local tracks would belong to the  while the express would belong to the (P) and the other two 2 Av lines would run down Utica Av. You'd have some potential hangups with Jamaica Line trains merging with Utica Av trains northbound, but there wouldn't be much of an issue; the only thing is that a 2 Av  wouldn't really be able to run farther north than 138/149 Sts in the Bronx or Astoria Bl/31 St in Queens because of how long it would wind up getting and how much that could affect reliability. Furthermore, a 2 Av  would pull ridership onto the Jamaica Line corridor to match its potential throughput, which would actually decompress the  a fair amount.

 

Edited July 9, 2018 by engineerboy6561

[Caelestor]

4 hours ago, RR503 said:

Given the above, there is no capacital reason to send a service in that pattern. It is simply an additional pair of unnecessary merges, and a restriction of core capacity. There is also no transfer value in such a design. The only reason the  is on QB is because it serves as that line's connection to Lex express. Even today, I think that justification wilts in the face of operational reality -- something even more true if SAS is going to Queens -- but that isn't the point here. It's that the  will add no value transportationally to the corridor. In this case it's simply filler tph, a job better done by a service from the above plan. 

Williamsburg and Bushwick are problems of operational impotence more than they are of any deficiency in corridor capacity. The 's throughput could be increased by a third or more if it had a proper terminal and -- crucially -- enough electricity to run more than 20tph. The  suffer from a pair of sharp curves which restrict throughput, and the fact that the Nassau services do not go to Midtown. Indeed, despite all of the strum und drang about that area, the simple fact of the matter is that the  and  are WELL below their capacity even at current frequencies. Given all that, I really don't think one can make the case for a South 4th St trunk -- especially not when it's  designed with the level of reverse branching yours is. 

 

Agree that a new trunk line through Brooklyn isn't needed at the moment. One aspect that people doesn't realize is that the existing infrastructure hasn't even come close to hitting its maximum throughput. Without CBTC the theoretical max capacity of a pair of subway lines is 30 tph, assuming proper terminals exist to turn around the trains (which there is a surprising lack of). So really the only pair of tracks that are truly at capacity are the express tracks along Lex Ave and QBL.

The recent timetables schedule the Midtown core lines during the AM peak as follows:

• Lexington Ave 
  •  29 tph SB / 20 tph NB,  20 tph SB / 20 tph NB
• 6 Ave
  •  15 tph SB / 20 tph SB,  24 tph SB / 21 tph NB
• 7 Ave
  •  19 tph SB / 19 tph NB,  23 tph SB / 19 tph NB
• Broadway
  •  10 tph SB / 10 tph NB,  10 tph SB / 11 tph NB,  10 tph SB / 10 tph NB, 8 tph SB / 6 tph NB
• 8 Ave
  •  10 tph SB / 17 tph NB,  6 tph SB / 8 tph NB,  15 tph SB / 15 tph NB
• 42 St
  •  27 tph SB / 27 tph NB
• 14 St
  •  20 tph WB / EB

So instead of adding new routes or building new subway tunnels, how about increasing service on some of these lines first?

We know that the  is going to 22 tph after the shutdown, but IIRC the existing 14 St terminal could handle 26 tph if enough electricity was available. A 30 percent increase on the  would be an order of magnitude cheaper than a South 4 St subway line and tunnel.

Next, send more, if not all,  trains to/from 96 St for more tph along Broadway and the currently underserved SAS stops, plus fewer delays at the 34 St merge.

Then for more trains into Queens, convert the express track at Astoria Blvd into a proper terminating track so that all Broadway local trains can run into Astoria. With the  removed from QBL, trains can be rearranged to add another 10-15 tph through 63 St, though extensive deinterlining will be needed by cutting the 53rd St / 6 Ave connection and turning the  express.

The next question is, what happens to the lower half of SAS if all the capacity is used up? Frankly, it might make more sense to extend East Side Access or even MNR down to Union Square to prevent LIRR riders from further overcrowding the  bottleneck at GCT. Once that's in place the regional rail line can be further extended to Fulton St or Hoboken to link up with NJT.

5 hours ago, Caelestor said:

I like the proposal of having the take over the Montague St tunnel / Bay Ridge trains and sending the  to the Fulton St line, but is it even possible to build a tunnel between Whitehall St and South St with the Joralemon St tunnel in the way?

Answering my own question, there appears to be bellmouths in place to connect Whitehall St and Atlantic Ave, which can definitely be repurposed into a Fulton St line local connection.

Edited July 9, 2018 by Caelestor

[Wallyhorse]

22 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

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.

Yeah, but do you really want three levels of platforms at 72nd/2nd?  I think dividing such up between 1st and 2nd Avenue (with the new Bronx and Queens subway lines from the SAS coming in on 1st Avenue) would be better.

I'd also be looking at shifting the SAS to 1st Avenue south of 23rd like the old 2nd Avenue El was, with the 14th Street transfer to the  at 1st Avenue and allowing more easily for an SAS line to run via the Culver line.  

[LGA Link N Train]

I thought of an idea that could be part of Deinterlining. In the Rush Hours, the stays unaltered along CPW and Washington heights while select trains stay unaltered and help the via Concourse. trains will be rerouted to Inwood-207 Street with select trains terminating at 168 Street during rush hour. Normal service would look like this

Inwood-207 - Far Rockaway (terminates at 145 during non rush hours)

168-Brighton Beach

Norwood-205 - Euclid or Lefferts

Inwood-207 - Coney Island via Brighton

and are CPW Express and the and are the CPW local

[Wallyhorse]

14 hours ago, Around the Horn said:

So wait... This would start in Canarsie, travel across Brooklyn and 14th Street, turn up 10th Avenue, then back crosstown on 86th Street and Northern Blvd to Flushing?

That's pretty darn long. Where are we putting the second yard that the would need to handle the additional trains necessary for this extension?

That's why I would only have the operate to 72nd and Broadway or perhaps in this version 86th and Amsterdam with 23rd and 10th built as a four-track terminal station for a new service to start there and 86th Street also built as four tracks to allow the to terminate there while the new service continues to Flushing. 

[W4ST]

16 minutes ago, LGA Link N train said:

I thought of an idea that could be part of Deinterlining. In the Rush Hours, the stays unaltered along CPW and Washington heights while select trains stay unaltered and help the via Concourse. trains will be rerouted to Inwood-207 Street with select trains terminating at 168 Street during rush hour. Normal service would look like this

Inwood-207 - Far Rockaway (terminates at 145 during non rush hours)

168-Brighton Beach

Norwood-205 - Euclid or Lefferts

Inwood-207 - Coney Island via Brighton

and are CPW Express and the and are the CPW local

I don't know, I feel like it reduces selectivity while still keeping some interlining. Personally I would go with this...

 Begins at Inwood/207th Street, CPW Express, 8th Avenue Express, Fulton Express

 Begins at Bedford Park Blvd, Concourse Local, CPW Local, 6th Avenue Express

 Begins at Norwood/205, Concourse Express, CPW Express, 8th Avenue Express, Fulton Local

 Begins at 168th Street, CPW Local, 6th Avenue Express

 

It still has a little interlining but still gives both branches express and local access as well as 6th Avenue and 8th Avenue Access.

[LGA Link N Train]

15 minutes ago, W4ST said:

I don't know, I feel like it reduces selectivity while still keeping some interlining. Personally I would go with this...

 Begins at Inwood/207th Street, CPW Express, 8th Avenue Express, Fulton Express

 Begins at Bedford Park Blvd, Concourse Local, CPW Local, 6th Avenue Express

 Begins at Norwood/205, Concourse Express, CPW Express, 8th Avenue Express, Fulton Local

 Begins at 168th Street, CPW Local, 6th Avenue Express

 

It still has a little interlining but still gives both branches express and local access as well as 6th Avenue and 8th Avenue Access.

That is what I was aiming for, thanks

[officiallyliam]

2 hours ago, Wallyhorse said:

Yeah, but do you really want three levels of platforms at 72nd/2nd?  I think dividing such up between 1st and 2nd Avenue (with the new Bronx and Queens subway lines from the SAS coming in on 1st Avenue) would be better.

I'd also be looking at shifting the SAS to 1st Avenue south of 23rd like the old 2nd Avenue El was, with the 14th Street transfer to the  at 1st Avenue and allowing more easily for an SAS line to run via the Culver line.  

Who's asking for three levels of platforms? The most you'd need is two: the upper level for Broadway trains continuing uptown along 2nd, and the lower level for 2nd Avenue trains going either to Queens to lower Manhattan. If SAS was separated in this way, two branches in Queens would be possible as well as two in upper Manhattan or the Bronx. See? It's possible to provide decent new coverage using SAS with few major modifications, without having to build out a brand new redundant line a block away...

Not everything has to be that complicated. The IND tried that approach, and ended up with a bunch of half-finished lines and unnecessary infrastructure.

[LGA Link N Train]

New map!! it involves partial deinterlining while still giving riders options

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

Edited July 9, 2018 by LGA Link N train

[KK 6 Ave Local]

22 hours ago, Coney Island Av said:

Building the new South 4th St trunk line that would involve the  trains will ultimately accomplish much more. Despite its cost, this would reduce congestion on the  (cough cough Bedford Av), provide access to those in underserved neighborhoods, and would be able to handle new growth in Williamsburg/Bushwick. It will also allow SAS to take over the north tracks of the Manhattan Bridge so that it can be better integrated into the system. 

A plan of this scale is nice, but I think it might need a little scaling down. The money spent on this should have a little spent on maybe a Queens line or SAS. It's better to go where you know growth will happen, anticipate it (which for W'burg and Bushwick we are 30 or so years late for) and if you're following growth, use as many existing ROWs as possible. If Bushwick/W'Burg becomes the next Midtown/LIC/Astoria/DoBro then it's necessary- almost imperative that your entire line be built. But if everyone leaves and gentrification decreases, it's a PITA to know the ridership isn't justified anymore for this huge plan.

 

[R68OnBroadway]

43 minutes ago, KK 6 Ave Local said:

A plan of this scale is nice, but I think it might need a little scaling down. The money spent on this should have a little spent on maybe a Queens line or SAS. It's better to go where you know growth will happen, anticipate it (which for W'burg and Bushwick we are 30 or so years late for) and if you're following growth, use as many existing ROWs as possible. If Bushwick/W'Burg becomes the next Midtown/LIC/Astoria/DoBro then it's necessary- almost imperative that your entire line be built. But if everyone leaves and gentrification decreases, it's a PITA to know the ridership isn't justified anymore for this huge plan.

 

DoBro? Was downtown Brooklyn not trendy enough?

[engineerboy6561]

You could probably start off by running SAS as a four-track line from 125 St to Houston St, and then build a bunch of bellmouths on both ends pointing in a few different directions (toward 3 Av and Randall's Island on the north end, and towards Williamsburg and Grand St on the south end). That way, if the money runs out we have a functioning trunk line that we can run local service on, then build out the full plan in the Bronx, Brooklyn, and Queens based on ridership patterns. I really do think that rebuilding the Jamaica Line is a good thing to do, but would also not want to create a 3 Av El situation where things get knocked down before replacements are built, and I think having the  become a 2 Av local train would be really useful for taking a load off the Fulton line (basing this on the 2008 Broadway Junction study), but that doesn't need to happen right away.

[KK 6 Ave Local]

17 minutes ago, R68OnBroadway said:

DoBro? Was downtown Brooklyn not trendy enough?

I was rushing it.

[Coney Island Av]

1 hour ago, KK 6 Ave Local said:

A plan of this scale is nice, but I think it might need a little scaling down. The money spent on this should have a little spent on maybe a Queens line or SAS. It's better to go where you know growth will happen, anticipate it (which for W'burg and Bushwick we are 30 or so years late for) and if you're following growth, use as many existing ROWs as possible. If Bushwick/W'Burg becomes the next Midtown/LIC/Astoria/DoBro then it's necessary- almost imperative that your entire line be built. But if everyone leaves and gentrification decreases, it's a PITA to know the ridership isn't justified anymore for this huge plan.

Marcy is 116th in terms of ridership. That's pretty damn high, considering all the new luxury high-rises being constructed by the waterfront. Take a look at Bedford Av on the , with a whopping 31 out of 422 in terms of ridership! It's the most busiest stop on the Canarsie line, and is why the  is an overcrowded mess in the AM rush. With all that said, I can say that there will definitely be warranty for this giant-scaled proposal, as the  will only see continued growth. Besides, whenever we extend the subway, we always look at how dense the areas are! And in this case, Williamsburg and Bushwick are especially going to become dense to enough to warrant building this! 

Anyways I should describe each of the following lines that will branch off the main trunk:

Union Turnpike Line-

This line will run under Myrtle Av, then it would follow the existing Lower Montauk ROW from Cypress Hills St to Union Turnpike itself, and finally continuing on Union Turnpike until the Nassau County Border. It would serve a large transit desert in Central Queens and allow for express service to Midtown, local service to Lower Manhattan, and a crosstown service to Downtown Brooklyn. To reduce costs, there will not be full mezzanines at stations east of 188 St, and the line will go elevated after Francis Lewis Blvd. There would be warranty for building this because of the limited transit options in the area, however, it will be the most expensive part of the plan. 

Utica Av Line-

This line is pretty much the IND version of a line down Utica except it will travel via Malcolm X Blvd north of the existing Crown Heights-Utica Av stop on the  and would have four tracks instead of two. The  will provide local service while the  will be an express to Midtown. It will serve an arguably dense area in East Flatbush, and would be a big help for the B46 SBS today.  

Bushwick-Jamaica Subway

The  on the other hand will continue east to Broadway Junction under a new subway running under Bushwick Av, replacing the existing elevated before finally ascending at Cypress Hills to connect with the remaining portion of the Jamaica EL. And to reduce costs, the line will be two track, local service with provisions for express service, and space for a third track east of Broadway Junction. 

 service will be truncated to Essex St as the Queens Bypass and Atlantic Av-Super Express (both of which served by SAS) will make the 's presence redundant. 

Like you said earlier, some of the cost will be used to provide funding for adding express tracks to SAS (a must need for extending into the Bronx) and other miscellaneous extensions. 

[R68OnBroadway]

6 minutes ago, engineerboy6561 said:

You could probably start off by running SAS as a four-track line from 125 St to Houston St, and then build a bunch of bellmouths on both ends pointing in a few different directions (toward 3 Av and Randall's Island on the north end, and towards Williamsburg and Grand St on the south end). That way, if the money runs out we have a functioning trunk line that we can run local service on, then build out the full plan in the Bronx, Brooklyn, and Queens based on ridership patterns. I really do think that rebuilding the Jamaica Line is a good thing to do, but would also not want to create a 3 Av El situation where things get knocked down before replacements are built, and I think having the  become a 2 Av local train would be really useful for taking a load off the Fulton line (basing this on the 2008 Broadway Junction study), but that doesn't need to happen right away.

Jamaica is tricky... you could put in a tunnel between Broadway Junction and 104th (or Supthin) to eliminate the Crescent curve and to add a third track, but there would still be plenty of problems... I think we should look into replacing the entire Jamaica El with a near-identical underground version that runs via a tunnel. Creating a connection to Myrtle would be tough though as Myrtle does not warrant an underground replacement. I suppose you could have the new Myrtle  platforms run at a lower level with a diverging upper level  platform, but you would have to rip up Myrtle between Bushwick and Broadway to do something like this... for now though we should mainly focus on improving the current line, but a tunneled line should be on the horizon just in case. 

[engineerboy6561]

2 minutes ago, R68OnBroadway said:

Jamaica is tricky... you could put in a tunnel between Broadway Junction and 104th (or Supthin) to eliminate the Crescent curve and to add a third track, but there would still be plenty of problems... I think we should look into replacing the entire Jamaica El with a near-identical underground version that runs via a tunnel. Creating a connection to Myrtle would be tough though as Myrtle does not warrant an underground replacement. I suppose you could have the new Myrtle  platforms run at a lower level with a diverging upper level  platform, but you would have to rip up Myrtle between Bushwick and Broadway to do something like this... for now though we should mainly focus on improving the current line, but a tunneled line should be on the horizon just in case. 

I agree with you about replacing the El with a tunnel (preferably a full trunk line); the simple(?) solution would be to leave the old alignment in place up to Myrtle Av, and then put a pair of flying junctions just past Marcy Av leading onto the old El (with everything else going underground) and then leave the old stations in place for the  and build a full Myrtle Av station house with connections to the underground stop. The ideal solution would be to end Troutman St at Bushwick Av, knock down the old fireproof door place on the corner, and put the portal and ramps where the gas station, car wash, and door place are. At that point you could also add a couple of flying junctions off the  platform and run a two-track connection to the Crosstown line at Bedford/Nostrand; not necessarily for revenue service but just to reduce the isolation of the BMT Eastern Division.