Department of Subways - Proposals/Ideas

[Around the Horn]

See if they built the Williamsburg Bridge with three tracks and Essex and Marcy as typical three track two island platform stations from the beginning, the merge issue would be non existent (except for outbound trains crossing at Myrtle)

[officiallyliam]

1 hour ago, Coney Island Av said:

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! 

The fact that the stops closest to Manhattan on the have moderately-high ridership is not indicative of our need for a colossal new trunk line that isn't placed central to where most of the development in the area is actually taking place. As @RR503 said earlier, there's no reason to build a brand new line - let alone a subway of this scale - when the tracks that we do have aren't working to their full potential. The could run much better if it had more power (most important, and being fixed) and either a better terminal or better terminal procedures (8th Avenue, even with bumper blocks, is a decent terminal and could probably get better turnaround times if we changed the way we run things). Bedford Avenue isn't the reason the is overcrowded; if we ran more service to Bedford Avenue, we'd see crowd conditions there get better. Building a new line considerable farther south of the won't do a thing to relieve it.

And not only have we not exhausted capacity, but the Jamaica line remains underused as well. We already have a subway line south of the , but it's purpose isn't to take people off of the Canarsie line so much as it is to serve the riders that live south of it. There's still room on the Jamaica line if development were to take place nearer to it, but from my observation this hasn't happened to the same extent which it has on the . We should be looking at speeding up the bridge crossing, improving signalling, and possibly rebuilding Myrtle junction to get more out of the and .

It's really a blessing in disguise that the IND second system never got built: it only exacerbates the rampant reverse-branching and interlining that already make parts of the original IND a pain to work with - not to mention, it was just way, way overbuilt. So why are we tearing up a perfectly-workable line to resurrect and cement 70-year-old planning mistakes?  Let's not give up hope on the Eastern Division just yet. It really isn't that bad.

Edited July 10, 2018 by officiallyliam

[Caelestor]

5 hours ago, Coney Island Av said:

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! 

The  is overcrowded because it's running 20 tph when it could be doing 26 tph with enough trains and electrical power. Build some tail tracks at 8 Ave for a fraction of the cost of another East River tunnel into Williamsburg and the  can reach 30 tph. While induced demand is a thing, a 50 percent capacity increase should be enough for at least a decade, plus the Williamsburg bridge is modernized to add more trains along that corridor as well.

Even if a South 4 St trunk line were to be built, where would it run in Manhattan? The Second System had it connecting to the 6 Ave express tracks, which now run to the Manhattan Bridge via Chrystie St, and a Worth St branch off 8 Ave, which doesn't makes sense at all. SAS is running into Lower Manhattan, so that's out. And where would it run east? The South 4 St line was supposed to take over Myrtle Ave (unneeded) and also run down Utica Ave, which is actually needed but really should be an IRT Eastern Parkway Line extension given the system today. 

On one final note, Brooklyn already has 9 pairs of tracks into Manhattan, several not at capacity. The Bronx and Queens only have 4 and 5 respectively, and new tunnels should be built further up the East River. The BMT 63 St line almost certainly has to be taken off SAS and sent into Queens so that the lower SAS has enough capacity to warrant being built.

[engineerboy6561]

The question would be where in Queens would you add track pairs? You could run something off SAS at 125 St to the airport via Randall's Island/Astoria Blvd; you could also put that tunnel around 90 St and tie it into an express stop at 86 St if you want to save some money on track construction. You could theoretically make the portion of that between 21 St and 82 St a 6-8 track supertrunk, with half of it peeling off at 82 St to serve the airport/College Pt/Bayside and the other half continuing on Astoria Blvd through Flushing and then along Northern Blvd out to Bell Blvd.

You could build a trunk out along the LIE, but the question would be how you'd feed into that. You can't really split it off the QBL at Woodhaven (although connecting tracks should be built if you're doing that, mostly for insurance in the event of line shutdowns or dead trains; you could theoretically run it via Eliot Av\Metropolitan Av and then connect it to the south end of the Williamsburg tunnel I proposed earlier for the SAS.

For the Bronx you really need at least the 3 Av trunk line with attached Gun Hill crosstown, and possibly a Fordham Rd crosstown tied into the  at Dyckman St; that would give us eight track pairs that would mostly run at capacity. You could add a ninth pair by running something along Bruckner Blvd, or by running something from Jamaica to the GWB via Main St/Parsons Bl/Cross Bronx Expressway/Tremont Av.

Assuming you build all that, now you need receiving track pairs to tie all of that capacity into in Manhattan. You could conceivably supply 86 St/Astoria/Flushing/Bayside by running the Broadway express tracks under the SAS trunk line that ought to be built, and you could probably use the SAS four-track trunk to cover the LIE by sending it along a new tunnel under the East River and then along Metropolitan Av/Eliot Av/I-495 out to Springfield Blvd. The 3 Av trunk could easily be covered by the SAS trunk, and the Fordham Rd crosstown by splitting the  at Dyckman, and having the  run 242-South Ferry and the  run Bay Plaza-South Ferry via Pelham Bay Park. The Jamaica-GWB run would wind up being a standalone line, probably only three tracks.

[bobtehpanda]

3 hours ago, engineerboy6561 said:

The question would be where in Queens would you add track pairs? You could run something off SAS at 125 St to the airport via Randall's Island/Astoria Blvd; you could also put that tunnel around 90 St and tie it into an express stop at 86 St if you want to save some money on track construction. You could theoretically make the portion of that between 21 St and 82 St a 6-8 track supertrunk, with half of it peeling off at 82 St to serve the airport/College Pt/Bayside and the other half continuing on Astoria Blvd through Flushing and then along Northern Blvd out to Bell Blvd.

You could build a trunk out along the LIE, but the question would be how you'd feed into that. You can't really split it off the QBL at Woodhaven (although connecting tracks should be built if you're doing that, mostly for insurance in the event of line shutdowns or dead trains; you could theoretically run it via Eliot Av\Metropolitan Av and then connect it to the south end of the Williamsburg tunnel I proposed earlier for the SAS.

For the Bronx you really need at least the 3 Av trunk line with attached Gun Hill crosstown, and possibly a Fordham Rd crosstown tied into the  at Dyckman St; that would give us eight track pairs that would mostly run at capacity. You could add a ninth pair by running something along Bruckner Blvd, or by running something from Jamaica to the GWB via Main St/Parsons Bl/Cross Bronx Expressway/Tremont Av.

Assuming you build all that, now you need receiving track pairs to tie all of that capacity into in Manhattan. You could conceivably supply 86 St/Astoria/Flushing/Bayside by running the Broadway express tracks under the SAS trunk line that ought to be built, and you could probably use the SAS four-track trunk to cover the LIE by sending it along a new tunnel under the East River and then along Metropolitan Av/Eliot Av/I-495 out to Springfield Blvd. The 3 Av trunk could easily be covered by the SAS trunk, and the Fordham Rd crosstown by splitting the  at Dyckman, and having the  run 242-South Ferry and the  run Bay Plaza-South Ferry via Pelham Bay Park. The Jamaica-GWB run would wind up being a standalone line, probably only three tracks.

Unfortunately, pretty much every single track pair northbound is accounted for, except Bway Express/SAS Phase III.

Personally, in order of priority:

• 79 St/35 Av/QB Bypass to Forest Hills local tracks
• 86/Astoria/Main to Jamaica
• Northern

I rank Northern really low because Astoria is much more effective at providing quick coverage to nearly every portion of northwestern Queens, and because there's no good options on the western end for a connection.

[R68OnBroadway]

Here is my plan for the Jamaica/Nassau lines:

Problems of the line:

Capacity constraints from old curves

Stops spaced too closely together

Stops placed on small streets instead of more major ones

Dilapidated infrastructure

Poor routing in comparison to the  

Solutions:

Manhattan:

Bowery will undergo a complete top-to bottom renovation, closing the station from 1 to 3 years.

Potential weekend extension of  service to Broad or Chambers Street for more connections.

Potential renovation of the center platform and the linking of its track to the local tracks for a new Chambers-Bay Ridge service in case of the  going to Fulton.

Brooklyn/Queens:

Hewes and Lorimer are replaced with a unified station at Union Av with a free transfer  and passageway to the .

Myrtle Junction is rebuilt by doing the following:

A new branch off the Jamaica-bound Queens track runs down Lewis Av and curves onto the old Myrtle upper level track and will later run connect to the old NB track at the Central junction. The old NB track will either be converted to a night-time only track or will be removed, which would result in the old SB local track at Myrtle being rebuilt for short-turns/late night  service.

A new elevated structure is built over Jamaica Avenue between Broadway Junction and Cypress. Stops at Arlington, Elton, and Logan streets. This new structure would also be three-tracked. Arlington and Elton will be local stops while Logan will be an express stop.

Addition of a third track to the line between Cypress and 121st as well as a new substation for it.

Conversion of Woodhaven into an express stop. This will be done by doing the following:

1.  Construction of a temporary middle platform in the station between the two current tracks.
2. Old outer platforms are demolished.
3. New tracks are built where the old platforms were. 
4. New platforms are built over the current outer tracks. (Trains will be forced to bypass this station between 3 and 4, but this could be remedied by only doing one track at a time.)
5. The center temporary platform is demolished to make way for the new express track.

Platforms at 104th St could be extended west for a future RBB transfer. Same happens with a 121st platform extension west to the Lower Montauk.

 

 

 

 

[LGA Link N Train]

2 hours ago, R68OnBroadway said:

Here is my plan for the Jamaica/Nassau lines:

Problems of the line:

Capacity constraints from old curves

Stops spaced too closely together

Stops placed on small streets instead of more major ones

Dilapidated infrastructure

Poor routing in comparison to the  

Solutions:

Manhattan:

Bowery will undergo a complete top-to bottom renovation, closing the station from 1 to 3 years.

Potential weekend extension of  service to Broad or Chambers Street for more connections.

Potential renovation of the center platform and the linking of its track to the local tracks for a new Chambers-Bay Ridge service in case of the  going to Fulton.

Brooklyn/Queens:

Hewes and Lorimer are replaced with a unified station at Union Av with a free transfer  and passageway to the .

Myrtle Junction is rebuilt by doing the following:

A new branch off the Jamaica-bound Queens track runs down Lewis Av and curves onto the old Myrtle upper level track and will later run connect to the old NB track at the Central junction. The old NB track will either be converted to a night-time only track or will be removed, which would result in the old SB local track at Myrtle being rebuilt for short-turns/late night  service.

A new elevated structure is built over Jamaica Avenue between Broadway Junction and Cypress. Stops at Arlington, Elton, and Logan streets. This new structure would also be three-tracked. Arlington and Elton will be local stops while Logan will be an express stop.

Addition of a third track to the line between Cypress and 121st as well as a new substation for it.

Conversion of Woodhaven into an express stop. This will be done by doing the following:

1.  Construction of a temporary middle platform in the station between the two current tracks.
2. Old outer platforms are demolished.
3. New tracks are built where the old platforms were. 
4. New platforms are built over the current outer tracks. (Trains will be forced to bypass this station between 3 and 4, but this could be remedied by only doing one track at a time.)
5. The center temporary platform is demolished to make way for the new express track.

Platforms at 104th St could be extended west for a future RBB transfer. Same happens with a 121st platform extension west to the Lower Montauk.

I'm going to give some feedback and add on a little bit. 

I think that something should be done about the Curves at the Williamsburg Bridge, Alabama Avenue, and Crescent Street (obviously) to alleviate them and that stops need to be more spread out, but anyways, I shall criticize now. 

Manhattan:

1. I agree with your Bowery Renovation Plan, however I am unsure if you want to keep the platforms the same and what not.

2. Another plan that I'll add (which is something that I've proposed on here before) is to Re-Structure the Canal Street Complex used by the . I feel that your plan lacks on doing something about Canal, especially if you want to extend weekend service, so you'd might want to look into this.

3. Ok, I'd understand why you would want to renovate the center platform, but can you elaborate on the Linking of the local tracks, I'm confused

Brooklyn/Queens:

1. I agree 100%, Hewes and Loimer should be replaced with a Unified station at Union Avenue to connect with the . That I won't argue with.

2.  I get your plan for Myrtle to shave costs, but I remember proposing the same thing a while back and the curve at Lewis Avenue would be just as tight at the current conditions. So therefore, a much more effective plan is to rebuild the Junction Entirely. I'd do this by shifting the entire upper level over to Mirror the  current Lower Level platforms, then building a flying Junction West of it. This might require rebuilding the sorrounding area, but here's a refrence to what I'm talking about http://www.vanshnookenraggen.com/_index/2016/11/fixing-the-myrtle-broadway-problem/

3. Are you proposing to remove the section currently located between Broadway Junction and Cypress Hills? People are going to oppose to that plan (i'd rather ease the curve in that section, but that'll force the taking of property to occur) 

4. As long as a fast express service comes out from that middle track and begins it's runs at 7:00, then I don't care what you do.

5. Woodhaven Blvd Being a Peak-Express stop. Beneficial ( I say no more )

6. 104th and 121st rebuilt alowing for future, now that's what I call a good provision

[KK 6 Ave Local]

So for SAS (and system expansions being discussed rn) I think we've got a bit settled generally. 

So: SAS to Bronx on Webster/Third to Bay or Fordham Plaza and a line along a 79th Street tunnel to 30 Ave/Bway/Astoria Blvd and Flushing or somewhere near

But we haven't settled a few things: How will we get to Staten Island and what will the SAS run on in Brooklyn? 

[officiallyliam]

2 hours ago, R68OnBroadway said:

Bowery will undergo a complete top-to bottom renovation, closing the station from 1 to 3 years.

Potential weekend extension of  service to Broad or Chambers Street for more connections.

Potential renovation of the center platform and the linking of its track to the local tracks for a new Chambers-Bay Ridge service in case of the  going to Fulton.

No, Bowery isn't the crown jewel of subway stations, but I've never really found it that bad. It certainly doesn't need a one-to-three year renovation - I don't even think there's that much there to renovate in the first place! All I'd do with Bowery is give it a clean-up (though I'd say that about a lot of stations) at connect it to Grand Street , since the transfer would be pretty short and it would provide an alternate way uptown for Jamaica riders, hopefully making rush hours at Essex a little better. I'd reuse the center tracks along Nassau for a possible 4th Avenue service, which would terminate on the middle track at Essex and leave the outside tracks for the .

The weekend shouldn't go in the opposite direction to its weekday service. I'd like to think that one day we'll be able to run the full-time up 6th Avenue to Queens; it's not like either 6th Avenue or Queens Blvd is dead on weekends and doesn't need the extra service.

2 hours ago, R68OnBroadway said:

A new elevated structure is built over Jamaica Avenue between Broadway Junction and Cypress. Stops at Arlington, Elton, and Logan streets. This new structure would also be three-tracked. Arlington and Elton will be local stops while Logan will be an express stop.

Addition of a third track to the line between Cypress and 121st as well as a new substation for it.

Conversion of Woodhaven into an express stop. This will be done by doing the following:

1.  Construction of a temporary middle platform in the station between the two current tracks.
2. Old outer platforms are demolished.
3. New tracks are built where the old platforms were. 
4. New platforms are built over the current outer tracks. (Trains will be forced to bypass this station between 3 and 4, but this could be remedied by only doing one track at a time.)
5. The center temporary platform is demolished to make way for the new express track.

Platforms at 104th St could be extended west for a future RBB transfer. Same happens with a 121st platform extension west to the Lower Montauk.

I've never really been a fan of the proposals to move the over to Jamaica Avenue west of Crescent Street; you'd be losing a lot of riders by doing so, considering Fulton Street is a pretty dense residential and commercial street, and half of Jamaica Avenue's walkshed is a cemetery. Hopefully, improved signalling will make the Crescent curves more tolerable, but shifting the line over to Jamaica Avenue isn't the best solution.

There should be a center express track between Broadway Junction and Jamaica, but building Woodhaven as an express stop need not be so complicated: the express platforms could be constructed on top of the local tracks, as was done on the Third Avenue El, and the express track could be raised above the local tracks and platforms between Crescent Street and Alabama Avenue. (This was actually the BMT's original plan, which they shelved due to concerns about vibration, which I think we could address today). 121st should also be an express station.

27 minutes ago, LGA Link N train said:

2.  I get your plan for Myrtle to shave costs, but I remember proposing the same thing a while back and the curve at Lewis Avenue would be just as tight at the current conditions. So therefore, a much more effective plan is to rebuild the Junction Entirely. I'd do this by shifting the entire upper level over to Mirror the  current Lower Level platforms, then building a flying Junction West of it. This might require rebuilding the sorrounding area, but here's a refrence to what I'm talking about http://www.vanshnookenraggen.com/_index/2016/11/fixing-the-myrtle-broadway-problem/

The curve doesn't actually have to be that tight: at the moment, there aren't any tall structures on the corner of Myrtle and Lewis, meaning the new curve for the el could be built somewhat wider, cutting across the corner. It's a much better idea - and far, far more feasible - than rebuilding the Broadway el, which will surely involve disrupting more street traffic and more buildings.

Edited July 10, 2018 by officiallyliam

[LGA Link N Train]

4 minutes ago, officiallyliam said:

I've never really been a fan of the proposals to move the over to Jamaica Avenue west of Crescent Street; you'd be losing a lot of riders by doing so, considering Fulton Street is a pretty dense residential and commercial street, and half of Jamaica Avenue's walkshed is a cemetery. Hopefully, improved signalling will make the Crescent curves more tolerable, but shifting the line over to Jamaica Avenue isn't the best solution

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1z4vb4o4cjIAayT2l33AFtx2IOvjBj1aL&usp=sharing  In this map, I adjusted the Crescent Street curve though when you mentioned the 3rd Track proposal, I' not sure how that's feasible

[Coney Island Av]

My proposal for the Jamaica EL/Nassau St lines:

-Chambers St gets an extensive renovation. This is very self-explanatory since we've all seen how dilapidated it is. 

-Bowery also gets a renovation, but not as extensive as Chambers. 

-Essex St will be converted to a four-tracked station, to allow for it to be a more efficient terminal. 

-The abandoned platforms at Canal/Bowery are reopened. 

-The current bottleneck at Myrtle will be replaced with a curve on Lewis Av. A new track would split from the Jamaica-bound track, traveling down the latter street until Myrtle, where it would obviously connect to the upper level and continue onwards to Metropolitan. Forest Hills-bound  trains will still stop at the current platform it does so today. 

-The segment on Fulton is replaced with a reroute of the line on Jamaica Av. Now, while it's partly cemetery, it'll still eliminate the bottleneck at Cypress Hills and reduce wear/tear. It will also speed up commutes to Manhattan since there will only be two new stops constructed in place of the five closely-spaced stops on Fulton. And riders on the Fulton St portion  also have the  as an option. 

-An express track should be built between Broadway Junction and Sutphin Blvd-JFK. It would pull passengers off of the  even moreso than the skip-stop pattern in service today. The current  train will run express all the way from Sutphin Blvd to Marcy Av.  would become fully local. As part of this, Woodhaven would get converted into an express stop. 

-Obviously, I'd throw in a new Nassau St service, presumably , running from Essex St to Bay Ridge so it can divert the  to Fulton. 

-The  should be extended from their present terminus at Broad to 9 Av or Bay Parkway. This is to provide additional service along 4th, as there can't just be one Nassau line service doing the job. Another reason why they are extended is to avoid holding up southbound  trains between Fulton and Broad. For example, back when the  ran to Bay Parkway, it usually got held up due to fumigating  and  trains. 

-Weekend  service should be extended to Broad St so that  riders have a multitude of transfer options while also keeping its route fairly short. 

-The platforms at 104 St should either be extended westward like @R68OnBroadway mentioned earlier to allow for a connection to RBB, or it should be relocated to 102 St. Same with 121 St, with the option of relocating to Lefferts. I would go with relocating the two. 

-New station will be built at Union to shutter Hewes and Lorimer, and also to provide a good connection to the .

Edited July 11, 2018 by Coney Island Av

[Union Tpke]

11 hours ago, officiallyliam said:

No, Bowery isn't the crown jewel of subway stations, but I've never really found it that bad. It certainly doesn't need a one-to-three year renovation - I don't even think there's that much there to renovate in the first place! All I'd do with Bowery is give it a clean-up (though I'd say that about a lot of stations) at connect it to Grand Street , since the transfer would be pretty short and it would provide an alternate way uptown for Jamaica riders, hopefully making rush hours at Essex a little better. I'd reuse the center tracks along Nassau for a possible 4th Avenue service, which would terminate on the middle track at Essex and leave the outside tracks for the .

The weekend shouldn't go in the opposite direction to its weekday service. I'd like to think that one day we'll be able to run the full-time up 6th Avenue to Queens; it's not like either 6th Avenue or Queens Blvd is dead on weekends and doesn't need the extra service.

I've never really been a fan of the proposals to move the over to Jamaica Avenue west of Crescent Street; you'd be losing a lot of riders by doing so, considering Fulton Street is a pretty dense residential and commercial street, and half of Jamaica Avenue's walkshed is a cemetery. Hopefully, improved signalling will make the Crescent curves more tolerable, but shifting the line over to Jamaica Avenue isn't the best solution.

There should be a center express track between Broadway Junction and Jamaica, but building Woodhaven as an express stop need not be so complicated: the express platforms could be constructed on top of the local tracks, as was done on the Third Avenue El, and the express track could be raised above the local tracks and platforms between Crescent Street and Alabama Avenue. (This was actually the BMT's original plan, which they shelved due to concerns about vibration, which I think we could address today). 121st should also be an express station.

The curve doesn't actually have to be that tight: at the moment, there aren't any tall structures on the corner of Myrtle and Lewis, meaning the new curve for the el could be built somewhat wider, cutting across the corner. It's a much better idea - and far, far more feasible - than rebuilding the Broadway el, which will surely involve disrupting more street traffic and more buildings.

Those have been my ideas. Why would you add an express stop at 121st Street?

[officiallyliam]

7 hours ago, Union Tpke said:

Those have been my ideas. Why would you add an express stop at 121st Street?

Richmond Hill is about as far out of Manhattan as Jamaica is, and is very residential, but lacks any fast train service to Manhattan. Building a express stop could quite possibly shift some riders who'd ordinarily take a bus up to Kew Gardens, or backtrack to Jamaica for the .  121st seemed like a better choice for an express stop also because it has a connection to a busy bus route (Q10). It only seems fair to give Richmond Hill a decent train to Manhattan, especially with capacity on Queens Blvd being so precious.

[bobtehpanda]

On 7/10/2018 at 4:13 PM, KK 6 Ave Local said:

So for SAS (and system expansions being discussed rn) I think we've got a bit settled generally. 

So: SAS to Bronx on Webster/Third to Bay or Fordham Plaza and a line along a 79th Street tunnel to 30 Ave/Bway/Astoria Blvd and Flushing or somewhere near

But we haven't settled a few things: How will we get to Staten Island and what will the SAS run on in Brooklyn? 

So, this is a bit complicated:

•  moves to Fulton local
• - SAS to Brighton Beach and CI via West End
• - 6th to Utica, the probably stops at Eastern Parkway

This is going to be very unpopular, but honestly a subway to Staten Island is just never going to be in the cards. It's too far away, and express buses are almost always going to beat a subway route unless you somehow go direct from South Ferry to St. George, which would be way too much money.

[officiallyliam]

10 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

This is going to be very unpopular, but honestly a subway to Staten Island is just never going to be in the cards. It's too far away, and express buses are almost always going to beat a subway route unless you somehow go direct from South Ferry to St. George, which would be way too much money.

A subway to Staten Island has been on the cards since the first subway routes were being planned; like the Second Avenue line, a series of misfortunes and mistimings prevented it from every happening. Staten Island is really the only borough where space for development remains on any kind of large scale, and relying on road transportation (and a ferry) to serve inevitable growth is unwise and not practical. A direct tunnel from lower Manhattan to Saint George is exactly what should be considered as part of the SAS project. Yes, the cost for such a tunnel will be high (although, really, longer underwater tunnels aren't such a crazy suggestion anymore) but a project like this would be worth it when you consider how much of the city you've just opened up to people and to business.

[engineerboy6561]

9 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

So, this is a bit complicated:

•  moves to Fulton local
• - SAS to Brighton Beach and CI via West End
• - 6th to Utica, the probably stops at Eastern Parkway

This is going to be very unpopular, but honestly a subway to Staten Island is just never going to be in the cards. It's too far away, and express buses are almost always going to beat a subway route unless you somehow go direct from South Ferry to St. George, which would be way too much money.

The easiest way to do SI connections would be for us to run something over from Bay Ridge, because that way you don't have to build the stupidly long tunnel from South Ferry to St. George; most of my proposals that cover this involve expanding the Church Av Yard into a new line that would swing west over to Fort Hamilton Parkway, run over/under the Verrazano (depending on whether it surfaces in Canty Park in Bay Ridge or Fort Wadsworth in SI), then running down the median of 278 before turning onto Victory Blvd, going back underground at the Victory Bl interchange, and then running under Richmond Av, with an SIR connection at Eltingville and terminal at Richmond and Hylan. If you were feeling really adventurous you could have the line continue under Church Ave, curve up under Prospect Park, and replace the Franklin Av Shuttle before connecting with the  at Bedford-Nostrand.

[bobtehpanda]

43 minutes ago, engineerboy6561 said:

The easiest way to do SI connections would be for us to run something over from Bay Ridge, because that way you don't have to build the stupidly long tunnel from South Ferry to St. George; most of my proposals that cover this involve expanding the Church Av Yard into a new line that would swing west over to Fort Hamilton Parkway, run over/under the Verrazano (depending on whether it surfaces in Canty Park in Bay Ridge or Fort Wadsworth in SI), then running down the median of 278 before turning onto Victory Blvd, going back underground at the Victory Bl interchange, and then running under Richmond Av, with an SIR connection at Eltingville and terminal at Richmond and Hylan. If you were feeling really adventurous you could have the line continue under Church Ave, curve up under Prospect Park, and replace the Franklin Av Shuttle before connecting with the  at Bedford-Nostrand.

The problem boils down to this:

• A train making any stops between Staten Island and Manhattan is not time competitive at all, even with the ferry (assuming you boost ferry frequency)
• A train making no stops is way too expensive.

[engineerboy6561]

3 minutes ago, bobtehpanda said:

The problem boils down to this:

• A train making any stops between Staten Island and Manhattan is not time competitive at all, even with the ferry (assuming you boost ferry frequency)
• A train making no stops is way too expensive.

I took some preliminary back-of-the envelope measurements based on the current  timetable, which lists a fairly constant 23-25 minutes between 4 Av and Kings Highway; a 5.19 mile distance, corresponding to an average speed of 12.456 mph. By that standard, the  to Bay Ridge-95 St would be 28.5 minutes from 4 Av (and thus 54 minutes from Herald Sq), the  from Grasmere would be 43.6 minutes from 4 Av (and thus 70 minutes from Herald Sq), the  from Victory Blvd would be 86 minutes from Midtown, and the  from Eltingville Transit Center would be 106 minutes from Herald Sq. Even the faster route of taking the  to the  and transferring at Ft Hamilton Pkwy would still be about 85-90 minutes from Herald Sq. The X1 is scheduled to take 80-85 minutes from 34 St to Eltingville (I don't know if it actually makes that kind of time or not). Going via the S94 to the ferry from Eltingville would come in around 95-100 minutes or so(S94 to the ferry to the R), and the S79 to the  would also be slower (100-110 minutes), so it would beat that option, but there isn't a solid 20-30 minute speedup like you'd hope.

[bobtehpanda]

46 minutes ago, officiallyliam said:

A subway to Staten Island has been on the cards since the first subway routes were being planned; like the Second Avenue line, a series of misfortunes and mistimings prevented it from every happening. Staten Island is really the only borough where space for development remains on any kind of large scale, and relying on road transportation (and a ferry) to serve inevitable growth is unwise and not practical. A direct tunnel from lower Manhattan to Saint George is exactly what should be considered as part of the SAS project. Yes, the cost for such a tunnel will be high (although, really, longer underwater tunnels aren't such a crazy suggestion anymore) but a project like this would be worth it when you consider how much of the city you've just opened up to people and to business.

The problem is that there are much larger swathes of the city you could unlock for less money.

Utica will open up southern Brooklyn. Hillside, Northern/Port Washington, and SE Queens will unlock vast swathes of single family housing. Third will allow densification of existing affordable neighborhoods, to the benefit of people who can't afford 5K 1 bed/baths. And then after that, before you get to Staten Island, there's Red Hook, all of 4th Av, Bayonne, etc. 

[CenSin]

14 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

way too much money.

3 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

The problem is that there are much larger swathes of the city you could unlock for less money.

Utica will open up southern Brooklyn. Hillside, Northern/Port Washington, and SE Queens will unlock vast swathes of single family housing. Third will allow densification of existing affordable neighborhoods, to the benefit of people who can't afford 5K 1 bed/baths. And then after that, before you get to Staten Island, there's Red Hook, all of 4th Av, Bayonne, etc. 

What a project is worth is all relative. I don’t really know you, so if you were to sink into $100,000 of debt, I would think you weren’t worth the trouble helping out.  A close friend, on the other hand, would get $9,500 deposited in his/her bank account.

And does a project’s guesstimated price tag even equate to the actual cost? With the shady construction cartel already outed, why is everyone still estimating costs as if these guys were going to remain influential parasites indefinitely?

[Caelestor]

34 minutes ago, CenSin said:

And does a project’s guesstimated price tag even equate to the actual cost? With the shady construction cartel already outed, why is everyone still estimating costs as if these guys were going to remain influential parasites indefinitely?

Until construction prices actually go down (SAS Phase 2 is still at $6 billion, which is a bad sign), it's reasonable to assume that resources continue to remain scarce. There's no shortage of transit projects that need funding, and also there's stuff like education which arguably has a higher ROI. 

At the moment, building an underground tunnel between SI and South Ferry is only on the table because of political boundaries, i.e.g SI is part of NYC when geographically it is an island off the coast of NJ. There is a very urgent need for another pair of tunnels btwn Penn Station and Secaucus that isn't getting built because NJ Transit, Amtrak, and the MTA can't play nice with each other, forcing a redundant multi-platform terminal that has blown up costs by an order of magnitude.

The only feasible solution for an underwater tunnel to SI is to extend MNR south of GCT to St. George where it would take over SIR. Such a project actually has merit as a  relief line, a SI ferry replacement, and in general a huge public works program to radically turn the ~60 mile stretch between Tottenville and North White Plans into a new urban north-south spine of the entire NYC metropolitan area, all in one. Think Crossrail but even grander: 21 stops in SI, 31 stops along the Harlem Line to Southeast, two additional stations at 14 St and Fulton St, plus provisions for expansion to other branches such as the North Shore branch, the Hudson Line, and even the New Haven Line.

But that seems to be way too much change for too many people to handle at once (will SI actually approve this?) and the government needs to commit to a 15-year long project, which I doubt the politicians are actually invested in.

 

Edited July 12, 2018 by Caelestor

[R68OnBroadway]

4 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

The problem is that there are much larger swathes of the city you could unlock for less money.

Utica will open up southern Brooklyn. Hillside, Northern/Port Washington, and SE Queens will unlock vast swathes of single family housing. Third will allow densification of existing affordable neighborhoods, to the benefit of people who can't afford 5K 1 bed/baths. And then after that, before you get to Staten Island, there's Red Hook, all of 4th Av, Bayonne, etc. 

We should open up SI too... we shouldn't just look at current boroughs and areas, we should look to other as well.

Anyways, I came up with a plan for Queens and its transit options (remember, the  and  are expresses from Webster).

Broadway/Astoria/QBL:

Phase 1: Deinterline Broadway by sending the  and  to 125th/Broadway via 2nd Av local. Send the  to Astoria and the   to Forest Hills once 36th-38th becomes a revenue yard.

Phase 2: Extend the  to LGA via 19th Av with a potential stop at 20th Av. We may have NIMBYs, but we can't have our airports be embarrassments thanks to two blocks of people. If Robert Moses could build shi*tty highways through neighborhoods, we can build a single elevated structure for a few streets. The city and country do not revolve around Astoria.

Phase 3: Once reconstruction of the Myrtle Curve is complete as well as WillyB signal improvements, if the  can achieve 12-15 TPH, the  can be removed from QBL and sent to Astoria, the  can run via QBL local and 53rd, the  can run to Parsons via 63rd/QBL express, and the  can run to 179th via QBL express and 63rd. Platforms on the eastern division  stops could be lengthened to allow for 10-car or 9-car  trains. The  here would be cut back to City Hall, terminating on the lower level there which will be reopened. The  would merge with the  using new switches just north of 50th but after the switches to 6th to avoid merging with the . 50th upper would be closed at all time except late nights when the  does not run and the  is local.

Northern Queens:

This new line, called the (P), will run from Red Hook to Port Washington via 2nd local and the Port Washington branch. This line will split from SAS after 72nd, make a stop at 79th/York, then continue into Queens. In Queens, the line will run via Broadway with a transfer to the    before turning under QBL at Steinway and running to Woodside, where it will emerge and connect to the PW branch tracks. The line will run as a super-express for people past Flushing, providing a cheaper and more frequent ride to Manhattan than the LIRR, taking a great load off the , which could see an extension to Bay Terrace/Fort Totten via Parsons and Willets Point Blvd. The  , another 2nd local line to Queens could also operate on this line but would branch off before or after Murray Hill to run to Whitestone/Beechurst via 154th Street.

This new (P) would run to PW, but several stops would be renamed or relocated.

Flushing Main St --->  Kissena Blvd-Main St

Murray Hill would be extended to 149th St and renamed as such using eminent domain.

Broadway ---> Northern Blvd- Murray Hill

Auburndale ---> relocated to Francis Lewis Blvd and renamed as such.

Bayside ---> Bell Blvd

Douglaston stays the same.

Little Neck ---> Little Neck Parkway

All stations past Great Neck retain their regular names.

Potential later extensions:

The  could be extended past Forest Hills to Union Turnpike, where it would then split from QBL and run along Union Turnpike to Little Neck Pkwy or Bell Blvd. 75th would become a full time  stop, and the  would merge off after Union Tpke to stop at Briarwood before heading to 179th (the  would still skip Briarwood though).

The  could be extended north from Metropolitan to College Point via 69th St, Grand Av, LIE service roads, and College Point Blvd. This connects College Point to the  with a subway and helps relieve crowding on the Q58. 

At some other point, I will also make new services plans for Brooklyn, Manhattan and the Bronx and maybe create a new future subway map, so any feedback would be great. Thanks!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited July 12, 2018 by R68OnBroadway
fixed a provision that would be impossible with current track layout

[Wallyhorse]

On 7/10/2018 at 3:42 AM, Caelestor said:

The  is overcrowded because it's running 20 tph when it could be doing 26 tph with enough trains and electrical power. Build some tail tracks at 8 Ave for a fraction of the cost of another East River tunnel into Williamsburg and the  can reach 30 tph. While induced demand is a thing, a 50 percent capacity increase should be enough for at least a decade, plus the Williamsburg bridge is modernized to add more trains along that corridor as well.

Even if a South 4 St trunk line were to be built, where would it run in Manhattan? The Second System had it connecting to the 6 Ave express tracks, which now run to the Manhattan Bridge via Chrystie St, and a Worth St branch off 8 Ave, which doesn't makes sense at all. SAS is running into Lower Manhattan, so that's out. And where would it run east? The South 4 St line was supposed to take over Myrtle Ave (unneeded) and also run down Utica Ave, which is actually needed but really should be an IRT Eastern Parkway Line extension given the system today. 

On one final note, Brooklyn already has 9 pairs of tracks into Manhattan, several not at capacity. The Bronx and Queens only have 4 and 5 respectively, and new tunnels should be built further up the East River. The BMT 63 St line almost certainly has to be taken off SAS and sent into Queens so that the lower SAS has enough capacity to warrant being built.

This is where I would extend the via 10th/Amsterdam Avenue to a new terminal at 72nd/Broadway with provisions to go further uptown, with the new terminal three tracks (I've noted the stations elsewhere numerous times in the past). 

[Coney Island Av]

4 hours ago, R68OnBroadway said:

We should open up SI too... we shouldn't just look at current boroughs and areas, we should look to other as well.

Anyways, I came up with a plan for Queens and its transit options (remember, the  and  are expresses from Webster).

Broadway/Astoria/QBL:

Phase 1: Deinterline Broadway by sending the  and  to 125th/Broadway via 2nd Av local. Send the  to Astoria and the   to Forest Hills once 36th-38th becomes a revenue yard.

Phase 2: Extend the  to LGA via 19th Av with a potential stop at 20th Av. We may have NIMBYs, but we can't have our airports be embarrassments thanks to two blocks of people. If Robert Moses could build shi*tty highways through neighborhoods, we can build a single elevated structure for a few streets. The city and country do not revolve around Astoria.

Phase 3: Once reconstruction of the Myrtle Curve is complete as well as WillyB signal improvements, if the  can achieve 12-15 TPH, the  can be removed from QBL and sent to Astoria, the  can run via QBL local and 53rd, the  can run to Parsons via 63rd/QBL express, and the  can run to 179th via QBL express and 63rd. Platforms on the eastern division  stops could be lengthened to allow for 10-car or 9-car  trains. The  here would be cut back to City Hall, terminating on the lower level there which will be reopened. The  would merge with the  using new switches just north of 50th but after the switches to 6th to avoid merging with the . 50th upper would be closed at all time except late nights when the  does not run and the  is local.

Northern Queens:

This new line, called the (P), will run from Red Hook to Port Washington via 2nd local and the Port Washington branch. This line will split from SAS after 72nd, make a stop at 79th/York, then continue into Queens. In Queens, the line will run via Broadway with a transfer to the    before turning under QBL at Steinway and running to Woodside, where it will emerge and connect to the PW branch tracks. The line will run as a super-express for people past Flushing, providing a cheaper and more frequent ride to Manhattan than the LIRR, taking a great load off the , which could see an extension to Bay Terrace/Fort Totten via Parsons and Willets Point Blvd. The  , another 2nd local line to Queens could also operate on this line but would branch off before or after Murray Hill to run to Whitestone/Beechurst via 154th Street.

This new (P) would run to PW, but several stops would be renamed or relocated.

Potential later extensions:

The  could be extended past Forest Hills to Union Turnpike, where it would then split from QBL and run along Union Turnpike to Little Neck Pkwy or Bell Blvd. 75th would become a full time  stop, and the  would merge off after Union Tpke to stop at Briarwood before heading to 179th (the  would still skip Briarwood though).

The  could be extended north from Metropolitan to College Point via 69th St, Grand Av, LIE service roads, and College Point Blvd. This connects College Point to the  with a subway and helps relieve crowding on the Q58. 

At some other point, I will also make new services plans for Brooklyn, Manhattan and the Bronx and maybe create a new future subway map, so any feedback would be great. Thanks!

If you need a software to create a future subway map, use Google My Maps. Most on this forum use it to present their proposals. I, however, use Inkscape and will have a fantasy map coming out soon. 

Anyways: 

Definitely with you on the  to LGA and deinterlining Broadway. Transit planning today is extremely shitty (cough cough LGA AirTrain) and NIMBYs are so irritating. It's worth the risk to propose it once again. In 2003, the only reason why the NIMBYs won is because the city was in dire need in a post-9/11 state, and funds needed to be allocated to improve infrastructure in Lower Manhattan. Though the  could just be discontinued entirely to avoid redundancy. Another thing NIMBYs don't realize is that they only live mere yards away from Ditmars. Any effect the extension would have on communities would just be the same as the current Astoria line.

For your QBL deinterlining plan, does Parsons mean Jamaica Center? I almost thought you meant to terminate the  at Parsons Blvd itself (not Parsons-Archer) while the  goes to 179 St. Other than that, I do see the reasoning for deinterlining QBL, but IMO isn't needed. It could partially be solved by having the  run via 53rd and the  via 63rd. 

For Brooklyn, why would a line to Red Hook be needed? Reviving the B71 should do the trick, as well as improving bus service in the area. If not, then maybe a light-rail could be built. My proposal is similar to your (P), but it runs on Northern instead of the Port Washington Branch. It also involves the  instead of SAS. However, the (P) isn't necessary because the  could easily assume its role on the PW branch. 

I also agree with a Union Turnpike Line. It serves a large transit desert in Eastern Queens, though I would have provisions on the south end for potential further expansion south into Glendale, Bushwick, and Williamsburg. My short-term plan would involve the  being extended to Lakeview Rd, the  staying as-is (or extended to Laurelton/Springfield respectively), and the  goes to 179 St. 

I've looked at a similar idea of sending the  to College Point, though my  would kill two birds with one stone, serving both Whitestone/College Point. I do see the need for a subway extension to the latter though!

Overall, this is a good plan, but could use a few changes/corrections. 

[bobtehpanda]

5 hours ago, CenSin said:

What a project is worth is all relative. I don’t really know you, so if you were to sink into $100,000 of debt, I would think you weren’t worth the trouble helping out.  A close friend, on the other hand, would get $9,500 deposited in his/her bank account.

And does a project’s guesstimated price tag even equate to the actual cost? With the shady construction cartel already outed, why is everyone still estimating costs as if these guys were going to remain influential parasites indefinitely?

Even under normal conditions, underwater tunnels are much more expensive than regular subway tunnels because of the ventilation requirements. 

If we were like all the other developed countries and used objective cost-benefit ratios to judge projects, I would find it very unlikely for SI-South Ferry to rank very high.