Department of Subways - Proposals/Ideas

[LGA Link N Train]

2 hours ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

Are the  and  going to operate the same way the  and  do? If so, then you really wouldn’t need the  in Astoria. Maybe keep it on QBL or run the  express to supplement the  in Manhattan and have it return to its current pattern after Canal. Though that would likely create service conflict with the . 

Speaking of the 2nd Av subway, you’ve left it with just the  after the  turns off, same as the current MTA plan. With both services at 18 tph, that’s going to leave the SAS below 63rd St with only half the service as above 63rd. That’s one of the pitfalls of reverse branching. You end up with more service at the end(s) of the line and less in the middle (usually the busiest part of the line).

The reason I didn't route the on QBL (and I even stated it in my proposal) was to not screw up my 26TPH service. And for SAS only having half service SOUTH of 63rd. This could be migitated by having an additional 8-10TPH on the end at 55th or shave down 1-2 TPH on the and have a few trains end at City Hall. To be honest, if only there was a lower level at 72nd Street (which I'm worried might not be feasible, I could be wrong though) then there's no good way out of this. 

Also, for my service, that would mainly be on West End. Now while Astoria is growing in population, I'd only think that Peak express Astoria service would only be good for LGA passengers only. 

Edited August 21, 2018 by LaGuardia Link N Tra

[T to Dyre Avenue]

On 8/21/2018 at 4:33 PM, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

The reason I didn't route the on QBL (and I even stated it in my proposal) was to not screw up my 26TPH service. And for SAS only having half service SOUTH of 63rd. This could be migitated by having an additional 8-10TPH on the end at 55th or shave down 1-2 TPH on the and have a few trains end at City Hall. To be honest, if only there was a lower level at 72nd Street (which I'm worried might not be feasible, I could be wrong though) then there's no good way out of this. 

Also, for my service, that would mainly be on West End. Now while Astoria is growing in population, I'd only think that Peak express Astoria service would only be good for LGA passengers only. 

Even with CBTC, I’m not sure you’d be able to run 26 tph on the . I feel like so many posters on the forums and SubChat are looking at CBTC as some kind of magic bullet that’s going to solve issues with frequency and crowding. But CBTC alone won’t solve them. WTC is a stub-ended station so trains have to enter and leave slowly. Currently, it’s quite often you’ll have an  train waiting to get into WTC while both tracks are occupied. That’s not going to change once CBTC is implemented on the 8th Avenue Line. They need to figure out a procedure for moving  trains in and out of WTC faster. Same goes for relaying trains at the other end after 71st Avenue.

I still think the  should stay on Sea Beach and express in Brooklyn and Manhattan.

Edited August 23, 2018 by T to Dyre Avenue

[RR503]

3 minutes ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

Even with CBTC, I’m not sure you’d be able to run 26 tph on the . I feel like so many posters on the forums and SubChat are looking at CBTC as some kind of magic bullet that’s going to solve issues with frequency and crowding. But CBTC alone won’t solve them. WTC is a stub-ended station so trains have to enter and leave slowly. Currently, it’s quite often you’ll have an  train waiting to get into WTC while both tracks are occupied. That’s not going to change once CBTC is implemented on the 8th Avenue Line. They need to figure out a procedure for moving  trains in and out of WTC faster. Same goes for relaying trains at the other end after 71st Avenue.

26 tph at a stub end terminal is in no way unprecedented. The most comparable terminal to a CBTC-ed WTC (8th Ave) did 26tph back in the day, and can absolutely throughput that today — provided traction power for it, of course. Hell, the poorly designed, ABS operated South Ferry is advertised as able to turn 24 tph, so even with today’s signals I really don’t think such throughput is altogether out of the question. 

The thing with terminals in this system is that their limitations are more results of their poor operation than any single flaw in design. I personally think we should operate all terminals as if they’re relays, double ending trains at the second-to-last stop, running to the last stop (or relay) and then turning back out with an eye towards midline station type dwell times. But of course, to expect such logic and foresight from an agency that can barely figure out how to schedule crews may be unrealistic...

[T to Dyre Avenue]

That’s what I was driving at. They probably can run 26 tph to WTC (and 8th Avenue on the ). But then again, this is the MTA we’re taking about, where the management’s motto is, “Because we’re the big bosses and we say so...” when it comes to operations.

In Montreal, they double-end crews at the last stop, then proceed to the relay and come right back in. It’s much quicker than what they do here. Maybe the time spent at the terminal stations is just a slight bit longer than at a midline station. If only we had such operational protocols here...

[RR503]

11 minutes ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

That’s what I was driving at. They probably can run 26 tph to WTC (and 8th Avenue on the ). But then again, this is the MTA we’re taking about, where the management’s motto is, “Because we’re the big bosses and we say so...” when it comes to operations.

In Montreal, they double-end crews at the last stop, then proceed to the relay and come right back in. It’s much quicker than what they do here. Maybe the time spent at the terminal stations is just a slight bit longer than at a midline station. If only we had such operational protocols here...

Absolutely. Beyond CBTC not being some operational panacea, though, the way we install and operate the technology is frankly quite disappointing.

For example, despite the fact that literally every other system in the world managed a phased EiS without auxiliary wayside signaling, we insist on its implementation, which increases costs/timelines (you’re installing a new fixed block system instead of just overlaying CBTC and deactivating the old) and decreases reliability — IIRC many CBTC related BIEs and partial failures have to do with SNAFUs in block signal interface. On top of that, there hasn’t been any effort to increase braking rates on CBTC equipment to allow for more capacity — the faster trains can brake, the closer they can run, and the implementation of that is but a software change on CBTC cars. Then, there’s the fact that the sheer number of merges in your average subway route ends up reducing the CBTC capacity bump by introducing more potential delay vectors, and the fact that there are areas where speeds could have been further improved, and the fact that installation plans are still largely based on block signal age... 

Point being, many of the current managerial issues surrounding capacity, speed, and equipment reliability are being carried over into CBTC while being masked by the technology’s intrinsic reliability boost. That isn’t good — that’s the MTA abdicating their duty to maximize your taxpayer investment. 

[Trainguy4164]

This is my first post! Anyways, I had this idea of making the  one long line. It starts at Times Square as normal, but then goes on new tracks underneath the  , Making Vernon Blvd a duo-level station. After that you meet up with the  at Greenpoint, and make it go express, stopping at Metropolitan, and Bedford-Nostrand. Then, it's just the shuttle Extension, Stopping at Gates, and going to Franklin Av. After Prospect Park, it goes express on Brighton, and at sheepshead, it goes on to new lower tracks, then goes underground, making a stop at Kingsboro College (Where the  could also go after Coney Island), Then going under the bay. You know what's gonna happen next, it's gonna go through the rockaways and go to Broad Channel. The end!

[Yeti]

3 hours ago, Trainguy4164 said:

This is my first post! Anyways, I had this idea of making the  one long line. It starts at Times Square as normal, but then goes on new tracks underneath the  , Making Vernon Blvd a duo-level station. After that you meet up with the  at Greenpoint, and make it go express, stopping at Metropolitan, and Bedford-Nostrand. Then, it's just the shuttle Extension, Stopping at Gates, and going to Franklin Av. After Prospect Park, it goes express on Brighton, and at sheepshead, it goes on to new lower tracks, then goes underground, making a stop at Kingsboro College (Where the  could also go after Coney Island), Then going under the bay. You know what's gonna happen next, it's gonna go through the rockaways and go to Broad Channel. The end!

I find this kinds of interesting. For years the  has been the underdog of the subway system and this is on potential way to fix it and eliminate the transfer at Court Square. However, I don't see the demand for a link between the Rockaways (particularly Broad Channel) and Coney Island directly. Personally, I would just end it at Brighton Beach or Ocean Pkwy along with the  seeing as it is currently not frequent enough to be considered at true express line including the fact that it does not run on weekends (which is a whole different issue.) Plus, it would have to be renamed like a rebirth of the  or  as they are close to  in the alphabet. 

[LGA Link N Train]

On 8/24/2018 at 12:26 PM, Trainguy4164 said:

This is my first post! Anyways, I had this idea of making the  one long line. It starts at Times Square as normal, but then goes on new tracks underneath the  , Making Vernon Blvd a duo-level station. After that you meet up with the  at Greenpoint, and make it go express, stopping at Metropolitan, and Bedford-Nostrand. Then, it's just the shuttle Extension, Stopping at Gates, and going to Franklin Av. After Prospect Park, it goes express on Brighton, and at sheepshead, it goes on to new lower tracks, then goes underground, making a stop at Kingsboro College (Where the  could also go after Coney Island), Then going under the bay. You know what's gonna happen next, it's gonna go through the rockaways and go to Broad Channel. The end!

Not-feasible, but interesting to say the least. heck, I even had the same idea when I was 8 years old (minus the Coney Island part)

 

On an unrelated note. I thought of burying the Franklin Avenue Shuttle along with extedning the Botanic Garden Platform and either overpinning or underpinning Franklin Avenue on the  to create a new 615' platform to then connect 2 tracks to the line in hopes to potentially create a new line. Along with (possibly re-arranging the Tunnels at the site of the former Malbone Street Wreck so that the and use the outer tracks and the Shuttle using the inner tracks.

Edited August 26, 2018 by LaGuardia Link N Tra
proposal came into mind

[R68OnBroadway]

New proposal that will be part of a plan to improve the Jamaica line:

The  would be removed from the Williamsburg Bridge and would be rerouted via a new East River tunnel. Rather than curve to the WillyB like it does today, the  will continue down Broadway as a 3-tracked El until South 6th St. From here the line will curve to the north side of S 6th and descend underground by Wythe Av. This would require removing Berry between South 5th and South 6th as well as demolishing all the buildings between the WillyB and South 6th and between Bedford and Wythe. From here the line will be a three-tracked tunnel. After crossing the East River, there will be an express station at Columbia/Broome to allow for a cross-platform transfer in both directions. After this, the line will curve back onto Delancey and connect to the current tracks just before Essex. Provided that new switches are added by Delancey/Essex and Bowery and that Myrtle is rebuilt, this would remove the WillyB bottleneck, speed up the East River crossing, and allow for the  and  to be de-interlined in the peak direction.

NOTE: Marcy would become a "local" stop as a result of this change.

Edited August 26, 2018 by R68OnBroadway

[LGA Link N Train]

51 minutes ago, R68OnBroadway said:

New proposal that will be part of a plan to improve the Jamaica line:

The  would be removed from the Williamsburg Bridge and would be rerouted via a new East River tunnel. Rather than curve to the WillyB like it does today, the  will continue down Broadway as a 3-tracked El until South 6th St. From here the line will curve to the north side of S 6th and descend underground by Wythe Av. This would require removing Berry between South 5th and South 6th as well as demolishing all the buildings between the WillyB and South 6th and between Bedford and Wythe. From here the line will be a three-tracked tunnel. After crossing the East River, there will be an express station at Columbia/Broome to allow for a cross-platform transfer in both directions. After this, the line will curve back onto Delancey and connect to the current tracks just before Essex. Provided that new switches are added by Delancey/Essex and Bowery and that Myrtle is rebuilt, this would remove the WillyB bottleneck, speed up the East River crossing, and allow for the  and  to be de-interlined in the peak direction.

NOTE: Marcy would become a "local" stop as a result of this change.

Nice proposal, However.

1-  Some of The Buildings between Bedford Avenue and Whyte Avenue are Residential  

2 - Constructing a 3 track tunnel AND building a new station would be expensive

3- I'm no engineer, but I don't think the water tables at Columbia would suffice without pumprooms or something like that.

Instead, I'll propose a cheaper alternative to your proposal. 

 - The Curve on WillyB can be widened to allow for greater speeds for trains while turning.

 - Any Logically Questionable timers on the WillyB can be reconfigured or removed. 

 - Marcy Avenue Station can be rebuilt into a peak express station with the middle track merging into the 2 "main" tracks after leaving the station. Though in order for this to happen, you'd need to deck part of the BQE, which I guess you can deck further north to connect the Mary Green Center with the Rodney park Center. 

Here's a picture so you can get the idea. 

[Wallyhorse]

This idea coming off the bridge is much better than the first one.

[Yeti]

2 hours ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

Nice proposal, However.

1-  Some of The Buildings between Bedford Avenue and Whyte Avenue are Residential  

2 - Constructing a 3 track tunnel AND building a new station would be expensive

3- I'm no engineer, but I don't think the water tables at Columbia would suffice without pumprooms or something like that.

Instead, I'll propose a cheaper alternative to your proposal. 

 - The Curve on WillyB can be widened to allow for greater speeds for trains while turning.

 - Any Logically Questionable timers on the WillyB can be reconfigured or removed. 

 - Marcy Avenue Station can be rebuilt into a peak express station with the middle track merging into the 2 "main" tracks after leaving the station. Though in order for this to happen, you'd need to deck part of the BQE, which I guess you can deck further north to connect the Mary Green Center with the Rodney park Center. 

Here's a picture so you can get the idea. 

Another thing that could help is increasing speeds somewhat on the Williamsburg Bridge. Since an accident on the bridge some years ago, speeds on all above river crossings were decreased to increase safety. Adding on to your proposal, the MTA should install rubber pads below the rails (same as the new Myrtle Viaduct) if possible, replace the rails and inspect the subway structure itself for any improvements. The proposals shown will still be impacted by these slow zones so this should be included.

[Around the Horn]

If only the Willy B had three tracks and Essex was a traditional three track station...

You could fully deinterline them completely

[LGA Link N Train]

18 hours ago, Around the Horn said:

If only the Willy B had three tracks and Essex was a traditional three track station...

You could fully deinterline them completely

If the BRT on WillyB turns out well, then maybe you could add a third track and the Williamsburg Bridge could become the world's first "mass transit-only Bridge" (assuming there are none that are similar to this)

 Though to be honest, I'd be surprised if anyone opposed to removing the bus lanes from the WilliamsBurg Bridge after the train shutdown is complete

Edited August 27, 2018 by LaGuardia Link N Tra

[R68OnBroadway]

2 hours ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

If the BRT on WillyB turns out well, then maybe you could add a third track and the Williamsburg Bridge could become the world's first "mass transit-only Bridge" (assuming there are none that are similar to this)

 Though to be honest, I'd be surprised if anyone opposed to removing the bus lanes from the WilliamsBurg Bridge after the train shutdown is complete

Adding a third track is a huge structural feat that will have an astronomical cost, which is why I proposed a tunnel instead. A tunnel would also allow for faster speeds and a new station in the LES.

[NoHacksJustKhaks]

3 hours ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

If the BRT on WillyB turns out well, then maybe you could add a third track and the Williamsburg Bridge could become the world's first "mass transit-only Bridge" (assuming there are none that are similar to this)

It could be technically done...maybe. But you also have to consider the structural rigidity of the bridge and strain put on it  (it's old so designing around it's age would be costly). I think i'd cause too many reliability issues on both the trains, and bridge itself. It'll take a ton of time, and fixing the issues would be costly as well so im not sure it's a good idea.

I prefer @R68OnBroadway's idea, though lets not ignore it's potential costs as well...   

Edited August 28, 2018 by NoHacksJustKhaks

[Porter]

I have a very simple proposal: build an underground passageway connecting the Canal Street station to the Canal Street station, yielding a new combined station named... Canal Street...

The doesn't connect to the until 42nd Street, and even that requires a very long walk. It has a more reasonable connection to the at Columbus Circle, but not to the . Both are far above Canal Street.

I mean, doesn't that make sense? There's even a fairly broad path to excavate such a passageway, and a giant empty lot between them to boot.

Edited August 28, 2018 by Porter

[bobtehpanda]

4 hours ago, Porter said:

I have a very simple proposal: build an underground passageway connecting the Canal Street station to the Canal Street station, yielding a new combined station named... Canal Street...

The doesn't connect to the until 42nd Street, and even that requires a very long walk. It has a more reasonable connection to the at Columbus Circle, but not to the . Both are far above Canal Street.

I mean, doesn't that make sense? There's even a fairly broad path to excavate such a passageway, and a giant empty lot between them to boot.

Why is that necessary? The  and are never far away from each other throughout all of Manhattan.

South of Chambers St, the is pretty much right next door, and that will have a connection to the at WTC.

[Wallyhorse]

6 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

Why is that necessary? The  and are never far away from each other throughout all of Manhattan.

South of Chambers St, the is pretty much right next door, and that will have a connection to the at WTC.

And how many people actually need such a transfer?  Likely not worth doing.

[NoHacksJustKhaks]

11 hours ago, Porter said:

It has a more reasonable connection to the at Columbus Circle, but not to the . Both are far above Canal Street.

I don't really think people want a  transfer to the  or vice versa. Both are locals, go to lower Manhattan, and serve different groups of people from different regions. For the few people that want this. They are already served by the  passageway and 42nd St.. The routes don't warrant another passageway as of now. 

[CenSin]

2 hours ago, NoHacksJustKhaks said:

I don't really think people want a  transfer to the  or vice versa. Both are locals, go to lower Manhattan, and serve different groups of people from different regions. For the few people that want this. They are already served by the  passageway and 42nd St.. The routes don't warrant another passageway as of now. 

Yeah. There are pretty much zero use cases for such a transfer. The walk between platforms is also the same distance as the transfer at 42 Street. Anyone needing better transfers would not have gotten on the  in the first place (and vice versa).

[LGA Link N Train]

How about a re-arrangement of the Tracks near Broadway Junction

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1Ohp-i8GIhPPDPy3o9PmzG5tTxsSseChQ&usp=sharing

 

[Porter]

13 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

Why is that necessary?

 

6 hours ago, Wallyhorse said:

Likely not worth doing.

 

6 hours ago, NoHacksJustKhaks said:

The routes don't warrant another passageway as of now. 

 

3 hours ago, CenSin said:

There are pretty much zero use cases for such a transfer.

You live in the West Village and want to go to JFK. Your closest stations are Houston and Christopher, both stations. You take the south and transfer to the at Canal and take it to the AirTrain.

Edited August 28, 2018 by Porter

[NoHacksJustKhaks]

16 minutes ago, Porter said:

You live in the West Village and want to go to JFK. Your closest stations are Houston and Christopher, both stations. You take the south and transfer to the at Canal and take it to the AirTrain.

That's a very specific example and that type of thinking doesn't always justify this stuff. Also, cant you just take that  north and transfer to the , a much better way of getting to JFK? 

There could be a need for this, but in this case, you also have to look at all your travel options and plan accordingly, just like how @EphraimB cant get the  extended to Reed's lane, you cant propose a passageway between the stations for such reason. Im sure this is only for the benefit of very little and there's other options of getting around as ive demonstrated. Your proposal doesn't take into consideration the time of construction, costs, and usefulness this idea actually has.

Edited August 28, 2018 by NoHacksJustKhaks

[CenSin]

2 hours ago, NoHacksJustKhaks said:

2 hours ago, Porter said:

You live in the West Village and want to go to JFK. Your closest stations are Houston and Christopher, both stations. You take the south and transfer to the at Canal and take it to the AirTrain.

That's a very specific example and that type of thinking doesn't always justify this stuff. Also, cant you just take that  north and transfer to the , a much better way of getting to JFK? 

There could be a need for this, but in this case, you also have to look at all your travel options and plan accordingly, just like how @EphraimB cant get the  extended to Reed's lane, you cant propose a passageway between the stations for such reason. Im sure this is only for the benefit of very little and there's other options of getting around as ive demonstrated. Your proposal doesn't take into consideration the time of construction, costs, and usefulness this idea actually has.

Not even. Just walk a little further and get on the train you want. The 8 Avenue and 7 Avenue lines are alternatives to each other.

• Christopher Street () is substituted by West 4 Street–Washington Square ().
• Houston Street () is substituted by Spring Street ().

It would be the same amount of time as walking the long transfer passageway (if built) at any of the stops south since you not only walk, but pay the transfer penalty.