Jump to content

Attention: In order to reply to messages, create topics, have access to other features of the community you must sign up for an account.
EE Broadway Local

Department of Subways - Proposals/Ideas

Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, Union Tpke said:

I have heard that because that area was landfill, groundwater could be a major issue.

Groundwater is a major issue all over this area. Most of what is today's New York was built on top of landfill, wetlands, and lots of streams and springs. Which is not that different from most major cities around the world.

If a place like Bangkok or Mumbai which has literal monsoon seasons can build an underground tunnel, or Amsterdam which is mostly below sea level, I'm sure that New York will be fine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's an idea I have that could help de-interline QBL while providing relief to Astoria (feel free to give thoughts).

(E) WTC- Jamaica-179th via 8th, 53rd and QBL and Hillside local

(F) express east of Forest Hills

(M) unchanged

(N) Jamaica Center-Coney Island via QBL express, 63rd, Broadway express, bridge, 4th express and Sea Beach 

(Q) unchanged

(R) Astoria-Bay Ridge

(W) eliminated or rerouted to New Utrecht (a platform could be built over the SB express track to terminate trains

A new passageway would also be built between Lex 63rd and Lex 59th.

Please note that is proposal isn't something I would advocate greatly for given the interlining but is really a proposal just thrown out there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, R68OnBroadway said:

Here's an idea I have that could help de-interline QBL while providing relief to Astoria (feel free to give thoughts).

(E) WTC- Jamaica-179th via 8th, 53rd and QBL and Hillside local

(F) express east of Forest Hills

(M) unchanged

(N) Jamaica Center-Coney Island via QBL express, 63rd, Broadway express, bridge, 4th express and Sea Beach 

(Q) unchanged

(R) Astoria-Bay Ridge

(W) eliminated or rerouted to New Utrecht (a platform could be built over the SB express track to terminate trains

A new passageway would also be built between Lex 63rd and Lex 59th.

Please note that is proposal isn't something I would advocate greatly for given the interlining but is really a proposal just thrown out there.

I believe the specific issue with that is that an Astoria-Bay Ridge line would have no yard of its own, and so all trains would have to deadhead, either from CI Yard via Sea Beach and then across a currently nonexistent crossover on the 4 Av express tracks to reverse, or via QBL with a reverse move in the 59 St tubes across another currently nonexistent crossover.

Extending the (W) to New Utrecht means adding a merge on 4 Av between the (D) and (W) that may actually be a potential source of delays, and if you get rid of it then there may be local TPH issues. It's not a bad idea but we'd need an Astoria Yard to make it work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, engineerboy6561 said:

I believe the specific issue with that is that an Astoria-Bay Ridge line would have no yard of its own, and so all trains would have to deadhead, either from CI Yard via Sea Beach and then across a currently nonexistent crossover on the 4 Av express tracks to reverse, or via QBL with a reverse move in the 59 St tubes across another currently nonexistent crossover.

Extending the (W) to New Utrecht means adding a merge on 4 Av between the (D) and (W) that may actually be a potential source of delays, and if you get rid of it then there may be local TPH issues. It's not a bad idea but we'd need an Astoria Yard to make it work.

When I said New Utrecht I meant the (N) platforms (not the (D) platforms); thinking back at that though it could make more sense to terminate the (W) at Bay Parkway or 86th to have extra room to layup trains.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The yard issue is overblown. For years, we operated 15-18tph of Astoria service to/from Bay Ridge, using CIY and the assortment of spurs/express tracks along the route to hold trains. Wasn't perfect, but it worked. 

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, R68OnBroadway said:

When I said New Utrecht I meant the (N) platforms (not the (D) platforms); thinking back at that though it could make more sense to terminate the (W) at Bay Parkway or 86th to have extra room to layup trains.

That could work if you rebuild New Utrecht to an express station and turn trains on the central two tracks, but you're still adding a merge at 59 St that becomes annoying.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, RR503 said:

The yard issue is overblown. For years, we operated 15-18tph of Astoria service to/from Bay Ridge, using CIY and the assortment of spurs/express tracks along the route to hold trains. Wasn't perfect, but it worked. 

Wasn't there also a plan to convert 36th St to hold revenue trains? 36th is quite close to Fourth Avenue, and even if you wouldn't use that you could free up some space at closer yards.

  • Thumbs Up 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, bobtehpanda said:

Wasn't there also a plan to convert 36th St to hold revenue trains? 36th is quite close to Fourth Avenue, and even if you wouldn't use that you could free up some space at closer yards.

Yes. It’s always in the twenty year needs, was in SAS EIS, and sometimes even makes the capital program...but alas, no progress. That’s a simple improvement that really, really should be done. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a plan:

SAS 2 tracks to do the (MTA) a favor

(T) from Gun Hill Road to 125, 3 tracks in the Bronx, then to Lower Manhattan and Atlantic Ave Superexpress

(Z)(teal) from Rockaway Park up the RBB and on LIRR tracks (and the (M) will run there too to JFK) and then  down 2 Av, Chrystie Street, and the Jamaica Line to Archer Ave

Others:

(R) along Fulton Local

(J) to Bay Ridge and (W) to Staten Island

(M) from Middle Village extended to Jackson Heights

and the (Q) along 125

(N) and (R) swap in Queens so Queens Blvd has (E)(F) express and (M)(N) local

And that's it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 3/13/2019 at 11:00 PM, RR503 said:

Yes. It’s always in the twenty year needs, was in SAS EIS, and sometimes even makes the capital program...but alas, no progress. That’s a simple improvement that really, really should be done. 

Agreed in full. MTA really needs to shit or get off the pot on this one. That extra revenue space will go a long way. MTA, just get it done and quit it with the excuses!

On 3/14/2019 at 7:55 PM, KK 6 Ave Local said:

Here's a plan:

SAS 2 tracks to do the (MTA) a favor

(T) from Gun Hill Road to 125, 3 tracks in the Bronx, then to Lower Manhattan and Atlantic Ave Superexpress

(Z)(teal) from Rockaway Park up the RBB and on LIRR tracks (and the (M) will run there too to JFK) and then  down 2 Av, Chrystie Street, and the Jamaica Line to Archer Ave

Others:

(R) along Fulton Local

(J) to Bay Ridge and (W) to Staten Island

(M) from Middle Village extended to Jackson Heights

and the (Q) along 125

(N) and (R) swap in Queens so Queens Blvd has (E)(F) express and (M)(N) local

And that's it.

Does the (N) go via the 60th or 63rd Street Tunnel in your plan? I’m assuming 60th because you’ve got the teal Z running down 2nd Ave to Chrystie St. But then, you still have to have the (N) switching to the local tracks to get to 60th, so you’d still have merging delays on the Broadway line.

Edited by T to Dyre Avenue

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Making Woodhaven into an  express station,

To make sure 63rd DR and 67th do not lose service, I will add a switch to express track going WB after 63rd drive, and before grand ave newtown

and going EB the switches will be going after Grand ave and before 63rd DR

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Bay Ridge Express said:

Wouldn't making Woodhaven express crowd the express trains even more?

Yeah, there'll be some pax for who the marginal gain in time will swing the ball between express and staying on the local, but that impact would be easily ameliorated by the more even dwell times that this'd provide. Really what needs to be done is deinterlining -- that'd separate the locals from expresses on a destinational level, which means more even crowding. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/16/2019 at 10:24 AM, T to Dyre Avenue said:

Agreed in full. MTA really needs to shit or get off the pot on this one. That extra revenue space will go a long way. MTA, just get it done and quit it with the excuses!

Does the (N) go via the 60th or 63rd Street Tunnel in your plan? I’m assuming 60th because you’ve got the teal Z running down 2nd Ave to Chrystie St. But then, you still have to have the (N) switching to the local tracks to get to 60th, so you’d still have merging delays on the Broadway line.

Yeah it would be 60th because I really can't make it perfect, QBL screwed itself up tbh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's another plan-

(T) is Gun Hill Road to 125 again, then along Atlantic Ave (again), but with more stops than the LIRR Atlantic Branch like Woodhaven. (Z)teal stays the same but truncated to Atlantic Ave (L) and possibly renamed to (K)teal because K comes after J, Z is way off. Probably some method to fix the QBL like de-interlining it, as well as DeKalb. Also the (A) runs cross-Bronx and the (W) to Fulton Local.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought of an idea that would Restructure Weekend Subway Service as a part of Deinterlining Broadway.

(R) service would Run from Ditmars to Bay Ridge with some trains short turning at 9th Avenue. (W) service remains suspended on Weekends. 

(M) service would Terminate at Queens Plaza or Forest Hills instead of Essex or 96th. 

(E) and/or (F) service would be local in Queens. (I would choose the (E) since it’s a shorter route compared to the (F)

(N) trains would be rerouted to 96th Street and run Express in Manhattan. 

This one has potential to make a certain Transfer more convenient for most: 

(G) trains get a one stop extension to Queens Plaza in order to make transferring to the (E) and (M) much easier. 

Any thoughts? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

I thought of an idea that would Restructure Weekend Subway Service as a part of Deinterlining Broadway.

(R) service would Run from Ditmars to Bay Ridge with some trains short turning at 9th Avenue. (W) service remains suspended on Weekends. 

(M) service would Terminate at Queens Plaza or Forest Hills instead of Essex or 96th. 

(E) and/or (F) service would be local in Queens. (I would choose the (E) since it’s a shorter route compared to the (F)

(N) trains would be rerouted to 96th Street and run Express in Manhattan. 

This one has potential to make a certain Transfer more convenient for most: 

(G) trains get a one stop extension to Queens Plaza in order to make transferring to the (E) and (M) much easier. 

Any thoughts? 

 

Edited by Maxwell179

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Should we run 2 ave trains to the Jamaica Line, or will that mess something up? I'm thinking this is the best option for Brooklyn SAS traffic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, KK 6 Ave Local said:

Should we run 2 ave trains to the Jamaica Line, or will that mess something up? I'm thinking this is the best option for Brooklyn SAS traffic.

We already have the (J) and (M) running across the bridge. There's only two tracks east of Broadway Junction. Where is there room?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, bobtehpanda said:

We already have the (J) and (M) running across the bridge. There's only two tracks east of Broadway Junction. Where is there room?

True dat.

So I'd probably have (T)(H) trains run Fulton Local to Euclid, or have (A)(H) express and (C)(T) local but merging would break it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, KK 6 Ave Local said:

True dat.

So I'd probably have (T)(H) trains run Fulton Local to Euclid, or have (A)(H) express and (C)(T) local but merging would break it.

You can do that. But that would limit capacity for all services on Fulton Street, making it no better than current day services.

What this proposal and your SAS-Jamaica/WillyB Proposals seem to lack are good connections with other subway lines. Especially the West Side (2) and (3) lines. If anything, here’s what you can do to better use SAS capacity: 

South of Houston Street, your (T) and (H) can replace the (B) and (D) trains in Brooklyn. This way, the Second Avenue Subway can have better transit Connections with other transit lines. In this case, your (T) and (H) would be able to connect to (2)(3)(4)(5)(6)(7)(E)(F)(G)(J)(L)(M)(N)(Q) And (R) lines. (And the Franklin (S) too) This in turn would force you to go with one of 2 options. Send the (B) and (D) either to Williamsburg or Culver. Both of which require Infrastructure Upgrades. 

72nd Street can gain an additional Lower Level to have trains terminate or continue north. That going to be up to you to decide if you want to send the (H)(T) up north or have it terminate at a 72nd LL and have the (N)(Q) continue North. 

Fulton Local capacity can be increased a bit faster if we build a tunnel to Connect Whitehall with the Transit Museum. This way, you can send (R) and/or (W) trains down Fulton local which would better connect the IND/BMT with one another. This would be convenient for the (A) and (C) as well. As an additional option, you can create a Nassau/4th Avenue Service. This can be the (J), (Z) or some other service. 

 

Please note that that all of these proposals have been discussed before and have their own sets of downsides to them. These are jus my thoughts. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/17/2019 at 10:27 PM, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

You can do that. But that would limit capacity for all services on Fulton Street, making it no better than current day services.

What this proposal and your SAS-Jamaica/WillyB Proposals seem to lack are good connections with other subway lines. Especially the West Side (2) and (3) lines. If anything, here’s what you can do to better use SAS capacity: 

South of Houston Street, your (T) and (H) can replace the (B) and (D) trains in Brooklyn. This way, the Second Avenue Subway can have better transit Connections with other transit lines. In this case, your (T) and (H) would be able to connect to (2)(3)(4)(5)(6)(7)(E)(F)(G)(J)(L)(M)(N)(Q) And (R) lines. (And the Franklin (S) too) This in turn would force you to go with one of 2 options. Send the (B) and (D) either to Williamsburg or Culver. Both of which require Infrastructure Upgrades. 

72nd Street can gain an additional Lower Level to have trains terminate or continue north. That going to be up to you to decide if you want to send the (H)(T) up north or have it terminate at a 72nd LL and have the (N)(Q) continue North. 

Fulton Local capacity can be increased a bit faster if we build a tunnel to Connect Whitehall with the Transit Museum. This way, you can send (R) and/or (W) trains down Fulton local which would better connect the IND/BMT with one another. This would be convenient for the (A) and (C) as well. As an additional option, you can create a Nassau/4th Avenue Service. This can be the (J), (Z) or some other service. 

 

Please note that that all of these proposals have been discussed before and have their own sets of downsides to them. These are jus my thoughts. 

That does make sense. And if we de-interline DeKalb Avenue, then both trains can run down Brighton, and give it a new set of connections.

The (H) in Queens could either run on a new Northern Blvd subway, or replace the (R) on Queens Blvd.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a cost-effective plan that builds relatively no new subway besides 2 Avenue.

(T)(V) on SAS, (T) to Bway-125 and (V) to around Douglaston on the LIRR by using the Bypass and then Port Washington. Does not serve as much as a Northern Blvd subway would, but it can relieve the (7)

(F) will run on Bypass too to 212th Street, minor inconvenience as all 63rd Street trains will be running to the Bypass, but that was the original plan so why not. (M) will run Express on Queens Blvd, effectively de-interlining it, to 179th Street. (R)(E) remain unchanged.

DeKalb is de-interlined, but Broadway cannot be as (R) being removed from QBL will necessitate (G) service there, bringing a host of new problems. (N) service CAN be moved to SAS but this would strain the (W), especially after a one-stop extension to LGA.  (T)(V) will run to the Sea Beach and Brighton Line, moving the (B) to Culver and the (N) to Staten Island, and (W) will go to Euclid.

 

And there's my essay.

Actually this means the Manhattan Bridge (North tracks, was it?) will have 3 trains on them so might have to revise.

Edited by KK 6 Ave Local

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.