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

14 minutes ago, bobtehpanda said:

This isn't totally impossible, they planned to do this in the '70s and '80s (before the Archer Av Subway and 63 St tunnel blew up the capital budget)

What I mean is that this is going to be an expensive ass project. I wouldn't be surprised if the station renovation would cost more than phase 1 of 2 Av honestly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, MysteriousBtrain said:

What I mean is that this is going to be an expensive ass project. I wouldn't be surprised if the station renovation would cost more than phase 1 of 2 Av honestly.

I can't imagine this would be any more difficult than New South Ferry, which involved building a new rail station underneath an actively used existing one, building a transfer to Whitehall St, an archeological dig, and was located in a pretty expensive part of town. That ended up being a bit over a half billion dollars.

Share this post


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

I can't imagine this would be any more difficult than New South Ferry, which involved building a new rail station underneath an actively used existing one, building a transfer to Whitehall St, an archeological dig, and was located in a pretty expensive part of town. That ended up being a bit over a half billion dollars.

Well, you also have the Bay Ridge Branch to deal with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
 
1
20 hours ago, Lex said:

Problem is, Utica already has more trains than it really needs (not so much for the (4) in this regard, but altogether, yes).

For clarity, I never indicated that one would preclude the other, just that improvements at one would do little with the other remaining poorly designed for its purposes.

Fix Rogers. 

Build Utica

Boom, Problem Solved. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Lex said:

Well, you also have the Bay Ridge Branch to deal with.

A lightly used single-track freight line at ground-level is no Lexington or South Ferry Loop.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/6/2019 at 2:33 PM, bobtehpanda said:

A lightly used single-track freight line at ground-level is no Lexington or South Ferry Loop.

We can double track it. It’ll be harder, yes but more capacity is better if more freight and later commuter rail is needed.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Harlem Crosstown said:

We can double track it. It’ll be harder, yes but more capacity is better if more freight and later commuter rail is needed.

Not really relevant to the question at hand though, which is "does existing infrastructure make Flatbush Av impossible to reconfigure?" (no)

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Build a new connections between the (J)(Z) at Bowery and the (C)(E) at Spring via Broome Street; this gives us a fast way to connect the Jamaica lines to an uptown trunk whilst allowing us to increase capacity QBL and provide express service on Culver. A new tunnel between Fulton local and Whitehall is also built.

(A) 168th- Jamaica Center via CPW local, 8th local, and Broadway-Brooklyn express during rush hour peak (all stops before/after Myrtle). Operates all times.

(C) BPB- Metropolitan via Concourse local, CPW local, 8th local and Broadway-Brooklyn local. Weekends to 145th; late nights to Essex.

(E) Forest Hills- Rockaways via QBL local, 53rd, 8th express and Fulton express. Late nights via local.

(K) Forest Hills-Lefferts via QBL local, 53rd, 8th express and Fulton express. Late nights cut back to Euclid.

(B) Norwood-Brighton Beach via Concourse express (rush hour peak only), CPW express, 6th express and Brighton express. Operates all times.

(D) Inwood- CI via CPW, 6th, and 4th express.

(F) cut back to Church Avenue. Late nights to Coney Island.

(M) Jamaica Center- Coney Island via QBL express, 63rd, 6th local and Culver express.

(G) extended to 18th Av center

(N) rerouted to 96th

(Q) unchanged

(R) Astoria- Euclid

(W) eliminated

(J) Canal-Bay Ridge

(Z) eliminated 

Thoughts? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/2/2019 at 10:09 AM, R68OnBroadway said:

Build a new connections between the (J)(Z) at Bowery and the (C)(E) at Spring via Broome Street; this gives us a fast way to connect the Jamaica lines to an uptown trunk whilst allowing us to increase capacity QBL and provide express service on Culver. A new tunnel between Fulton local and Whitehall is also built.

(A) 168th- Jamaica Center via CPW local, 8th local, and Broadway-Brooklyn express during rush hour peak (all stops before/after Myrtle). Operates all times.

(C) BPB- Metropolitan via Concourse local, CPW local, 8th local and Broadway-Brooklyn local. Weekends to 145th; late nights to Essex.

(E) Forest Hills- Rockaways via QBL local, 53rd, 8th express and Fulton express. Late nights via local.

(K) Forest Hills-Lefferts via QBL local, 53rd, 8th express and Fulton express. Late nights cut back to Euclid.

(B) Norwood-Brighton Beach via Concourse express (rush hour peak only), CPW express, 6th express and Brighton express. Operates all times.

(D) Inwood- CI via CPW, 6th, and 4th express.

(F) cut back to Church Avenue. Late nights to Coney Island.

(M) Jamaica Center- Coney Island via QBL express, 63rd, 6th local and Culver express.

(G) extended to 18th Av center

(N) rerouted to 96th

(Q) unchanged

(R) Astoria- Euclid

(W) eliminated

(J) Canal-Bay Ridge

(Z) eliminated 

Thoughts? 

This sounds like a great way to drastically kneecap all the connections available to the Jamaica Line. Why get all the trains at Fulton and Canal, when you can have... uh... the (L) ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

This sounds like a great way to drastically kneecap all the connections available to the Jamaica Line. Why get all the trains at Fulton and Canal, when you can have... uh... the (L) ?

Yeah, that’s the biggest issue I came across with this plan... I suppose you could try adding a stop for the (6) at Spring and the (R)(W) at Prince (you could also add a passageway between at Bowery to the (B)(D) at Grand). If all else fails though, I’d probably just extend the (J) up to Essex. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

48074960576_9b7258114c_b.jpgWhy I don't transfer at Court Square by Union Turnpike, on Flickr

There is no easy transfer between the (E)(M) and (7) at Court Square, which is why a lot of people, including myself, transfer at Roosevelt instead. It is indirect. Directly connecting the north end of the (7) platforms and the (E)(M) would make the transfer a lot easier.

https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7476851,-73.9448455,3a,75y,24.33h,81.71t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sjE7jUHoZNTkyxRrBJxi6fw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

48075091797_1e58b77b69_b.jpgScreen Shot 2019-06-16 at 4.12.57 PM by Union Turnpike, on Flickr

48075091472_df9022ac1c.jpgScreen Shot 2019-06-16 at 4.13.16 PM by Union Turnpike, on Flickr

@Lance Right near the location of my proposed transfer, a building is under construction, and has forced the temporary closure of the exit at the northeast corner of 44th Drive and 23rd Street. This exit is being rebuilt as part of the building's construction, and an elevator will be added, though likely only to the Manhattan-bound platform.

Rendering showing rebuilt entrance with an elevator

apartments-long-island-city-entrance-bui

 

 This is a big missed opportunity to make the entire (E)(M)  station accessible and to build a transfer. The (7) is accessible and the (G) is being made accessible. Leaving the Queens-bound platform without an elevator is beyond stupid.

Edit: This is the building

23-15-44th-Drive-691x1200.jpg

Here is what Curbed says about it:

Quote

Meet the skyscraper that’s poised to claim the title of Queens’s tallest tower at 752 feet (previous estimates said it would stand 984 feet tall). Designed by Hill West Architects, Court Square City View Tower will have 802 apartments with “unparalleled” skyline views and all of the typical luxury amenities like a fitness center, pool, and communal terrace. As of February this year, construction was finally moving forward at the site. The building is also set to be the first in Queens to surpass $1 billion in sales.

In other words, they surely could pay for the improvements I proposed.

The zoning laws for the area resulted in the transfers between the (E)(M) and the (G) and between the (G)  and the (7) . Here is what they say:

Appendix B Court Square Subdistrict Plan Map and Description of Improvements

The first two were done; the third has not been done. The connection I proposed is not of the eligible projects.

A subway improvement, to consist of a connection between the Crosstown and Flushing Lines and maintenance of glass partitions in the control area of the Queens Boulevard Line, Court Sq-23 St Station mezzanine and near the control area of the Crosstown Line, Court Sq Station mezzanine which are to be installed by the developer of Block 2. The developer shall notify the Chairperson of the City Planning Commission upon both application for, and issuance of, a first building permit for the #development# on this #Block#.
Block 2

A subway improvement, to consist of a connection between the Queens Boulevard and Crosstown Lines, preparation of preliminary plans for a Crosstown Line, Court Sq Station and Flushing Line, Court Sq Station connection and installation of glass partitions in the control area of the Court Sq-23 St Station mezzanine and near the control area of the Court Sq Station mezzanine, upon receipt of a written request by the Chairperson of the City Planning Commission, which shall occur only after the issuance of a first building permit for the #development# on Block 1.
Block 3

The first #development# or #enlargement# to meet the criteria for a subway improvement shall construct new entrances at the intersection of 44th Drive and 23rd Street for the Flushing Line, Court Sq Station, in consultation with the Metropolitan Transportation Authority and the Department of City Planning.
For subsequent #developments# or #enlargements#, a subway improvement to the north end of the Flushing Line, Court Sq Station, shall be required. Such improvement shall be determined in consultation with the Metropolitan Transportation Authority and the Department of City Planning.

 

EDIT: CEQR is so stupid. Here is what it says about the impacts of the partial closure of the road, which closed the entrance, for transit users.

Quote

Transit
The Full Closure would not introduce new transit users, nor change existing transit use along the MTA’s Court Square train stops (Court Square Station along the G and 7 trains, Court Square – 23rd Street Station along the E and M trains, and Queensboro Plaza Station along the 7, N, and W trains) and New York City Transit (NYCT) bus lines (Q39, Q67, Q69, Q100, Q101, Q102, B32, and B62).. Therefore, the Full Closure would not result in any significant adverse impacts on transit. As determined in coordination with NYCDOT, detailed transit analyses are not warranted and were not performed.

 

Edited by Union Tpke
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree 100% that is this truly a missed opportunity.  I would have demanded such be done as a condition of building such and even allowed them to go to the original height as well. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I saw that on the Bay Ridge and South Brooklyn Facebook Group.

https://www.change.org/p/mta-express-d-train-for-brooklyn-residents?recruiter=929454202&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=share_petition&utm_term=psf_combo_share_abi&recruited_by_id=6f84d460-18c9-11e9-abf9-cb1d6fa89538&utm_content=starter_fb_share_content_en-us%3Av7

I say nah. It would result in a service cut to every (D) line station below 36th St not named 9th Ave, 62nd St, Bay Pkwy and Stillwell Ave. And the first two of those stations have relatively low ridership compared to the other stops. Of course, the comments on Change are overwhelmingly in favor of it, because those are people who (like most of the subway riding public) think express service is always superior to local service (“and no if’s, and’s or but’s about it!”).

Edited by T to Dyre Avenue
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, BreeddekalbL said:

Someone is circulating a petition for a west end (D) Express feasible or nah 

As a (D)? Nah

But it's theoretically possible if you deinterline Broadway and DeKalb, because then you could run 30 TPH of Broadway Express (15 TPH Sea Beach, 7.5 TPH West End Local, 7.5 TPH West End Express)

Whether that's actually possible in the real world and/or a good idea, I'll leave that to the experts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

I saw that on the Bay Ridge and South Brooklyn Facebook Group.

https://www.change.org/p/mta-express-d-train-for-brooklyn-residents?recruiter=929454202&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=share_petition&utm_term=psf_combo_share_abi&recruited_by_id=6f84d460-18c9-11e9-abf9-cb1d6fa89538&utm_content=starter_fb_share_content_en-us%3Av7

I say nah. It would result in a service cut to every (D) line station below 36th St not named 9th Ave, 62nd St and Bay Parkway. And the first two of those stations have relatively low ridership compared to the other stops.

When it comes to rapid transit, frequency is valued more than travel time because waiting time is perceived more negatively than a slightly slower train. So basically none of the BMT south Brooklyn lines should be running express unless a second service is added like on Brighton.

Similarly, the (F) express can't happen unless another service through Rutgers is added.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

I saw that on the Bay Ridge and South Brooklyn Facebook Group.

https://www.change.org/p/mta-express-d-train-for-brooklyn-residents?recruiter=929454202&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=share_petition&utm_term=psf_combo_share_abi&recruited_by_id=6f84d460-18c9-11e9-abf9-cb1d6fa89538&utm_content=starter_fb_share_content_en-us%3Av7

I say nah. It would result in a service cut to every (D) line station below 36th St not named 9th Ave, 62nd St, Bay Pkwy and Stillwell Ave. And the first two of those stations have relatively low ridership compared to the other stops. Of course, the comments on Change are overwhelmingly in favor of it, because those are people who (like most of the subway riding public) think express service is always superior to local service (“and no if’s, and’s or but’s about it!”).

Well don’t the guys have a nearby subway alternative in the form of the (N) and the (B) and (Q). Can’t these guys asking for the express (D) just take a crosstown bus to another station with faster service if these guys are complaining about slow (D) service? For Christ sake, we have the B82 SBS going across town for a reason.

19 minutes ago, Caelestor said:

Similarly, the (F) express can't happen unless another service through Rutgers is added.

I wonder what you proposed for an (F) express service.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

West End express saves you a good bit of time (6 mins Bay Parkway-9th, 3 62nd-9th), and there's decent enough ridership from Stillwell + the local stations south of Bay Parkway + Bay Parkway + 62nd, but I doubt the numbers work out at current frequencies. An even split would yield 5tph at local stations...so yeah, until you can get 15 down the corridor, this one gets the can. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Around the Horn said:

As a (D)? Nah

But it's theoretically possible if you deinterline Broadway and DeKalb, because then you could run 30 TPH of Broadway Express (15 TPH Sea Beach, 7.5 TPH West End Local, 7.5 TPH West End Express)

Whether that's actually possible in the real world and/or a good idea, I'll leave that to the experts.

That’s what I was thinking. Probably the only way to provide West End local and peak express trains on frequent headways would be to de-interline both Broadway and DeKalb. Just de-interlining DeKalb would mean (D)<D> service would not only have to merge with the (B) at 36th St, but it would also still be limited by its merge with the (A) at Columbus Circle. On the other hand, a (Q)<Q> West End service would only merge with the (N) at 36th. But still, would West End riders be ready and willing to trade their current 6th Avenue (D) service for a West End express?

1 hour ago, Caelestor said:

When it comes to rapid transit, frequency is valued more than travel time because waiting time is perceived more negatively than a slightly slower train. So basically none of the BMT south Brooklyn lines should be running express unless a second service is added like on Brighton.

Similarly, the (F) express can't happen unless another service through Rutgers is added.

Fully agree here. I do recall seeing many past posts (including many in this very thread) calling for the (J), (Z) or (W) to be extended to the West End line as the second service. I’m not particularly in favor of that, because then the northbound (D) and (J) / (Z) / (W)  would have to merge with each other after 9th Avenue, then split up before 36th Street. We already had merging issues at 36th with the (D) and (brownM) before 2010. There’s no real advantage to bringing back that merge.

1 hour ago, JeremiahC99 said:

Well don’t the guys have a nearby subway alternative in the form of the (N) and the (B) and (Q). Can’t these guys asking for the express (D) just take a crosstown bus to another station with faster service if these guys are complaining about slow (D) service? For Christ sake, we have the B82 SBS going across town for a reason.

I wonder what you proposed for an (F) express service.

Agreed, especially for the riders who board below 18th Ave. Even the B8 up 18th between the (D) and (N) stations probably isn’t that long of a ride (if it really is too difficult to transfer between the (D) and (N) at 62nd).

Edited by T to Dyre Avenue
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

 But still, would West End riders be ready and willing to trade their current 6th Avenue (D) service for a West End express?

That's the million dollar question...

1 hour ago, Caelestor said:

When it comes to rapid transit, frequency is valued more than travel time because waiting time is perceived more negatively than a slightly slower train. So basically none of the BMT south Brooklyn lines should be running express unless a second service is added like on Brighton.

Similarly, the (F) express can't happen unless another service through Rutgers is added.

This comment should be pinned forever. Hit it right on the nail.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

Fully agree here. I do recall seeing many past posts (including many in this very thread) calling for the (J), (Z) or (W) to be extended to the West End line as the second service. I’m not particularly in favor of that, because then the northbound (D) and (J) / (Z) / (W)  would have to merge with each other after 9th Avenue, then split up before 36th Street. We already had merging issues at 36th with the (D) and (brownM) before 2010. There’s no real advantage to bringing back that merge.

If anything, they should have the three mentioned services in question go to Bay Ridge-95th Street instead of the West End Line so that the merging won't be a problem there. As West End customers, as they prefer to get to Chinatown faster, I would suggest that instead of sending the (J) / (Z) or (W) on the line, increase (D) service on the West End Line instead. The (D) does provide an express service straight up the bridge, bypassing Lower Manhattan, and landing at Grand Street, a station so popular to those going to Chinatown that another entrance was added there in 1999. It would be much faster than having a second service needlessly going local on 4th Avenue, travelling via the Montague Street Tunnel, and giving a nice tour of Lower Manhattan just to get to the center of town.

On that note, for now, the only logical line to send down 4th Avenue would be the (J) / (Z) since they will maintain direct access to a yard while running to 95th Street. Yes the (W) should come down here to 95th Street, but I would wait until they have the 36th-38th Street Yard ready for passenger service, which would be god knows when, all to avoid the problems of the pre-1987 (R), which the extended (W) would be replicating. However, for now, they should send more (W) trains into Brooklyn on the Sea Beach (N) line. 

30 minutes ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

Agreed, especially for the riders who board below 18th Ave. Even the B8 up 18th between the (D) and (N) stations probably isn’t that long of a ride (if it really is too difficult to transfer between the (D) and (N) at 62nd).

It shouldn't be that bad. However, I'm starting to feel that the people wanting the express (D) service have never taken a bus in the area, and do not want to do so at all (they may even brush off that option, saying the bus option to another station is slow, even though the B8 ride is not that bad). Maybe they don't like buses at all.

The 62nd Street transfer is somewhat too difficult because the main transfer mezzanine there is currently closed for reconstruction, as part of the Sea Beach renovations, which are still ongoing. As a result, passengers wanting to transfer between the two must exit to street at the secondary entrance (the 62nd Street exit is also closed as well).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Adding on to my earlier point, the (D) and (N) already run express, just along 4 Ave. When viewed as the two branches of the 4 Ave express, West End and Sea Beach can only accommodate one service, and in general for any line there should always be robust local service in place before adding express trains. Adding additional 4 Ave local trains like the old (brownM) is a bad idea for operational and ridership purposes unless they go to Bay Ridge.

3 hours ago, JeremiahC99 said:

I wonder what you proposed for an (F) express service.

The (F) runs every 4 minutes and the (G) runs every 8 minutes. The current motivation for the (F) express train, besides redeveloping the neighborhoods served by lower Culver, is so that (G) trains terminating at Church Ave don't delay the (F). None of this is worth halving service to the stops along upper Culver.

That said, if Bergen St lower level is reopened, then the (V) could be reintroduced as the weekday local to Church Ave. The (brownM) would be sent down Nassau St and Montague St to Bay Ridge. Then all (F) trains run express between Bergen and Church.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I may, the issue with a 4th local-West End service is that it misses the highest ridership bits of 4th local. Bay Ridge, 53 and 45 have been clamoring for more service, and have the stats to support it. Send local trains there, incrementally increase (D) service (you could even, if you really wanted to, run 10 Sea Beach/10 West End Local/10 West End Express with capacity improvements at Dekalb), and work with that: you're saving yourself a crappy merge, too. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Caelestor said:

The (F) runs every 4 minutes and the (G) runs every 8 minutes. The current motivation for the (F) express train, besides redeveloping the neighborhoods served by lower Culver, is so that (G) trains terminating at Church Ave don't delay the (F). None of this is worth halving service to the stops along upper Culver.

That said, if Bergen St lower level is reopened, then the (V) could be reintroduced as the weekday local to Church Ave. The (brownM) would be sent down Nassau St and Montague St to Bay Ridge. Then all (F) trains run express between Bergen and Church.

What is with the hard on with returning the very inefficient Brown M service. IT WONT WORK FOR ANYONE!!!!! Its 2019 for gods sake, not 1999. What era are you all living where a one seat ride between North Brooklyn and Midtown Manhattan is not necessary?

Instead, I would have some (F) trains run express from 4th Avenue to Jay Street-MetroTech instead. To replace (F) service, I would propose bumping (G) service to every 6 minutes, and running a bus service between Crown Heights and Lower Manhattan. More specifically, a revamped B71 route. It can divert some (F) train riders from the (F) service. The B71 would start at Crown Heights, then take Union Street and Sackett Street to Van Brunt Street, passing by the busy Carrol Street (F)(G) stop. From there, the route would serve Red Hook via the B61 route to Clinton Street, then enter the Brooklyn Queens Expressway. Once on the BQE, the route would then travel into Manhattan via the Battery Tunnel, then via Broadway and Trinity Street. The route would terminate at Chambers Street where riders would then transfer to the (A)(C) and (E) trains into Midtown, or the M9 or M22 routes to serve the Lower East Side at East Broadway, Delancey Street, and Second Avenue. I am also proposing bumping up B57 bus service to replace (F) train service at Smith-9th Street, Carroll Street, and Bergen Street to Jay Street MetroTech, and those going to York Street can transfer to the (A)(C)trains to High Street instead.

As the B71 would pass the Carrol Street stop on the culver line and would provide an attractive service to Manhattan, Red Hook and Gowanus riders would not need to rely on the (F) anymore. This would be relieve some crowding on the (F) and allow for some trains to run express since ridership at Smith-9th Street, Carrol Street, and Bergen Street could decrease due to the availability of an attractive bus route that can get them into Manhattan faster than the (F) train. This much better than the non-starter idea of bringing back the brown M service in exchange for an express service. Plus they could use some more bus line extensions anyway, given the need to shorten commute times between Red Hook and Manhattan.

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.