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

44 minutes ago, Bay Ridge Express said:

I saw this on Reddit also: how could a subway line be brought to Red Hook?

(1) line extension. However, the new South Ferry terminal wasn't build deep enough so the East River tunnel would have to branch off the main line south of Rector St.

1 hour ago, Bay Ridge Express said:

I'm pretty sure I read somewhere (don't remember) that 8 Av limits capacity on the (L) due to its design... If true, building a new westward terminal would certainly help.

The (L) has an upper limit of 26 tph, which isn't currently achieved because of the lack of electrical power. The (L) could be ramped up to 30 - 36 tph if it got a terminal like Hudson Yards, and the consensus here is that the (L) should be extended up 10 Ave to 72 St, stopping at 23 St, 34 St, 41 St, 50 St, and 57/60 St.

1 hour ago, Bay Ridge Express said:

Got me thinking, since the (M) regularly runs to 96 on weekends there are talks of preserving this service pattern. That would depend, however, on what you would do to the (N) .

The (N)(Q) go to 96 St, the (R) would run to Astoria and the (M) would run take its place along QBL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bay Ridge Express said:

I saw this on Reddit also: how could a subway line be brought to Red Hook?

Like @Caelestor said, (1) train extension to Brooklyn branching off from the line to South Ferry (I personally would split it just after Cortlandt Street and then swing west and stop at Battery Park City) and continuing to Brooklyn.

The (9) designation would be brought back for trains to Brooklyn.

AECOM has their own proposal which I like because it also links up with the (F)(G)(R) at 4th-9th http://secondavenuesagas.com/2016/09/16/the-9-train-lives-in-red-hook/

AECOM9Train-555x600.jpg

  • Thumbs Up 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Bay Ridge Express said:

I'm pretty sure I read somewhere (don't remember) that 8 Av limits capacity on the (L) due to its design... If true, building a new westward terminal would certainly help.

The 8 Av terminal limits it to 28.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IIRC one of the (many) things abandoned during the '80s was tail tracks at Flatbush and at 8 Av.

Share this post


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

IIRC one of the (many) things abandoned during the '80s was tail tracks at Flatbush and at 8 Av.

I heard about Flatbush, but heard nothing about 8 Av. That wouldn't make sense given that the L had really low ridership then.

Share this post


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

IIRC one of the (many) things abandoned during the '80s was tail tracks at Flatbush and at 8 Av.

Tail tracks were proposed for the former in 1968 (and subsequently rejected, as much of the funding needed had not been approved on the 1971 ballot), and the idea briefly resurfaced in 1989. As for the latter, I've heard nothing about tail tracks beyond some people on this very site saying that they should be implemented at the very least (which I agree with).

Share this post


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

Tail tracks were proposed for the former in 1968 (and subsequently rejected, as much of the funding needed had not been approved on the 1971 ballot), and the idea briefly resurfaced in 1989. As for the latter, I've heard nothing about tail tracks beyond some people on this very site saying that they should be implemented at the very least (which I agree with).

That is what I thought. I think that tail tracks will be needed in the future, but there is plenty of room to increase service on the Canarsie Line before the 28 TPH threshold is hit. I expect that some, if not all, of the 4-car R211s will go to the (L) for increased service.

Share this post


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

 I expect that some, if not all, of the 4-car R211s will go to the (L) for increased service.

I can imagine that they'll play the role of the CBTC equipped R160's, that is (L) service with some appearances on the (J)(Z) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/23/2019 at 11:13 PM, Around the Horn said:

Like @Caelestor said, (1) train extension to Brooklyn branching off from the line to South Ferry (I personally would split it just after Cortlandt Street and then swing west and stop at Battery Park City) and continuing to Brooklyn.

The (9) designation would be brought back for trains to Brooklyn.

AECOM has their own proposal which I like because it also links up with the (F)(G)(R) at 4th-9th http://secondavenuesagas.com/2016/09/16/the-9-train-lives-in-red-hook/

AECOM9Train-555x600.jpg

TBH, I would prefer just a restoration of B71 for Red Hook. It doesn’t really demand a subway.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/23/2019 at 11:13 PM, Around the Horn said:

Like @Caelestor said, (1) train extension to Brooklyn branching off from the line to South Ferry (I personally would split it just after Cortlandt Street and then swing west and stop at Battery Park City) and continuing to Brooklyn.

The (9) designation would be brought back for trains to Brooklyn.

AECOM has their own proposal which I like because it also links up with the (F)(G)(R) at 4th-9th http://secondavenuesagas.com/2016/09/16/the-9-train-lives-in-red-hook/

AECOM9Train-555x600.jpg

I had not seen this previously.  It definitely could work, especially if there were direct transfers to the BQX if that gets built. 

Share this post


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

Have they researched giving Aqueduct racetrack a second platform?

Yes, it was loosely mentioned at the end of this linked article.

Personally, I support the idea since it increases peoples mobility to/from the casino. That said, a Rockaway bound platform would have to be engineered properly given the lack of size on the other side of the tracks (an overground passageway would also need to be built, retaining ADA also is something to consider here).

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, NoHacksJustKhaks said:

Yes, it was loosely mentioned at the end of this linked article.

Personally, I support the idea since it increases peoples mobility to/from the casino. That said, a Rockaway bound platform would have to be engineered properly given the lack of size on the other side of the tracks (an overground passageway would also need to be built, retaining ADA also is something to consider here).

If you're going to add a second platform to the Racetrack stop, I think you should really go all the way and build it so it can be a short-turn terminal for when either Lefferts or Far Rockaway is out and also to stage some extra service during peak times at the Racino.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Wallyhorse said:

If you're going to add a second platform to the Racetrack stop, I think you should really go all the way and build it so it can be a short-turn terminal for when either Lefferts or Far Rockaway is out and also to stage some extra service during peak times at the Racino.

Frankly, Howard Beach JFK would serve as a better short turn terminal. It balances service to both casino travelers and airport travelers, and serves more people.

Share this post


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

Frankly, Howard Beach JFK would serve as a better short turn terminal. It balances service to both casino travelers and airport travelers, and serves more people.

...and already has short turn capability!

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/6/2019 at 10:02 AM, NoHacksJustKhaks said:

Frankly, Howard Beach JFK would serve as a better short turn terminal. It balances service to both casino travelers and airport travelers, and serves more people.

Oh I agree, but I'm thinking in terms of work already being done in that area.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Wallyhorse said:

Oh I agree, but I'm thinking in terms of work already being done in that area.

How does adding a platform have anything to do with adding switches/interlocking equipment? Last time I checked, the only impact adding a station plat had on the physical track structure of a line was moved/new insulated joints to accommodate respaced signals, and that’s a minimal effect at that. 

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Regarding (A)(C)(E)

have they researched sending the (C) express after Say Times Square and having the (E) as the solo local or adding a Supplement Service?

Edited by BreeddekalbL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, BreeddekalbL said:

Regarding (A)(C)(E)

have they researched sending the (C) express after Say Times Square and having the (E) as the solo local or adding a Supplement Service?

I can only see that happening if a (K)  was added to replace the (C). As for the merge, I’d put it just south of 50th before where the Queens sour tracks rise to deinterline the local and express. Doing so gives you a lot of space for a switch (20-25mph maybe) which would have a low impact (certainly less than that of Canal).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
21 hours ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

But then you would be moving the (A)(C) merge from Canal to 42nd St. That wouldn’t be much better, would it? 

But the switching would be south of 50th street going south, and merging at canal wouldn't need to happen no more

but i just saw a map that that i would have to do the NB merging at 34th

Edited by BreeddekalbL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/8/2019 at 1:19 AM, RR503 said:

How does adding a platform have anything to do with adding switches/interlocking equipment? Last time I checked, the only impact adding a station plat had on the physical track structure of a line was moved/new insulated joints to accommodate respaced signals, and that’s a minimal effect at that. 

The idea is you do ALL of that at the Racetrack station (interlocking, second and maybe third platforms, etc.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My Proposal for the B Division:

(A): 207 St to the Rockaways (overnight fully local service to Far Rockaway is the same)

(C): 168 St-Lefferts Blvd via 8 Av Local and Fulton St Express

(E): same

(K): revived, operating days and evenings only from Court St (no longer Transit Museum) to Euclid Av

(B): same

(D): same except for the Brooklyn route, which is now Brighton Local full-time

(F): same except for the Brooklyn route, which is now Express (except nights) in both directions between Jay and Church

(M): same

(G): extended to 600 feet and increased headways for Culver local service north of Church Av

(J)/(Z): same

(L): same

(N): 2 Av Subway to Stillwell Av via Broadway Express, Manhattan Bridge, 4 Av Express, and Sea Beach Local (late nights all local stops via Montague Street Tunnel)

(Q): same except for the Brooklyn route, which is now 4 Av Express (except nights when it is local) and full-time West End Local

(R): same

(W): same except it is extended to Bay Ridge-95 St and trains also alternating between Whitehall and Bay Ridge-95 St

(S): Rockaway Park Shuttle eliminated for good except late nights, Franklin Avenue Shuttle and 42 St Shuttle stay and are the same

That's it for now. As for the Transit Museum issue, I'll figure that out later on or so. Forgive me lol.

Edited by Jemorie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Question is there any viability to expand the (A) past Lefferts Blvd via Liberty Av? Perhaps to Sutphin Blvd?

Also thoughts on my (T) line

Dyker Heights -Crospey Av/ 14 Av

39 St/14 Av

Church Av - McDonald Av

(F)(G)

Coney Island Av/ Church Avs

Flatbush - Ocean Avs/Church Av

(B)(Q)

Linden Blvd - Caton Av/ Bedford Av

Empire Blvd/Bedford Av

Eastern Pkwy/Bedford Av

transfer at Franklin Av for (2)(3)(4)(5)(S)

Fulton St - Atlantic Av/Bedford Av

transfer at Nostrand Av for (A)(C) connection to L.I.R.R

Gates Av/Bedford Av

Lafayette Av/Bedford Av 

(G)

Myrtle Av/Bedford Av

Flushing Av/Bedford Av

Rodney- Keap Sts/ Bedford Av

turns left to S 10 St

Williamsburg - S 10 St/ Wythe Av

 BQX

(tunnel on Grand St Manhattan)

Grand St/East Broadway

East Broadway- Rutgers St

(F)

Chatham Sq/East Broadway

X ( Red Hook- LaGuardia Airport via Hanover sq & 63 St tunnel)

Grand St / Chrystie St

(B)(D)x (Possible transfer to (J) via Bowery)

2 Av - Houston St

(F)x (Teal (Z) from Broadway Junction - 242 St :20x20_px_01:)

14 St/ 2 Av

(L)X(Z)

23 & 34 Sts are local stops served by the X & (Z)

 

42 St/2 Av

(4)(5)(6)(7)(S)X(Z)

55 St/2 Av

 

72 St/ 2Av

(Q)(Z)

86 St/ 2 Av

(Q)(Z)

96 St/2 Av

(Q)(Z)

106 & 116 Sts are local stations served by (Z)

125th St/2 Av

(Z)

3 Av - 138 St

(6)(Z)

3 Av - 149 St

(2)(5)(Z)

163 St & Claremont Pkwy are local stops served by 

Bronx - Tremont Ave

(Z)

183 St- Lesandro Junior Way/3 Av

(Z)

goes via Lorillard Pl turns right on Fordham Rd

 Arthur Av - Fordham University/ Fordham Rd

Pelham Pkwy - White Plains Rd (2)(5)

 

Pelham Pkwy - Esplande (5)

 

Seymour Av/ Pelham Pkwy

(turns left to Seymour Av)

Allerton Av/Eastchester Rd

Gun Hill Rd/ Eastchester Rd

(D)(5)

Boston Rd/Eastchester Rd

222 St/Eastchester Rd

 233 St/Laconia Av

turns right on 233 st then left on Baychester Av

Nereid-Pitman Avs/Baychester Av

Wakefield 241 St (2)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/23/2019 at 11:07 AM, R68OnBroadway said:

My god some people still don’t listen after the problems of an idea are explained...

Seriously. This entire thread boils down to same ideas being thrown around over and over and over. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve seen “Extend the C to Lefferts” , “Send the G back to Forest Hills”, or “Bring back the V and restore the original M”, all ideas which have been proven to be terrible or unintuitive give system limits.

  • Upvote 1

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.