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

Posted (edited)

It's also just easier to sell the change as a rerouted/shortened

(R) in Manhattan and a (W) extended to Brooklyn than the alternative

I think so too. And I think the (MTA) might have gotten away with de-interlining CPW in 1991 if they had renamed the proposed Inwood (orangeQ) the A in a 6th Avenue orange circle. That’s what they did when they rerouted the (V) to Metropolitan Ave, but renamed it (M)

Edited by T to Dyre Avenue

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Here is another batch of proposals:

Make woodhaven blvd on QBL an express stop

Create a crosstown (S) on 59 St

Create a LGA (JFK) running from Astoria-Ditmars (N)(W), through Laguardia Airport, to Jackson Heights - Roosevelt Av (7)(E)(F)(M)(R)

Create an (S) opeating as follows:

Kingsbridge Rd (B)(D) (build a passageway to (4)

Fordham Plaza

Belmont - Arthur Av

Bronx Zoo (Southern Blvd/Bronx Pk S)

W Farms Sq (2)(5)

174 St/Bronx River Av

Elder Av (6)

Morrison Av/Story Av

Soundview Av/Randall Av

Laguardia Airport

Edited by New Flyer Xcelsior
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, New Flyer Xcelsior said:

Here is another batch of proposals:

Make woodhaven blvd on QBL an express stop

yes. maybe.

Create a crosstown (S) on 59 St

no,

Create a LGA (JFK) running from Astoria-Ditmars (N)(W), through Laguardia Airport, to Jackson Heights - Roosevelt Av (7)(E)(F)(M)(R)

Just extend the (N) and (W) to LaGuardia and Call it a day. 

Create an (S) opeating as follows:

Kingsbridge Rd (B)(D) (build a passageway to (4)

Fordham Plaza

Belmont - Arthur Av

Bronx Zoo (Southern Blvd/Bronx Pk S)

W Farms Sq (2)(5)

174 St/Bronx River Av

Elder Av (6)

Morrison Av/Story Av

Soundview Av/Randall Av

Laguardia Airport

Is this a crosstown Route?

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the Bronx (S) would be a connector to LGA. It would also serve as a connector to the Bronx Zoo from the (B)(D)(4)(2)(5)(6) trains, instead of only walking from the (2)(5) trains.

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, New Flyer Xcelsior said:

the Bronx (S) would be a connector to LGA. It would also serve as a connector to the Bronx Zoo from the (B)(D)(4)(2)(5)(6) trains, instead of only walking from the (2)(5) trains.

 

I’m not sure who is asking for that but okay. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Create a new IRT line—bullet pink (15A)/(15B)

Woodlawn - 238 St

Perry Av/Gun Hill Rd

Norwood - 205 St (D)

Bedford Park Blvd/Webster Av (Botanical Garden)

Fordham Plaza

Fordham Rd/Grand Concourse (B)(D)

Fordham Rd/Jerome Av (4)

Fordham Rd/University Av

***TRAINS SPLIT HERE***

(15A) trains:

Fordham Rd/Sedgwick Av

207 St/10 Av (1)

Dyckman St/10 Av

193 St/Ft George Av

188 St/Amsterdam Av

181 St/Amsterdam Av

175 St/Amsterdam Av

168 St/Amsterdam Av

163 St/Amsterdam Av (C)

155 St/Fredrick Douglass Blvd (B)(D)

148 St (3)

145 St (3)

135 St/5 Av

—————————

(15B) trains:

183 St/University Av

Burnside Av/University Av

Tremont Av/University Av

174 St/University Av

170 St/Ogden Av

167 St/Ogden Av

164 St/Ogden Av

Yankee Stadium (B)(D)(4)

142 St/5 Av

135 St/5 Av

***TRAINS MERGE HERE***

125 St/5 Av

116 St/5 Av

110 St/5 Av

102 St/5 Av

96 St/5 Av

89 St/5 Av

84 St/5 Av

79 St/5 Av

72 St/5 Av

65 St/5 Av (build a (F)(Q) station at 63 St/5 Av, connect here)

59 St/5 Av (N)(R)(W)

53 St/5 Av (E)(M)

48 St/5 Av

42 St/5 Av (7)(B)(D)(F)(M)

Run along (7) line express to Junction Blvd

34 Av/Junction Blvd

Astoria Blvd/Junction Blvd

Laguardia Airport

 

 

Edited by New Flyer Xcelsior
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, New Flyer Xcelsior said:

Here is another batch of proposals:

Make woodhaven blvd on QBL an express stop

Create a crosstown (S) on 59 St

Create a LGA (JFK) running from Astoria-Ditmars (N)(W), through Laguardia Airport, to Jackson Heights - Roosevelt Av (7)(E)(F)(M)(R)

Create an (S) opeating as follows:

Kingsbridge Rd (B)(D) (build a passageway to (4)

Fordham Plaza

Belmont - Arthur Av

Bronx Zoo (Southern Blvd/Bronx Pk S)

W Farms Sq (2)(5)

174 St/Bronx River Av

Elder Av (6)

Morrison Av/Story Av

Soundview Av/Randall Av

Laguardia Airport

Best option is to creat LGA (JFK) running from Queens Plaza (Newly Constructed Queens Central like what Webeo Transportation did) via BQE and GCE to LaGuardia Airport and From Jackson Heights - Roosevelt Ave to LGA Airport.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some random idea I had (highly unethical, mostly just for fun)

 

A Train extension North of Inwood-207 St via Broadway/Riverdale Avenue serving the West Bronx

 

Manhattan

215 St-Brodway (1 Train)

Marble Hill-225 St (1Train)

 

The Bronx

235 St-Riverdale Avenue

Bell Tower-Riverdale Avenue

Hudson Pkwy-252 St

259 St-Skyview Complex

263 St-Mount St. Vincent College

 

Westchester

Radford-Riverdale Avenue

Ludlow-Riverdale Avenue

Vark St-Riverdale Avenue

City of Yonkers-Prospect St

Downtown Yonkers-Dock/Hudson

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I always wanted the (A) to serve Bronx extended after 207 St until like 231 St but then it will would duplicate the (1) .

Edited by bwwnyc123

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I modified a proposal of mine from last year, back to Deinterlining.

- Here are the Infrastructure Upgrades for the A Division under my Proposal   

  - Abandoned Platform at Bowling Green is repurposed and extended along with the Track and connect with the Current S/B Lexington Express Track. 

 - Rogers Junction is Modified. 

(1) Stays the Same at 24TPH

(2) Gets a TPH boost to 18 TPH

(3) Trains run at 12 TPH to New Lots, And eventually down Utica Avenue.

(4) Runs to Utica/New Lots At 12 TPH.

(5) Trains run to Utica at 17 TPH. Terminal Op’s will be modified at Bowling Green so that Trains short turning there can turn around faster. 

(6) remains the same but receives 24 TPH.

(7) Stays the same. (MTA) should find a way to modify CBTC operations so that the (7) can operate at 36TPH once again (like how it used to in the 1960’s)

(S) The 42nd Street Shuttle gets upgraded as planned. 

The B Division will receive a few Infrastructure Upgrades: 

 - Essex Street Expansion (Which has been discussed in the past) 

- 50th Street Upper Level Platform Expansion with Interlocking’s north of the Station

- Myrtle Junction Rebuild. 

- Ditmars Interlocking rebuild. 

- Williamsburg Bridge, 36th Street/Qns And DeKalb Junction Re-signaled to allow for more trains. 

(A) 168-Lefferts and the Rockaway’s. 18TPH. Trains run local along CPW then Express South of 50th. Weekends, (A) trains will run Express north of 50th and up to Inwood like they currently do.

(B) Inwood 207th St - Brighton Beach. Trains run at 15 TPH. With 3 Trips to and from Coney Island. No trains during the weekends and overnight. 

(C) Bedford Park Blvd/145th Street - Euclid Avenue. Trains run Express between 50th Street and Jay Street. 10 TPH

(D) Stays as is.

(E) Stays as is but is reduced to 12 TPH. (See (K)

(F) Boosted to 18 TPH. This would be done to allow for 5 Limited Runs Along the Culver Express in both directions. 

(G) Stays as is but is extended to 8 Cars And is boosted to 15 TPH.

(J)(Z)  Stays as is. If you resignal the Williamsburg Bridge and Fix the bottleneck at Myrtle Junction, you should be able to gain an extra 2-5 TPH.

(K) New Service between Jamaica 179th - WTC. With only (M) trains terminating at Forest Hills, this should allow Space for at least 3-5 more trains along the QB Local. This (K) service will replace the 3 (E) runs to 179th and allow for (F) trains to Run Express past Forest Hills. 

(L) Receive’s CBTC upgrades so that the line can be boosted to 26 TPH. 

(M) trains will be rerouted via 63rd Street, but will continue to make Local runs in Queens. Service will run at 12 TPH with 2 short turns at 2nd Avenue. As previously mentioned, Resignaling the Williamsburg Bridge, Rebuilding Myrtle Junction in addition to Fixing the Terminal Op’s At Forest Hills should allow you to Squeeze a few more trains in. 

(N) 96th Street to Coney Island via Sea Beach at 12 TPH. Resignalling Dekalb Junction should allow you to squeeze in more trains. 

(Q) 96th Street to Coney Island via Brighton. 14 TPH. 

(R)(W) Astoria - 95th at a combined 24TPH. 8 TPH; all (W)’s Will Short turn at Whitehall Street. Other (W) trains in addition to (R) trains will continue to Bay Ridge. An alternative option would be to have the (W) serve Astoria/Broadway Lcl at 24TPH while having a Brown (R) Serve Bay Ridge-Essex at 12 TPH. 

(S) Franklin Avenue Shuttle remains the same. 

Any feedback would be appreciated! 

https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?mid=1WG4X7N_dfOIpUn7miABpHP6ysOE3pw9S

Edited by LaGuardia Link N Tra

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Simplify the (A) service pattern. It shouldn’t be local to 168 weekdays and express weekends.

Is the (K) local or express in Queens under this plan? It sounds to me like it’s local, in which case, I can see Hillside riders treating it the same way they did when the (R) ran to/from 179 (from 1988-91).

I prefer the alternate (R)(W) plan where the (R) runs to/from Essex and the (W) serves Astoria on its own. But you’d have to run considerably less than 36 tph on the (R) and (W).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

Simplify the (A) service pattern. It shouldn’t be local to 168 weekdays and express weekends.

Is the (K) local or express in Queens under this plan? It sounds to me like it’s local, in which case, I can see Hillside riders treating it the same way they did when the (R) ran to/from 179 (from 1988-91).

I prefer the alternate (R)(W) plan where the (R) runs to/from Essex and the (W) serves Astoria on its own. But you’d have to run considerably less than 36 tph on the (R) and (W).

1) The only reason I did that is because (B) service under my proposal doesn’t run on weekends, and Inwood still needs some type of fast Service. You could deinterline Dekalb by having the (N) via Brighton and (B) via Sea Beach but I’m not going to propose that. 

2) The (K) is Local under my plan. It’s a Short Route in my Proposal. The only reason I have it going to Jamaica 179th instead of ending at Forest Hills is to kill 2 bottlenecks. (M) trains will continue to end at Forest Hills under my plan but Terminal Op’s And Signals will be modified as to not hold (K) trains outside in both directions. It’ll also allow for (F) Express runs between Jamaica 179th and Forest Hills. 

3) That’s Cool.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

It’ll also allow for (F) Express runs between Jamaica 179th and Forest Hills. 

I don't understand why the (F) train should go express from 179th Street - Jamaica to 71-Continental Avenues; I think you're aware that it never ran express along Hillside on weekends.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, 4 via Mosholu said:

I don't understand why the (F) train should go express from 179th Street - Jamaica to 71-Continental Avenues; I think you're aware that it never ran express along Hillside on weekends.

Its length is only beaten by the (A) between Inwood and the Rockaways...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 8/8/2019 at 1:42 PM, 4 via Mosholu said:

I don't understand why the (F) train should go express from 179th Street - Jamaica to 71-Continental Avenues; I think you're aware that it never ran express along Hillside on weekends.

In my proposals where i build an extension from 179 the (R) would be local and end at 179 and the (F) would be express the (M) would be routed  via HHE

Edited by BreeddekalbL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Using the original Montreal Metro Map style to show a simpler network that would have better frequencies and less delays...

 

NYC-Final-Legends.png.fc2a1005dbde3d856af041ad7e98cc4b.png

  • Thumbs Up 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

 

Using the original Montreal Metro Map style to show a simpler network that would have better frequencies and less delays...

 

NYC-Final-Legends.png.fc2a1005dbde3d856af041ad7e98cc4b.png

Several things about this tell me that you're not familiar with the infrastructure as it currently exists. For one thing, the (3) has to switch directly in the (4)'s way just to turn at Utica Avenue. Another is the entire Broadway proposal. Then there's the attempt to split the (2) between two branches in the Bronx while retaining a bastardized (3), which grossly overestimates the capabilities of the infrastructure in Brooklyn.

I won't even get into some of the other problems with this...

Share this post


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

Several things about this tell me that you're not familiar with the infrastructure as it currently exists. For one thing, the (3) has to switch directly in the (4)'s way just to turn at Utica Avenue. Another is the entire Broadway proposal. Then there's the attempt to split the (2) between two branches in the Bronx while retaining a bastardized (3), which grossly overestimates the capabilities of the infrastructure in Brooklyn.

I won't even get into some of the other problems with this...

You're right, I'm no expert on the NYC system, just havin' fun here.

For Utica, the in-service (4) trains could be given priority over the out-of-service (3) trains.

I'm curious what your issue is with the Broadway proposal? You did not elaborate on that one. My proposal here is that (N) runs express on Broadway, serves the 2nd Av branch, and uses the tunnel, while (Q) and (R) run locally, and use the bridge. Additionally, (R) would run express on 4th Av in Brooklyn.

The proposed "bastardized" (3) would run as often as each branch of the (2), meaning there would two (2) trains for every (3) train during the day, and at peak times it would be 3:1, with 18 TPH for the (2) line, and 6 TPH for the (3). From my understanding, the infrastructure in Brooklyn can accommodate this.

I would also like to know what other issues you see (I have some guesses). Cheers!

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, drekroid said:

I'm curious what your issue is with the Broadway proposal? You did not elaborate on that one. My proposal here is that (N) runs express on Broadway, serves the 2nd Av branch, and uses the tunnel, while (Q) and (R) run locally, and use the bridge. Additionally, (R) would run express on 4th Av in Brooklyn.

Are you proposing the Canal flip Proposal? If you want to do that, then I recommend sending one of the Broadway services via Brighton. 

http://library.rpa.org/interactive/subways/

Where the Heck did the (D) train go? 

Also, your (3) proposal would work great if you sent it down Utica. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

Are you proposing the Canal flip Proposal? If you want to do that, then I recommend sending one of the Broadway services via Brighton. 

http://library.rpa.org/interactive/subways/

Where the Heck did the (D) train go? 

Also, your (3) proposal would work great if you sent it down Utica. 

Yes, "Canal Flip"....

(N) 2nd Av / Broadway Express / Tunnel / 4th Av Local / Sea Beach Line

(Q) Astoria / Broadway Local / Bridge / 4th Av Express / West End Line

(R) Queens Local / Broadway Local / Bridge / 4th Av Express

As for the (D).... (yes gone), it is replaced by (A) in The Bronx, and (Q) in Brooklyn. (B) + <B> would serve Brighton / 6th Av Express / Central Park W Local

As for (3), I'm not proposing any new infrastructure here, (maybe some repairs here and there, i.e. Bergen). However there seems to be wasted capacity on the northern end of the (3), and an extension beyond Harlem to the Bronx (as originally planned) might also be a smart move.

Thank you for your comments and the link -- the site is very impressive. Cheers.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First, let me say that is a pretty nice map. I think it would be a good template to use for nighttime service.

But to run the (R) express in Brooklyn, you’d have to do two “flips”...the second one being at 59th Street/4th Avenue, because the express tracks are straight-railed for Sea Beach and the local tracks are straight-railed for Bay Ridge. Also, I find that the split  (2) and (6) services in The Bronx, might be a bit confusing, especially the (6), whose two Bronx terminals are a long way off from each other. You’re going to have (5) express and (6) local trains crossing in front of each other at 125, which is inevitably going to cause massive delays there. 

Share this post


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

First, let me say that is a pretty nice map. I think it would be a good template to use for nighttime service.

But to run the (R) express in Brooklyn, you’d have to do two “flips”...the second one being at 59th Street/4th Avenue, because the express tracks are straight-railed for Sea Beach and the local tracks are straight-railed for Bay Ridge. Also, I find that the split  (2) and (6) services in The Bronx, might be a bit confusing, especially the (6), whose two Bronx terminals are a long way off from each other. You’re going to have (5) express and (6) local trains crossing in front of each other at 125, which is inevitably going to cause massive delays there. 

Thank you. NYC Subway maps are a fun challenge in my opinion.

Yes, another flip at 59th for the proposed (N) / (R). I do assume a flip causes less of a delay than a merge, since the 2-minute buffer between trains that is needed for merges are not needed for a flip. I'm guessing that a flip would cause at most a 1-minute delay for one of the trains if the two trains arrived simultaneously.

(A) terminals are quite far apart as well, so I'm not sure why the proposed splits for the (2) and (6) would be confusing when it is acceptable on the (A) line. Please explain if you can.

For 125th, the track maps show that this station was built to accommodate this type of traffic patter, where trains can flip without blocking each other. Here is what I see as possible:

125th.png.068b9aed5b082509554bc02c834a6b0f.png

Thank you for your comments. Cheers.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Thank you. NYC Subway maps are a fun challenge in my opinion.

Yes, another flip at 59th for the proposed (N) / (R). I do assume a flip causes less of a delay than a merge, since the 2-minute buffer between trains that is needed for merges are not needed for a flip. I'm guessing that a flip would cause at most a 1-minute delay for one of the trains if the two trains arrived simultaneously.

(A) terminals are quite far apart as well, so I'm not sure why the proposed splits for the (2) and (6) would be confusing when it is acceptable on the (A) line. Please explain if you can.

For 125th, the track maps show that this station was built to accommodate this type of traffic patter, where trains can flip without blocking each other. Here is what I see as possible:

125th.png.068b9aed5b082509554bc02c834a6b0f.png

Thank you for your comments. Cheers.

 

 

I do like the idea of the (5) replacing the (6) to Pelham Bay Park and moving the (6) elsewhere, but I would myself move the (6) to Dyre in this scenario while using this switch to have three 24/7 lines on Lex.  In the late nights I would have all three lines running local and set up so a train comes in on the Lex every 6-7 minutes.  An alternate plan for late nights would be to have all three lines run 24/7 with the (5) remaining express (but shortened to Grand Central as a short-turn express) while the (4) and (6) remain as they are now then.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interlining 125 Street is a non-starter. You would lose a massive amount of capacity and worsen service variability up and down Lex. There’s a reason it has never been done, even in the Good Old Days.

  • Upvote 5

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.