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

3 hours ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

As for the bypass, if you want more express trains between Jamaica/Hillside (and possibly points east) and Midtown, it’s either a bypass or a totally separate line parallel to QB or the (7). You don’t have to drop it entirely.

As for Rockaway Beach Branch, I can see why you would. There seem to be too many things working against restoring RBB and no clear agreement as to what would be the best way to run it (subway, LIRR, light rail, DMU, even busway). I looked back on some of my older posts and recall how much I argued in favor of restoring RBB as either an extension of the (M) or (R). But then we’d be forcing the (M) or (R) into having even more merging than we already have. But more importantly,  we’d be locking the QBL into the current reverse-branched mess by extending the (R) onto the RBB. 

For the bypass, I considered having it connect to the RBB because of the fast that it's cheaper than tunneling to the QBL (which I have discussed before). One of the main reasons for this, other than logistics of my proposed routing, was that the connection to QBL itself does seem contentious. The plans for such a connection called fro tunneling under Yellowstone Blvd, then to a lower level of 71st Avenue, and then onto the local tracks at 75th Avenue, about a mile from where the SE Queens Line meets with the Queens Blvd Line. My concern with this that the SE Queens trains would have to travel via the local tracks before coming to the bypass line. Its Manhattan connection also does seem contentious due to the fact that it would only connect to the 63rd Street Tunnel. Everyone here has pointed out that there could be some issues with having three services on the line, even though all three Manhattan-Queens B Division sections are going to get signal upgrades. Just like how the QB mess put a nail in the coffin for the Northern Blvd Line, this was the reason why decided to temporarily can the bypass and the RBB. This can be discussed at a later time (potentially with a new alignment that totally bypasses the QBL) so I can avoid delaying the posting of my grand master plan beyond the planned Thursday or Friday posting (if things go as planned).

As for the (M), I plan to reveal all of that when I post the plan tomorrow or Friday.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 9/10/2019 at 7:02 PM, JeremiahC99 said:

On the subject of the bypass, with the resignalling of the 63rd Street Tunnel as part of Fast Forward, I was proposing that for the 63rd Street service, the (F) be 15 trains, 10 for the Second 6th Avenue service, and another 12 for the bypass service. As mentioned before, the slot for the (R) would be replaced by a second 8th Avenue service. That gives us 37 trains per hour, out of the new signal capacity of 40 trains. However, even with the Chrystie Street service rerouted to Culver (this service would be scheduled as part of the (F), you may still have your concerns unaddressed.

I would not be at all surprised if 63 St could do 40tph with CBTC -- it has good geometry and low dwells. Thing is, that 40tph number is essentially unsustainable with merges. Making sure trains arrive within literal seconds of schedule is hard enough on any high frequency railroad; throw in a merge with related issues of diverging/converging speed, home signal approaches and schedule jitter across multiple corridors, and your capacity is reduced. In essence, to take advantage of the capabilities of CBTC, you have to simplify the network so that those issues go away. As such, I'd leave the bypass for a future tunnel, or articulate some case for making all QB local service (G)

On 9/10/2019 at 7:02 PM, JeremiahC99 said:

For Rockaway Beach service, I have plans to connect two of its stations to the existing line stations. My proposed Liberty Avenue station would have a passageway to the 104th Street station on the (A) and my proposed Brooklyn Manor-Jamaica Avenue stations would have a connection to the (J) at 104th Street. The Woodhaven Junction station on the LIRR Atlantic Branch would be reopened with a passageway to my proposed Atlantic Avenue station. These three connections would allow for connectivity to the existing subway and LIRR systems. However, I believed that the branch would be reactivated because of the travel times to Manhattan. Yes we could have the (C) service Lefferts in a way and iron out all the timers, but the (A) would still have to travel through a substantial part of Brooklyn, making a lot of stops before reaching Lower Manhattan and then Midtown.

I would hope that the (A)/(J) /LIRR connections work, it's just that they wouldn't be the easiest transfers in the world. I want to stress that I don't necessarily think that the RBB is a bad idea, just that we have to be careful to either target it towards crosstown travel or provide adequate Midtown cap on QB. 

7 hours ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

But the harder sell is going to be running all QB locals via 53rd and all expresses via 63rd. The biggest problems with 63rd are its “out-of-the-way” location and widely spaced stations with lack of in-system transfers (other than the (Q)). That’s probably due to the MTA’s original intention in 1968 to make it the Manhattan point of entry for the Queens Super Express. And I feel that rerouting all QB express service into 63rd is just not going to go well with QB express riders, especially those who transfer to the Lex. A 59-63 passageway is key to getting this to work, because the current OOS transfer is not going to cut it. People will just bail on the locals at Roosevelt. Or gripe heavily about how long it takes to get to Lex. This is my biggest concern with a fully deinterlined QBL. Personally, I like that @LaGuardia Link N Tra‘s plan has QB local trains running via 63rd and 6th and QB express trains via 53rd and 8th, because the express is the more popular service.

I also think that 59-63 is critical for deinterlining, but I do wanna push back a bit here. 53 > 63, yes, but 6 > 8. 6th Ave is *the* heart of Midtown; while 8th ridership will grow with the development happening over there, I don't think we should think of the 6th-63 pairing as a weak O/D source. Moreover, one of the more attractive properties of the 53-local plan is precisely that it links 53 with the local tracks. Returning to the issue of load balancing and capacity, it may very well be in our best interests to not give riders what they want here in order to spread loads, reduce dwells, etc. 

7 hours ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

There would still be a reverse branch of the (M) if it moved over to 8th Avenue, like you proposed in the past. Though it would still be better than splitting the (M) back into the separate (brownM) and (V) services, because of how popular the connection to Midtown has become. 

I don't follow this. If you deinterline Queens and do 8th local-Jamaica, you should get 2 services over there...or are you assuming that we keep WTC open?

7 hours ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

There would still be a reverse branch of the (M) if it moved over to 8th Avenue, like you proposed in the past. Though it would still be better than splitting the (M) back into the separate (brownM) and (V) services, because of how popular the connection to Midtown has become. 

I would assume whatever service replaces (M)(R) in our dreamworld deinterlining plans would simply run down the RBB; I don't see that corridor as an impediment to deinterlining or vice versa. Yeah, you're adding a merge, but it's far from the core and (hopefully) in the context of a much less interlined system so...eh. Line length, though, would be a very real question. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

RBB restoration was always a topic I posted in favor of in the past, as I mentioned in my last post. Since about a year ago, I’ve become much less in favor of it, though. Part of it is that, yes, how well would RBB function as a Queens crosstown service? Maybe if we ever do see a study from the MTA, we might have a better idea. Even though there is so much traffic on parallel Cross Bay/Woodhaven Blvd, it’s difficult to determine exactly where all that traffic is going once it leaves Woodhaven. Proponents of restoring the branch vary wildly as to where they think it should ultimately go or what kind of rail (or even bus) service it should be. This too is part of the problem. For the longest time, I advocated extending the (M) or (R) via the turnouts between 67th Ave and 63rd Drive. But as I’ve already mentioned in my previous post, doing that would force the QBL to stay in its current messy, reverse-branched setup. Not to mention it would subject the (M) or (R) into being longer routes with even more merges than they already have. And neither would be a much faster option than the (A) for getting to most destinations in Midtown, especially if those grade timers can be ironed out. 

 

Same here. I have become a bit more lukewarm about the RBB. I think that the corridor needs rail, but connecting it to QBL, and adding a merge, is not a good idea. Perhaps connecting it somehow to the unused Roosevelt U.L. station could work. There is a demand for cross-Queens travel, which this could tap into.

Share this post


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

Same here. I have become a bit more lukewarm about the RBB. I think that the corridor needs rail, but connecting it to QBL, and adding a merge, is not a good idea. Perhaps connecting it somehow to the unused Roosevelt U.L. station could work. There is a demand for cross-Queens travel, which this could tap into.

Perhaps a simple light rail line between Woodhaven Blvd QBL and Howard Beach - JFK could be built in the ROW. This would also reduce the cost of the entire project, since light rail stops are way cheaper than subway stations these days.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Around the Horn said:

Why stop at just Jackson Heights? If you could have the RBB connect to Triboro RX and stop at Roosevelt, that would be great...

Yes, connect to the Rx at Roosevelt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly I think that if we’re gonna have RBB, it’s better off as a subway — if only because RBB-Jackson Heights is super easy via QB local and integration with the (A) is simplified. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, RR503 said:

Honestly I think that if we’re gonna have RBB, it’s better off as a subway — if only because RBB-Jackson Heights is super easy via QB local and integration with the (A) is simplified. 

I've been thinking about this a bit; what if we were to spin off the (A) south of Howard Beach, and then buy out the AirTrain, add local stops to it, and then with the RBB create a quasi-light subway similar to the London DLR? Smaller trains with more frequent service, and maybe even automated. So you'd have three lines - Far Rock - Roosevelt, Rockaway Park - JFK (supplemental service for summer to Roosevelt), and Jamaica - JFK.

Edited by bobtehpanda

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/11/2019 at 11:59 PM, RR503 said:

I would hope that the (A)/(J) /LIRR connections work, it's just that they wouldn't be the easiest transfers in the world. I want to stress that I don't necessarily think that the RBB is a bad idea, just that we have to be careful to either target it towards crosstown travel or provide adequate Midtown cap on QB. 

I also think that 59-63 is critical for deinterlining, but I do wanna push back a bit here. 53 > 63, yes, but 6 > 8. 6th Ave is *the* heart of Midtown; while 8th ridership will grow with the development happening over there, I don't think we should think of the 6th-63 pairing as a weak O/D source. Moreover, one of the more attractive properties of the 53-local plan is precisely that it links 53 with the local tracks. Returning to the issue of load balancing and capacity, it may very well be in our best interests to not give riders what they want here in order to spread loads, reduce dwells, etc. 

I don't follow this. If you deinterline Queens and do 8th local-Jamaica, you should get 2 services over there...or are you assuming that we keep WTC open?

 

I would assume whatever service replaces (M)(R) in our dreamworld deinterlining plans would simply run down the RBB; I don't see that corridor as an impediment to deinterlining or vice versa. Yeah, you're adding a merge, but it's far from the core and (hopefully) in the context of a much less interlined system so...eh. Line length, though, would be a very real question. 

Sorry I was talking about the M coming off the Williamsburg Bridge. I meant to say  current (M) reverse-branches between Essex and Broadway-Lafayette. An 8th Ave M would still have that, but with a new connection to the 8th Avenue Line (probably in the Bowery/Spring St area). So yes, I’m assuming there would be two 8th Ave local services, with the (E) still going to WTC. 

As for RBB splitting off from QB Local, I certainly think it can still be done with a deinterlined QBL. It just rules out the (R) or any other Broadway service. 

On 9/12/2019 at 8:02 PM, RR503 said:

Honestly I think that if we’re gonna have RBB, it’s better off as a subway — if only because RBB-Jackson Heights is super easy via QB local and integration with the (A) is simplified. 

That seems to make a case for an RBB line extended off QBL. Either that, or the RBB service turns onto the LIRR Main Line in Rego Park, then turns off of it into a new tunnel somewhere in Jackson Heights, where it can connect into the unused upper level platforms at Roosevelt Avenue. 

3 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

I've been thinking about this a bit; what if we were to spin off the (A) south of Howard Beach, and then buy out the AirTrain, add local stops to it, and then with the RBB create a quasi-light subway similar to the London DLR? Smaller trains with more frequent service, and maybe even automated. So you'd have three lines - Far Rock - Roosevelt, Rockaway Park - JFK (supplemental service for summer to Roosevelt), and Jamaica - JFK.

That’s an interesting option too. I’m trying to visualize it on a map. I’m assuming all (A) service would then go to Lefferts. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As promised, I am finally releasing my grand master plan for improving the subway system. This plan involves some new construction with service changes related to the new construction that improves subway efficiency. The new plan, modified from an old plan I posted here a while back, is called the New Program for Action, named after the original from 1968. My goal of the service is to expand service to areas that don't have convenient transit service, which will allow for service changes that will increase subway capacity. The proposals should also solve problems that were discussed on the past, namely:

  • North Brooklyn-Midtown direct access
  • Broadway service bottlenecks and reliability
  • Queens Blvd Issues

The list goes on, but its substantial. To reduce costs, I am aiming to limit tunneling to the most possible extent, using it only where necessary, such as in Manhattan and parts of Queens. The number of extensions I am adding are also limited to further lower them, picking only those that provide the best benefits for subway operations and passengers, and what is popular.

Under my new grand plan, these new connections would be built:

  • A connection between the Nassau Street Line and the 8th Avenue Line via Spring Street (underground tunnel to be built). Te connections will be two tracks and feature a new station along Spring Street between Broadway and Lafayette Streets (called Broadway/Lafayette on the map). This would create a second connection to an uptown trunk line and better serve the heart of Soho.
  • A pair of East River Tunnels that connect both the Broadway Line and the planned Second Avenue Line (one tunnel) with the Fulton Street Line, using the old Atlantic Avenue Tunnel, the Court Street station (presently a museum), and the outer tracks and platforms at Hoyt-Schermerhorn.
  • Concurrent with the above, a connection under Jamaica Avenue between the IND Fulton Street Line and the BMT Jamaica Line. This would permit demolition of the elevated structure over Fulton Street, with a short section connecting to the new subway for yard access. The line, which will be three tracks, will necessitate lengthening the stations on the elevated and the nearby yard to hold 10-car trains.

New extensions (unless noted, all extensions will have two tracks, with stations having one island platform):

  • An extension of the Astoria Line from Ditmars Blvd to LaGuardia Airport via the Con-ed power plant and 19th Avenue. Stations would be built at Steinway Street and Hazen Street to serve the local neighborhood. A new yard would be built in the power plant area. This extension would have to be built as an elevated line, since a tunnel through here would be impractical. However, access to LGA is created and there would be in increase in the number of trains that can turn around on the Astoria Line since trains will no longer have to terminate at Astoria-Ditmars using an inefficient switch operation.
  • An extension of the Archer Avenue Line upper level from Parsons/Archer to SE Queens along the LIRR Atlantic ROW. LIRR service would be rerouted through St. Albans station. This was featured in the 1968 Program for Action, but my proposal slightly differs from it because I also added a station at 108th Avenue, and while the original plan had the line end at Springfield Blvd in Laurelton, my new plan now have the line end at the current Rosedale LIRR station at Francis Lewis Blvd. Not only would this allow for an increase in the number of trains that can turn around on the line, but residents would now reach midtown quicker compared to first taking the bus to the nearest subway. The new stations would include:
    • 108th Avenue (side platforms)
    • Linden-Brewer Blvds (side platforms)
    • Foch Blvd (side platforms)
    • Baisley Blvd (side platforms)
    • Locust Manor-Farmers Blvd (unchanged from LIRR Side platform configuration)
    • Laurelton-Springfield Blvd (side platforms)
    • Rosedale-Francis Lewis Blvd (unchanged from LIRR Island platform configuration.
  • An extension of the lower level Archer Line from Parsons/Archer to Hollis-Farmers Blvd via 93rd Avenue, with stops at 168th Street, 177th Street, 183rd Street, and Hollis-Farmers Blvd. This would not only serve Hollis, but allow for increase in number of trains that can turn around.
  • An extension of the IND Queens Blvd Express tracks from 179th Street to Springfield Blvd. This extension would serve Queens Village. The station locations would be revised from the original proposal. Under my proposal, the line would use the D5 and D6 tracks (the D3 and D4 express tracks would be used for storage) and stop at:
    • 188th Street
    • 196th Street
    • Francis Lewis Blvd
    • 212th Street
    • Springfield Blvd in Queens Village.
  • An extension of the Concourse Line from 205th Street via Burke Avenue, Gun Hill Road, and Bartow Avenue to Co-op City. Stops would be built at:
    • White Plains Road
    • Bronxwood Avenue
    • Boston Road-Laconia Avenue
    • Seymour Avenue
    • Gunther Avenue
    • Co-op City - Bartow Avenue

Not only would this allow better service to NE Bronx, but this would allow for a modern terminal for operations, ending the weird operation that forces a crew change at Bedford Pk Blvd instead of 205th Street.

  • Second Avenue Subway extensions:
    • A two track tunnel branching off the main section north of 116th Street and run under Second Avenue, the Harlem River, and along the AmTrak Right of Way to Co-op City. One of my most substantial extensions, the line would be two tracks and stop at Harlem-125th Street (under Second Avenue, with a passageway to the Phase 2 Harlem-125th Station), then merge with the railroad line to stop at the following stations:
      • St. Anns Avenue
      • Port Morris-138th Street
      • 149th Street
      • Longwood-Lafayette Avenues
      • Hunts Point Avenue
      • Westchester Avenue
      • 174th Street
      • 177th Street
      • East 180th Street-East Tremont Avenue
      • Unionport-White Plains Road
      • Castle Hill-Bronxdale Avenues
      • Williamsbridge Road
      • Hutchinson Metro Center
      • Pelham Pkwy
      • Co-op City - Earhart Lane
    • A two track extension of the main alignment along 125th Street with stations at:
      • Lenox Avenue
      • St. Nicholas Avenue
      • West Harlem-Broadway/125th
  • Extension of the 4th Avenue line to 101st Street to increase turning capacity.
  • Reroute Canarsie Line service to neaby freight tracks, with stops at Broadway Jct, consolidating three stations that were nearby, and Sutter Avenue and Livonia Avenue.

These routes would better serve upper Manhattan and the Bronx and relieve crowding on the Lexington Avenue Line

  • IRT Branch extensions:
    • Extension of the New Lots Line from New Lots Avenue to the Livonia Yard with a new station on the line within the yard at Linden Blvd. This would improve service to East NY and Spring Creek
    • Extension of the Nostrand Avenue Line from Flatbush Avenue to Kings Hwy, with a stop at Avenue L. This would provide a modern terminal for train operations and improve service to Midwood

These extensions would bring service to areas without subway service and increase capacity. My proposals involve rebuilding Rogers Avenue Junction and resignalling the IRT lines to do this.

  • An extension of the Pelham Line from Pelham Bay Park to Co-op City-Bartow Avenue to bring subway service to Co-op City.
  • An extension of the Flushing Line from Main Street via Northern Blvd to Little Neck. Another one of my substantial extensions, the three track line would make stops at:
    • Parsons Blvd (local)
    • 150th Street (express)
    • 162nd Street-Crocheron Avenue (local)
    • Utopia Pkwy (local)
    • Francis Lewis Blvd (local)
    • Bell Blvd (local)
    • Springfield Blvd (express)
    • Alley Pond Park (local)
    • Douglaston Pkwy (local)
    • Marathon Pkwy (local)
    • Little Neck-254th Street (Express terminal)

This extension would better serve NE Queens.

Enough of the talk about the extensions, lets talk about the service changes (using only the bullets available on the NYC Transit Forums Library):

8th Avenue, 53rd Street, and Concourse:

One of the lines most impacted by the new Program for Action is the (M). Under this plan, the line, which travels via 6th Avenue, would continue its normal routing, but would now do so via 8th Avenue. The service, re-designated the (K), would operate at 10 trains per hour, and combined with the (E) at 15 trains per hour (see below), service on the entire 8th Avenue-53rd Street corridor would become more frequent.

To make room for this, the (C) would have to move to the express tracks, and since the service would run at 10 trains per hour, combined with the (A) at 15 trains per hour, service becomes more frequent on the express tracks. I did modify my service patterns for north of 59th Street. Originally, I planned to install new switches south of 59th or 42nd Street to ensure the service continues running local north of 42nd Street. However, valuing frequency (in this case) over direct service, I now have the (B) and (D) service running local north of 59th Street, while the (A) and (C) go express north of 145th Street, with all service on those two lines running local north of 145th Street and up to 207th Street together, giving Washington Hts and Inwood riders more frequent service. The only drawback of this would be that Concourse riders would see slower service, but service would be more reliable and frequent. The deinterlining of both the 59th Street and 145th Street interlockings means the end of having the entire B division be scheduled around it.

On weekends, service would be the same, except for no (B) service (though service between 145th Street and Prospect Pk can be added if demand is available). On late nights, the (A) and (E) would continue its local operation, but service would unfortunately be supplemented by the (D). (K) service would terminate at 59th Street-Columbus Circle.

6th Avenue, 63rd Street, and Culver:

The rerouting of the (M) means that capacity of the 6th Avenue Line is available for more efficient service. Here, the additional capacity would be taken by a revived (V). During weekdays, service would operate between Jamaica-179th Street and Kings Hwy (Coney Island if switches were reconfigured to increase capacity) running the same route as the (F), but via Queens Blvd Local in Queens and Culver Express in Brooklyn. I decided to terminate it at Kings Hwy due to possible capacity constraints at Coney Island, and the fact that most of the express passengers who would benefit from this live north of the Kings Hwy, which is more dependent on the Culver Line compared to south of there with its plethora of nearby alternatives. However, service would be faster for the majority of customers south of Church Avenue.

On weekends, service would terminate at Second Avenue instead of Kings Hwy to provide adequate weekend service on Queens Blvd service in place of the (R) (See below). There would be no late night service.

As for train frequency, (F) service would be at 15 trains, while (G) and (V) service at 10, creating more frequent service.

Queens Blvd and Upper Level Archer:

On Queens Blvd, the (K) and (V) would replace the (M) and (R) respectively on the local tracks, while the (E) and (F) would continue to use the express tracks as it does today. However, the two local services would be extended to 179th Street, extending the express runs past 71st Avenue. At this point, Woodhaven Blvd would be converted to an express station. In addition, with the new extensions, the (F) would go to Springfield Blvd, while the (E) would go to Rosedale, and that service will be increased to 15 trains per hour. This would allow for faster service from the outer areas of Queens that don't have subway service presently. Combined with the Lower Archer extension (See below), bus service would be rerouted from Downtown Jamaica to new locations along the new extensions, reducing congestion in Jamaica and allowing for the bus routes to serve better purposes than subway feeders.

With 20 trains per hour on the local tracks and 30 on the express, which splits into 15 for the branches, and 25 for both 53rd and 63rd Street crossings, service becomes more frequent. With this, the (R) would no longer be needed.

Planned weekend service will not change from planned weekday service. During late nights, the (E) and (F) would be running local.

Initially for my grand plan, I had proposed a bypass that would run on the LIRR Main Line. This was dropped due to logistics of connecting it to the Rockaway Beach Line, and the fact that I felt the connection to the QBL at 71st Avenue is contentious (SE Queens trains would first have to run local, then get on the bypass). The connection to the 63rd Street Tunnel also proved to be contentious because of concerns of capacity constraints through the tunnel. Even with the resigalling of the line and the removal of the Brooklyn reverse branch via Chrystie Street, the capacity issues would still remain, so I dropped it for now.  That can be built later once all the issues are ironed out.

I also planned a shuttle bus loop service in Long Island City during the day to replace 6th Avenue and Broadway service at Queens Plaza. However, seeing the fate of the Williamsburg Link B91 and B92 (later the B91A) service, which serves a similar function of my proposed line, I decided to drop it to avoid wasting bus resources. Instead, to garner ridership, I am proposing waiving fates on Manhattan crosstown bus lines.

Broadway, Astoria, Upper Second Avenue:

With Queens Blvd service restructured, the (R) would not be on QBL anymore. Instead, service would be rerouted back to Astoria full time. (N) service would also be moved to the Second Avenue Line with the (Q). With the extension to LGA, both the (R) and (W) would be extended there. Without this extension, one of the lines would have to terminate at Queensboro Plaza, or both lines could serve Astoria, but service levels on each would be inadequate to accommodate the potential crowding.

This would allow for more reliable service on the whole corridor.

In addition to this, there would new service patterns on the upper Second Avenue. Under these new plans, with the new extensions, the (N) and (Q) would not turn west along 125th Street. Instead, they will split off from the main line north of 116th Street and run via the Amtrak extension to Co-op City. This would allow for direct service between areas of the Bronx along the Amtrak ROW and Midtown Manhattan, something that is presently unavailable.

Meanwhile, the (T) would swing west on 125th Street and go crosstown to Broadway, allowing for faster crosstown travel.

During late night, the (N), (Q), and (R) (see below) would all run local on the line.

As for headways, (R) service would run at 15 trains, the all other lines all at 10 trains per hour, allowing for more frequent service.

Lower Second Avenue, Fulton Street, Rockaways, Jamaica, and Lower Level Archer:

With the (R) on Astoria, there would be a change in service in Brooklyn. Here, the line would use the new tunnel and be rerouted to serve the IND Fulton Street Line local tracks to Euclid Avenue. (W) service would replace the (R) on 4th Avenue (see below). The (C) would become the express to Lefferts Blvd, allowing the (A) to serve Far Rockaway. Initially, I had the (C) go to Rockaway Pk, but this was changed due to potential scheduling concerns, even with the express (C). As a result of the new switch, the (S) Rockaway Park Shuttle would now see increased service to 10 trains per hour, and would now run at all times except late nights, when service would be extended to Euclid Avenue in Brooklyn. In addition, the current shuttle to Lefferts Blvd would be replaced by an extended (R). To replace rush hour service to Manhattan from Rockaway Park, Q53 bus service would be enhanced.

For Lower Second Avenue, I am proposing that phases 3 and 4 be built as 4 tracks south of 63rd Street, with express stations at 55th, 42nd, Houston, Grand, and Hanover. The Express tracks would be used for train storage and reroutes in the interim. From here, the (T) would then use the new line to reach Brooklyn, where it would merge with (R) service. From here, the two lines would run together to Broadway Junction, where it would split and run on the new lines and existing Jamaica Avenue Elevated to Hollis. This would provide more frequent service on Fulton Street, and allow for faster commutes to Lower Manhattan. (J) service would be shortened to Broadway Junction (See below).

I had also initially proposed a reactivated Rockaway Beach Branch to speed commute to Manhattan. However, given the concerns we had about it, I scrapped it as well. This can also be added at a later time.

4th Avenue, Nassau Street, Broadway-Brooklyn and Myrtle Avenue:

To replace (R) service, (W) service would be extended to the new 101st Street Terminal. (J) service would also operate between Broadway Jct and 101st Street and the (Z) would be folded (noticed how I did not say eliminated) into the (J), which will now run at 15 trains per hour. Combined with the (K) at 10 trains, service becomes more frequent between Myrtle Avenue and Bowery. To address concerns about lack of additional service on West End, additional (D) service would be provided.

During late nights, the all service would be local except for the (J) (Shortened to Broad).

Now there are concerns about the Broadway service designations on both Fulton and 4th Avenue, with some arguing that the (R) remain on 4th Avenue, and the (W) take the new Fulton routing. However, I proposed the service the way I originally did it because I wanted the Fulton-Broadway Link to run 24 hours a day to maximize viability of this connection. However, service would be using the same train crews.

Canarsie:

Reroute (L) service via the freight line. Simple.

Crosstown:

Only frequency changes to the (G) service are proposed, and nothing else.

IRT:

With extensions and the rebuild of Rogers Avenue:

  • (2) and (5) to Kings Hwy
  • (3) via Utica
  • (4) via Livonia to Linden
  • (6) to Co-op City
  • (7) and <7> to Little Neck.

Here is a map describing all of my changes:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1SeL9tHd9_mr2gLertrqJd329ADbTJpts&usp=sharing

Feedback is welcome as well (however, due to how large and extensive this post is, I do not recommend quoting this post). If you have comments on these proposals, you are welcome to reply.

Edited by JeremiahC99
Forgot the RBB cancellation reason.
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@JeremiahC99 because i won't quote your plan, I will just tag you to send a notification.

I only have a few tweaks to make with your proposal. First off, I love the (J) to Broadway Junction and (T) to Hollis idea. Very interesting, and something I was thinking of before. Considering the added capacity of QBL under your plan, the SAS (Y), my proposal for a second route, can be diverted to Northern Blvd (for a future second phase) with the (G) and (L) trains. This (Y) line would run express to Bayside* and terminate at Hanover Square for the time being. Also, (T) trains, after B'way Junction, should instead run to Jamaica Ave** and meet up with the elevated at Cypress Hills in a 3-track elevated line, to avoid that god-awful curve. This allows for express service on the Jamaica Line the entire way there, and peak express trains may have the capacity to use this middle track***. The (N)(Q) should instead run to 3rd Avenue, up to at least Fordham Road for phase 1, and the RBB should be included as part of phase 1. Also, aren't the (A) and (C) just the same thing? If so it should just be called the (A).

 

*Exact location up for debate

**Intermediate stops will be added, and I am currently trying to figure out where they should be.

*** You already have this in your map but peak express service is still something possible.

Edited by KK 6 Ave Local

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(QJ) Union Tpke/Metropolitan Av/34 St Local

Lincoln Harbor, NJ

10 Av - Hudson Yards (7)

7-8 Avs - Penn Station (1)(2)(3)(A)(C)(E)

6 Av - Herald Sq (B)(D)(F)(M)(N)(Q)(R)(W)

Park Av (6)

2 Av

34 St Ferry Terminal

25 St - Waterside Plaza

StuyTown

9 St/Avenue C

Houston St/Avenue C

runs via Metropolitan Av

Kent Av

Bedford Av

Lorimer St (L)(G)

Graham Av (L)

Morgan Av

Flushing Av

Forest Av

Fresh Pond Rd

Middle Village (M)

73 St/70 Av

73 St/Myrtle Av

runs via Myrtle Av

80 St

86 St

runs via Union Tpke

Woodhaven Blvd

71 Av

Metropolitan Av

Markwood Rd

Kew Gardens - Union Tpke (E)(F)

Main St

Parsons Blvd

Utopia Pkwy

188 St

Francis Lewis Blvd

Bell Blvd

Springfield Blvd

Winchester Blvd

Commonwealth Blvd

Little Neck Pkwy

263 St

270 St

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(Q) from 125 St/2 Av:

138 St-Grand Concourse (4)(5)

Bronx Terminal Market

Yankee Stadium (B)(D)(4)

runs via Ogden Av

166 St

170 St

runs via University Av

175 St

Tremont Av

Burnside Av

183 St

Fordham Rd

Kingsbridge Rd

Marble Hill (1)

Johnson Av/Kappock St

230 St/Riverdale Av

238 St/Riverdale Av

246 St/HHP

Wave Hill-249 St

 

(T) from 125 St/2 Av:

125 St/Lex Av (4)(5)(6) MNR

125 St/Lenox Av (2)(3)

125 St/St Nicholas Av (A)(B)(C)(D)

125 St/Bway (1)

Grant's Tomb (122 St/Riverside Dr)

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@JeremiahC99 you've done a good job making a cohesive plan...but I have some concerns.

Insofar as your proposed extensions, I don't like the way you're handling SAS. I've talked about this extensively in the past, but reverse-branching the (T) onto the (N)(Q) adds a merge and locks in a service pattern where SAS south of 63 and Broadway express have to compete for capacity. In other words, building out SAS per the current design will not increase core-bound track capacity. Luckily, seeing as Phase 3 has yet to be built, we have an opportunity to remedy this issue. You can send the lower portion of SAS via a new tunnel to Queens, or run it as a super-express under 2nd or 3rd Aves to the Bronx, or do something totally different. It's up to you. I just think that building infrastructure that can never reach capacity is poor planning. 

Moving north for a second, using that SAS capacity for a line along Amtrak is a highly questionable decision. The Amtrak corridor is simply not well located -- it's distant from residential density, and it is not well positioned to capture significant commercial traffic. Past SAS plans have used that ROW, yes, but they did so in order to recapture IRT lines further north. And while you'd be serving Co-Op City, you're already doing that twice over with the (6) and (D). I think given the fact that pretty much all SAS-Amtrak proposals were made in eras when the 3rd Ave el either existed or was to be imminently replaced by comparable rapid transit service, we need to recontextualize SAS in today and realize that the corridor in the Bronx that is by far most needy of transit is 3rd/Webster. Yes, it means tunneling, but I generally challenge the argument that we should build rapid transit on existing ROWs simply "because we can." There are certainly cases where existing ROWs are helpful/allow cool projects, but we also can't lose sight of the fact that transit construction does eventually have to serve a market. 

Now, there is something to be said for the Co-Op alignment insofar as it'd give those riders a fast route into Manhattan. I think, however, there are simpler ways of achieving the same thing by better leveraging the (6). One major issue with current ops on the line is congestion at Parkchester -- trains have to cross in front of each other, and this being New York, that rarely happens per schedule. One idea I've thrown around in the past is relocating that terminal operating to Westchester Square. You'd rebuild that stop into an express station, add a second yard lead, and then relay locals on the yard leads there instead of at Parkchester, a change that'd eliminate the conflicts (a time savings) and would also allow Co-Op riders to bypass another 2 stations on their trip to Manhattan. It's a relatively unglamorous proposal, but wanna throw it out there anyway... 

My only other major concern with your extension proposals concerns the south end of SAS. I do not follow why in the context of a plan that reduces interlining, you're creating a big tangle under the East River. I get that we have to send SAS somewhere, but we've also got to be mindful of operational considerations, too. Having SAS trains merge with the (R), which has just diverged from the (W) (at a flat junction, no less -- pretty sure those provisions at Whitehall don't allow grade separation) which is about to merge with the (J) which reverse branches off of the (K) further up the line. I suggest this as an alternative:

- (R)(W) to Fulton Local

- End (E) service to WTC, and route both the (E) and the (K) to the Williamsburg Bridge

- Run (J) service from 101 St to Essex St, which you'd rebuild to allow (J)s to terminate while (E)(K) service proceeds to Brooklyn

- Either stub-end SAS in Lower Manhattan with provisions for future expansion, replace (R)(W) on Fulton with SAS, replace (J) on 4th Avenue with some connection between SAS and Nassau around Bowery, or do the thing Vanshnook proposed where SAS goes to the Manhattan Bridge, (B)(D) to Williamsburg, etc. You'd end up with (E)(K) back at WTC, but I think we can live with that. 

...and just like that, you have no merges. 

A much more minor thing is you may not want to build out to Little Neck with 3 tracks. It's expensive, and I'm not sure how many people would benefit from express service beginning that far out vs increased frequency. 

On the operational end, I think you've gotta have a standard frequency. Make all your services run at 15tph, and be done with it -- merges will work better, and you won't be forced to schedule gaps in service to accommodate mixing frequencies. Provided you have a halfway decent signal system, it should work out. 

Another ops concern of mine is the junction at 36 St. As you've designed service, you essentially end up just recreating 59 St, but on a corridor with higher ridership. Not sure you wanna do that -- I'd seriously consider either doing 8-53-local and 6-63-express, or doing LGA's thing where we extend the (G) to 36 St to allow for the reverse of the previous plan. 

Finally, I'd consider thinking about small(er) scale investments you think would go well with your plan. More yard capacity? Better terminals? New short-turn facilities? New switches for useful reroutes? New transfers? The details really end up mattering.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


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

That’s an interesting option too. I’m trying to visualize it on a map. I’m assuming all (A) service would then go to Lefferts. 

Here's a map with an (A) extension to a more suitable terminal at Van Wyck/Lefferts:

zvZRQ3p.png

Edit: that should say "weekdays and summer weekends"

Edited by bobtehpanda
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


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

Here's a map with an (A) extension to a more suitable terminal at Van Wyck/Lefferts:

zvZRQ3p.png

Edit: that should say "weekdays and summer weekends"

That’s an interesting concept for the Rockaway Beach branch. I would back this up if there was a more geographical explanation for this. I’m assuming the following would have to happen:

The AirTrain’s Terminal would be rebuilt to allow for an extension and would run either via 164th Street or Kissena/Parsons Blvd. 

Lefferts Blvd (A) would also have to be rebuilt to allow for an extension to the Van Wyck. 

One thing that I’m confused about is how does this RBB (A) LightRail Train, get to LaGuardia from Woodhaven Blvd? I’m assuming Junction Blvd is not an option cause it’s to the East of what you’re proposing to run your line on. Will this version of the RBB still have any physical track connections to the subway or no?

One last note is that I like how you’re using the AirTrain to better serve the communities in Queens.

Share this post


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

Here's a map with an (A) extension to a more suitable terminal at Van Wyck/Lefferts:

Just to clarify, what streets are you using for your alignment? Is this system entirely elevated, or are you gonna convert AirTrain to suit mixed traffic equipment?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Before I begin, just want to let you know that you can quote my posts, just do the parts you are interested in (though it may be difficult to do on mobile devices)/

4 hours ago, RR503 said:

Insofar as your proposed extensions, I don't like the way you're handling SAS. I've talked about this extensively in the past, but reverse-branching the (T) onto the (N)(Q) adds a merge and locks in a service pattern where SAS south of 63 and Broadway express have to compete for capacity. In other words, building out SAS per the current design will not increase core-bound track capacity. Luckily, seeing as Phase 3 has yet to be built, we have an opportunity to remedy this issue. You can send the lower portion of SAS via a new tunnel to Queens, or run it as a super-express under 2nd or 3rd Aves to the Bronx, or do something totally different. It's up to you. I just think that building infrastructure that can never reach capacity is poor planning. 

When I created my proposal, I did not intend to have combined service between 125 and 63rd Street go above 30 trains per hour, since the line north of there was designed with 30 trains per hour. The (N), (Q) and (T) would all operate at 10 trains per hour and since the (N) and (Q) would have a combined headway every 3 minutes and the (T) every 6 minutes, this would give a 2 minute headway for north of 63rd Street. However, the concerns you may have are still valid, but I felt that there wasn't any other way to do both the Bronx extension and the curve of the line west along 125th Street to accommodate 116th Street (the original plans for SAS in the 70s did not call for such a station)

In addition, my plans do call for an expansion of the lower SAS to 4 tracks. Initially, I had planned to use the additional capacity for a :M: service to run local from Hanover Sq to 55th Street, then via the 63rd Street, the bypass, and the Rockaway Beach Branch to the Rockaways. I dropped that proposal due to the logistical issues of both the bypass and the RBB.

4 hours ago, RR503 said:

Moving north for a second, using that SAS capacity for a line along Amtrak is a highly questionable decision. The Amtrak corridor is simply not well located -- it's distant from residential density, and it is not well positioned to capture significant commercial traffic.

That was one of my main concerns of this proposal, since I intended to have this used by bus commuters coming from areas far from subway service. With the exception of two stations, each of my planned stops there would be served by connecting bus lines to far flung areas. More specifically:

  • Port Morris-138th Street: Bx33
  • Longwood-Lafayette Avenues: Bx19, Bx46
  • Hunts Point Avenue: Bx5, Bx6, Bx6 SBS, Bx19
  • Westchester Avenue: Bx4, Bx4A, Bx27
  • 174th Street: *Bx11, *Bx36
  • 177th Street. Q44-SBS
  • East 180th Street-East Tremont Avenue: *Bx36, Bx40/42
  • Unionport-White Plains Road: Bx22, Bx39, Bx40/42
  • Castle Hill-Bronxdale Avenue: Bx4A, Bx40/42
  • Williamsbridge Road: Bx8, Bx24, Bx31
  • Hutchinson Metro: Bx21, Bx31
  • Pelham Pkwy: Bx12, Bx12 SBS
  • Co-op City: Bx23, Bx26, Bx28, Bx29, Bx30, Q50

However, in addition to your concerns about poor location along on the line, my other concern is the location of the two stations on the line, since I do feel that the street layout of both the St. Anns and 149th Street stations may not be conductive to bus service stopping there, let alone walking to the station. Those two stops may be my least used on the line.

12 hours ago, KK 6 Ave Local said:

The (N)(Q) should instead run to 3rd Avenue, up to at least Fordham Road for phase 1

4 hours ago, RR503 said:

we need to recontextualize SAS in today and realize that the corridor in the Bronx that is by far most needy of transit is 3rd/Webster. Yes, it means tunneling, but I generally challenge the argument that we should build rapid transit on existing ROWs simply "because we can." There are certainly cases where existing ROWs are helpful/allow cool projects, but we also can't lose sight of the fact that transit construction does eventually have to serve a market. 

One of the reasons why I decided to build on the Amtrak ROW, aside from the cheaper option and ability to serve parts of the Bronx, is that I fear that with Metro-North service planned to serve the area, I fear that the high price of MNRR within NYC may not attract good ridership, since MNR fares do seem high for one way. I felt that subway service with $2.75 subway fare could attract additional ridership, especially for poorer folks in the area.

But looking at it again, I am willing to take up both of your recommendations for a subway under 3rd Avenue. Not only would this bring back train access to the South Bronx, but it could also allow for better access to Manhattan in place of current inter-borough bus service (the Bx15) on Third Avenue. One of my concerns about the Third Avenue bus is that it travels on 125th Street to better access subway lines into West Midtown, since the only west side subway connection available is the (2) at Third Avenue-149th Street. With the new access, the bus line would then terminate at 2nd Avenue and 125th Street, allowing for more reliable service for bus commuters, and better options to Manhattan.

I am also going to propose that the line continue up Fordham Road via Webster Avenue (paralleling the Webster Avenue SBS Bus) to Gun Hill Road and White Plains Road to allow for a connection to subway trains and the Bx39 bus to Wakefield. There could also be possinle extensions along Gun Hill along the Bx28 bus to Co-op City.

5 hours ago, RR503 said:

And while you'd be serving Co-Op City, you're already doing that twice over with the (6) and (D).

5 hours ago, RR503 said:

Now, there is something to be said for the Co-Op alignment insofar as it'd give those riders a fast route into Manhattan. I think, however, there are simpler ways of achieving the same thing by better leveraging the (6). One major issue with current ops on the line is congestion at Parkchester -- trains have to cross in front of each other, and this being New York, that rarely happens per schedule. One idea I've thrown around in the past is relocating that terminal operating to Westchester Square. You'd rebuild that stop into an express station, add a second yard lead, and then relay locals on the yard leads there instead of at Parkchester, a change that'd eliminate the conflicts (a time savings) and would also allow Co-Op riders to bypass another 2 stations on their trip to Manhattan. It's a relatively unglamorous proposal, but wanna throw it out there anyway... 

Speaking of Co-op City, I proposed that both the (6) and (D) go to Co-op City is to not only to better serve the development and the NE Bronx area in general, but also eliminate the very weird crew change operations on some of these lines. A lot of my extensions were for better terminal ops. For example, since there are no crew rooms on the (D) at 205, the crew change is done at Bedford Park Blvd, one station south. This does add some time. With my extension for Co-op City with a crew room built onto the end of the platform, they can now end that strange crew change practice. As for the (6), this was for a capacity increase since a better two-track (or three track, a la Flushing-Main Street) terminal should allow for all of the (6) and <6> trains to terminate there. Currently, most trains terminate at Parkchester due to possible terminal constraints. However, with the extension, we can allow for <6> express service to continue past Parkchester making express stops to Pelham Bay and terminate at the new terminal with the local service.

But if Westchester Square is rebconfigured, then I guess we could acheiev faster service.

And I'm not sure if you think that two subway lines to the development is redundant. Do you want me to can one of the extensions?

5 hours ago, RR503 said:

My only other major concern with your extension proposals concerns the south end of SAS. I do not follow why in the context of a plan that reduces interlining, you're creating a big tangle under the East River. I get that we have to send SAS somewhere, but we've also got to be mindful of operational considerations, too. Having SAS trains merge with the (R), which has just diverged from the (W) (at a flat junction, no less -- pretty sure those provisions at Whitehall don't allow grade separation) which is about to merge with the (J) which reverse branches off of the (K) further up the line. I suggest this as an alternative:

- (R)(W) to Fulton Local

- End (E) service to WTC, and route both the (E) and the (K) to the Williamsburg Bridge

- Run (J) service from 101 St to Essex St, which you'd rebuild to allow (J)s to terminate while (E)(K) service proceeds to Brooklyn

- Either stub-end SAS in Lower Manhattan with provisions for future expansion, replace (R)(W) on Fulton with SAS, replace (J) on 4th Avenue with some connection between SAS and Nassau around Bowery, or do the thing Vanshnook proposed where SAS goes to the Manhattan Bridge, (B)(D) to Williamsburg, etc. You'd end up with (E)(K) back at WTC, but I think we can live with that. 

...and just like that, you have no merges.

Originally, I planned for a single (R) service to serve Astoria, Broadway Local, and Fulton Local at a planned 15 trains per hour. No service would be provided between Whitehall Street and the 4th Avenue Line. After concerns about the designations in Bay Ridge from a few folks here when I initially proposed it, I decided to add the (W) and the extension to LGA, because without it, I could have both services, but due to the terminal restrictions at Ditmars, either one of them would have to terminate at Queensboro Plaza, or we can have both the (R) and (W) serving Astoria, but service levels would be inadequate for both branches. My new proposal do remedy these issues. However, I somehow did not take into account merging issues that would occur with the (J).

With these concerns, I feel that I may need to return to my original plan, since the potential merges can erase any benefits from the plan, even with the headway I propose. I have looked at all of the options to erase merges, and I do feel that all of them are good. With option 1, I would have the (W) service the Jamaica Avenue line to Hollis, with the (R) serving Euclid Avenue as planned. Passengers in Bay Ridge would have to transfer to the (N) at 59th Street to have Broadway Line, but in reality, a lot of people do that already. One interesting facet of these options is that you have the (E) and (K) go to the Williamsburg Bridge and into Brooklyn. I feel that if I would send both lines into Brooklyn, I might as well start planning a new Broadway El-replacing South 4th Street Subway, which would link to the 6th Avenue and 8th Avenue Subways. For those who need Nassau Street service and will lose it from the new subway, too bad. You'll have to transfer, but then again, Lexington isn't crowded anymore.

Your (J) proposal would also be included in my South 4th Street Subway.

You're options are good, but I would recommend saving that for the South 4th Street Subway (I'm already starting to work on those plans now (or later, depending on what life throws at me)).

5 hours ago, RR503 said:

On the operational end, I think you've gotta have a standard frequency. Make all your services run at 15tph, and be done with it -- merges will work better, and you won't be forced to schedule gaps in service to accommodate mixing frequencies. Provided you have a halfway decent signal system, it should work out. 

A standard headway can work, but its not just the signal that need to be worked on. Remember that we only have around 6,500 subway cars. We can only do so much with not a lot, so while a standard frequency is nice, this will have to wait for the signal modernization, and new subway cars.

5 hours ago, RR503 said:

Another ops concern of mine is the junction at 36 St. As you've designed service, you essentially end up just recreating 59 St, but on a corridor with higher ridership. Not sure you wanna do that -- I'd seriously consider either doing 8-53-local and 6-63-express, or doing LGA's thing where we extend the (G) to 36 St to allow for the reverse of the previous plan.

For 36th Street, I did it that way due to potential concerns about access loss. A similar plan was discussed in Random Thoughts a few months back. I tried to do everything in my power to remove most of the reverse branching that could occur which would impact merging, but I still end up creating problems. What did I do wrong? No wonder my planned (G) to Northern went kaput.

Maybe a 8th-53rd Express and 6th-63rd Street local can fix my mistake, and maybe open the door for any (G) extension. Do you think that can work

6 hours ago, RR503 said:

Finally, I'd consider thinking about small(er) scale investments you think would go well with your plan. More yard capacity? Better terminals? New short-turn facilities? New switches for useful reroutes? New transfers? The details really end up mattering.

My plan calls for a single yard on the Con-ed power plant (something I initially opposed for the first part of 2019) to accommodate the additional trains for the Broadway Line. I have also planned to use the planned express tracks on the Second Avenue Subway for train storage as well. Most of my extensions were for better terminals, and I also initially proposed switch reconfiguration at 59th Street, but decided against so.

14 hours ago, KK 6 Ave Local said:

Also, aren't the (A) and (C) just the same thing? If so it should just be called the (A).

I decided against calling both spurs the (A) to avoid confusion on where the SB (A) trains go. However, the (A) and (C) would be scheduled as part of a single (A) line (in the work schedules, the (C) trips will be marked with an asterisk).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, JeremiahC99 said:

When I created my proposal, I did not intend to have combined service between 125 and 63rd Street go above 30 trains per hour, since the line north of there was designed with 30 trains per hour. The (N), (Q) and (T) would all operate at 10 trains per hour and since the (N) and (Q) would have a combined headway every 3 minutes and the (T) every 6 minutes, this would give a 2 minute headway for north of 63rd Street. However, the concerns you may have are still valid, but I felt that there wasn't any other way to do both the Bronx extension and the curve of the line west along 125th Street to accommodate 116th Street (the original plans for SAS in the 70s did not call for such a station)

Totally understand that it's hard to justify having a curve along 125 if it's only attached to the (N)(Q) -- you end up with a question mark-shaped route. But unless you want lower SAS to only get 10tph, I think you're pretty much forced to do it, and provide some transfer to lower SAS trains, with those trains going somewhere else. Trying to cut down on the inevitably long length of this post so am not quoting this section, but I think you're totally right to want 4 tracks south of 63 -- you just should figure out where exactly you would want to send those additional 30tph once you have them.

18 minutes ago, JeremiahC99 said:

That was one of my main concerns of this proposal, since I intended to have this used by bus commuters coming from areas far from subway service. With the exception of two stations, each of my planned stops there would be served by connecting bus lines to far flung areas. More specifically

...

One of the reasons why I decided to build on the Amtrak ROW, aside from the cheaper option and ability to serve parts of the Bronx, is that I fear that with Metro-North service planned to serve the area, I fear that the high price of MNRR within NYC may not attract good ridership, since MNR fares do seem high for one way. I felt that subway service with $2.75 subway fare could attract additional ridership, especially for poorer folks in the area.

From a commute time minimization perspective, you want to have bus connectivity and proximate residential/commercial density, as then a good fraction of riders can walk to their destinations with only those truly traveling far having to use bus service. This also saves operating costs in the long run, given that a load shift towards this new line heavily reliant on bus connections will inevitably lead to an (expensive) increase in the number of bus service hours you have to provide. There are, of course, ways to mitigate that, but with the (5) and (6) nearby, you likely don't want to reinvent the wheel. 

As for commuter rail pricing, I think the solution here is (more) reasonably priced commuter rail service combined with faster bus access to existing rail lines. As you quite correctly identify, you can't build everything in this city, so we may as well leverage existing assets to the best we can. 

24 minutes ago, JeremiahC99 said:

Speaking of Co-op City, I proposed that both the (6) and (D) go to Co-op City is to not only to better serve the development and the NE Bronx area in general, but also eliminate the very weird crew change operations on some of these lines. A lot of my extensions were for better terminal ops. For example, since there are no crew rooms on the (D) at 205, the crew change is done at Bedford Park Blvd, one station south. This does add some time. With my extension for Co-op City with a crew room built onto the end of the platform, they can now end that strange crew change practice. As for the (6), this was for a capacity increase since a better two-track (or three track, a la Flushing-Main Street) terminal should allow for all of the (6) and <6> trains to terminate there. Currently, most trains terminate at Parkchester due to possible terminal constraints. However, with the extension, we can allow for <6> express service to continue past Parkchester making express stops to Pelham Bay and terminate at the new terminal with the local service.

Yeah, cutting the BPB switch off of the (D) should cut runtimes by a little bit. I'm not sure you want both expresses and locals going to Co-Op though. That's expensive relative to the number of riders who would opt for local (6) service, and it preserves the merge between (6) and <6>. The nice thing about the Westchester Square rebuild is that it gives you a truly decent (ie conflict-free) terminal for (6) service, as well as immediate yard access. Dunno if we want to change that. 

I think having both (6) and (D) is a good idea. Just looking at existing bus ridership in the Co-Op area, the Bx28/38 have solid ridership, as do (of course) all the buses converging on PBP. 

30 minutes ago, JeremiahC99 said:

One interesting facet of these options is that you have the (E) and (K) go to the Williamsburg Bridge and into Brooklyn. I feel that if I would send both lines into Brooklyn, I might as well start planning a new Broadway El-replacing South 4th Street Subway, which would link to the 6th Avenue and 8th Avenue Subways. For those who need Nassau Street service and will lose it from the new subway, too bad. You'll have to transfer, but then again, Lexington isn't crowded anymore.

Not entirely sure why we need a South 4th subway for the (E)(K) to WillyB. What benefit do you see in replacing that infrastructure that cannot be achieved via incremental changes to the Essex/Marcy/Myrtle areas? Also, the new (E)(K) would likely have a cross-platform transfer to the (J) at Bowery, no? I'd assume you'd put the (J) on the inner tracks to facilitate terminal design at Essex and then run the (E)(K) on the outside. If you elect to send the (J) up SAS via some connection under Sara Roosevelt Park, that'd become somewhat more difficult, but at worst we're talking about crossing up and over. 

33 minutes ago, JeremiahC99 said:

A standard headway can work, but its not just the signal that need to be worked on. Remember that we only have around 6,500 subway cars. We can only do so much with not a lot, so while a standard frequency is nice, this will have to wait for the signal modernization, and new subway cars.

I would assume that, in the midst of all this infrastructure development, we'd find some cash for new cars. 

34 minutes ago, JeremiahC99 said:

For 36th Street, I did it that way due to potential concerns about access loss. A similar plan was discussed in Random Thoughts a few months back. I tried to do everything in my power to remove most of the reverse branching that could occur which would impact merging, but I still end up creating problems. What did I do wrong? No wonder my planned  to Northern went kaput.

Maybe a 8th-53rd Express and 6th-63rd Street local can fix my mistake, and maybe open the door for any  extension. Do you think that can work

To be quite blunt, you don't always have to take people's suggestions ;). I think that given the operational and load balance impacts of interlining 36, we're really better of not doing so. I think doing the 8-53-local option or doing the 8-53-express option with a (G) extension to 36 (maybe provisioned for further development along Northern, or even built out to some extent) are both completely defensible courses of action that reflect both what's best for loads and what's best for system operability. If you do do 8-53-express, though, you've gotta extend the (G) -- otherwise riders at QB local stations west of Roosevelt won't be able to access Long Island City.

38 minutes ago, JeremiahC99 said:

For 36th Street, I did it that way due to potential concerns about access loss. A similar plan was discussed in Random Thoughts a few months back. I tried to do everything in my power to remove most of the reverse branching that could occur which would impact merging, but I still end up creating problems. What did I do wrong? No wonder my planned  to Northern went kaput.

Maybe a 8th-53rd Express and 6th-63rd Street local can fix my mistake, and maybe open the door for any  extension. Do you think that can work

Pardon a dumb question: which 59 St?

I'd think carefully about this, if you have some time. What would be some useful bits of infrastructure for you to have to maintain service through disruptions? How about work trains? Or even changes to fluidize existing ops?

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/13/2019 at 9:56 PM, JeremiahC99 said:

As promised, I am finally releasing my grand master plan for improving the subway system. This plan involves some new construction with service changes related to the new construction that improves subway efficiency. The new plan, modified from an old plan I posted here a while back, is called the New Program for Action, named after the original from 1968. My goal of the service is to expand service to areas that don't have convenient transit service, which will allow for service changes that will increase subway capacity. The proposals should also solve problems that were discussed on the past, namely:

  • North Brooklyn-Midtown direct access
  • Broadway service bottlenecks and reliability
  • Queens Blvd Issues

The list goes on, but its substantial. To reduce costs, I am aiming to limit tunneling to the most possible extent, using it only where necessary, such as in Manhattan and parts of Queens. The number of extensions I am adding are also limited to further lower them, picking only those that provide the best benefits for subway operations and passengers, and what is popular.

Under my new grand plan, these new connections would be built:

  • A connection between the Nassau Street Line and the 8th Avenue Line via Spring Street (underground tunnel to be built). Te connections will be two tracks and feature a new station along Spring Street between Broadway and Lafayette Streets (called Broadway/Lafayette on the map). This would create a second connection to an uptown trunk line and better serve the heart of Soho.
  • A pair of East River Tunnels that connect both the Broadway Line and the planned Second Avenue Line (one tunnel) with the Fulton Street Line, using the old Atlantic Avenue Tunnel, the Court Street station (presently a museum), and the outer tracks and platforms at Hoyt-Schermerhorn.
  • Concurrent with the above, a connection under Jamaica Avenue between the IND Fulton Street Line and the BMT Jamaica Line. This would permit demolition of the elevated structure over Fulton Street, with a short section connecting to the new subway for yard access. The line, which will be three tracks, will necessitate lengthening the stations on the elevated and the nearby yard to hold 10-car trains.

New extensions (unless noted, all extensions will have two tracks, with stations having one island platform):

  • An extension of the Astoria Line from Ditmars Blvd to LaGuardia Airport via the Con-ed power plant and 19th Avenue. Stations would be built at Steinway Street and Hazen Street to serve the local neighborhood. A new yard would be built in the power plant area. This extension would have to be built as an elevated line, since a tunnel through here would be impractical. However, access to LGA is created and there would be in increase in the number of trains that can turn around on the Astoria Line since trains will no longer have to terminate at Astoria-Ditmars using an inefficient switch operation.
  • An extension of the Archer Avenue Line upper level from Parsons/Archer to SE Queens along the LIRR Atlantic ROW. LIRR service would be rerouted through St. Albans station. This was featured in the 1968 Program for Action, but my proposal slightly differs from it because I also added a station at 108th Avenue, and while the original plan had the line end at Springfield Blvd in Laurelton, my new plan now have the line end at the current Rosedale LIRR station at Francis Lewis Blvd. Not only would this allow for an increase in the number of trains that can turn around on the line, but residents would now reach midtown quicker compared to first taking the bus to the nearest subway. The new stations would include:
    • 108th Avenue (side platforms)
    • Linden-Brewer Blvds (side platforms)
    • Foch Blvd (side platforms)
    • Baisley Blvd (side platforms)
    • Locust Manor-Farmers Blvd (unchanged from LIRR Side platform configuration)
    • Laurelton-Springfield Blvd (side platforms)
    • Rosedale-Francis Lewis Blvd (unchanged from LIRR Island platform configuration.
  • An extension of the lower level Archer Line from Parsons/Archer to Hollis-Farmers Blvd via 93rd Avenue, with stops at 168th Street, 177th Street, 183rd Street, and Hollis-Farmers Blvd. This would not only serve Hollis, but allow for increase in number of trains that can turn around.
  • An extension of the IND Queens Blvd Express tracks from 179th Street to Springfield Blvd. This extension would serve Queens Village. The station locations would be revised from the original proposal. Under my proposal, the line would use the D5 and D6 tracks (the D3 and D4 express tracks would be used for storage) and stop at:
    • 188th Street
    • 196th Street
    • Francis Lewis Blvd
    • 212th Street
    • Springfield Blvd in Queens Village.
  • An extension of the Concourse Line from 205th Street via Burke Avenue, Gun Hill Road, and Bartow Avenue to Co-op City. Stops would be built at:
    • White Plains Road
    • Bronxwood Avenue
    • Boston Road-Laconia Avenue
    • Seymour Avenue
    • Gunther Avenue
    • Co-op City - Bartow Avenue

Not only would this allow better service to NE Bronx, but this would allow for a modern terminal for operations, ending the weird operation that forces a crew change at Bedford Pk Blvd instead of 205th Street.

  • Second Avenue Subway extensions:
    • A two track tunnel branching off the main section north of 116th Street and run under Second Avenue, the Harlem River, and along the AmTrak Right of Way to Co-op City. One of my most substantial extensions, the line would be two tracks and stop at Harlem-125th Street (under Second Avenue, with a passageway to the Phase 2 Harlem-125th Station), then merge with the railroad line to stop at the following stations:
      • St. Anns Avenue
      • Port Morris-138th Street
      • 149th Street
      • Longwood-Lafayette Avenues
      • Hunts Point Avenue
      • Westchester Avenue
      • 174th Street
      • 177th Street
      • East 180th Street-East Tremont Avenue
      • Unionport-White Plains Road
      • Castle Hill-Bronxdale Avenues
      • Williamsbridge Road
      • Hutchinson Metro Center
      • Pelham Pkwy
      • Co-op City - Earhart Lane
    • A two track extension of the main alignment along 125th Street with stations at:
      • Lenox Avenue
      • St. Nicholas Avenue
      • West Harlem-Broadway/125th
  • Extension of the 4th Avenue line to 101st Street to increase turning capacity.
  • Reroute Canarsie Line service to neaby freight tracks, with stops at Broadway Jct, consolidating three stations that were nearby, and Sutter Avenue and Livonia Avenue.

These routes would better serve upper Manhattan and the Bronx and relieve crowding on the Lexington Avenue Line

  • IRT Branch extensions:
    • Extension of the New Lots Line from New Lots Avenue to the Livonia Yard with a new station on the line within the yard at Linden Blvd. This would improve service to East NY and Spring Creek
    • Extension of the Nostrand Avenue Line from Flatbush Avenue to Kings Hwy, with a stop at Avenue L. This would provide a modern terminal for train operations and improve service to Midwood

These extensions would bring service to areas without subway service and increase capacity. My proposals involve rebuilding Rogers Avenue Junction and resignalling the IRT lines to do this.

  • An extension of the Pelham Line from Pelham Bay Park to Co-op City-Bartow Avenue to bring subway service to Co-op City.
  • An extension of the Flushing Line from Main Street via Northern Blvd to Little Neck. Another one of my substantial extensions, the three track line would make stops at:
    • Parsons Blvd (local)
    • 150th Street (express)
    • 162nd Street-Crocheron Avenue (local)
    • Utopia Pkwy (local)
    • Francis Lewis Blvd (local)
    • Bell Blvd (local)
    • Springfield Blvd (express)
    • Alley Pond Park (local)
    • Douglaston Pkwy (local)
    • Marathon Pkwy (local)
    • Little Neck-254th Street (Express terminal)

This extension would better serve NE Queens.

Enough of the talk about the extensions, lets talk about the service changes (using only the bullets available on the NYC Transit Forums Library):

8th Avenue, 53rd Street, and Concourse:

One of the lines most impacted by the new Program for Action is the (M). Under this plan, the line, which travels via 6th Avenue, would continue its normal routing, but would now do so via 8th Avenue. The service, re-designated the (K), would operate at 10 trains per hour, and combined with the (E) at 15 trains per hour (see below), service on the entire 8th Avenue-53rd Street corridor would become more frequent.

To make room for this, the (C) would have to move to the express tracks, and since the service would run at 10 trains per hour, combined with the (A) at 15 trains per hour, service becomes more frequent on the express tracks. I did modify my service patterns for north of 59th Street. Originally, I planned to install new switches south of 59th or 42nd Street to ensure the service continues running local north of 42nd Street. However, valuing frequency (in this case) over direct service, I now have the (B) and (D) service running local north of 59th Street, while the (A) and (C) go express north of 145th Street, with all service on those two lines running local north of 145th Street and up to 207th Street together, giving Washington Hts and Inwood riders more frequent service. The only drawback of this would be that Concourse riders would see slower service, but service would be more reliable and frequent. The deinterlining of both the 59th Street and 145th Street interlockings means the end of having the entire B division be scheduled around it.

On weekends, service would be the same, except for no (B) service (though service between 145th Street and Prospect Pk can be added if demand is available). On late nights, the (A) and (E) would continue its local operation, but service would unfortunately be supplemented by the (D). (K) service would terminate at 59th Street-Columbus Circle.

6th Avenue, 63rd Street, and Culver:

The rerouting of the (M) means that capacity of the 6th Avenue Line is available for more efficient service. Here, the additional capacity would be taken by a revived (V). During weekdays, service would operate between Jamaica-179th Street and Kings Hwy (Coney Island if switches were reconfigured to increase capacity) running the same route as the (F), but via Queens Blvd Local in Queens and Culver Express in Brooklyn. I decided to terminate it at Kings Hwy due to possible capacity constraints at Coney Island, and the fact that most of the express passengers who would benefit from this live north of the Kings Hwy, which is more dependent on the Culver Line compared to south of there with its plethora of nearby alternatives. However, service would be faster for the majority of customers south of Church Avenue.

On weekends, service would terminate at Second Avenue instead of Kings Hwy to provide adequate weekend service on Queens Blvd service in place of the (R) (See below). There would be no late night service.

As for train frequency, (F) service would be at 15 trains, while (G) and (V) service at 10, creating more frequent service.

Queens Blvd and Upper Level Archer:

On Queens Blvd, the (K) and (V) would replace the (M) and (R) respectively on the local tracks, while the (E) and (F) would continue to use the express tracks as it does today. However, the two local services would be extended to 179th Street, extending the express runs past 71st Avenue. At this point, Woodhaven Blvd would be converted to an express station. In addition, with the new extensions, the (F) would go to Springfield Blvd, while the (E) would go to Rosedale, and that service will be increased to 15 trains per hour. This would allow for faster service from the outer areas of Queens that don't have subway service presently. Combined with the Lower Archer extension (See below), bus service would be rerouted from Downtown Jamaica to new locations along the new extensions, reducing congestion in Jamaica and allowing for the bus routes to serve better purposes than subway feeders.

With 20 trains per hour on the local tracks and 30 on the express, which splits into 15 for the branches, and 25 for both 53rd and 63rd Street crossings, service becomes more frequent. With this, the (R) would no longer be needed.

Planned weekend service will not change from planned weekday service. During late nights, the (E) and (F) would be running local.

Initially for my grand plan, I had proposed a bypass that would run on the LIRR Main Line. This was dropped due to logistics of connecting it to the Rockaway Beach Line, and the fact that I felt the connection to the QBL at 71st Avenue is contentious (SE Queens trains would first have to run local, then get on the bypass). The connection to the 63rd Street Tunnel also proved to be contentious because of concerns of capacity constraints through the tunnel. Even with the resigalling of the line and the removal of the Brooklyn reverse branch via Chrystie Street, the capacity issues would still remain, so I dropped it for now.  That can be built later once all the issues are ironed out.

I also planned a shuttle bus loop service in Long Island City during the day to replace 6th Avenue and Broadway service at Queens Plaza. However, seeing the fate of the Williamsburg Link B91 and B92 (later the B91A) service, which serves a similar function of my proposed line, I decided to drop it to avoid wasting bus resources. Instead, to garner ridership, I am proposing waiving fates on Manhattan crosstown bus lines.

Broadway, Astoria, Upper Second Avenue:

With Queens Blvd service restructured, the (R) would not be on QBL anymore. Instead, service would be rerouted back to Astoria full time. (N) service would also be moved to the Second Avenue Line with the (Q). With the extension to LGA, both the (R) and (W) would be extended there. Without this extension, one of the lines would have to terminate at Queensboro Plaza, or both lines could serve Astoria, but service levels on each would be inadequate to accommodate the potential crowding.

This would allow for more reliable service on the whole corridor.

In addition to this, there would new service patterns on the upper Second Avenue. Under these new plans, with the new extensions, the (N) and (Q) would not turn west along 125th Street. Instead, they will split off from the main line north of 116th Street and run via the Amtrak extension to Co-op City. This would allow for direct service between areas of the Bronx along the Amtrak ROW and Midtown Manhattan, something that is presently unavailable.

Meanwhile, the (T) would swing west on 125th Street and go crosstown to Broadway, allowing for faster crosstown travel.

During late night, the (N), (Q), and (R) (see below) would all run local on the line.

As for headways, (R) service would run at 15 trains, the all other lines all at 10 trains per hour, allowing for more frequent service.

Lower Second Avenue, Fulton Street, Rockaways, Jamaica, and Lower Level Archer:

With the (R) on Astoria, there would be a change in service in Brooklyn. Here, the line would use the new tunnel and be rerouted to serve the IND Fulton Street Line local tracks to Euclid Avenue. (W) service would replace the (R) on 4th Avenue (see below). The (C) would become the express to Lefferts Blvd, allowing the (A) to serve Far Rockaway. Initially, I had the (C) go to Rockaway Pk, but this was changed due to potential scheduling concerns, even with the express (C). As a result of the new switch, the (S) Rockaway Park Shuttle would now see increased service to 10 trains per hour, and would now run at all times except late nights, when service would be extended to Euclid Avenue in Brooklyn. In addition, the current shuttle to Lefferts Blvd would be replaced by an extended (R). To replace rush hour service to Manhattan from Rockaway Park, Q53 bus service would be enhanced.

For Lower Second Avenue, I am proposing that phases 3 and 4 be built as 4 tracks south of 63rd Street, with express stations at 55th, 42nd, Houston, Grand, and Hanover. The Express tracks would be used for train storage and reroutes in the interim. From here, the (T) would then use the new line to reach Brooklyn, where it would merge with (R) service. From here, the two lines would run together to Broadway Junction, where it would split and run on the new lines and existing Jamaica Avenue Elevated to Hollis. This would provide more frequent service on Fulton Street, and allow for faster commutes to Lower Manhattan. (J) service would be shortened to Broadway Junction (See below).

I had also initially proposed a reactivated Rockaway Beach Branch to speed commute to Manhattan. However, given the concerns we had about it, I scrapped it as well. This can also be added at a later time.

4th Avenue, Nassau Street, Broadway-Brooklyn and Myrtle Avenue:

To replace (R) service, (W) service would be extended to the new 101st Street Terminal. (J) service would also operate between Broadway Jct and 101st Street and the (Z) would be folded (noticed how I did not say eliminated) into the (J), which will now run at 15 trains per hour. Combined with the (K) at 10 trains, service becomes more frequent between Myrtle Avenue and Bowery. To address concerns about lack of additional service on West End, additional (D) service would be provided.

During late nights, the all service would be local except for the (J) (Shortened to Broad).

Now there are concerns about the Broadway service designations on both Fulton and 4th Avenue, with some arguing that the (R) remain on 4th Avenue, and the (W) take the new Fulton routing. However, I proposed the service the way I originally did it because I wanted the Fulton-Broadway Link to run 24 hours a day to maximize viability of this connection. However, service would be using the same train crews.

Canarsie:

Reroute (L) service via the freight line. Simple.

Crosstown:

Only frequency changes to the (G) service are proposed, and nothing else.

IRT:

With extensions and the rebuild of Rogers Avenue:

  • (2) and (5) to Kings Hwy
  • (3) via Utica
  • (4) via Livonia to Linden
  • (6) to Co-op City
  • (7) and <7> to Little Neck.

Here is a map describing all of my changes:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1SeL9tHd9_mr2gLertrqJd329ADbTJpts&usp=sharing

Feedback is welcome as well (however, due to how large and extensive this post is, I do not recommend quoting this post). If you have comments on these proposals, you are welcome to reply.

No offense, but a lot of the recommendations you’ve made have already been discussed and agreed upon ad nauseam on these forums. I can see some changes being impeded by costs, community opposition, or degree of difficulty. I’m of the opinion that efforts should be made to optimize the system in its current state first before exploring any extensions or new construction. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:8: Airport Connector

 

Astor Pl (6)(R)(W)

Washington Sq N

runs via 5 Av

11 St

16 St (connection to (4)(5)(6)(N)(Q)(R)(W)(L))

23 St (R)(W)

30 St

Herald Sq (B)(D)(F)(M)(N)(Q)(R)(W)

7-8 Avs - Penn Station (1)(2)(3)(A)(C)(E)

Hudson Yards (7)

runs via 10 av

42 St

49 St

57 St

66 St/Freedom Pl

72 St/Bway (1)(2)(3)

runs via 72 St

CPW (B)(C)

5 Av

Lexington Av (connection to (6))

2 Av (Q)

York Av

Roosevelt Island North

36 Av/21 St

runs via 21 St

Broadway

27 Av

24 Av

Ditmars Blvd

20 Av

runs via 20 Av

31 St (N)(W) (one stop extension to 20 Av on the (N)(W) would be built)

Steinway St

Hazen St

81 St/21 Av

LGA AIrport

27 Av/Ditmars Blvd

runs via 108 St

Astoria Blvd

34 Av

37 Av

Roosevelt Av (connection to (7))

44-45 Avs

Corona Av

Horace Harding Expwy

64 Av

67 Rd

Forest Hills (E)(F)(M)(R)

Ingram St/71 Av

runs via Metropolitan Av

71 Av

Ascan Av

Forest Park - Metropolitan Av

Lefferts Blvd

runs via Lefferts Blvd

Myrtle Av (J)(Z)

Atlantic Av

101 Av

Ozone Park (A)

109 Av

Linden Blvd

133 Av

149 Av

Conduit Av

Federal Circle Airtrain (JFK)

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've made a map in Brand New Subway showing some changes I would like made to the subway system. I placed the stations randomly so they might not be in ideal locations.

https://www.mediafire.com/file/hna7o0pn1sctkcg/bns_saved_game_(1).json/file this link should work, if it doesn't then please let me know

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

That’s an interesting concept for the Rockaway Beach branch. I would back this up if there was a more geographical explanation for this. I’m assuming the following would have to happen:

The AirTrain’s Terminal would be rebuilt to allow for an extension and would run either via 164th Street or Kissena/Parsons Blvd. 

Lefferts Blvd (A) would also have to be rebuilt to allow for an extension to the Van Wyck. 

One thing that I’m confused about is how does this RBB (A) LightRail Train, get to LaGuardia from Woodhaven Blvd? I’m assuming Junction Blvd is not an option cause it’s to the East of what you’re proposing to run your line on. Will this version of the RBB still have any physical track connections to the subway or no?

One last note is that I like how you’re using the AirTrain to better serve the communities in Queens.

 

16 hours ago, RR503 said:

Just to clarify, what streets are you using for your alignment? Is this system entirely elevated, or are you gonna convert AirTrain to suit mixed traffic equipment?

To clarify, this is totally foamy and will never happen, but if it did:

- All elevated. This is (IMO) more realistic with an AirTrain, because the vehicles themselves are much quieter than NTTs and they make tighter turns.

- Flushing route - basically just the Q25. 

- LGA route: RBB to LIRR, curving west before heading north on Woodhaven, 59th, and a straight shot down Junction. I figured I would rather have a stop at Woodhaven Blvd than 63 Dr.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/15/2019 at 12:53 AM, RR503 said:

Totally understand that it's hard to justify having a curve along 125 if it's only attached to the (N)(Q) -- you end up with a question mark-shaped route. But unless you want lower SAS to only get 10tph, I think you're pretty much forced to do it, and provide some transfer to lower SAS trains, with those trains going somewhere else. Trying to cut down on the inevitably long length of this post so am not quoting this section, but I think you're totally right to want 4 tracks south of 63 -- you just should figure out where exactly you would want to send those additional 30tph once you have them.

I wasn't able to answer you yesterday since I got too busy with other issues.

My original plan for south of 63rd Street was for a second SAS service :M: to use the line, running from Hanover to 55th Street, then along the 63rd Street Line, the Queens Bypass, and Rockaway Beach Branch to Far Rockaway with the (A). The line would supplement the (T) from West Harlem to Queens, making express stops south of 55th Street (The :M: would've ran local on this stretch) This was dropped due to logistical concerns of using both the Bypass line and the RBB together. I now have planned to create a (T) short run operating between Hanover and 55th Street to provide frequent intra-corridor service to those who need it. There would be 5 short run trips every hour (in other words, a train every 12 minutes), for a total of a train every 2.4 minutes between Hanover and 55. Eventually, I do plan to convert those short runs into separate lines with separate schedules to provide better access. I will discuss that below.

On 9/15/2019 at 12:53 AM, RR503 said:

Yeah, cutting the BPB switch off of the (D) should cut runtimes by a little bit. I'm not sure you want both expresses and locals going to Co-Op though. That's expensive relative to the number of riders who would opt for local (6) service, and it preserves the merge between (6) and <6>. The nice thing about the Westchester Square rebuild is that it gives you a truly decent (ie conflict-free) terminal for (6) service, as well as immediate yard access. Dunno if we want to change that. 

I think having both (6) and (D) is a good idea. Just looking at existing bus ridership in the Co-Op area, the Bx28/38 have solid ridership, as do (of course) all the buses converging on PBP. 

The problem with the Westchester Sq conversion into an express station is that while this would be ideal for the high passenger volume there, the structure may not support such a conversion. The structure would totally have to be rebuilt to do this, which can disrupt both vehicle and subway traffic while this goes on. Another idea I had in mind is to rebuild the Pelham Bay Park station into a configuration similar to Mets-Willets Point on the (7). Here, there is a side platform for the Manhattan-bound local trains and an island platform for the peak-direction express and the outbound local trains (a practice that is almost never followed). My proposal for Pelham Bay Park would involve having the middle track take the place of the island platform and the local track take the place of the side platform. On the former local track trackbed, an island platform would be constructed as well. While this proposal may be expensive and could also disrupt traffic, it would allow for faster service by skipping more stops.

From here, the three tracks would continue to the three track Co-op City station, which will be built in a style similar to Main Street-Flushing. At this point, Pelham service would operate in a similar fashion to the Flushing Line, with both local and express service to the end of the line. Co-op City, like Flushing, does see high bus transfer volumes, and having both local and express trains go there would support the bus transfers. The bus lines themselves would see some restructuring to accommodate the shift in passenger volumes from Pelham Bay Park to Co-op City.

On 9/15/2019 at 12:53 AM, RR503 said:

Not entirely sure why we need a South 4th subway for the (E)(K) to WillyB. What benefit do you see in replacing that infrastructure that cannot be achieved via incremental changes to the Essex/Marcy/Myrtle areas? Also, the new (E)(K) would likely have a cross-platform transfer to the (J) at Bowery, no? I'd assume you'd put the (J) on the inner tracks to facilitate terminal design at Essex and then run the (E)(K) on the outside. If you elect to send the (J) up SAS via some connection under Sara Roosevelt Park, that'd become somewhat more difficult, but at worst we're talking about crossing up and over.

I started thinking of a South 4th Street Subway because in addition to changing the (M) from serving 6th Avenue to 8th Avenue, I was proposing a few other changes I did not include. For one, I was thinking of consolidation of stations on the Jamaica and Myrtle Avenue Elevateds, rebuilding the Myrtle Junction, etc. Those plans,

 

 combined with one of your suggestions of all (E) and (K) service over the bridge made me think "If I want to do all of this, I might as well make a whole new subway line while I'm at it. We have provisions for a Worth Street subway and that can feed into the new line." Form there, I would do the vanshnookenraggen plan and have 8th Avenue service serve thre Worth Street Line and reroute 6th Avenue express service to Williamsburg. More specifically, I am proposing a slightly-modified version of this: 

NYC_S4_track.png

Credit goes to Vansnookenraggen by the way.

From there, the World Trade Center station would be converted to a replacement location for the NY Transit Museum (hopefully no one threw away the old signs for the station), since I plan to use the Court Street station for the Fulton Local service. Aside from a more convenient location, the other advantage of the S 4th Street Subway on the museum is that the new WTC location would allow for a more convenient run off path to the 207th Street Yard, ending the need to reverse on the main line in the event that trains need to be swapped out.

In addition, the Jamaica Avenue and Myrtle Avenue Elevated would then be torn down from Marcy Avenue to Broadway Junction, resulting in faster service to Midtown for these commuters. In addition, current bus service on Broadway (B46 and Q24) is unreliable due to traffic issues stemming from navigating under an elevated train. With the elevated gone, the bus line can operate more reliably since they no longer have to navigate the elevated train columns. Broadway bus service can be combined with bus service over the Williamsburg Bridge, forming a single bus line from Lower East Side to Broadway Junction to replace elevated train service.

On 9/15/2019 at 12:53 AM, RR503 said:

To be quite blunt, you don't always have to take people's suggestions ;).

The only suggestion I am not taking is the choices you are giving me for the Fulton Local service. It appears you want me to choose between Second Avenue (T) or Broadway (R) service for Fulton Local, but not both. I just threw it in there to allow for both a SAS to Brooklyn and a a Broadway Line to Euclid Avenue, since the latter is to provide the (R) a yard to be based at if the line were to be rerouted to Astoria (everyone's favorite proposal).

On 9/15/2019 at 12:53 AM, RR503 said:

I think that given the operational and load balance impacts of interlining 36, we're really better of not doing so. I think doing the 8-53-local option or doing the 8-53-express option with a (G) extension to 36 (maybe provisioned for further development along Northern, or even built out to some extent) are both completely defensible courses of action that reflect both what's best for loads and what's best for system operability. If you do do 8-53-express, though, you've gotta extend the (G) -- otherwise riders at QB local stations west of Roosevelt won't be able to access Long Island City.

When I initially planned these proposals, I was doing so with the intention of ending the need to schedule all of the B division around 59th Street (IND 8th Avenue). That one interlocking is so fundamental to operations that (A)(B)(C) and (D) service is scheduled backwards from it. While I would have the 63rd Street connection recreate 59th-8th, I was hoping that the (E) would be scheduled independently of the (A) and (C), compared to today, the (E) would be scheduled around the (C), which in turn has to deal with the (A), and the (B) and (D) need to be scheduled around those lines, and they would have to deal with the (N) and (Q), etc. The merges that would occur under my plan (if we cut out the (W) plan) would be at:

36th Street

Van Wyck Blvd

DeKalb Interlocking

However, as a second though, a 8th-53rd connection would be ideal as well to deinterline QB if you want to. I only did it the way I planned it because I was under the impression with the 30 trains on the express track (15 for each service), 20 on the local tracks (10 for each service) branching out to 25 trains for each crossing (one express and one local each), and the fact that CBTC would increase track capacity to 40 trains, there would be a lot of more room for merging and diverging.

On 9/15/2019 at 12:53 AM, RR503 said:

Pardon a dumb question: which 59 St?

59th Street-Columbus Circle.

  • 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.