Jump to content

Department of Subways - Proposals/Ideas


Recommended Posts

(K)8 Av Exp/Northern Blvd Local

Red Hook

Union St/Columbia St

Kane St/Columbia St

BBP Pier 6

Whitehall St (R)(W)(1)

Thames St

Brookfield Place

Chambers St (A)(C)(E)

Canal St (A)(C)(E)

W4 St (A)(B)(C)(D)(E)(F)(M)

14 St (A)(C)(E)(L)

34 St (A)(C)(E)(1)(2)(3)

42 St (A)(C)(E)(1)(2)(3)(7)(N)(Q)(R)(W)(S)

59 St - Columbus Circle (A)(B)(C)(D)

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

66 St/5 Av (V)

72 St/5 Av (V)

72 St/Park Av (V)

72 St/2 Av (V)(Q)

York Av/72 St (V)

Roosevelt Island North

runs via 36 Av

21 St

31 St (V)(N)(W)

38 St

runs via Northern Blvd

45 St

Broadway (V)(M)(R)

62 St

74 St

81 St

87 St

94 St (V)

100 St

108 St

114 St (V)

Flushing - Main St (V)(7)<7>

Parsons Blvd

154 St

162 St

167 St

Utopia Pkwy (V)

Francis Lewis Blvd

206 St

Bell Blvd (V)

220 St

Douglaston Pkwy

Little Neck Pkwy (V)

continues in next post

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 12.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

(V) 6 Av Local/Northern Blvd Exp

18 Av (F)

Ditmas Av (F)

Church Av (F)(G)

7 Av (F)(G)

Jay St (A)(C)(F)(R)

York St (F)

E Bway (F)

Delancey-Essex (F)(J)(M)(Z)

2 Av (F)

Bway-Laffayette (B)(D)(F)(M)(6)

W4 St (A)(B)(C)(D)(E)(F)(K)(M)

14 St (F)(M)(1)(2)(3)(L)

23 St (F)(M)

34 St (B)(D)(F)(M)(N)(Q)(R)(W)

42 St (B)(D)(F)(M)(7)

47-50 Sts (B)(D)(F)(M)

57 St (F)

66 St/5 Av (K)

66 St/5 Av (K)

72 St/5 Av (K)

72 St/Park Av (K)

72 St/2 Av (K)(Q)

York Av/72 St (K)

runs via 36 Av

31 St (K)(N)(W)

runs via Northern Blvd

Broadway (K)(M)(R)

94 St (K)

114 St (K)

Flushing - Main St (K)(7)

Utopia Pkwy (K)

Little Neck Pkwy (K)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@RR503 @JeremiahC99 Continuing on your plans:

The (E)(K) can be the replacements for the (J) and (M), and the (J) will be rerouted over to Second Avenue/Fulton and join the Jamaica tracks after Bway Junction. On the northern end, 72nd Street will be the terminal in preparation of a 4-track Northern Blvd (L)(G)(J)(T) trunk line. Future express 2nd Ave trains will run to the Bronx.

Edited by Harlem Crosstown
added a plan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Harlem Crosstown said:

@RR503 @JeremiahC99 Continuing on your plans:

The (E)(K) can be the replacements for the (J) and (M), and the (J) will be rerouted over to Second Avenue/Fulton and join the Jamaica tracks after Bway Junction. On the northern end, 72nd Street will be the terminal in preparation of a 4-track Northern Blvd (L)(G)(J)(T) trunk line. Future express 2nd Ave trains will run to the Bronx.

Are you assuming that it won’t be too late to dig additional two-track tunnels below the upper Second Avenue Line to allow for the increase in train service?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, JeremiahC99 said:

Are you assuming that it won’t be too late to dig additional two-track tunnels below the upper Second Avenue Line to allow for the increase in train service?

Yeah that can be done too.. Although if it is I would extend them down to at least Houston Street, and we will have capacity for four lines on the SAS. The question then is what they will be and where they will run.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Harlem Crosstown said:

Yeah that can be done too.. Although if it is I would extend them down to at least Houston Street, and we will have capacity for four lines on the SAS. The question then is what they will be and where they will run.

I would recommend what Vanshnookenraggen recommend for SAS and have some trains take over the (B) and (D) over the Manhattan Bridge and along Brighton and West End to Coney Island. (B) and (D) would be redirected to Williamsburg. That’s for phase 3. It’s not to say that Phase 4 shouldn’t be built. That should go on as planned.

In addition, I am also concerned with digging a lower level of the upper Second Avenue Line. The existing two tracks are already as deep as it is. How are we going to deep bore another two tracks below those tracks?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Long-term I think SAS should be a 4-track line. Effectively it will be the last new NYC subway trunk line, with a future 10 Ave line being only an extension of the existing 14 St line. After that it will be more effective to build regional mainline trunks because the subway coverage will be very thorough around Manhattan.

However, upper SAS local being an extension of the BMT Broadway express tracks complicates matters. Eventually, new construction needs to be done that turns 79 St into a 6-track transfer station with the (N)(Q) being redirected into Queens via 79 St. This frees up the SAS local to run entirely down 2 Ave and into Brooklyn via the Manhattan Bridge. With the Williamsburg bridge tracks rerouted onto the 6 Ave express and the Broadway local tracks connected to the Fulton St local tracks, Nassau St can be reconstructed and sent up SAS as the express line. Water St in my opinion is redundant with the Nassau St as underutilized as it is today.

All of this is super expensive of course - but it's the only way to maximize the existing Brooklyn - Midtown subway capacity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Caelestor said:

Long-term I think SAS should be a 4-track line. Effectively it will be the last new NYC subway trunk line, with a future 10 Ave line being only an extension of the existing 14 St line. After that it will be more effective to build regional mainline trunks because the subway coverage will be very thorough around Manhattan.

However, upper SAS local being an extension of the BMT Broadway express tracks complicates matters. Eventually, new construction needs to be done that turns 79 St into a 6-track transfer station with the (N)(Q) being redirected into Queens via 79 St. This frees up the SAS local to run entirely down 2 Ave and into Brooklyn via the Manhattan Bridge. With the Williamsburg bridge tracks rerouted onto the 6 Ave express and the Broadway local tracks connected to the Fulton St local tracks, Nassau St can be reconstructed and sent up SAS as the express line. Water St in my opinion is redundant with the Nassau St as underutilized as it is today.

All of this is super expensive of course - but it's the only way to maximize the existing Brooklyn - Midtown subway capacity.

Fix the economy and stop what the current politicians are doing, and we would have had a 4 track SAS years ago. Anyway, the 2 local trains should run down to displace the (B)(D) to Williamsburg, while the express can run maybe to SI? Something to consider, I guess. (N)(Q) to Queens is a decent idea but will that mean you won’t be running any SAS trains to Queens? Works if you are going for the deinterlined aspect that many have proposed. We can potentially look into a complete de-interlining of the system. Not a good idea, but an idea none the less.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Caelestor said:

Water St in my opinion is redundant with the Nassau St as underutilized as it is today.

However, to counter your argument, Water Street will cover more areas in Manhattan and be better at relieving congestion on the Lexington Avenue Line, since workers in the Water Street area will no longer have to make a long walk from Nassau Street, Broadway, or Trinity Place to get to work. It would also improve access to South Street Seaport for those coming from up north.

Having Second Avenue service on Nassau Street won’t draw additional riders from the Lex since the main destination for most riders from that line is still Water Street. Nassau Street service will not do anything for these guys.

Funny thing was that had the South 4th Street subway been completed, the Nassau Line north of Chambers Street would’ve most likely been abandoned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, JeremiahC99 said:

However, to counter your argument, Water Street will cover more areas in Manhattan and be better at relieving congestion on the Lexington Avenue Line, since workers in the Water Street area will no longer have to make a long walk from Nassau Street, Broadway, or Trinity Place to get to work. It would also improve access to South Street Seaport for those coming from up north.

Having Second Avenue service on Nassau Street won’t draw additional riders from the Lex since the main destination for most riders from that line is still Water Street. Nassau Street service will not do anything for these guys.

Funny thing was that had the South 4th Street subway been completed, the Nassau Line north of Chambers Street would’ve most likely been abandoned.

I would start with an SAS/ (B)(D) plan and then build it into a South Fourth Subway with one of the express trains from the SAS after the express tracks are completed and the (E)(K).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Due to the poor Design of Phase 1 of the Second Avenue Subway, I’m very conflicted as to which idea I agree with.

1. Building a New Lower Level at 72nd Street/2nd Avenue. 

      1A) would be to have the (T) terminate there while the (N)(Q) continue North. I don’t see the feasibility of making a Junction North of 72nd Street for trains to Transverse. 

      1B) The same, but in reverse. The Upper Level Being repurposed yo terminate (N)(Q) Trains and have (T) trains continue North. 

2. Building Phase 3 Under Neath 3rd Avenue instead of 2nd Avenue. (Reference to Alon Levy’s Plan) 

3. Building a Diverging set of Tracks near 48th or 57th Street to allow for trains to run Express along 3rd Avenue until 125 and continue into the Bronx. 

4. 57th or Canal Street Flip. The worst option of the bunch but it’s better than nothing. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Harlem Crosstown said:

I would start with an SAS/ (B)(D) plan and then build it into a South Fourth Subway with one of the express trains from the SAS after the express tracks are completed and the (E)(K).

That sound almost what Vanshnookenragen would've imagined. I am taking you are proposing something like this:

NYC_S4_track.png

I am also proposing something on those lines as well for my own plans. My difference is that I plan to send all 8th Avenue local trains into Brooklyn instead of the stub end WTC station. That platform would be converted into an area for a relocated NY Transit Museum, since my planned Fulton Street local service(s) will use the current location at Court Street, thus forcing a relocation.

Looks like subway planning is bringing out the best of us now lol.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, JeremiahC99 said:

That sound almost what Vanshnookenragen would've imagined. I am taking you are proposing something like this:

NYC_S4_track.png

I am also proposing something on those lines as well for my own plans. My difference is that I plan to send all 8th Avenue local trains into Brooklyn instead of the stub end WTC station. That platform would be converted into an area for a relocated NY Transit Museum, since my planned Fulton Street local service(s) will use the current location at Court Street, thus forcing a relocation.

Looks like subway planning is bringing out the best of us now lol.

 

Yeah most of the Jamaica el should be torn down, with (E)(B) taking the myrtle line and (K) (D) taking Utica. (T)(J) will be my Second Ave Locals and will run to Fulton while (U) (Y) will take the Manhattan Bridge. North end TBD. The express tracks I propose being next to the local ones in phase 3 of the line, but underneath the (N)(Q) in phase 1 and 2. South of the Manhattan Bridge, there will be 2 tracks as only the (T)(J) run there.

Edited by Harlem Crosstown
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Harlem Crosstown said:

Yeah most of the Jamaica el should be torn down, with (E)(B) taking the myrtle line and (K) (D) taking Utica. (T)(J) will be my Second Ave Locals and will run to Fulton while (U) (Y) will take the Manhattan Bridge. North end TBD. The express tracks I propose being next to the local ones in phase 3 of the line, but underneath the (N)(Q) in phase 1 and 2. South of the Manhattan Bridge, there will be 2 tracks as only the (T)(J) run there.

My south 4th Street plans are a modified version of what Vanshnook proposed. For one, since the el is coming down between Marcy Avenue and Broadway Junction, I am having the planned Utica Avenue corridor be replaced by an extension along Bushwick to Broadway Junction. This ensures that this section of Brooklyn remains served. I have different plans for Utica Avenue.

From there, I may plan to cut the Second Avenue service on the S 4th Street Line to better focus on having the SAS serve Southern Brooklyn. I may plan to have (J) serve the South 4th Street line too, ensuring some access to Lower Manhattan to those who still need it.

At Broadway Junction, I plan to modify service there. I would have S 4th Street service terminate at the current (L) train platforms. Since I plan to have (L) service use the nearby freight tracks instead, the elevated section between south of Broadway Jct to New Lots Avenue would be demolished. The yard leads to East NY Yard would also be rebuilt to remove the clutter of elevated structure that exists.

My only gripe about it is that it would force a a four track line to merge into two, which would not be something I can do. I am exploring other options in the area to remedy this.

Edited by JeremiahC99
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, JeremiahC99 said:

My south 4th Street plans are a modified version of what Vanshnook proposed. For one, since the el is coming down between Marcy Avenue and Broadway Junction, I am having the planned Utica Avenue corridor be replaced by an extension along Bushwick to Broadway Junction. This ensures that this section of Brooklyn remains served. I have different plans for Utica Avenue.

From there, I may plan to cut the Second Avenue service on the S 4th Street Line to better focus on having the SAS serve Southern Brooklyn. I may plan to have (J) serve the South 4th Street line too, ensuring some access to Lower Manhattan to those who still need it.

At Broadway Junction, I plan to modify service there. I would have S 4th Street service terminate at the current (L) train platforms. Since I plan to have (L) service use the nearby freight tracks instead, the elevated section between south of Broadway Jct to New Lots Avenue would be demolished. The yard leads to East NY Yard would also be rebuilt to remove the clutter of elevated structure that exists.

My only gripe about it is that it would force a a four track line to merge into two, which would not be something I can do. I am exploring other options in the area to remedy this.

The terminal problem can be solved by having the (L) run as normal and have the (J) or (K) or (E) (whichever you settle on) run on the freight tracks instead, and then 4 tracking that section of the freight line. Also what do you mean by different plans for Utica Ave? (4) service?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/16/2019 at 3:29 PM, JeremiahC99 said:

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.

Short turn trains do not address the fundamental limitations of an interlined upper SAS, whether you see those as the unreliability caused by the merge at 72, the negative capacity impact on Broadway service, or the fact that lower SAS would never be able to reach its full potential. If I had to give just one suggestion, it would be to rework SAS. I and others have proposed a whole number of schemes to do so. I'd be happy to rehash those if it'd be helpful. 

On 9/16/2019 at 3:29 PM, JeremiahC99 said:

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.

The "structure may not support it" argument feels like quite the deus ex machina in the context of a plan as extensive as this. We can build subways out into Queens, a 4-track SAS and a new East River tunnel, but hell is gonna freeze over if we make some ironwork mods to an elevated structure at one of the widest points in its ROW...? Methinks that this is possible, and indeed advisable. I'm making this up in between research tasks so don't shoot me if there's some super obvious flaw, but it would seem like you could do either of the following: 

C5heXTe.jpg

uIu53Wg.jpg

Is this the best way to do it? Probably not. But I daresay this is a relatively tractable issue. 

Now, to the points about ridership. Co-Op City has high bus ridership in part because it has no subway service. Untold thousands board buses every morning to get to PBP, stops on Dyre, etc. The number of people riding buses in the area would decrease dramatically with the number of subway extensions you're attaching to the area, and given that Co-Op is relatively difficult to access from the surrounding street grid and that areas even just over the highway from Co-Op have good access to the (5), I would not expect it to become a bus transfer hub as is Flushing. This is all to say that running express service all the way up there is a bad idea. You've correctly identified why the <7> works, but the (6) doesn't have those characteristics. Serving some local stops before commencing the express segment is the move here, and will help keep car equipment requirements and operating costs down in the long run. 

On 9/16/2019 at 3:29 PM, JeremiahC99 said:

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: 

You certainly _could_ do this, I just don't know whether the value equation works out. Spending precious dollars on 1:1 replacement of elevated infrastructure is very IND, and is not a luxury we have today. I think you're much better off with the incremental improvements we've discussed--they're unglamorous, but they're also cheap, and crucially do not involve building even more underriver tunnels. 

On 9/16/2019 at 3:29 PM, JeremiahC99 said:

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)

I do want you to do that, and I very much stand by that want. Routing (T)(R) to the local tracks of Fulton will serve to reduce the capacity of their Manhattan trunk segments through reverse branching and will just be an annoying source of delay. You really should reconsider this. Generally speaking, I think we all need to step back and reconsider the ways we're integrating SAS into our subway plans. The best ideas out there IMO are ones which combine segregation on the north end (ie no reverse branch at 72) with proper integration at south (SAS-Nassau, SAS-Manhattan Bridge, etc). I think that's the way to go. 

On 9/16/2019 at 3:29 PM, JeremiahC99 said:

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: 

I detailed the CBTC-merge capacity issue in another thread, which I hope helps you understand why those 40tph capacity numbers are somewhat dependent on their not being too many merges. For these reasons, as well as those of reliability, I think deinterlining QB is the way to go here. (E)(K) local, (E)(K) express/(G) extension, you take your pick. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, RR503 said:
The "structure may not support it" argument feels like quite the deus ex machina in the context of a plan as extensive as this. We can build subways out into Queens, a 4-track SAS and a new East River tunnel, but hell is gonna freeze over if we make some ironwork mods to an elevated structure at one of the widest points in its ROW...? Methinks that this is possible, and indeed advisable. I'm making this up in between research tasks so don't shoot me if there's some super obvious flaw, but it would seem like you could do either of the following: 

C5heXTe.jpg

uIu53Wg.jpg

Is this the best way to do it? Probably not. But I daresay this is a relatively tractable issue. 

I’m a little confused at this part right here. What is this track map supposed to represent and could it work for stations like Rockaway Blvd on the (A)? Heck, could a similar method even be used to fix the design flaw at 72nd Street/2nd Avenue?

 

1 hour ago, RR503 said:
I do want you to do that, and I very much stand by that want. Routing (T)(R) to the local tracks of Fulton will serve to reduce the capacity of their Manhattan trunk segments through reverse branching and will just be an annoying source of delay. You really should reconsider this. Generally speaking, I think we all need to step back and reconsider the ways we're integrating SAS into our subway plans. The best ideas out there IMO are ones which combine segregation on the north end (ie no reverse branch at 72) with proper integration at south (SAS-Nassau, SAS-Manhattan Bridge, etc). I think that's the way to go. 

Speaks of the SAS, I posted something above that relates to the poor Decisions of how Phase 1 was planned and the consequences it has on Phase 3. I also tried to point out all of the options that were discussed to help Phase 3 operate at its full potential. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

I’m a little confused at this part right here. What is this track map supposed to represent and could it work for stations like Rockaway Blvd on the (A)? Heck, could a similar method even be used to fix the design flaw at 72nd Street/2nd Avenue?

See the quoted post -- this is a conceptual phasing to convert Westchester Square (6) to an express stop so that local trains can turn there rather than at Parkchester.

It could work at Rockaway Blvd, though I don't know why you'd want to do that, and it'd be impossible at 72 without *major* spending. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would want to eliminate the reverse branch at 72nd Street, so in order to have express service to the Bronx and Queens, I will 4-track the SAS in the first phase of my plans from now on. This allows:

(N)(Q) and 2 SAS services to the northern end/Bronx/125th.

2 more SAS services with the (G)(L) to Northern Blvd/ Bayside.

SAS routings to the Manhattan Bridge and Williamsburg Bridge, as well as Lower Manhattan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Lawrence St said:

Someone posted a track map of VanShnookRaggens Proposed SAS map but I lost the thread where it was;

What happened to Nassau in this proposal?? Why are all the stations and track connections north of Chambers St abandoned?

I was the one who posted that Vanshnookenraggen map here. This was actually related to the South 4th Street Subway, But a portion of the Second Avenue Subway is included.

It was assumed that the Nassau Street north of Chambers would be abandoned because the South 4th Street Subway and related Worth Street Line was intended for to replace the Jamaica and Myrtle Avenue Elevated. Since that was coming down, it was assumed that the bridge tracks would’ve also been removed and the section north of Chambers Street would’ve been 100% abandoned.

Keep in mind that this was for the Pre-Chrystie Street days, when the BMT was still doing the loop in Lower Manhattan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, RR503 said:

See the quoted post -- this is a conceptual phasing to convert Westchester Square (6) to an express stop so that local trains can turn there rather than at Parkchester.

It could work at Rockaway Blvd, though I don't know why you'd want to do that, and it'd be impossible at 72 without *major* spending. 

Would running the Far Rockaway/B 116 (A) express during AM/PM rush hours and middays between Grant Av and Rockaway Blvd help reduce the (A)'s runtime? 80th St and 88th St would be similar to 75th Av and Van Wyck Blvd where (E) service is only during evenings, late nights, and weekends.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, RR503 said:

See the quoted post -- this is a conceptual phasing to convert Westchester Square (6) to an express stop so that local trains can turn there rather than at Parkchester.

It could work at Rockaway Blvd, though I don't know why you'd want to do that, and it'd be impossible at 72 without *major* spending. 

Could we do this at Woodhaven Blvd on the (J)(Z) though?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Lawrence St said:

Someone posted a track map of VanShnookRaggens Proposed SAS map but I lost the thread where it was;

What happened to Nassau in this proposal?? Why are all the stations and track connections north of Chambers St abandoned?

There's no good reason to abandon Nassau St in any proposal. It can relieve the (4)(5) since it runs straight through the heart of Lower Manhattan and it hasn't been used to its full potential.

If the Jamaica Line is routed onto the 6 Ave express tracks, then Nassau St has to be rerouted to SAS. There's two options to Houston St, via Grand St and the old ROW used by the Nassau St loop, or via Canal St and a new tunnel to Houston St. Bowery is abandoned but honestly Grand St is a reasonable replacement because it goes to uptown, downtown, and Brooklyn.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Around the Horn said:

Could we do this at Woodhaven Blvd on the (J)(Z) though?

Unsure. One of the great advantages of Westchester Sq is that the station isn't abutted by buildings on its north side. Not the case at Woodhaven, though I'm sure there's some way to phase things to swing a conversion. (build out a length of middle track around the station and have local trains bypass in one direction while their side is rebuilt??) 

 

Link to comment
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.