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

33 minutes ago, Around the Horn said:

Ah but they're only running every ten minutes nowadays because they're interlined

There are lots of reasons why one might wait ten minutes during transferring, including unreliability, but another big thing is capacity.

We know there isn't core capacity on the subway. There are plenty of segments of the subway network where during peak hours, there are way too many people for too few trains, so you may get passed up by the first few because they are too full. Asking people to transfer may put them in a situation where previously, they already had their space in the train, but the transfer asks them to abandon it and go to a line where they will get passed up, and suffer additional travel time penalties as a result. Interlining is great for increasing capacity, but it's not going to move the needle on, say, the most congested sections of the IRT, or the QB Express (if you were to send every local to 8th and every express to 6th) to the point where this isn't going to be the case.

Not only that, but deinterlining, particularly in the most deinterlined QBL scenario, will result in unbearable amounts of platform congestion at Roosevelt, which is already extremely overcrowded during the peak as it is. I would be more supportive of the "drastic" scenario if 63rd St linked to QBL before Queens Plaza instead of after it, but them's the breaks. In a similar vein, I would not consider the 51 St platform capable of hosting significantly increased crowds.

It is worth noting that across the pond, the long on-again, off-again propoposal to deinterline the Northern Line is being accompanied with a GBP250M expansion of the Camden Town station so that passenger overcrowding doesn't reach dangerous levels. Quite frankly, in the current subway system we need that kind of investment in several stations, let alone with a deinterlined, transfer-heavy system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, bobtehpanda said:

There are lots of reasons why one might wait ten minutes during transferring, including unreliability, but another big thing is capacity.

We know there isn't core capacity on the subway. There are plenty of segments of the subway network where during peak hours, there are way too many people for too few trains, so you may get passed up by the first few because they are too full. Asking people to transfer may put them in a situation where previously, they already had their space in the train, but the transfer asks them to abandon it and go to a line where they will get passed up, and suffer additional travel time penalties as a result. Interlining is great for increasing capacity, but it's not going to move the needle on, say, the most congested sections of the IRT, or the QB Express (if you were to send every local to 8th and every express to 6th) to the point where this isn't going to be the case.

Not only that, but deinterlining, particularly in the most deinterlined QBL scenario, will result in unbearable amounts of platform congestion at Roosevelt, which is already extremely overcrowded during the peak as it is. I would be more supportive of the "drastic" scenario if 63rd St linked to QBL before Queens Plaza instead of after it, but them's the breaks. In a similar vein, I would not consider the 51 St platform capable of hosting significantly increased crowds.

It is worth noting that across the pond, the long on-again, off-again propoposal to deinterline the Northern Line is being accompanied with a GBP250M expansion of the Camden Town station so that passenger overcrowding doesn't reach dangerous levels. Quite frankly, in the current subway system we need that kind of investment in several stations, let alone with a deinterlined, transfer-heavy system.

There is in fact a _lot_ of excess capacity during peak hours on the subway. We run 373 trains out of 600 possible, assuming 30tph on each core-bound track, and the cordon track with the most peak-hour trains (Lex exp) runs a measly 26tph. And yes, interlining can absolutely move the needle on those corridors. Especially in the PM peak, QB express dies because of that merge at 36 St; remove it, add CBTC (as they're doing) and you have a whole new railroad, one that's likely capable of 34-36tph if you can learn to do better-than-terribly with dwells. Same goes for Lex and IRT 7th with the junctions at Rogers and, to a lesser extent, 149 -- Rogers is second to only Dekalb in its capacity loss, and that's a loss that carries largely up 7th Avenue onto trains that are actually now _more_ crowded than their equivalents on Lex. 

I'm a bit skeptical that deinterlining will screw Roosevelt. The dominant transfer flow there is the wall of people dumping local for express; attaching attractive destinations to the locals will lessen that impact. To be sure, you'll get folks from express stops wanting to transfer to locals, but I'd be somewhat surprised if that ends up eating up the savings. That said, I absolutely agree that deinterlining should be accompanied with investments in station infrastructure if only because there's a lot of relatively cheap rider minutes to be had in things like the addition of stairs/escalators. 

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


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

In a similar vein, I would not consider the 51 St platform capable of hosting significantly increased crowds.

It is worth noting that across the pond, the long on-again, off-again propoposal to deinterline the Northern Line is being accompanied with a GBP250M expansion of the Camden Town station so that passenger overcrowding doesn't reach dangerous levels. Quite frankly, in the current subway system we need that kind of investment in several stations, let alone with a deinterlined, transfer-heavy system.

I wouldn’t consider the 51 Street platform capable of being expanded either looking at what’s above ground. The infrastructure design keeps a lot of options off the tables for improvement. The better option might be just to divert people away from that station after all. The MTA really needs to make 63 Street–Lexington Avenue good for something other than a transfer between 2 Avenue, Broadway, 6 Avenue, and Queens Boulevard. That out-of-system transfer between it and the Lexington Avenue Line is inconvenient.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, CenSin said:

I wouldn’t consider the 51 Street platform capable of being expanded either looking at what’s above ground. The infrastructure design keeps a lot of options off the tables for improvement. The better option might be just to divert people away from that station after all. The MTA really needs to make 63 Street–Lexington Avenue good for something other than a transfer between 2 Avenue, Broadway, 6 Avenue, and Queens Boulevard. That out-of-system transfer between it and the Lexington Avenue Line is inconvenient.

I think another solution could be to convert the 51st Street to an express station with new platforms below the local platforms, just like 59th Street. This should mitigate some impacts. In the long term, they should ideally expand the Second Avenue to 4 tracks below 63rd Street and add additional Queens connections than just the 63rd Street Tunnel. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There’s a good bit of room to up (6) service levels to handle more folks at 51. The question is much more whether or not the IND platform can handle the additional volume.

Share this post


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

I'm a bit skeptical that deinterlining will screw Roosevelt. The dominant transfer flow there is the wall of people dumping local for express; attaching attractive destinations to the locals will lessen that impact. To be sure, you'll get folks from express stops wanting to transfer to locals, but I'd be somewhat surprised if that ends up eating up the savings. That said, I absolutely agree that deinterlining should be accompanied with investments in station infrastructure if only because there's a lot of relatively cheap rider minutes to be had in things like the addition of stairs/escalators. 

From anecdotal experience riding it years ago, you're forgetting the existence of the (7) . There is very heavy transfer volume to and from the (7) at Jackson Heights.

Quite frankly, Woodhaven needs to be converted to an express stop, because as it is Roosevelt has too many demands placed on it (first express stop west of Forest Hills, (7) connection). Complete deinterlining would only magnify the problem by making it the only transfer between 53rd and 63rd St services west of Forest Hills.

5 hours ago, CenSin said:

I wouldn’t consider the 51 Street platform capable of being expanded either looking at what’s above ground. The infrastructure design keeps a lot of options off the tables for improvement. The better option might be just to divert people away from that station after all. The MTA really needs to make 63 Street–Lexington Avenue good for something other than a transfer between 2 Avenue, Broadway, 6 Avenue, and Queens Boulevard. That out-of-system transfer between it and the Lexington Avenue Line is inconvenient.

The MTA will "solve" this by building SAS Phase III, which will provide alternate north-south routing for QBL passengers at the currently uncongested eastern end of the platforms.

Share this post


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

The MTA will "solve" this by building SAS Phase III, which will provide alternate north-south routing for QBL passengers at the currently uncongested eastern end of the platforms.

Why not convert the 51st Street stop into an express station, providing additional transfers?

Share this post


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

From anecdotal experience riding it years ago, you're forgetting the existence of the (7) . There is very heavy transfer volume to and from the (7) at Jackson Heights.

Quite frankly, Woodhaven needs to be converted to an express stop, because as it is Roosevelt has too many demands placed on it (first express stop west of Forest Hills, (7) connection). Complete deinterlining would only magnify the problem by making it the only transfer between 53rd and 63rd St services west of Forest Hills.

I left out the (7) because its volumes will exist independent of any deinterlining plan -- if anything, deinterlining will route more (7) pax via local. 

Agree re: Woodhaven. Having 36 as either an express or as a Dekalb-style station with the (G) on the outside ( (G) would then relay to some tail tracks built beyond) would be nice, too, as it saves you a less-than-optimal diverging move at Queens Plaza and, if you go with the (G) option, sets up a Northern Blvd subway. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JeremiahC99 said:

Why not convert the 51st Street stop into an express station, providing additional transfers?

1. It's too much work. The conversion of 59th St alone was difficult. And I'm not too sure if the track at 51 St is level.

2. It would actually probably lead to too much overcrowding on the 53rd St platforms. Congestion on the western end of the platforms is already a major issue.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


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

1. It's too much work. The conversion of 59th St alone was difficult. And I'm not too sure if the track at 51 St is level.

2. It would actually probably lead to too much overcrowding on the 53rd St platforms. Congestion on the western end of the platforms is already a major issue.

This was actually discussed before. I was the one who proposed it.

I’m not sure where to find a profile view of the tunnels, but the incline is pretty steep for the express tracks. There is a very low possibility that it could be leveled and converted to an express station. 59 Street, on the other hand, was purposely built with the intention of later conversion to an express station since the IRT knew the BMT would be building a subway across 59 Street. The IND came much later and so there were no provisions for it. Heck, it’s the same reason why Canal Street and Broadway–Lafayette Street are local stations served only by the (6). Nobody planned for busy transfer stations at those points.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking of Queens Blvd. I looked at a proposal that the Regional Plan Association made back in 2018 and made a map of their plan to get a better understanding of it. However, it had many ideas that I (and many others on here disagree with), thus I decided to change up a couple of elements in their proposal without doing too much. (and even then, there's still things on the map that I disagree with). I omitted the following from their plan because they're bad proposals, and I replaced each of them with better alternatives. 

(N) (R) Extension away from LGA --> (N)(R) Extension TO LGA, Yard proposal stays

Canal Flip --> 57th Street Interlocking Improvements 

SAS-Grand Concourse Connection  --> Extension to 3rd Avenue - 138th Street; Provision for a 3rd Avenue Subway

63rd-Northern Blvd Connection --> Northern Blvd Connection to QB Local with "DeKalbilized" 36th Street

Brooklyn only (C) -->  Concourse and CPW Express. 

With this aside, I also altered RPA's proposed The Following Service Patterns without Changing too much, I still haven't calculated what the proposed service levels are going to be for each line as of yet: 

(2) - 241st Street - Extended down Nostrand Avenue to Avenue Y (Rogers Deinterlined)

(3) - Harlem-148th - Extended down Nostrand to Avenue Y (Rogers Deinterlined) 

(4) - Woodlawn - Extended down Utica to Kings Plaza (Rogers Deinterlined) 

(5) - Dyre Avenue - New Lots (Rogers Deinterlined) 

(6) - Pelham Bay Park - Brooklyn Bridge; Unaltered but will recieve increased service and better management at Westchester Yard, in addition to having a new fleet of train cars (most likely the R262)

(7) - Flushing (gains terminal improvements) - Extended down 14th Street. 

(A) - Route Remains Unaltered, but the with the merge with the (C) pushed up north at 145th and with interlocking improvements at Hoyt-Schemerhorn, service should increase to 15-18 TPH

(B)(W) - Eliminated (I didn't change this part from RPA's plan) mainly because RPA's plan minimized the severity of DeKalb and Whitehall being bottlenecks.  

(C) - Norwood-205th - Euclid Avenue via CPW/8th Avenue Express. Trains are extended to 600' in length and run to Lefferts Blvd during off peak hours. Given that interlocking Improvements at Hoyt-Schemerhorn take place and 59th no longer being a bottleneck, (C) Trains should run at about 15-16 TPH. The (C) will also take over Concourse Yard. 

(D) - 168th Street - Coney Island. About 20-25 TPH will run along the (D) Line. During Rush Hours, about 6-8 (D) Trains during the peak hours will be sent to Bedford Park Blvd. (Which would also gain Terminal Improvements) DeKalb will be re-signaled so that trains can pass the Junction at a Quicker Rate. With signal re-calibrations and CBTC, the bottlenecks it faces with the (N) at DeKalb and 36th should be mitigated. 

(E) - Springfield Blvd - WTC. The (E) will continue to run 15 Trains Per Hour (if not more since it'll only merge with the (K) in addition to CBTC), but no trains will be rerouted to 179th. The (E) Line will take over the Eastern Portion of the LIRR Atlantic Branch (Since the Atlantic Avenue Portion of it will become a shuttle). It'll have new Stops at South Jamaica, Linden/Guy R. Brewer Blvd's, Baisely Blvd, Locust Manor (Re purposed for NYCT), and Springfield Blvd. The Current Laurelton Station will be re-purposed as an employee facility where trains will be inspected during relay. Lastly, the (E) will have a new rail yard located at the current Railroad Park Site. 

(F) - Oakland Gardens-Bell Blvd - Coney Island. Since the RPA Proposed a Local (F) and a Jewel Avenue Subway, I decided to combine them both, since that initally made sense to me in their proposal. What's different is that this (F) will merge with only one Line, that being an SAS (H), thus limiting its capacity to about 18-22 TPH. In addition,  Bergen Street Station LL will be rebuilt with some sort of under pass so that ALL (F) Trains can run express along Culver. 

(G) - Church Avenue - Extension to 26th Street-Linden Hill via Northern Blvd. I personally think that an SAS Train coming from 63rd togo up Northern Blvd is not a good idea, so its easier to extend the (G) instead since its underutilized. Trains extended to 8 cars (480') while Northern Blvd Platforms will be 600' long. Service will be increased up to 26 TPH since it'll no longer merge with the (F) under this proposal. Allowing for new developments to happen in Brooklyn and Queens. I added an infill stop at 62nd Street so that it could potentially connect with the Triboro RX (Another idea I don't necessarily agree with)

(H) - Forest Hills-71st Ave - Hanover Square - Since this service has to deal with the (F) and (T), it'll be best to run it about 8-12 TPH depending on how balanced scheduling can be. This route is meant to serve as a QBL Supplement and to serve as an alternative to (R) riders who currently transfer at 59th for the (4)(5)(6). This'll be the first time in a long time that all trains on QBL are 600' in length. 

(J) - Jamaica Center - Broad Street. The route remains unaltered, but the 3rd Track gets extended via the current EL, which will have its foundations rebuilt so that it can support a 3rd Track Structure. Crescent Street will be expanded with a new upper level and trains will run peak express up until Cypress Hills (Phase 1) and Sutphin Blvd (Phase 2). Woodhaven will be rebuilt as an express Station under Phase 2. (I will give the (J) Line a Separate Plan In of itself) The (Z) designation will discontinue and the service will fold into a (J) express. 

(L) - 8th Avenue - Canarsie; Overall route remains unaffected, but the electricity and CBTC power supplies along the line will be upgraded so that it can handle 26 TPH. If relay tracks are added West of 8th Avenue, then there's a chance that capacity would be increased by an additional 4 TPH.

(brownM) - Metropolitan Avenue - Broad Street. While this idea is unpopular in of itself, the (brownM) will receive a few upgrades along its line so that it can once again be effective on Nassau. Essex Street will be expanded (with a new track and wider platform added)  and Bowery will be rebuilt to allow for a New Transfer at Grand Street, which would now be served by the (D), (H) and (T). This service would likely run at 10-14 TPH given that Signals along the Williamsburg Bridge are upgraded and re-calibrated and that Myrtle Avenue Junction is rebuilt with a new Upper Level Platform for Queens Bound (brownM) trains to avoid cutting in front of (J) Trains. 

(N) - LaGuardia Airport Extension from Ditmars - Coney Island. Merges will take place at 57th, Dekalb and 36th. Unfortanately, this still leaves a bottleneck along Broadway (only solved by making the (N) a complete local which is a non-starter) Unless a new Lower Level at 72nd were built or if new tunnels were built to allow SAS services to go into the Bronx, this is what the (N) is stuck with. On the Bright side, it gives Airport riders a direct Express. 

(Q) - 3rd Avenue/149th Street - Coney Island. 18-25 TPH since it'll have to merge with the (N). <Q> Service will be revived along Brighton due to the elimination of the (B) and Might likely serve as a Peak Direction service since Brighton Riders generally prefer to go to the Broadway Line. On it's north terminal, there will be provisions to extend service along 3rd Avenue. 

(R) LaGuardia Airport - Bay Ridge-95th. Trains will run at 16-18 TPH since (W) service would be eliminated. A Few elements of RPA's Canal Flip will remain. Those being a re-utilization of City Hall's lower Level, rebuilding the tunnels so that City Hall LL can connect with the current Cortlandt Station and the widening of Canal Streets Platforms on the Tunnel Level. City Hall's upper level will be rebuilt as a mezzanine with the two existing tracks acting as layup tracks (with a new interlocking north of the station). About 2-3 Trains Per Hour will Short Turn at Whitehall Street due to the limitations of Bay Ridge Terminal (which can be improved).  
 

(T) - Broadway-125th - Hanover Square. North of 63rd, only 12 (T) Trains per hour will run. From 55th Station and Below, the (T) will run 16 TPH.

Station Improvements: 

A 59th-63rd Transfer under Lexington. 

Woodhaven Blvd Local-Express Conversion (QBL) 

Canal Street Expansion

36th Street (QNS) Expansion

Myrtle-Broadway Rebuild

Essex Street Expansion

Bowery-Grand Street Transfer

Livonia-Junius Transfer. 

Feedback would be appreciated. 

Map: https://drive.google.com/open?id=1rYK0L-yr-6PcLctMaL009mB1Z7V9tVnA&usp=sharing

 

Edited by LaGuardia Link N Tra

Share this post


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

From anecdotal experience riding it years ago, you're forgetting the existence of the (7) . There is very heavy transfer volume to and from the (7) at Jackson Heights.

Quite frankly, Woodhaven needs to be converted to an express stop, because as it is Roosevelt has too many demands placed on it (first express stop west of Forest Hills, (7) connection). Complete deinterlining would only magnify the problem by making it the only transfer between 53rd and 63rd St services west of Forest Hills.

The MTA will "solve" this by building SAS Phase III, which will provide alternate north-south routing for QBL passengers at the currently uncongested eastern end of the platforms.

Not if SAS Phase 3 runs at only half capacity. Unless there is a second SAS service below 63rd, I don’t foresee a lot of QBL or (7) riders switching from the Lex to the SAS.

Though I am in full agreement with making Woodhaven Blvd an express QBL stop, as it would relive Roosevelt and cut out one transfer for the many bus riders who connect to the subway at Woodhaven.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

Not if SAS Phase 3 runs at only half capacity. Unless there is a second SAS service below 63rd, I don’t foresee a lot of QBL or (7) riders switching from the Lex to the SAS.

This is why I propose expanding the SAS-Queens connections beyond the planned connection to the 63rd Street Tunnel. With an additional connection to the 60th Street Tunnel and possibly to the 53rd Street Tunnel, riders on the Queens Blvd Line and Astoria Line can avoid transferring at 59th Street and 51st Street entirely and ride directly between work on the east side (or whatever they do there) and home in Queens. So for example, if such a rider lives in Astoria near the Queens Blvd Line (I’m going to use Steinway Street for this example) and goes to college at Hunter Colleges Bellevue Nursing School, rather than take the QBL Local train to 53rd and Lex (under current service patterns), then transfer to the (6) to get to 23rd Street, then walk a half mile to the Bellevue Campus, that same person can now take the SAS local train straight from Steinway to 23rd Street-2nd Avenue via the 63rd Street Tunnel, then walk only one block to reach the campus. The same would happen in reverse for the commute home after class. No interaction with Lexington Avenue required.

The 60th Street connection time the SAS would also provide redundancy as well. So if the same student sees the Queens Blvd Line knocked out due to an incident, they can then walk over to Broadway on the Astoria Line, take the Astoria-SAS train to 42nd Street, then transfer to the local SAS train to 23rd Street and vice versa in the evening, also avoiding Lexington Avenue.

Edited by JeremiahC99

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JeremiahC99 said:

This is why I propose expanding the SAS-Queens connections beyond the planned connection to the 63rd Street Tunnel. With an additional connection to the 60th Street Tunnel and possibly to the 53rd Street Tunnel, riders on the Queens Blvd Line and Astoria Line can avoid transferring at 59th Street and 51st Street entirely and ride directly between work on the east side (or whatever they do there) and home in Queens. So for example, if such a rider lives in Astoria near the Queens Blvd Line (I’m going to use Steinway Street for this example) and goes to college at Hunter Colleges Bellevue Nursing School, rather than take the QBL Local train to 53rd and Lex (under current service patterns), then transfer to the (6) to get to 23rd Street, then walk a half mile to the Bellevue Campus, that same person can now take the SAS local train straight from Steinway to 23rd Street-2nd Avenue via the 63rd Street Tunnel, then walk only one block to reach the campus. The same would happen in reverse for the commute home after class. No interaction with Lexington Avenue required.

The 60th Street connection time the SAS would also provide redundancy as well. So if the same student sees the Queens Blvd Line knocked out due to an incident, they can then walk over to Broadway on the Astoria Line, take the Astoria-SAS train to 42nd Street, then transfer to the local SAS train to 23rd Street and vice versa in the evening, also avoiding Lexington Avenue.

This is a pretty terrible idea. Let me say it again: a properly designed network with current infrastructure would fill _all_ capacity in existing Queens tunnels. The SAS/63 interlining is bad enough from an ops/capacity perspective. Adding more jury rigged connections into the rest of the tunnel system? Please, dear god, no.

Queens needs more cross-river capacity. SAS 3 needs an outlet that doesn’t involve destructive interlining at its northern end. It’s a match made in heaven.

(And this is, of course, before we consider the complete impracticality of meshing some sort of connection into tunnel infrastructure.)

Edited by RR503

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is not a proposal per say, but how possible would it be to build an additional side platform for either the uptown or downtown (N)(R)(W) at Lexington/59th a la Bowling Green or Union station in Toronto? The current island platform is very crowded during rush hour... 

Share this post


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

This is not a proposal per say, but how possible would it be to build an additional side platform for either the uptown or downtown (N)(R)(W) at Lexington/59th a la Bowling Green or Union station in Toronto? The current island platform is very crowded during rush hour... 

Isn’t 60th Street far too narrow to be a four-track subway though? The least they can do is put in platform controllers like they already do at some stations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Jemorie said:

Isn’t 60th Street far too narrow to be a four-track subway though? The least they can do is put in platform controllers like they already do at some stations.

Lexington 59th already has Paltform Contorllers.

 

2 hours ago, Around the Horn said:

This is not a proposal per say, but how possible would it be to build an additional side platform for either the uptown or downtown (N)(R)(W) at Lexington/59th a la Bowling Green or Union station in Toronto? The current island platform is very crowded during rush hour... 

To add a new side platform at Lexington 59th, the (MTA) would need to buy some of the property surrounding that station so that they can dig in a new platform. That’s my guess at least. 

Share this post


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

To add a new side platform at Lexington 59th, the (MTA) would need to buy some of the property surrounding that station so that they can dig in a new platform. That’s my guess at least. 

You realize they have to do the same exact thing with the entire 60th Street corridor of the Broadway Line. The (R) would have to use the outermost tracks and the (N)(W) the innermost tracks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, KK 6 Ave Local said:

@LaGuardia Link N Tra You should extend the H to the RBB, although the RBB isn't the most feasible place to build a subway line. 

I could, but I made that map with the idea that LIRR would’ve bought the RBB and extended a rail service to Howard Beach.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

This is not a proposal per say, but how possible would it be to build an additional side platform for either the uptown or downtown (N)(R)(W) at Lexington/59th a la Bowling Green or Union station in Toronto? The current island platform is very crowded during rush hour... 

There is a provision under 59th Street for a second island platform. 

Share this post


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

Isn’t 60th Street far too narrow to be a four-track subway though? The least they can do is put in platform controllers like they already do at some stations.

 

2 hours ago, Jemorie said:

You realize they have to do the same exact thing with the entire 60th Street corridor of the Broadway Line. The (R) would have to use the outermost tracks and the (N)(W) the innermost tracks.

I never said a four track subway... Just a second platform on the side of the existing track (either uptown or downtown, whichever is more feasible) to separate the crowds on the (N)(R)(W) platform and spread them out. I'm thinking something like Bowling Green on the (4) and (5).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Around the Horn said:

 

I never said a four track subway... Just a second platform on the side of the existing track (either uptown or downtown, whichever is more feasible) to separate the crowds on the (N)(R)(W) platform and spread them out. I'm thinking something like Bowling Green on the (4) and (5).

There was a study of this sort done for Lex-53 in the ‘80s. I believe @Union Tpke has a copy. This is definitely something that should be looked into as Midtown East gets even bigger, as well as the 59-63 link because that’s two free platforms right there. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Around the Horn said:

I never said a four track subway... Just a second platform on the side of the existing track (either uptown or downtown, whichever is more feasible) to separate the crowds on the (N)(R)(W) platform and spread them out. I'm thinking something like Bowling Green on the (4) and (5).

Whatever. But they would have to tear down the wall on either the westbound or eastbound side for that purpose. It would likely require a full closure on one side of the 60th Street Tube at the same time, too. I can say the same for @RR503 below here:

21 minutes ago, RR503 said:

There was a study of this sort done for Lex-53 in the ‘80s. I believe @Union Tpke has a copy. This is definitely something that should be looked into as Midtown East gets even bigger, as well as the 59-63 link because that’s two free platforms right there. 

The study probably failed because the line was already built (as two tracks, including the whole 53rd St corridor in general) at the time. Did they not subtly foreseen that Lex-53 could have been designed like Bowling Green on the Lexington line prior to the building of the 53rd St corridor?

Edited by Jemorie

Share this post


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

The study probably failed because the line was already built (as two tracks, including the whole 53rd St corridor in general) at the time. Did they not subtly foreseen that Lex-53 could have been designed like Bowling Green on the Lexington line prior to the building of the 53rd St corridor?

Bowling Green wasn't designed for a side platform or that mezzanine below the tracks either...

Edited by Around the Horn

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.