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

47 minutes ago, Around the Horn said:

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

Originally until the Lex was extended to Brooklyn following the opening of Joralemon St Tube. Not that I’m against your scenario for the (N)(R)(W) at Lex-59 or anything, I was just pointing out it would require one track to be closed either part-time or full-time to allow the wall to be torn down for the building of a side platform.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour 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. 

I don't have a copy of it, but I am really good at gaming Google Books using this website.

Quote

A new 16-foot wide platform, cut from the rock on the south side of the existing tube, has been proposed. The platform there now would serve Manhattan-bound passengers only; the new one would serve passengers going to Queens. A new escalator/stairway on the south side of 53rd Street between Lexington and Third avenues would be needed to provide access to the new platform.

 

Edited by Union Tpke
I got a few more words.
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours 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. 

Could crowds potentially decrease at least a little by rerouting the (N) up SAS (the thought process for this being that an increase in SAS frequencies could entice some Brooklyn bound (4)(5) riders to switch over). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, R68OnBroadway said:

Could crowds potentially decrease at least a little by rerouting the (N) up SAS (the thought process for this being that an increase in SAS frequencies could entice some Brooklyn bound (4)(5) riders to switch over). 

Honestly, how would that entice some Brooklyn bound (4)(5) riders to switch over? Do you even know where are those Brooklyn bound customers are really going?

Share this post


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

Originally until the Lex was extended to Brooklyn following the opening of Joralemon St Tube. Not that I’m against your scenario for the (N)(R)(W) at Lex-59 or anything, I was just pointing out it would require one track to be closed either part-time or full-time to allow the wall to be torn down for the building of a side platform.

They did just that at BG. Unsure as to exactly how the GOs panned out, but it's doable.

24 minutes ago, R68OnBroadway said:

Could crowds potentially decrease at least a little by rerouting the (N) up SAS (the thought process for this being that an increase in SAS frequencies could entice some Brooklyn bound (4)(5) riders to switch over). 

Absolutely. There's a good number of folks who do (4)(5) to [some other Brooklyn line]; if you can combine better SAS frequencies with deinterlining at 34 and, potentially, Dekalb and the inherently more efficient Manhattan Bridge route, you'd be able to make an impact. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/9/2019 at 8:07 PM, 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.

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.

"Half capacity" is still trains roughly every 4 or 5 minutes. It's not nothing.

Share this post


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

"Half capacity" is still trains roughly every 4 or 5 minutes. It's not nothing.

If we spend 10 billion (or whatever that'll cost) building a subway line, we should be making damn sure we get as much bang for our buck as is possible. SAS 3 adds *zero* new capacity to the system; it needs to be redesigned to make sense. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Happened to converse with some friends,  old neighbors and fellow retirees, and I brought up the subject of bottlenecks that was a busy thread for a while on the forum.  We're all Brooklynites who resided in what's known as Prospect-Lefferts Garden these days from 1961-up to 2019 for some of us. The comments about Nostrand Junction and DeKalb affected all of us at one time or another as students,  commuters,  and or employees so our experiences and those of our parents are not the same as many posters of today.  Most of us are retired so it's the children and grandchildren who use the Brighton or Nostrand Avenue/Eastern Parkway lines today. For instance I commuted on the Brighton to my afterschool job at Alexander's at 58th and Lexington daily and on Saturdays. (Q) from Church Avenue or Prospect Park to 57-7 and local to Lexington. Non rush hour commute.  Only incident that I remember was 11/9/65. Blackout #1. The owner of Alexander's made sure to put me on a s/b bus to Brooklyn Bridge,  I walked over the bridge,  caught the B41 bus and went home. No big deal. The next big thing was the Chrystie St opening which was considered a failure by almost all of the adults in my neighborhood and others along the Brighton line. As a few of us noticed in the responses in the thread some people are trotting out the same gibberish the TA put out back then.  The Broadway Brighton service was eliminated and the (QJ) was introduced instead.  More service,  the 6th Avenue (D) stopped nearby,  and you could transfer at DeKalb if necessary. Back then the ridership called BS on the whole thing and some rush hour Broadway service was brought back to Brighton. Imagine the TA telling ridership that the (NX) was a viable alternative for a commuter. I personally liked it. The commuters told the TA where to stick it. Didn't help anyone north of Brighton Beach at all. Meanwhile you had an elongated route from Coney Island to 168th Street which outside of the Nassau Street rush hours carried air on both outlying ends. Excess mileage,  older equipment,  well thought out. But you could always transfer,  right?  More trains doesn't always equal better service. My Eastern Parkway/Nostrand folks,  especially the old ones,  aren't overjoyed about service on the line either but many of us remember that there was no Express service between Utica and Atlantic during the weekday non rush. The main complaint over the years was that the Nostrand line should have been extended and what happened to the Utica line?  Simple answer was money and politics.  The Nostrand line as constructed couldn't be a good moneymaker. Where was the generator ? South of President there was a penitentiary on the west side,  the BMT had Ebbetts Field at the Botanic Gardens  and Prospect Park. One family homes on both sides of the street down to Robinson Street ( Winthrop street station at the entrance now called Parkside) with a movie house. The east side below  Sterling had the St. Francis of Assisi church and complex and the King's County hospital a block to the east.  Church Avenue had a commercial district and a movie house,  Beverly was one family homes for the most part and Newkirk had the Vanderveer water works and not much else. The remnants of the water works  caused as much damage to the line as those up on Lenox Avenue in Harlem. Finally Flatbush Avenue was a busy commercial district. Brooklyn College hadn't been constructed back then.  Utica Avenue was even less built up back then.  The IRT went for the money and that was the Livonia line because of the population density. Remember that the city wouldn't allow the BMT or IRT to raise the fare so that's why the IRT was constructed that way.  BTW if you're into hustling your buddies and coworkers for whatever reason here are two facts. The Eastern Parkway line was built on the south side of the street because the rich monied folks lived on the north side of the Parkway. Go to school in Rugby or Flatbush  back in the day and the terminal moraine  was part of Earth Science and Brooklyn history. It's also the second rapid transit line construction in Crown Heights.  Anyone want to take a stab at the first?  It's not the Fulton Street el.  That's in Bedford-Stuyvesant.  

 

 

The  LIRR is the first. Crown Heights begins on the south side of Atlantic Avenue .  The IRT runs across the middle of Crown  Heights. Brower Park and the Children's museum are located in Crown Heights.  Take a look at some old LIRR maps and they show stops on most of the same cross streets as the Fulton Street el. 

School's out.  Carry on.

Edited by Trainmaster5
Spelling
  • Upvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/10/2019 at 11:25 AM, RR503 said:

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.)

When I thought of this plan, I wanted to ensure that this plan would help get riders off the Lexington Avenue Line by making a service that travels directly between the East Side and Queens, drawing crowds away from 59th Street and 51st Street. I was also under the impression that with CBTC, the maximum track capacity tops out to 36 trains per hour. With 2 services in each of the Queens tunnels both at 12 trains per hour, there would be 24 trains per hour in each tunnel, and thats before the SAS plans. With SAS-Queens services, plus the deinterlining of Queens Blvd's 36th Street interlocking, and 4-tracking the lower SAS, another 12 trains per hour would be added, giving 36 trains on the crossings.  However, this would not be done without additional projects to expand service and increase capacity in Queens itself.

The 63rd Street-SAS plan is slightly close to what Vanshnookenraggen proposed in his future of the SAS post, with a SAS-Queens connection via 63rd Street going out via Queens Blvd.

Maybe I'm not coming up with the best plans after all.

Edited by JeremiahC99

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I made a new proposal, though I copied the map from the previous one that I made, I tried to eliminate and relieve as many bottlenecks as Possible. Some Bottlenecks that I've eliminated are the following: 

Rogers Junction - With a bit of reconstruction. (2)(3) Service gets sent down Nostrand, (4) Service remians to Utica and (5) To New Lots. 

34th/Broadway - (N)(Q) To 96th/125th and the (R) to Astoria. 

145th/CPW - (A)(C) Express, (D) and a rerouted (M) via CPW Local. (I'll get to this later) 

36th Street(Queens) - (F) (6th Avenue (H)) run via QB Local/63rd, (E)(K) QB Express via 53rd. (G) Extension up Northern Blvd which will be used to enforce Deinterlining 36th. 

Canal Street - Solved with (A)(C) Express and a (E)(K) Local arrangement along 8th Avenue. 

Without a Further a do, on with the actual Proposal:

(1)(6)(A) (for the most part) and the 42nd Street (S)huttle are unaffected.

(2) and (3) Service gets extended down Nostrand with stops at Avenue K, Kings Highway, Avenue U and Avenue Y.

(4) and (5) Service are sent along Eastern Parkway. The (5) will continue on to New Lots Avenue. The (4) on the other hand will drop down Utica Avenue and will make Stops at Winthrop St, Church Avenue, Clarendon Road, Glenwood/Kings Highway, Flatlands, Avenue N and finally terminating at Avenue U-Kings Plaza.

(7) Service gets a 2 Stop Extension to 9th Avenue-14th Street, connecting with the (A)(C)(E)(K)(L) and M14A/D+ at 8th Avenue. 

The Chrystie Street connection is partially rebuilt to allow for the following service changes: 

(T) Service (Running between 55th Street and Coney Island Under this proposal) runs at about 20 TPH, effectively replacing (D) Service on the Manhattan Bridge. The reason for ending the (T) at 55th and not 72nd or running it into Queens is because of the following:

  1. While I'm fond of the Queens Bypass, I don't see any space suitable for (T) service to run express. However, Track connections to 72nd and 63rd Street will remain present. 
  2. I still question the feasibility of a 72nd Street Lower Level. While I could reroute the (T) to 3rd Avenue between Grand Central and 53rd Street, I'm not too sure where it'd go afterward.

(D) service is rerouted via the Jamaica Line, and runs a Joint Service with the (J) (similar to how the (B) and (D) Run along Concourse) from an Expanded Essex Street (capable of terminating trains more effectively) to Jamaica Center. (D) Service will run via CPW Local up to 145th Street. (Bedford Park during the Rush Hour). 

(M) Service replaces the (B) train and is routed up to 168th Street via CPW Local. (C) Service will take over the CPW Express and run to Norwood-205th. As a bonus, Myrtle Junction gets rebuilt with a new upper level above the Northbound Platform. 

As for the (J), its service is reduced to a shuttle when not running to Jamaica. 

Other Proposals: 

(Q) Extension to 3rd Avenue-149th Street. Considering the fact that there's space along Amtrak's NEC Right of Way, I could route the (Q) Along there like originally proposed in 1968. However, this would mean that more tunnel construction would be required in order to connect it to the Dyre Avenue Line. Thus, I decided to keep it on 3rd Avenue. 

(F) Jewel Avenue Extension. (Pulled straight out of RPA) I left it as is with stops at Main Street, 164th Street, 188th Street, and Bell Blvd. 

(S) Franklin Avenue-Crosstown Connection. The burial of the Franklin Shuttle (with Platform extensions at Botanic Garden, Park Place, and Franklin Avenue of up to 600') This would require the construction of a new Junction at Bedford-Nostrand on the (G). As I have it on my map, I have the (S) also taking the role of Brighton Local. 

(E) Extension to Laurelton. I explained this one in previous proposals of mine, thus I won't do into detail about it here. 

LaGuardia Link (R) Train. Also, self-explanatory. 

A few Station Related Proposals: 

Station Expansion at 149th Street-Grand Concourse. - This would likely consist of a mezzanine expansion of 149th Street in order to improve circulation for passengers transferring between the (2)(5) and the (4). A station expansion could also likely support an increased passenger flow if the 142th-149th Street Junctions were ever deinterlined. 

Franklin Avenue Station Expansion - With the burial of the Franklin Avenue Shuttle, the Fulton Street Line would need to be underpinned to allow a new Lower Level mezzanine with 2 tracks and side platforms. (Or an Island Platform). Nostrand Avenue on the (A) and (C) could have its entrances re-opened at Bedford Avenue if Franklin Avenue had to be closed for construction. 

Hewes/Loimer Street Station Combo - Eliminating these 2 Stations to create a new Station at Union Avenue (600') Long and an in-system transfer with the (G)

Woodhaven Blvd (QBL) Express Conversion

Bergen Street lower Level Re-Opening

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1zL6qkQrmu8Nd__4wGQtdwaNxP6QAuZfO&usp=sharing

As you can see, this proposal tries to make the best out of existing resources while adding new things to it. Any feedback?

Edited by LaGuardia Link N Tra

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, JeremiahC99 said:

When I thought of this plan, I wanted to ensure that this plan would help get riders off the Lexington Avenue Line by making a service that travels directly between the East Side and Queens, drawing crowds away from 59th Street and 51st Street. I was also under the impression that with CBTC, the maximum track capacity tops out to 36 trains per hour. With 2 services in each of the Queens tunnels both at 12 trains per hour, there would be 24 trains per hour in each tunnel, and thats before the SAS plans. With SAS-Queens services, plus the deinterlining of Queens Blvd's 36th Street interlocking, and 4-tracking the lower SAS, another 12 trains per hour would be added, giving 36 trains on the crossings.  However, this would not be done without additional projects to expand service and increase capacity in Queens itself.

The 63rd Street-SAS plan is slightly close to what Vanshnookenraggen proposed in his future of the SAS post, with a SAS-Queens connection via 63rd Street going out via Queens Blvd.

Maybe I'm not coming up with the best plans after all.

Your plans are good, I just wanted to push back here. My apologies for being harsh. 

The issue with your logic is twofold. Firstly, 36tph is a high throughput, one that is _definitely_ impossible without deinterlining, which is to say your interlining will destroy its enabling condition however limited it may be. Secondly, the existence of more tube capacity doesn't change the basic fact that you're just redistributing throughput inefficiently. As I feel I'm always saying, there are ways to fully utilize Queens crossings with current infrastructure -- appending more infrastructure throws off that balance, and reduces the efficiency of the system as a whole. We should be aiming to maximize that efficiency. If we can have a 4 track SAS, we sure as hell can have a new 2 track tunnel to Queens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@LaGuardia Link N Tra Your plan is nice, but I would recommend extending the (T) to a 72nd Street LL even though you said you weren't too keen on it. Because there is no connection the Broadway Line at the north end of the (T) an extension would make all the difference. You could also 4-track Northern and run the (T) there from 72/79th Street. Also you should keep the (B) designation. The (M) basically has no elements of it present here, and the "(M) is older"  argument doesn't work as well as it did with the (V).

Additionally, the (R) could use some intermediate stations between Astoria and LaGuardia. 

Edited by KK 6 Ave Local
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/10/2019 at 7:37 PM, Jemorie said:

Honestly, how would that entice some Brooklyn bound (4)(5) riders to switch over? Do you even know where are those Brooklyn bound customers are really going?

The (N) would provide many more trains per hour to 2nd Ave. That would entice Brooklyn bound riders to switch, especially those headed to somewhere in South Brooklyn. And the express run in Manhattan would be faster too, because there would no longer be any merging of express and local trains at 34th.

20 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

"Half capacity" is still trains roughly every 4 or 5 minutes. It's not nothing.

But it will still be less frequent than the (6) and it will likely be a lengthy transfer from the (E)(M) to the (T). That’s just one flaw in the (MTA)‘s post-Phase 2 plans for SAS.

Share this post


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

The (N) would provide many more trains per hour to 2nd Ave. That would entice Brooklyn bound riders to switch, especially those headed to somewhere in South Brooklyn. And the express run in Manhattan would be faster too, because there would no longer be any merging of express and local trains at 34th.

But it will still be less frequent than the (6) and it will likely be a lengthy transfer from the (E)(M) to the (T). That’s just one flaw in the (MTA)‘s post-Phase 2 plans for SAS.

The transfer isn't very long.

The southern end of 55 St is at 52nd St.

53rd-Lex extends east almost halfway from Third to Second Avenue.

Also keep in mind that the SAS will be faster than the (6) due to the longer stop distance, (no 28th St, a lot fewer stops south of 14th)

Edited by bobtehpanda

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought of this a while back:

The (T) would be extended to the Bronx to either Gun Hill Road or Co-Op City on Webster Avenue

The (Q) would be extended to 125th Street-Broadway to serve passengers in West and Central Harlem so that M60 SBS could reduce its passenger capacity for those who transfer between that and the subway in Manhattan.

(N) Trains would be extended to 125th Street-Broadway to provide faster access to Harlem from Brooklyn to reduce (2)(3)(4)(5) service.

Share this post


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

The transfer isn't very long.

The southern end of 55 St is at 52nd St.

53rd-Lex extends east almost halfway from Third to Second Avenue.

Also keep in mind that the SAS will be faster than the (6) due to the longer stop distance, (no 28th St, a lot fewer stops south of 14th)

I have little doubt that the (T) will have a faster runtime than the (6). But if the (T) is the only SAS service south of 63rd, those time savings may very well be eaten up longer waits at the platform for a less-frequent (T), especially if there’s a delay somewhere north of 63rd, where the (Q) also runs. 

Maybe I missed something while looking at it, but it appears from the map in the second link that the east end of 53rd-Lex goes less than halfway to 2nd, while the west end of the platform goes very near to Lexington Avenue. The north end of 51st-Lex also gets up to 52nd St. This still gives the (6) the advantage, unless a second SAS service is provided south of the 63rd St Junction to boost SAS 3/4 frequencies to a level more comparable to the (6)<6>.

14 hours ago, DJLilFace222 said:

I thought of this a while back:

The (T) would be extended to the Bronx to either Gun Hill Road or Co-Op City on Webster Avenue

The (Q) would be extended to 125th Street-Broadway to serve passengers in West and Central Harlem so that M60 SBS could reduce its passenger capacity for those who transfer between that and the subway in Manhattan.

(N) Trains would be extended to 125th Street-Broadway to provide faster access to Harlem from Brooklyn to reduce (2)(3)(4)(5) service.

It sounds like either the (N) or (Q) would be able to do all of these things if extended to 125th-Broadway. How could they serve totally different purposes while operating on the same line to the same terminal stop?

Edited by T to Dyre Avenue

Share this post


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

 

It sounds like either the (N) or (Q) would be able to do all of these things if extended to 125th-Broadway. How could they serve totally different purposes while operating on the same line to the same terminal stop?

DjLilFace222 meant to state the core purpose first and other effects next, I’m assuming

Edited by Harlem Crosstown

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

I have little doubt that the (T) will have a faster runtime than the (6). But if the (T) is the only SAS service south of 63rd, those time savings may very well be eaten up longer waits at the platform for a less-frequent (T), especially if there’s a delay somewhere north of 63rd, where the (Q) also runs. 

Maybe I missed something while looking at it, but it appears from the map in the second link that the east end of 53rd-Lex goes less than halfway to 2nd, while the west end of the platform goes very near to Lexington Avenue. The north end of 51st-Lex also gets up to 52nd St. This still gives the (6) the advantage, unless a second SAS service is provided south of the 63rd St Junction to boost SAS 3/4 frequencies to a level more comparable to the (6)<6>.

Beyond SAS 3 being little more than a pipe dream at this point, I fail to understand why the conclusion from these facts isn't just that we need to redesign SAS 3. It's terrible planning that'll worsen the reliability of the system while adding no capacity. It's connections as you point out are weak; the platform that goes the furthest east is Lex-53, and as you point out that barely gets near the (T). I'd argue they need to redo the whole thing, placing the route under 3rd north of 34-42, and under 2nd south of there, terminating at Lex-63 for now/in Bronx or in Queens in the future.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

Beyond SAS 3 being little more than a pipe dream at this point, I fail to understand why the conclusion from these facts isn't just that we need to redesign SAS 3. It's terrible planning that'll worsen the reliability of the system while adding no capacity. It's connections as you point out are weak; the platform that goes the furthest east is Lex-53, and as you point out that barely gets near the (T). I'd argue they need to redo the whole thing, placing the route under 3rd north of 34-42, and under 2nd south of there, terminating at Lex-63 for now/in Bronx or in Queens in the future.

Frankly I'd rather extend Metro North down to Lower Manhattan a la Crossrail rather than build Phase 3.

  • Thumbs Up 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

Frankly I'd rather extend Metro North down to Lower Manhattan a la Crossrail rather than build Phase 3.

....or that! Wouldn't be surprised if the marginal load movement and time benefits were greater.

Share this post


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

Frankly I'd rather extend Metro North down to Lower Manhattan a la Crossrail rather than build Phase 3.

But wouldn’t it have to go underneath Park Avenue? Because the (4)(5)(6) are running underneath Park Avenue between 42nd and 14th. 
 

As for SAS 3, it’s flaws put a major limitation as to how effectively we can plan. This is more of a pipe Dream, but elevated LRT’s in Manhattan that make little to no noise as possible would be nice. One on Second Avenue could replace the M15. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alon Levy has mentioned this with his plan, but a good way to get better transfers out of SAS 3 would be to extend it down 3rd Ave rather than 2nd. I know it's very close to Lex/Park, but it is still less of a walk for people East of Lex/Park and still alleviates congestion on the 4/5/6. Connecting it North of 63rd St might be tricky, but it could start as a shuttle with a transfer to trains at 59th St and 63rd St.

Share this post


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

But wouldn’t it have to go underneath Park Avenue? Because the (4)(5)(6) are running underneath Park Avenue between 42nd and 14th. 
 

As for SAS 3, it’s flaws put a major limitation as to how effectively we can plan. This is more of a pipe Dream, but elevated LRT’s in Manhattan that make little to no noise as possible would be nice. One on Second Avenue could replace the M15. 

You'd be able to curve over to 3rd if need be, though underpinning won't kill if you just go deep. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

But wouldn’t it have to go underneath Park Avenue? Because the (4)(5)(6) are running underneath Park Avenue between 42nd and 14th.

Well you've got two options:

-If you choose to extend tracks on the eastern side of Grand Central you can make a quick S-curve onto Lex or 3rd but you run the risk of the (4)(5)(6) and/or (7) in the way

-If you choose to extend tracks on the western side of Grand Central you can make a quick S-curve onto Madison and keep going south

In either situation, it would have to be lower level tracks that are extended south.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, RR503 said:

....or that! Wouldn't be surprised if the marginal load movement and time benefits were greater.

My personal preferences, to get really foamy, would be all of the above, so

  • regional rail on 3rd (eight tracks, two levels of four)
    • level 1 - Metro North to Financial District
      • one pair of tracks New Haven -> Hoboken (New Haven local, expresses via Penn)
        • GCT
        • Union Square
        • Hoboken
      • one pair of tracks to FiDi (Harlem & Hudson)
        • GCT
        • Union Square
        • Fulton
        • (Future) Staten Island
    • level 2 - NJT & LIRR
      • one pair of tracks for NJT
        • Columbus Circle
        • GCT
        • Union Sq
        • Hoboken
      • one pair of tracks for LIRR
        • GCT
        • Union Sq
        • Fulton
        • Atlantic
  • SAS on Second Avenue
    • Northern Blvd to Second Avenue to Manhattan Bridge
    • 6th Av express services go to Brooklyn
      • (D) to Utica Av via Montrose Av  (L) and Myrtle Av (J)(M)(Z)
      • (B)  to SE Queens via Bushwick Branch & Lower Montauk

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.