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

On 8/1/2019 at 8:01 PM, Around the Horn said:

The (A)(C) and (H) is overkill.

A much simpler solution is

(A) alternating between Far Rockaway or Rockaway Park (peak) or Howard Beach (off peak) 

(C) Lefferts Blvd all times (shuttle to Euclid late nights) 

 

The Port Authority actually requested this arrangement when the AirTrain opened, to discourage people from using the Q10 at Lefferts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A thought about announcements:   

 

NYCT should scrap the neighborhood-based announcements ("Forest Hills-bound R train") in favor of returning to "Uptown" and "Downtown." 

Edited by Gotham Bus Co.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Gotham Bus Co. said:

A thought about announcements:   

 

NYCT should scrap the neighborhood-based announcements ("Forest Hills-bound R train") in favor of returning to "Uptown" and "Downtown." 

That'll quickly fall apart. Manhattan has a handful of crosstowns, Queens is pretty much entirely crosstown (for a certain measure of crosstown), and "Downtown" refers to a specific section of north Brooklyn (most access is from the south and east). That's not even getting into the importance of clearly stating the destinations (or boroughs, if the train has to enter a different borough to reach its terminus) for those with impaired vision and to generally reduce confusion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/11/2019 at 6:29 PM, RR503 said:

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

No worries. I appreciate the feedback. I've actually used it to modify my last plan I put out, such as modifying the service plan for Nassau-8th Avenue connection to shorten the (J) to Essex Street and replace it with the (E) train, changed up Lower Manhattan service by replacing the (T) with the (W). I've also looked into reimagining the Queens Bypass from the 1960s and making it into a relief line, in addition to a reactivated Rockaway Beach Branch (if Richmond Hill and Rockaway resident still insist on getting it), but both will run into problems for reasons I will explain another time.

However, even with these revisions, the plan has received negative feedback from one particular demographic, which is YouTube Railfanners. With the exception of one person, who said it was well though-out, all of them have reacted negatively to the plan, with reasons from causing confusion, being too complex, service cutoffs. I've even heard one person say that they will stop using the subway once the R32 and R42 cars retire, since my new plans does not include. The worst part, and possibly the last straw, was when someone accused me of gentrifying East New York, Richmond Hill, and other neighborhoods, because of the removal of just ONE bottleneck that slows down subway service (the Crescent Street curves). At that point, I actually snapped.

On 11/11/2019 at 6:29 PM, RR503 said:

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.

As far as that new Queens Tunnel, I will say that you are correct that we do need one, because as you said, if we can have a 4-track SAS, then might as well have a new 2-track tunnel to Queens. The first question I though of was: where should it go?

Because of this I started to think on where to send the line. One of the ideas that popped out of my head was the old Northern Blvd proposal I bought up a while back. I was thinking "What if we could use this for a new SAS line to Queens?" It not only avoids interlining with at-capacity trunk lines, but it also serves a whole new area of the city. Would that be a great idea for a SAS-Queens Line?

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


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

However, even with these revisions, the plan has received negative feedback from one particular demographic, which is YouTube Railfanners. With the exception of one person, who said it was well though-out, all of them have reacted negatively to the plan, with reasons from causing confusion, being too complex, service cutoffs. I've even heard one person say that they will stop using the subway once the R32 and R42 cars retire, since my new plans does not include. The worst part, and possibly the last straw, was when someone accused me of gentrifying East New York, Richmond Hill, and other neighborhoods, because of the removal of just ONE bottleneck that slows down subway service (the Crescent Street curves). At that point, I actually snapped.

 

Most YouTube Railfanner’s don’t know better to begin with (let alone Facebook). So they’re not the best demographic to look for feedback from. It’s still good that you tried. As for that one exception, I think I might know who you’re talking about. 
 

I’d also like to bring up how removing one bottleneck is going to bring gentrification to an entire neighborhood? While I’m in agreement with eliminating the Crescent Street Curve bottleneck, I don’t see how that’ll correlate to Gentrification. Now if it were to re-zone or redevelop the neighborhoods of ENY, Cypress Hills, and others. Then maybe this railfan May have a talking point (speaking of which, they’re building a New School on Atlantic Avenue right across the street from Transit Tech and a few blocks away from Crescent Street on the (J) in addition to a huge lot of empty space. I’m not sure what will happen with said space yet.) Anyways, Widening the Crescent Street curve requires the (MTA) to acquire the property adjacent to the curve anyways. 

 

Share this post


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

However, even with these revisions, the plan has received negative feedback from one particular demographic, which is YouTube Railfanners. With the exception of one person, who said it was well though-out, all of them have reacted negatively to the plan, with reasons from causing confusion, being too complex, service cutoffs. I've even heard one person say that they will stop using the subway once the R32 and R42 cars retire, since my new plans does not include.

These people are the last people you should be asking for their opinions, especially considering most of their comments involve "bring back *insert discontinued train here*!"

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


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

These people are the last people you should be asking for their opinions, especially considering most of their comments involve "bring back *insert discontinued train here*!"

I’ve seen much worse than that. I’ve even heard them suggest extending the (C) to Lefferts, but they don’t even know that this will create another bottleneck at Euclid Avenue, adding to the already excruciating ones at Hoyt and Canal.  I tell them this plan, but they dismiss it because it’s to “complex”. They want to leave everything as is, but simply extend the (C)
 

I have also started to believe that none of these YouTube guys even ride the subway to get to/from somewhere important (whereas you guys do).

1 hour ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:
 

Most YouTube Railfanner’s don’t know better to begin with (let alone Facebook). So they’re not the best demographic to look for feedback from. It’s still good that you tried. As for that one exception, I think I might know who you’re talking about. 
 

I’d also like to bring up how removing one bottleneck is going to bring gentrification to an entire neighborhood? While I’m in agreement with eliminating the Crescent Street Curve bottleneck, I don’t see how that’ll correlate to Gentrification. Now if it were to re-zone or redevelop the neighborhoods of ENY, Cypress Hills, and others. Then maybe this railfan May have a talking point (speaking of which, they’re building a New School on Atlantic Avenue right across the street from Transit Tech and a few blocks away from Crescent Street on the (J) in addition to a huge lot of empty space. I’m not sure what will happen with said space yet.) Anyways, Widening the Crescent Street curve requires the (MTA) to acquire the property adjacent to the curve anyways. 

 

The one person is a YouTuber named AJ, Abstract Enthusiast. He is the one with the well-thought out plan comment. 

In addition, these other guys have also disputed the (M) ridership Numbers, citing the fact that the number of people who benefited from the change (22,000) is false. One of them has even proposed additional Nassau Street Stops, such as at Allen Street, and he claims that this will bring up the number of people benefitting from the direct ride to Lower Manhattan from 17,000 to 30,0000. However, not only would this slow trains further, but it would barely affect the Nassau ridership and also take away ridership from other nearby stations, such as Bowery, Essex Street, and Grand Street.

Share this post


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

I’ve seen much worse than that. I’ve even heard them suggest extending the (C) to Lefferts, but they don’t even know that this will create another bottleneck at Euclid Avenue, adding to the already excruciating ones at Hoyt and Canal.  I tell them this plan, but they dismiss it because it’s to “complex”. They want to leave everything as is, but simply extend the (C)

During off-peak hours, this can work if you extend the (C) to 10 cars. I don't see what the problem is with that when we have enough 32's to support such an arrangement. Heck,  you can swap a few 179's with the R-42's to support this arrangement. Not sure if this'll save money, but It can guarantee more ridership and a small capcacity increase.

Also, I don't understand what is so complex about deinterlining. Its purpose is to achieve the exact opposite. 

47 minutes ago, JeremiahC99 said:

The one person is a YouTuber named AJ, Abstract Enthusiast. He is the one with the well-thought out plan comment. 

Nevermind then. I thought you were referring to someone else. 

 

47 minutes ago, JeremiahC99 said:

1) In addition, these other guys have also disputed the (M) ridership Numbers, citing the fact that the number of people who benefited from the change (22,000) is false. 2) One of them has even proposed additional Nassau Street Stops, such as at Allen Street, and he claims that this will bring up the number of people benefitting from the direct ride to Lower Manhattan from 17,000 to 30,0000. However, not only would this slow trains further, but it would barely affect the Nassau ridership and also take away ridership from other nearby stations, such as Bowery, Essex Street, and Grand Street.

I'm kinda lost here. So I'm going to break it down. 

  1. I can certainly tell you that as someone who uses the Chrystie Street connection from time to time. It benefits a lot of people. Not to mention that if you pay close attention to the circulation flow at Essex Street going S/B, a majority of people get off for the (F) or wait from the (M). So to tell me that the (M) did not provide any benefits once being rerouted to 6th Avenue is preposterous. 
  2. What the fu- ? Allen Street is not far from Bowery. 2 Blocks I'd say (with Chrystie Street in between). Not to mention, there's a set of points between Bowery and Essex that the (J) used to use on weekends before the (M) was rerouted to 96th. Also, where these numbers come from?

If you want to get rid of 6th Avenue-Jamaica services badly (or the (M) in this case), might as well start with building a Transfer between Bowery (J)(Z) and Grand Street (B)(D)  so that Nassau Riders can maintain 6th Avenue Access. 

Share this post


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

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

I understand that this proposal is very foamy (as you put it), but I do have a few questions about them.  I'll split them into 2 categories.

Regional Rail Questions:

  1. If a Regional Rail service ran on 3rd Avenue, how would that connect with the MNRR In the Bronx.
  2. What happens to Park Avenue under this proposal (Grand Central and North of it)?
  3. Aren't the LIRR Tracks for East Side Access underneath the existing Metro North tracks, cause I remember reading about a plan to send those tracks down 3rd Avenue.

Second Avenue Subway Questions: 

  1. For the Northern Blvd idea, how would you connect SAS to Northern Blvd
  2. Considering the locations that you'd reroute the (B) and (D) to Southeast Queens and Utica, does this mean that you'll replace the Jamaica elevated in the process or am I missing something here? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/10/2019 at 9:47 AM, 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.

Having SAS services through all three Midtown-Queens B-Division crossings is not practical. Each SAS service, including the (T), would be forced into running infrequently during rush hours, due to all the reverse-branching that would be required in Queens/Upper Manhattan. I can understand wanting redundancy in the event of a service disruption. But having both an SAS-53 and a SAS-63 service would be overkill, because in the event of an emergency, you’d have to run both of those SAS services in the same tunnel. That makes it pointless to have both. It just won’t work. The subway isn’t going to beat Uber by trying to be Uber.  

On 11/12/2019 at 3:50 PM, 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.

If I can hazard a guess here, I’d say the study planners back in the 90s probably thought SAS 3 and 4 would be little more than a pipe dream too. I seem to recall reading that MTA upper management didn’t really want to build the full length Manhattan line, preferring to build the subway only from 63rd to 125th streets and to run light rail from Union Square to the LES and the Financial District. Just looking at the MTA’s current SAS maps, it seems to me like the (T) wasn’t more than an afterthought. 

On 11/12/2019 at 6:51 PM, Around the Horn said:

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

Honestly, I think that would be more effective than SAS 3/4 as per the current MTA plan. I mean, let’s be honest here. Extending Metro-North would keep folks coming from Connecticut and Westchester (and Long Island once ESA opens) from pouring onto the (4)(5)(6) at Grand Central, more so than an under-capacity SAS two avenue blocks away. It might just make more sense to forget extending the SAS south of 63rd and focus on having Metro-North/LIRR serve a greater portion of Midtown and Downtown.

Edited by T to Dyre Avenue

Share this post


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

During off-peak hours, this can work if you extend the (C) to 10 cars. I don't see what the problem is with that when we have enough 32's to support such an arrangement. Heck,  you can swap a few 179's with the R-42's to support this arrangement. Not sure if this'll save money, but It can guarantee more ridership and a small capcacity increase.

We could do that, but I'm in the business of just eliminating the bottlenecks entirely. I ride the (A) and (C) on the Fulton Street Brooklyn Line every morning to school, where the (A) is express and the (C) local. What the merge does is take the capacity of a single track, and split it on two tracks, (theoretically) 15 (A) trains on the express track and around 10 (C) trains on the local tracks. However, the slow service combined with the merging delays the trains, creating long waits on both tracks, especially in the morning, when I have to put up with it at times.

6 hours ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

Also, I don't understand what is so complex about deinterlining. Its purpose is to achieve the exact opposite. 

Here is the perceived complexity (I'm discounting the Nassau-8th Avenue connection for purposes of this post):

The plan for Fulton service is to construct a new East River Tunnel connecting the Broadway Line with the Court Street Museum tracks (the station would be used) and another tunnel connecting to the Jamaica El east of Cypress Hills (getting rid of that slow bottleneck), as well as extending the Astoria Line to LGA. From here, in my new revised plan, the (R) and (W) would both travel via this new tunnel to service as local service on the Fulton Street Line, with the (R) going to Euclid Avenue and the (W) taking over the (J) route to Jamaica Center. At this point, the (R)  would be based out of Pitkin Yard, and the (W) would be based out of East NY Yard. (C) would be express to Lefferts Blvd, and the (A) would solely service Far Rockaway (unchanged from before). The (J) would operate between Broadway Junction and 95th Street. Both the (R) service would replace (N) service to Astoria, and the (N) would go up the SAS. A (K) route to World Trade Center would replace the (R) on Queens Blvd, and allow for the reroute of the (M) to 63rd Street, and the (C) to be express on 8th Avenue as well. To allow for further deinterlining, the (C) and (D) routes would swap (similar to the service change during the 6th Avenue Fastrack) north of 59th Street so that the (C) goes express to Norwood-205th Street and the (D) local to 168th Street.

The complexity that these people point out is that I'm proposing constructing a new 1.5-mile tunnel, rejiggering 7 routes and creating a new route just to extend the (C) by seven stops. They don't like it, and instead, they want to leave the rest of the subway system as is, but extend the (C) to Lefferts Blvd. What they don't realize it that they are creating yet another merge between the (A) and (C) without removing any other merge, adding more fuel to an already-burning fire. They even pretend that there are NO bottlenecks. In contrast, my plan, while it would involve more moving parts, would actually improve operations further. Yes, I'd be creating a merge at 36th Street, but the 8th Avenue merges are consolidated to only a single one at 145th Street, and the 34th/Broadway, 60th Street, 6th Avenue/53rd Street, and others are eliminated. In addition, Queens Plaza remains, but is a less of an impact, as only 8th Avenue trains are using Queens Plaza (compared to the current pattern of 8th Avenue, 6th Avenue, and Broadway trains using it) . More specifically (red is for high-impact merges added, green is merges removed):

63rd Street Connection

6th Avenue/53rd Street

50th Street/8th Avenue

59th Street-Columbus Circle

Canal Street

Hoyt-Schermerhorn

Further changes will come from my revised Nassau-8th Avenue connections.

6 hours ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

I can certainly tell you that as someone who uses the Chrystie Street connection from time to time. It benefits a lot of people. Not to mention that if you pay close attention to the circulation flow at Essex Street going S/B, a majority of people get off for the (F) or wait from the (M). So to tell me that the (M) did not provide any benefits once being rerouted to 6th Avenue is preposterous. 

I agree with you. The (M) is a big benefit for everyone, so saying it has no benefits is preposterous. Even before the change, 22,000 riders were transferring to Midtown-bound trains, while only 17,000 went to Lower Manhattan. When I was in the area doing some shopping for class supplies, I had the option of using the either the (J) or (M) to get from Essex Street to the Lexington Avenue Line. Though the (J) was an ideal to getting to the (4) and (5), I often used the (M) if it came as well. In the Culver Express analysis, it was also mentioned that the (M) ridership has rapidly grown since the changeover to 6th Avenue, and this resulted in (M) service being increased to 10 trains so far. More trains should be run on the line to accommodate further increased ridership, but due to the bottleneck of the Williamsburg Bridge, we can't. And this brings me to one of my big revisions to the Williamsburg Bridge:

In my earlier plans, I had the (J) going to Broadway Junction, and the (K) to Metropolitan Avenue, absorbing the (M), while the (E) was unchanged. However, to address the bottleneck at the bridge, (J) service over the Williamsburg Bridge would end. Instead, in a move that would possibly piss off railfanners, the (E) would be rerouted from its long-time World Trade terminus and be rerouted over the Williamsburg Bridge to Broadway Junction, while the (J), which would continue to use 8-car trains, would terminate at Essex Street, which would be rebuilt to increase capacity and better handle terminating trains, and avoid merges In addition to the rebuild of Essex Street, Bowery and every station on the Jamaica El would be rebuilt for longer trains, and just like that, you have full capacity on each line. This would increase capacity for midtown-bound riders because instead of the current 10 midtown-bound trains and 12 downtown-bound trains, you now have 24 Midtown-bound trains over the bridge. More efficient for population growth if you ask me.

6 hours ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

What the fu- ? Allen Street is not far from Bowery. 2 Blocks I'd say (with Chrystie Street in between). Not to mention, there's a set of points between Bowery and Essex that the (J) used to use on weekends before the (M) was rerouted to 96th. Also, where these numbers come from?

The one kid who wanted that Allen Street stop came up with that garbage statistic while disputing the success of the (M). He thinks the statistics were made up.

48 minutes ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

Having SAS services through all three Midtown-Queens B-Division crossings is not practical. Each SAS service, including the (T), would be forced into running infrequently during rush hours, due to all the reverse-branching that would be required in Queens/Upper Manhattan. I can understand wanting redundancy in the event of a service disruption. But having both an SAS-53 and a SAS-63 service would be overkill, because in the event of an emergency, you’d have to run both of those SAS services in the same tunnel. That makes it pointless to have both. It just won’t work. The subway isn’t going to beat Uber by trying to be Uber.  

You are right. Maybe instead of these three services, how about having the SAS go via a new 2-track tunnel to Queens and have the Queens line operate via Northern Blvd. Would that work?

Share this post


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

I understand that this proposal is very foamy (as you put it), but I do have a few questions about them.  I'll split them into 2 categories.

Regional Rail Questions:

  1. If a Regional Rail service ran on 3rd Avenue, how would that connect with the MNRR In the Bronx.
  2. What happens to Park Avenue under this proposal (Grand Central and North of it)?
  3. Aren't the LIRR Tracks for East Side Access underneath the existing Metro North tracks, cause I remember reading about a plan to send those tracks down 3rd Avenue.

Second Avenue Subway Questions: 

  1. For the Northern Blvd idea, how would you connect SAS to Northern Blvd
  2. Considering the locations that you'd reroute the (B) and (D) to Southeast Queens and Utica, does this mean that you'll replace the Jamaica elevated in the process or am I missing something here? 

1 & 2 - Looking at the map of the train shed, perhaps Lex is a better choice (You can't use Park because the Lexington Av Line south of 42nd uses Park.)

3 - Not too sure. It's pretty far below ground though, so you could probably build a two level tunnel without great difficulty.

SAS - Northern Blvd - 57th St tunnel in Manhattan, under 43rd Av, via LIRR Main Line, and then curving with the Hell Gate Line to Northern. Though, reading about the 11 St Cut's particular route which runs under 43rd, maybe you could just have the SAS take over the 11 St Cut.

The new Sixth Avenue Express - consider it a "Williamsburg express". This would be an entirely new line running from Houston St in Manhattan, under Grand, Humboldt, and Beaver with only a stop at Bedford Av, Lorimer-Metropolitan, Montrose Av, and Myrtle Av (J)(M)(Z) . The (B) would depart under Johnson Av.

-------------------------------------

In terms of more realistic proposals, two tracks of Metro North down to Downtown and St. George would be a game changer. Alternatively or in addition, two tracks of Metro North to Atlantic Terminal. LIRR to WTC alone was estimated to have 100k daily riders when it was studied.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Harlem Crosstown said:

What would you say are the best bets for New Jersey service? I think (C) to Fort Lee and (6) to Newark are decent starters.

The PATH, because New Jersey actually pays for that.

Share this post


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

The PATH, because New Jersey actually pays for that.

Here's how you make that work:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0967070X9500022I

14 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

The new Sixth Avenue Express - consider it a "Williamsburg express". This would be an entirely new line running from Houston St in Manhattan, under Grand, Humboldt, and Beaver with only a stop at Bedford Av, Lorimer-Metropolitan, Montrose Av, and Myrtle Av (J)(M)(Z) . The (B) would depart under Johnson Av.

Why would you not just do 6th Ave express to Williamsburg Bridge? Keeps costs to only lolzy levels. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  1.  Ever since the slowdown of the Manhattan Bridge, (B)(D)(N)(Q)(R) and (W) Trains have been filled with chaos for the past few years since 2016. Now the (2)(3)(4) and (5) are faster to take to Manhattan than the Manhattan Bridge and Montague Street Lines. I had to change my route to school permanently because of the Manhattan Bridge Mashup. More and more passengers who live in South Brooklyn are heavily impacted by this every morning now. To increase service, reprogramming the signals to green even more than they use too on the Manhattan Bridge will increase service on the BMT 4th Avenue, Sea Beach, West End, Broadway and Brighton Lines along with the IND 6th Avenue Line. This will reduce major delays before CBTC comes into place.
  2. There is heavy crowding in all of NYC's Subway Trains, so the MTA should replace all of the seats with folding seats to allow more passengers to fit on trains during rush hour, or make the new trains with subway cars without seats at all like Massachusetts Bay Transit Authority's High Capacity Train "Big Red", it has no seats between the Operator, the Conductor and the Back End of the train. This can increase passenger space, and also put homeless folks off of the train more for the winter. Plus service on subway lines like the (A)(D)(Q)(J)(G)(2)(5)(7)(L) or 42nd Street (S)huttle.
Edited by DJLilFace222
Number order was not proper

Share this post


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

Here's how you make that work:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0967070X9500022I

Why would you not just do 6th Ave express to Williamsburg Bridge? Keeps costs to only lolzy levels. 

New York and New Jersey have a political relationship that is testy at the best of times. The example of cross state transport systems we do have in the US, like WMATA, are not encouraging.

I'm not a huge fan of 6th Av to Williamsburg. It's a replacement of existing Nassau capacity over the bridge with more useful Midtown capacity, but there's no net increase in actual trains going over the bridge, and I believe that there will need to be a third pair of tracks under the East River to WIlliamsburg at some point.

I've also always been of the opinion that the Utica Avenue line needs to go north, since North and South Brooklyn lack any sort of direct rail connection. And I believe Williamsburg should be more aggressively upzoned, both to try and contain gentrification to where it's already run much of its course, and to try and create secondary centers outside of Manhattan.

  • Thumbs Up 1

Share this post


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

New York and New Jersey have a political relationship that is testy at the best of times. The example of cross state transport systems we do have in the US, like WMATA, are not encouraging.

I'm not a huge fan of 6th Av to Williamsburg. It's a replacement of existing Nassau capacity over the bridge with more useful Midtown capacity, but there's no net increase in actual trains going over the bridge, and I believe that there will need to be a third pair of tracks under the East River to WIlliamsburg at some point.

I've also always been of the opinion that the Utica Avenue line needs to go north, since North and South Brooklyn lack any sort of direct rail connection. And I believe Williamsburg should be more aggressively upzoned, both to try and contain gentrification to where it's already run much of its course, and to try and create secondary centers outside of Manhattan.

That was one part of my previously proposed Myrtle-Brighton line that I would have done as a "Black (V):

This line would start at Metropolitan Avenue and run the current (M) route to Myrtle Avenue, with the upper level rebuilt and reopened.  The line would then run the old Myrtle Avenue EL route with a rebuilt Sumner Avenue station, then going to either Myrtle-Willoughby or Bedford-Nostrand for a transfer to the (G) before continuing to a rebuilt Franklin Avenue Shuttle line (with the line rebuilt to handle two tracks and 600' stations) and after Prospect Park becoming the main Brighton local to Coney Island.  In this, the (B) and (Q) would be flipped, with the (B) becoming the second Brighton local to Coney Island and the (Q) the express to Brighton Beach (when the (B) is not running extended to Coney Island and late nights also running local).  There would also be connections both ways to the Broadway-Brooklyn line at Myrtle so in an emergency the (B) and (Q) could run the Franklin Shuttle-new Myrtle EL portion to the Broadway-Brooklyn line and run via that to the Nassau  and 6th Avenue Lines.

Edited by Wallyhorse

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/14/2019 at 7:58 AM, Harlem Crosstown said:

What would you say are the best bets for New Jersey service? I think (C) to Fort Lee and (6) to Newark are decent starters.

On 11/14/2019 at 12:27 PM, bobtehpanda said:

The PATH, because New Jersey actually pays for that.

Yes, I’m going to agree that the PATH train is best for this type of service, though if it were to come from Fort Lee or points west, it would have to run on its own separate right of way once off the GWB (which is owned by Port Authority, same as PATH) on the Manhattan side, because not only will the MTA not let PATH use the existing subway provisions north of 168th Street (A)(C), PATH rail cars aren’t large enough to platform at the existing 8th Avenue Line stations. 

Share this post


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

New York and New Jersey have a political relationship that is testy at the best of times. The example of cross state transport systems we do have in the US, like WMATA, are not encouraging.

I'm not a huge fan of 6th Av to Williamsburg. It's a replacement of existing Nassau capacity over the bridge with more useful Midtown capacity, but there's no net increase in actual trains going over the bridge, and I believe that there will need to be a third pair of tracks under the East River to WIlliamsburg at some point.

I've also always been of the opinion that the Utica Avenue line needs to go north, since North and South Brooklyn lack any sort of direct rail connection. And I believe Williamsburg should be more aggressively upzoned, both to try and contain gentrification to where it's already run much of its course, and to try and create secondary centers outside of Manhattan.

I neither think that WMATA is a good example of this given how fraught DC governance is in general, nor do I think that that system is uniquely bad. Let's not forget that WMATA was a relatively well managed system by American standards until the 2009 accident. 

As for Williamsburg, I totally agree that in the long term we need more capacity/more housing in those areas, but it's equally important not to lose sight of just how far below capacity existing lines are. The (L) runs 20x8 and the (J)(M)(Z) 21x8. If you move both to 30x10, you've nearly doubled your capacity. Getting the (B)(D) via Bridge would also help unlock potential along the Jamaica Ave section of the (J)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, RR503 said:

 The (L) runs 20x8 and the (J)(M)(Z) 21x8. If you move both to 30x10, you've nearly doubled your capacity.

Frankly, 36 tph on the (L) train (like the Victoria Line in London) should be a policy goal.

However many trains you can't turn at Canarsie can short turn at Atlantic Av or Myrtle-Wyckoff.

On the Manhattan end create tail tracks at 8th Avenue and/or modify the middle track between 6th and 8th to a pocket track allowing some trains to short turn at 6th Avenue and have personnel on the platform to help relay trains.

Edited by Around the Horn

Share this post


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

However many trains you can't turn at Canarsie can short turn at Atlantic Av or Myrtle-Wyckoff.

On the Manhattan end create tail tracks at 8th Avenue and/or modify the middle track between 6th and 8th to a pocket track allowing some trains to short turn at 6th Avenue and have personnel on the platform to help relay trains.

Would be a good time to extend the (L) up 10th to at least 42 to help spread the coming HY crowds. Midtown (7) platforms are packed as is, and adding people doing contraflow will be a...lovely time. 

Share this post


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

I neither think that WMATA is a good example of this given how fraught DC governance is in general, nor do I think that that system is uniquely bad. Let's not forget that WMATA was a relatively well managed system by American standards until the 2009 accident. 

As for Williamsburg, I totally agree that in the long term we need more capacity/more housing in those areas, but it's equally important not to lose sight of just how far below capacity existing lines are. The (L) runs 20x8 and the (J)(M)(Z) 21x8. If you move both to 30x10, you've nearly doubled your capacity. Getting the (B)(D) via Bridge would also help unlock potential along the Jamaica Ave section of the (J)

Isn't the BMT Eastern Division limited to 8 cars? Are the platforms even long enough?

Share this post


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

Isn't the BMT Eastern Division limited to 8 cars? Are the platforms even long enough?

Yes, the idea is that you'd spend the $$$ to extend them. Certainly would be less than a new tunnel.

Edited by RR503

Share this post


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

Yes, the idea is that you'd spend the $$$ to extend them. Certainly would be less than a new tunnel.

I assume there's technical reasons behind why the BMT Eastern Division never got upgraded despite the rest of the system being lengthened to ten cars. You'd also have to spend money on resignalling.

If we got tunneling down to reasonable other-places costs, then I would vastly prefer subway.

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.