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

13 hours ago, RR503 said:

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)

I'm also of the opinion that another East River tunnel to Brooklyn shouldn't be built until the (L) runs at least 26 tph - a 30 percent capacity increase is achievable with only electrical upgrades and no new tracks.

As for the (B)(D) via Williamsburg Bridge, I've seen this diagram proposed

2av_04.png

but I'm not certain if this is actually buildable as drawn. My guess is that the existing tracks between Broadway/Lafayette and Grand St wouldn't be entirely removed, so some creative engineering is required to get the SB 6 Ave express track running towards Essex St.

Nonetheless, sending Grand St trains up 2 Ave is probably the most feasible way to change SAS Phase 3 into an actual new two-trunk line that can actually relieve Lex Ave. After 55 St, the (T) would take over upper SAS and the (N)(Q) would be rerouted to new lower-level 72 St platforms. Then in the long term, the (N)(Q) could be extended via 79 St into Queens under Broadway / Northern Blvd.

Share this post


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

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.

It was likely because the lines weren't as popular as the southern division, which went to Coney Island. So even as far back as the "Dul Contracts" era, the southern division was completely rebuilt and the old els replaced, while the eastern division got mostly modifications to the existing lines. This would make further upgrades more difficult. So in the Chrystie era, where the southern division was completely upgraded to IND capacity, the eastern division was less densely populated, especially with the areas being largely  bombed out due to all the abandonment, and at times, rioting, so there was not even any demand to completely unify it with the IND. They tried through running the K train, and that only lasted a few years. A far cry from now, where the area was rebuilt, people moved in from Manhattan, and now the lines are filled to capacity.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

It was likely because the lines weren't as popular as the southern division, which went to Coney Island. So even as far back as the "Dul Contracts" era, the southern division was completely rebuilt and the old els replaced, while the eastern division got mostly modifications to the existing lines. This would make further upgrades more difficult. So in the Chrystie era, where the southern division was completely upgraded to IND capacity, the eastern division was less densely populated, especially with the areas being largely  bombed out due to all the abandonment, and at times, rioting, so there was not even any demand to completely unify it with the IND. They tried through running the K train, and that only lasted a few years. A far cry from now, where the area was rebuilt, people moved in from Manhattan, and now the lines are filled to capacity.

There is another impediment to extending the platforms along the Eastern Division, especially the (J) and (M) lines from Marcy eastward. Any Bus Operator, truck or car driver who has traversed any distance under the Broadway Brooklyn el can point out that the street grid was never considered during construction.  There are pillars along the underside which block the existing intersections at many points and I wonder if platform extensions would make the situation worse with new supports installed in newer locations.  I haven't made many trips under the Myrtle Avenue segment recently and I don't remember the street grid from there up to Fresh Pond so maybe someone else can comment on that situation. Same question for the B/O and Surface fans who travel under the el including those who travel toward Sutphin or on the (L) to Canarsie. Just something to ponder. We are talking about heavy concrete platform installation  here,  not lightweight walkways replacing rotted wood ones. Carry on.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Caelestor said:

I'm also of the opinion that another East River tunnel to Brooklyn shouldn't be built until the (L) runs at least 26 tph - a 30 percent capacity increase is achievable with only electrical upgrades and no new tracks.

As for the (B)(D) via Williamsburg Bridge, I've seen this diagram proposed

2av_04.png

but I'm not certain if this is actually buildable as drawn. My guess is that the existing tracks between Broadway/Lafayette and Grand St wouldn't be entirely removed, so some creative engineering is required to get the SB 6 Ave express track running towards Essex St.

Nonetheless, sending Grand St trains up 2 Ave is probably the most feasible way to change SAS Phase 3 into an actual new two-trunk line that can actually relieve Lex Ave. After 55 St, the (T) would take over upper SAS and the (N)(Q) would be rerouted to new lower-level 72 St platforms. Then in the long term, the (N)(Q) could be extended via 79 St into Queens under Broadway / Northern Blvd.

The other reason I would like the (B)(D) to go to Williamsburg via a new tunnel is that you can see here, that it would basically be impossible to connect from Jamaica and Myrtle services to South Brooklyn. At least if the Nassau Line serves the WB you could still build a connection between Bowery and Grand.

3 hours ago, Trainmaster5 said:

There is another impediment to extending the platforms along the Eastern Division, especially the (J) and (M) lines from Marcy eastward. Any Bus Operator, truck or car driver who has traversed any distance under the Broadway Brooklyn el can point out that the street grid was never considered during construction.  There are pillars along the underside which block the existing intersections at many points and I wonder if platform extensions would make the situation worse with new supports installed in newer locations.  I haven't made many trips under the Myrtle Avenue segment recently and I don't remember the street grid from there up to Fresh Pond so maybe someone else can comment on that situation. Same question for the B/O and Surface fans who travel under the el including those who travel toward Sutphin or on the (L) to Canarsie. Just something to ponder. We are talking about heavy concrete platform installation  here,  not lightweight walkways replacing rotted wood ones. Carry on.

Yeah, I feel like full revamping of the Jamaica el would necessitate a full-scale reconstruction of the el akin to what Philly did with the Market-Frankford el. And given MTACC's penchant for blowing out the cost of literally any construction project I'm sure this would be estimated at something ridiculous, like $10-20B.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Trainmaster5 said:

There is another impediment to extending the platforms along the Eastern Division, especially the (J) and (M) lines from Marcy eastward. Any Bus Operator, truck or car driver who has traversed any distance under the Broadway Brooklyn el can point out that the street grid was never considered during construction.  There are pillars along the underside which block the existing intersections at many points and I wonder if platform extensions would make the situation worse with new supports installed in newer locations.  I haven't made many trips under the Myrtle Avenue segment recently and I don't remember the street grid from there up to Fresh Pond so maybe someone else can comment on that situation. Same question for the B/O and Surface fans who travel under the el including those who travel toward Sutphin or on the (L) to Canarsie. Just something to ponder. We are talking about heavy concrete platform installation  here,  not lightweight walkways replacing rotted wood ones. Carry on.

I don't think I agree. Portions of West End are perhaps more awkwardly positioned relative to the grid than is Broadway, and they lengthened platforms no problem there. Same goes for the IRT els in the Bronx, and the portions of Culver where McDonald forms a barrier between different grid orientations. I really don't think this would be nearly the lift that is suggested here, not just because we've done it before, but also because we're generally talking about less than 100' of extension in most cases -- remember that E div platforms were built for 8x67' sets of BMT standards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The one big (actually lets change that to huge) impediment to 10 car trains on the Eastern Division is Metropolitan Avenue on the (M) which can't be extended in either direction due to the location of the station house at one end and the tower at the other end and the crossover and the grade of the tracks which makes moving that crossover a major pain in the ass.

  • Thumbs Up 1

Share this post


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

I don't think I agree. Portions of West End are perhaps more awkwardly positioned relative to the grid than is Broadway, and they lengthened platforms no problem there. Same goes for the IRT els in the Bronx, and the portions of Culver where McDonald forms a barrier between different grid orientations. I really don't think this would be nearly the lift that is suggested here, not just because we've done it before, but also because we're generally talking about less than 100' of extension in most cases -- remember that E div platforms were built for 8x67' sets of BMT standards.

Perhaps you're right but sections of the West End, as well as Broadway-Brooklyn, have been known to shower "gifts" down to unsuspecting motorists and passerby from time to time. I was more concerned about the street to structure supports (those concrete encased pillars) rather than welds extending from the current platforms. Knowing the history of the (MTA) as opposed to it's predecessors I can see them trying to do this on the cheap as a retrofit and having to come back later and then do the correct thing. Color me a skeptic. Carry on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Trainmaster5 said:

Perhaps you're right but sections of the West End, as well as Broadway-Brooklyn, have been known to shower "gifts" down to unsuspecting motorists and passerby from time to time. I was more concerned about the street to structure supports (those concrete encased pillars) rather than welds extending from the current platforms. Knowing the history of the (MTA) as opposed to it's predecessors I can see them trying to do this on the cheap as a retrofit and having to come back later and then do the correct thing. Color me a skeptic. Carry on.

The metal rain, though, is much more a function of maintenance than it is of viaduct design. I don't think platform extensions would have much of an impact on the issue. As you know, I generally share your skepticism on the quality of MTA work, but on the structural stuff they seem to have gone in the opposite direction from skimping: literally everything they've done these days has been overbuilt or overcomplicated to some degree. 

Share this post


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

The one big (actually lets change that to huge) impediment to 10 car trains on the Eastern Division is Metropolitan Avenue on the (M) which can't be extended in either direction due to the location of the station house at one end and the tower at the other end and the crossover and the grade of the tracks which makes moving that crossover a major pain in the ass.

Or you end up with the problem we had at Lenox Yard where you had to cut many of the trains to lay them up because many of the yard tracks couldn't hold a full length train when the (3) went to ten car trains. Perhaps AY yard wouldn't have that problem though. I don't remember the actual layout of that yard.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Backtracking the discussion for a bit.

As for Connecting the Second Avenue (T) train to Brooklyn via the Manhattan Bridge without cutting Jamaica-Nassau Service, could an alternative be to do the following:

(T) (SAS 2) - Manhattan Bridge boa DeKalb

Rebuild the Chrystie Street connection at around Houston to allow for the Possibility of 6th Express go via Culver. the following can happen:

(B)(D) Express via Culver. (D) trains continue to Coney while (B) trains terminate at Church.
 

(F) terminating at 2nd Avenue or WTC. 
(M) continues to Metro or sent back to Nassau depending on how the connection would be rebuilt. 
 

(J) Service stays as is with a new transfer at Bowery for (T) service. 

 

 

Share this post


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

The one big (actually lets change that to huge) impediment to 10 car trains on the Eastern Division is Metropolitan Avenue on the (M) which can't be extended in either direction due to the location of the station house at one end and the tower at the other end and the crossover and the grade of the tracks which makes moving that crossover a major pain in the ass.

Dunno if this is as true as railfan lore would suggest it is. There’s a considerable distance where the grade is constant beyond the crossover, and as I’m sure you know installation on a curve isn’t an issue. If you just move the tower and/or the crossover, you’re golden.

In a similar vein to @Trainmaster5’s post above, I’d suggest that yards may be where we face the most complexity in a 10 car plan. ENY, Canarsie and FPY are all quite space constrained, and with everything running in 5 car links these days, moving away from the train lengths for which those yards are optimized would likely increase operational complexity while also reducing yard capacity. These issues aren’t necessarily insurmountable (I’m very much of the opinion that NYCT should at the very least option the land around ENY before its too late), but are certainly worth thinking about. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/15/2019 at 3:33 PM, bobtehpanda said:

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

With the exception of Metropolitan, they can all about fit 9 cars.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

With the exception of Metropolitan, they can all about fit 9 cars.

Exactly.  Even if you only lengthened Metropolitan to 540 feet, you could likely be able on a tight fit have nine-car trains throughout the Eastern Division.  

Share this post


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

With the exception of Metropolitan, they can all about fit 9 cars.

Lengthening one station and getting a 11.25 percent capacity increase on the (J)(L)(M)(Z) sounds like great ROI. Getting the additional 11 percent capacity for the 10th car is frankly not worth it, seeing the more pressing capacity issues on Lex Ave and QBL that need to be addressed.

7 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

The other reason I would like the (B)(D) to go to Williamsburg via a new tunnel is that you can see here, that it would basically be impossible to connect from Jamaica and Myrtle services to South Brooklyn. At least if the Nassau Line serves the WB you could still build a connection between Bowery and Grand.

I do see the appeal of a new Williamsburg tunnel for the (B)(D) so the (J)(Z) don't get disrupted. The question now is how would the new (B)(D) reach Brooklyn? Presumably via the express platforms at 2 Ave, but in that scenario I can't imagine any part of the Chrystie St connection would survive. That might not be a necessarily bad thing though, as auxiliary connections between major trunk lines are a net capacity decrease and should be removed from normal service.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

The other reason I would like the (B)(D) to go to Williamsburg via a new tunnel is that you can see here, that it would basically be impossible to connect from Jamaica and Myrtle services to South Brooklyn. At least if the Nassau Line serves the WB you could still build a connection between Bowery and Grand.

I mean, you can easily accomplish the same approximate connectivity by making the Bay Ridge service be Essex Middle-95 via Nassau, Montague, 4th local. Or by transferring to Culver. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I mean, you can easily accomplish the same approximate connectivity by making the Bay Ridge service be Essex Middle-95 via Nassau, Montague, 4th local. Or by transferring to Culver. 

For this to work, you would have to rebuild Essex Street so that the middle track could access both platforms. This should be done by having the westbound platform and track swapped, with the station configuration turning into that of Whitehall (R) and other 3-track express stops elsewhere in the system.

Also, is it possible to turn 12 trains per hour on a single pocket track (the middle track in this case)?

Share this post


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

Lengthening one station and getting a 11.25 percent capacity increase on the (J)(L)(M)(Z) sounds like great ROI. Getting the additional 11 percent capacity for the 10th car is frankly not worth it, seeing the more pressing capacity issues on Lex Ave and QBL that need to be addressed.

I do see the appeal of a new Williamsburg tunnel for the (B)(D) so the (J)(Z) don't get disrupted. The question now is how would the new (B)(D) reach Brooklyn? Presumably via the express platforms at 2 Ave, but in that scenario I can't imagine any part of the Chrystie St connection would survive. That might not be a necessarily bad thing though, as auxiliary connections between major trunk lines are a net capacity decrease and should be removed from normal service.

I don't really see removing the connections at Chrystie St between Sixth and Second Avenues, or between Sixth Avenue and the Bridge, as a problem. Sixth Avenue is already connected to many other trunk lines elsewhere, and Second Avenue doesn't have much of a connection to anything, but the split would give access to all the lines available at DeKalb.

The current plan for SAS basically strands it to the two connections at 63rd.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

For this to work, you would have to rebuild Essex Street so that the middle track could access both platforms. This should be done by having the westbound platform and track swapped, with the station configuration turning into that of Whitehall (R) and other 3-track express stops elsewhere in the system.

It would be easier to just shift everything south a bit using the trolley terminal (and would also eliminate that slow speed curve onto the Williamsburg Bridge)

I would turn the current middle track into the new westbound track walling it off from the current westbound track, widen the current island platform by moving the current eastbound (M) track and future middle track further south (on the opposite side of the pillars that run along that track) and then build another second island platform of similar width in the former trolley terminal with a new eastbound track. As part of this, you could also make the entire complex ADA accessible.

 

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/16/2019 at 10:36 PM, Caelestor said:

Lengthening one station and getting a 11.25 percent capacity increase on the (J)(L)(M)(Z) sounds like great ROI. Getting the additional 11 percent capacity for the 10th car is frankly not worth it, seeing the more pressing capacity issues on Lex Ave and QBL that need to be addressed.

Fully agree this is something worth doing. Hopefully there aren’t (or more likely, the MTA don’t come up with) any problems precluding lengthening Metro, so we can get that relatively easy increase in capacity on the Eastern Division lines, which surely need it. MTA will then have to order additional 60-foot trailer cars to operate with the R143s, R160s and R179s. That may be a bit tricky because only the first two of those classes were built by Kawasaki, so they would have to go back to Bombardier if they need 9-car R179 trains.  

On 11/13/2019 at 11:11 PM, JeremiahC99 said:

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.

...

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:

...

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.

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?

Personally, I’m not really a fan of extending the (C) to Lefferts because it will create yet another merge with the (A) at Grant Avenue. 

Yes, it is preposterous to say that the current (M) service offers no benefits over the old (brownM) service. Unbelievable how often we come across people who want the old (brownM) back (including quite a few people I’ve worked with in court who live on both ends of the old route). If anything, the (M) should get longer trains (lengthen Metro for 9-car train!).

As for SAS, I’m finding myself believing that making it into a sort of semi-enclosed line with virtually no interlining may be the only real way we can get the most capacity out of it. But since the MTA’s planners insist upon continuing the “more one seat rides” policy that goes back at least to 1940 - when the former Board of Transportation had the 6th Avenue IND branches piggy-back onto their 8th Avenue counterparts which opened in 1932 - we’ll have to either build around (or below) the existing SAS stations and build a new tunnel to Queens to get that capacity. The consensus on here seems to be that even with a V train via QBL, 63rd and SAS in addition to the main (T) service, it still won’t be enough.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/17/2019 at 2:40 PM, JeremiahC99 said:

For this to work, you would have to rebuild Essex Street so that the middle track could access both platforms. This should be done by having the westbound platform and track swapped, with the station configuration turning into that of Whitehall (R) and other 3-track express stops elsewhere in the system.

Also, is it possible to turn 12 trains per hour on a single pocket track (the middle track in this case)?

You _can_ do 12 on a pocket, but your ops resiliency would be low. I'd look to have relay capability at Bowery and/or a 4 track Essex St that allows high(er) cap terminal ops.

Share this post


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

Personally, I’m not really a fan of extending the (C) to Lefferts because it will create yet another merge with the (A) at Grant Avenue. 

I'm also opposed to extending the (C) past Euclid with only current infrastructure, but if new infrastructure is built to avoid this merging (such as the BRoadway-Fulton Tunnel to allow for (R) service to run on the line), then I'm on board with it.

Originally, I had intended to have (C) service go to Rockaway Park, while the (A) and new (H) go to Far Rockaway and Lefferts respecively. The problem with this, as some people pointed out when I made it, is that even with the (C) going express in Brooklyn and Manahttan, the length of the line would make the line unreliable. Since then, the plan has gone through several modifications, eventually settling with my current plan: (C) to Lefferts, (A) to Far Rockaway, and (S) to Rockaway Park at all times except late nights, when service is is extended to Euclid Avenue to enhance connections. The (C) express and (R) to Euclid plans are unchanged. In addition, even though I am now planning to run all three Queens services at 12 trains per hour, I have also proposed enhancing the Q53 SBS by extending it west and increasing its frequency to the Rockaway Blvd station, though it does come with problems in itself.

On 11/20/2019 at 6:40 PM, T to Dyre Avenue said:

Yes, it is preposterous to say that the current (M) service offers no benefits over the old (brownM) service. Unbelievable how often we come across people who want the old (brownM) back (including quite a few people I’ve worked with in court who live on both ends of the old route). If anything, the (M) should get longer trains (lengthen Metro for 9-car train!).

I believe the reason for their opposition to the (M) is that it goes in a "loop" from Metro to 71st Avenue, something I see nothing wrong with. The only thing I find wrong with the (M) is the Manhattan-Queens crossing. Currently, it runs via 53rd Street, which feeds into the 8th Avenue Line with a spur off to the 6th Avenue corridor. This interferes with the (E) route, preventing service increases along the route. IF the route ran via 63rd Street, and a new 53rd-8th Avenue (K) service added, (R) removed from QBL and back to Astoria, and (C) service moved to the express tracks and swapped with the (D), then we can see "segregation" of services on the Manhattan-Queens tunnels, with the 63rd Street Tunnel solely serving 6th Avenue trains, 60th Street serving only Broadway Trains, and 53rd Street serving only 8th Avenue trains. 24 trains through each tunnel and zero impacts.

In addition, they have also opposed my Nassau-8th Avenue plans (no matter how many revisions I make) due to the fear that the plan creates more (M)-like routes. In fact, my (K) route for the new connection is nothing more than an 8th Avenue (M) line. They don't also like the connection at Spring Street, since they don't want the connection to be at the local station, but this has not stopped them before. And as for the (M) getting longer trains, this will tie in to my revised plan for the (E) and (K) replacing (J) and (M) service over the bridge, with the (E) to Broadway Junction and the (K) to Metropolitan Avenue. Bowery, Essex Street, and all other stations on the line would be lengthened as well.

On 11/20/2019 at 6:40 PM, T to Dyre Avenue said:

As for SAS, I’m finding myself believing that making it into a sort of semi-enclosed line with virtually no interlining may be the only real way we can get the most capacity out of it. But since the MTA’s planners insist upon continuing the “more one seat rides” policy that goes back at least to 1940 - when the former Board of Transportation had the 6th Avenue IND branches piggy-back onto their 8th Avenue counterparts which opened in 1932 - we’ll have to either build around (or below) the existing SAS stations and build a new tunnel to Queens to get that capacity. The consensus on here seems to be that even with a V train via QBL, 63rd and SAS in addition to the main (T) service, it still won’t be enough.

For SAS, following the scrapping of the SAS services running via all three current Manhattan-Queens crossings, I started to come up with a new plan to have the SAS service another borough (Queens), while getting people off the Lexington Avenue Line. I thought of the old Northern Blvd Line I was thinking of a while back, and thought "Maybe I should use this for the new SAS northern end". At this point, I am proposing to have the outer tracks go to the Northern Blvd Line. I'll talk of the alignment later, but there will be issues with the service pattern development

On 11/20/2019 at 7:53 PM, RR503 said:

You _can_ do 12 on a pocket, but your ops resiliency would be low. I'd look to have relay capability at Bowery and/or a 4 track Essex St that allows high(er) cap terminal ops.

The problem I see with the 4-track Essex Street is with the two island-platforms configuration, the (J) situation would just end up recreating Flatbush Avenue (2)(5), but on the (J). I want to avoid this annoying situation. The other option is a configuration similar to Atlantic-Barclays IRT and both of the 34th Street-Penn Station stops: two side-platforms and one island platform. Problem with this is that this would result in inconvenient transfers to the new services over the bridge, such as my proposed (E) and (K) routes for the Nassau-8th Avenue connection. Under this option, passengers could transfer across the platform at Bowery as well.

For my (E) and (K) option, I am against having the relay at Bowery since all four tracks will be in use under this plan, with the (E) and (K) using the outer tracks and the (J) using the inner tracks. The southern tracks would be reactivated under this option. This would leave no extra tracks for relaying at Bowery. 

There needs to be some compromise for a 4-track Essex to work.

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.