Department of Subways - Proposals/Ideas

[mrsman]

2 hours ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

If that’s the case, then you might as well not have the . Just leave the , but terminate it at Whitehall and have the  run Astoria to Bay Ridge and be based at an upgraded 38th Street Yard.

One nice thing about doing this is that you can have a "deinterlining lite".  I know that there is still some demand for  service connecting to QB, largely to accommodate transfers to  .  So while maintaining some  trains prevents full deinterlining, to the extent that you send most QB trains to 53rd and 63rd, and send most Bwy locals to Astoria, sending a small number of  trains through from Bwy local to Queens Blvd will help address people's desires to maintain their transfers.  And if it is only a small number of trains that make this connection, like 6 TPH, it won't gum up the works too much.

My personal preference is to go for full deinterlining, and divorcing  from Queens Blvd.  Improved transfers at 63/Lex to 59/Lex would be necessary, though.  It is just that much more efficient overall to avoid reverse branching, to the extent possible.

 

[Jova42R]

For SAS, here is my ideal plan:

(sorry for posting thrice, ran out of emoji space!)

:

• 12 Av-West Harlem
• Broadway
• St Nicholas Av
• Lenox Av
• Park Av MNRR
• 2 Av
• 116 St
• 106 St
• 96 St
• 86 St
• 72 St 
• 60 St  free connection to
• 53 St  free connection to
• 48 St
• 42 St  free connection to
• 34 St
• 23-26 Sts - Waterside Plaza 
• 14 St - StuyTown  free connection to
• 8 St  free connection to
• Houston St
• Delancey St
• Chatham Sq
• Fulton St
• Hanover Sq

[Jova42R]

For SAS, here is my ideal plan:

(sorry for posting thrice, ran out of emoji space!)

:

• LGA Airport
• 82 St
• Hazen St
• 45 St
• Stienway St
• 31 St
• Crescent St
• 21 St
• Randalls Island
• 106 St
• 96 St 
• 86 St 
• 72 St 
• 60 St  free connection to
• 53 St  free connection to
• 48 St 
• 42 St  free connection to
• 34 St
• 23-26 Sts - Waterside Plaza 
• 14 St - StuyTown  free connection to
• 8 St  free connection to
• Houston St 
• Delancey St 
• Chatham Sq 
• Fulton St
• Hanover Sq 

 

[Jova42R]

For SAS, here is my ideal plan:

(sorry for posting thrice, ran out of emoji space!)

:

• Park Av MNRR
• 2 Av
• 116 St
• 106 St
• 96 St
• 86 St
• 72 St
• to Coney Island

[T to Dyre Avenue]

18 hours ago, mrsman said:

One nice thing about doing this is that you can have a "deinterlining lite".  I know that there is still some demand for  service connecting to QB, largely to accommodate transfers to  .  So while maintaining some  trains prevents full deinterlining, to the extent that you send most QB trains to 53rd and 63rd, and send most Bwy locals to Astoria, sending a small number of  trains through from Bwy local to Queens Blvd will help address people's desires to maintain their transfers.  And if it is only a small number of trains that make this connection, like 6 TPH, it won't gum up the works too much.

My personal preference is to go for full deinterlining, and divorcing  from Queens Blvd.  Improved transfers at 63/Lex to 59/Lex would be necessary, though.  It is just that much more efficient overall to avoid reverse branching, to the extent possible.

 

True, but at the same time, if you’re sending just six Broadway trains per hour to Queens Blvd, relatively few people will go out of their way to wait for them unless they know approximately when they’ll be coming. And when those trains merge onto the Queens Blvd line at Queens Plaza, there will be delays because you’ll still have the  switching from express to local there and the  joining them just before 36th St. That will be one major bottleneck.

I’m still not fully sold on the complete deinterlining of QBL. And I think the only “deinterlining lite” that could be somewhat effective would be to remove the  from QBL and replace it with a third 6th Avenue service, the . It would be the  and  express via 53rd and the  and  local via 63rd. However this plan would have drawbacks; the biggest being that  and  trains would be unable to run more than 10 tph and would have a very tight squeeze on the 6th Avenue local tracks.

Edited January 31, 2020 by T to Dyre Avenue

[R68OnBroadway]

Random idea: Would it make sense to build a “bypass” down Conduit Blvd from the layup tracks past Euclid to the Rockaway ROW? Doing so would allow for the  to Lefferts without a merge and speed up commute times for Rockaway riders as well as bring more transit to an area dependent on buses, but it would make Euclid a huge transfer point and leave Lefferts riders stuck with local service.

[P3F]

4 hours ago, R68OnBroadway said:

Random idea: Would it make sense to build a “bypass” down Conduit Blvd from the layup tracks past Euclid to the Rockaway ROW? Doing so would allow for the  to Lefferts without a merge and speed up commute times for Rockaway riders as well as bring more transit to an area dependent on buses, but it would make Euclid a huge transfer point and leave Lefferts riders stuck with local service.

It's probably more cost effective to connect the middle El track to the Fulton Street express; that way, you can avoid the merge in the peak direction.

Although, both of these proposals involve Rockaway peak direction service skipping Rockaway Boulevard, which might not be the best of ideas.

Edited February 1, 2020 by P3F

[Jova42R]

How expensive would it be to make a light rail in the service road/median of the HH Parkway in Riverdale, then link it to Manhattan? (See map below)

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1Pqspe1rMgN28JdgoqhpzHN7Qef81COTv&usp=sharing

Would this be feasible?

[paulbyron]

53 minutes ago, Jova42R said:

How expensive would it be to make a light rail in the service road/median of the HH Parkway in Riverdale, then link it to Manhattan? (See map below)

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1Pqspe1rMgN28JdgoqhpzHN7Qef81COTv&usp=sharing

Would this be feasible?

I live in Inwood, and this proposal would require MASSIVE construction unless traffic would be allowed on tracks, in which case, why not just use buses? Most of the streets (in Inwood) are only two lanes wide.

[Jova42R]

1 minute ago, paulbyron said:

I live in Inwood, and this proposal would require MASSIVE construction unless traffic would be allowed on tracks, in which case, why not just use buses? Most of the streets (in Inwood) are only two lanes wide.

It would be a light rail system. The only dedicated ROW is on the HH Bridge. This would be a faster alternative than buses - the  currently would take about twice as long as this.

[paulbyron]

Just now, Jova42R said:

It would be a light rail system. The only dedicated ROW is on the HH Bridge. This would be a faster alternative than buses - the  currently would take about twice as long as this.

Well, why not run buses along the proposed route? It would definitely be faster, as you point out. I just don't think all of the effort to build light rail would be worthwhile.

[Jova42R]

1 minute ago, paulbyron said:

Well, why not run buses along the proposed route? It would definitely be faster, as you point out. I just don't think all of the effort to build light rail would be worthwhile.

true, however a light rail would NOT be affected by traffic delays on the HH Parkway. And, also, theoretically, you could use new tracks in the Amtrak ROW from the HH Bridge to Dyckman. Light rail is also cheap to build compared to a subway.

[paulbyron]

1 minute ago, Jova42R said:

true, however a light rail would NOT be affected by traffic delays on the HH Parkway. And, also, theoretically, you could use new tracks in the Amtrak ROW from the HH Bridge to Dyckman. Light rail is also cheap to build compared to a subway.

I can see the benefit with regards to traffic delays. But couldn't you just build a bus lane protected by barriers? It would be impossible to build along the Amtrak ROW for two reasons. First, there's a huge slope from the bridge to the ROW, and second, it would be impossible to switch from the Amtrak ROW to Dyckman St without entirely tearing up the small bridge across the road or closing the main entrance to Dyckman Fields, a very popular area of Inwood Hill Park. While light rail is cheap compared to subway, who's asking for a subway? Buses would be nearly free, as almost no infrastructure would be required compared to light rail.

[Jova42R]

11 minutes ago, paulbyron said:

I can see the benefit with regards to traffic delays. But couldn't you just build a bus lane protected by barriers? It would be impossible to build along the Amtrak ROW for two reasons. First, there's a huge slope from the bridge to the ROW, and second, it would be impossible to switch from the Amtrak ROW to Dyckman St without entirely tearing up the small bridge across the road or closing the main entrance to Dyckman Fields, a very popular area of Inwood Hill Park. While light rail is cheap compared to subway, who's asking for a subway? Buses would be nearly free, as almost no infrastructure would be required compared to light rail.

BRT could work. I thought that you were talking about a local bus. Another option is to use the siding at Riverdale MNR, revamp it, and run trains from Riverdale, via WSA, to Penn Station, stopping at Dyckman. Another stop, theoretically, could be 181 St, it has a bridge over the ROW that connects to 181 St.

So,

• Option 1: BRT:
  • 252 St/HHP
  • 246 St/HHP
  • 239 St/HHP
  • 236 St/HHP
  • 232 St/HHP
  • Dyckman/Broadway
  • Sherman/Broadway
  • Fairview/Broadway
  • 190/Ft Wash
  • 187/Pinehurst
  • 181/ Ft Wash
  • 178/Ft Wash
  • 176/Pinehurst
• Option 2, shuttle train via WSA
  • Riverdale MNRR
  • NEW Spuyten Duyvil Station MNRR
  • Dyckman
  • 181
  • 125
  • 62
  • Penn

Thoughts?

Edited February 2, 2020 by Jova42R

[paulbyron]

2 minutes ago, Jova42R said:

BRT could work. I thought that you were talking about a local bus. Another option is to use the siding at Riverdale MNR, revamp it, and run trains from Riverdale, via WSA, to Penn Station, stopping at Dyckman. Another stop, theoretically, could be 181 St, it has a bridge over the ROW that connects to 181 St.

So,

• Option 1: BRT:
  • 252 St/HHP
  • 246 St/HHP
  • 239 St/HHP
  • 236 St/HHP
  • 232 St/HHP
  • Dyckman/Broadway
  • Sherman/Broadway
  • Fairview/Broadway
  • 190/Ft Wash
  • 187/Pinehurst
  • 181/ Ft Wash
  • 178/Ft Wash
  • 176/Pinehurst
• Option 2, shuttle train via WSA
  • Riverdale MNRR
  • NEW Spuyten Duyvil Station MNRR
  • Dyckman
  • 181
  • 125
  • 62
  • Penn

Thoughts?

I like the idea of the BRT. I'm not sure that that specific route is best, but I'd love to see BRT in my neighbourhood. I don't think that just running shuttle trains on the West Side Line would be best, as I think it'd be better to run some Hudson Line MNR trains into the space freed up by ESA at Penn Station. This could both add service on the Hudson Line and on the Harlem and New Haven Lines into the new slots at GCT.

[Trainmaster5]

1 hour ago, Jova42R said:

BRT could work. I thought that you were talking about a local bus. Another option is to use the siding at Riverdale MNR, revamp it, and run trains from Riverdale, via WSA, to Penn Station, stopping at Dyckman. Another stop, theoretically, could be 181 St, it has a bridge over the ROW that connects to 181 St.

So,

• Option 1: BRT:
  • 252 St/HHP
  • 246 St/HHP
  • 239 St/HHP
  • 236 St/HHP
  • 232 St/HHP
  • Dyckman/Broadway
  • Sherman/Broadway
  • Fairview/Broadway
  • 190/Ft Wash
  • 187/Pinehurst
  • 181/ Ft Wash
  • 178/Ft Wash
  • 176/Pinehurst
• Option 2, shuttle train via WSA
  • Riverdale MNRR
  • NEW Spuyten Duyvil Station MNRR
  • Dyckman
  • 181
  • 125
  • 62
  • Penn

Thoughts?

I believe that it’s against federal law to have light rail or subway or BRT in the Amtrak . That’s why you don’t have a subway running next to the LIRR or any railroad.

[RR503]

1 minute ago, Trainmaster5 said:

I believe that it’s against federal law to have light rail or subway or BRT in the Amtrak . That’s why you don’t have a subway running next to the LIRR or any railroad.

Next to is allowed, on the same tracks as is not unless you have a temporal separation waiver

[Jova42R]

33 minutes ago, Trainmaster5 said:

I believe that it’s against federal law to have light rail or subway or BRT in the Amtrak . That’s why you don’t have a subway running next to the LIRR or any railroad.

I meant a seperate BRT on the HH Parkway. The Amtrak ROW would be a seperate WSA train.

[GojiMet86]

31 minutes ago, RR503 said:

Next to is allowed, on the same tracks as is not unless you have a temporal separation waiver

 

The recent study on the LIRR Rockaway revival mentioned "It is assumed that up to a 30-foot separation would be required by Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) between LIRR and NYCT unless a crash barrier is constructed between the tracks".

So next to is allowed, like WMATA and MARC, but unless a barrier is built between the subway and the railroad track, the minimum separation would be 30 feet.

[Trainmaster5]

18 minutes ago, GojiMet86 said:

 

The recent study on the LIRR Rockaway revival mentioned "It is assumed that up to a 30-foot separation would be required by Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) between LIRR and NYCT unless a crash barrier is constructed between the tracks".

So next to is allowed, like WMATA and MARC, but unless a barrier is built between the subway and the railroad track, the minimum separation would be 30 feet.

Thanks for the clarification 👌🏾

[bobtehpanda]

4 hours ago, Jova42R said:

How expensive would it be to make a light rail in the service road/median of the HH Parkway in Riverdale, then link it to Manhattan? (See map below)

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1Pqspe1rMgN28JdgoqhpzHN7Qef81COTv&usp=sharing

Would this be feasible?

I feel like the grades would not be great for steel wheel on rail.

1 hour ago, Trainmaster5 said:

I believe that it’s against federal law to have light rail or subway or BRT in the Amtrak . That’s why you don’t have a subway running next to the LIRR or any railroad.

Just to clarify further, Boston's Orange Line runs adjacent to the NEC with a concrete barrier, DC Metro runs several lines next to rail lines, and LA is building its Gold Line along rail tracks as well:

 

[LGA Link N Train]

This has been on my mind lately. But would a Northern Blvd-Main Street-73rd Avenue Trunk Line for Queens work if it were possible? It could be:

 (later on ) - Northern Blvd/Main Street Local. Local Trains will continue down Main Street and terminate at Union Turnpike while Expresses Branch off to 73rd Avenue.  This would force QBL to Deinterline.

 (or SAS Train) - Main Street Express, via 73rd Avenue to Bell Blvd. (Trains come from LGA if it were the ) 

SAS Line: Northern Blvd, Main Street Express then via 73rd Avenue to Bell Blvd. SAS Trains would run into Manhattan via a new tunnel at 59th Street/Queens Plaza South. Under this plan, maybe the  or  could branch off to 32nd Avenue to FLB/Utopia with a Transfer Station at Willets Point? 

I’ll make a map to describe what I’m proposing later.

Edited February 3, 2020 by LaGuardia Link N Tra

[Wallyhorse]

On 1/30/2020 at 7:58 PM, Jova42R said:

For SAS, here is my ideal plan:

(sorry for posting thrice, ran out of emoji space!)

:

• Park Av MNRR
• 2 Av
• 116 St
• 106 St
• 96 St
• 86 St
• 72 St
• to Coney Island

I replied to this over in the SAS discussion thread.

[bobtehpanda]

On 2/2/2020 at 5:53 PM, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

This has been on my mind lately. But would a Northern Blvd-Main Street-73rd Avenue Trunk Line for Queens work if it were possible? It could be:

 (later on ) - Northern Blvd/Main Street Local. Local Trains will continue down Main Street and terminate at Union Turnpike while Expresses Branch off to 73rd Avenue.  This would force QBL to Deinterline.

I don't really get how one follows the other.

We've tried the as a standalone local train before, and it was so bad that they jury-rigged a bad 11th St connection, and then a worse 63rd St connection, to try and fix the issue.

[Lex]

2 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

I don't really get how one follows the other.

We've tried the as a standalone local train before, and it was so bad that they jury-rigged a bad 11th St connection, and then a worse 63rd St connection, to try and fix the issue.

At this point, I'd go with something someone else proposed -- namely, having it continue north along 21st Street, possibly with provisions for a Bronx connection (this connection being one of my ideas). This won't necessarily eliminate the existing rail connections, which I'd rather keep for any non-revenue moves and revenue service when 💩 hits the fan.