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

12 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

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

We've tried the (G) 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.

What I’m trying to say is that if a Northern Blvd Line can be built, it should start off as a (G) extension since it’d be the easiest line to connect in the short term. It could end at either Junction Blvd or Main Street to connect with the (7). That’ll be the first phase. 

Then as the line eventually gets extended and SAS lines get involved, the (G) would then be replaced on Northern Blvd with the (L) via a new 10th Avenue-50th (or 57th) Street Extension via a rebuilt 11th Street cut. Which then allows you to re-extend the (G) via 21st Street.

Edited by LaGuardia Link N Tra

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How do other systems around the world manage with 2 tracks? if something goes wrong, do they lose significant capacity like NYC’s subway? If they can operate efficiently with just single-tracking to bypass the problems, would this disprove the need for road-like redundancy in rail? And if so, what technologies are they using and how do they manage their operations?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/1/2020 at 6:31 PM, 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?

Do you have any idea how narrow the HH Parkway ROW is? No way could any tracks fit there, even if elevated. Also, the route on your map to and from Riverdale MNRR station goes through what's called the "estate area." No way those residents would want rail on their streets. And the grades uphill from MNRR would also be impossible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Italianstallion said:

Do you have any idea how narrow the HH Parkway ROW is?

It would be on the service road.

4 minutes ago, Italianstallion said:

Also, the route on your map to and from Riverdale MNRR station goes through what's called the "estate area." No way those residents would want rail on their streets.

So then run it on an alternative route? Doesn't the Hudson Rail Link run there? This, as discussed earlier, could be BRT.

7 minutes ago, Italianstallion said:

And the grades uphill from MNRR would also be impossible.

The Hudson Rail Link runs there - It could be BRT.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would it be feasible to make a Roosevelt Island to Manhattan BRT (via RFK Bridge), making no stops? Or is that just another one of my pie-in-the-sky ideas (there are many!)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Jova42R said:

Would it be feasible to make a Roosevelt Island to Manhattan BRT (via RFK Bridge), making no stops? Or is that just another one of my pie-in-the-sky ideas (there are many!)?

I don't really see a demand for this- the (F) serves Manhattan from 3rd and west, and for 2nd to the river you have the tram.

Share this post


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

How do other systems around the world manage with 2 tracks? if something goes wrong, do they lose significant capacity like NYC’s subway? If they can operate efficiently with just single-tracking to bypass the problems, would this disprove the need for road-like redundancy in rail? And if so, what technologies are they using and how do they manage their operations?

  • They don't operate at night, usually
  • They might be built as separate tubes with single-tracking, so one track can be worked on without the possibility of a train hitting a worker (Copenhagen)
  • They schedule major shutdowns during holiday periods when people are either not working and traveling (Christmas) or when people are using their state-mandated weeks of vacation (August), with bus bridges for the few people traveling during that time

Example: Paris shut down the RER A, the busiest rail line in the Western world, for a month straight in the summer of 2018 https://www.ratp.fr/en/rer-a-summer-work/faq-rer-a-summer-work

Edited by bobtehpanda
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Jova42R said:

It would be on the service road.

So then run it on an alternative route? Doesn't the Hudson Rail Link run there? This, as discussed earlier, could be BRT.

The Hudson Rail Link runs there - It could be BRT.

Do you know how narrow the service road is? One driving lane plus one parking lane.

Hudson Rail Link has teeny tiny buses, not suitable for BRT. Big buses would have a real problem on the narrow, curvy, steep streets.

I know, I live a few blocks away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@RR503 or @R68OnBroadway, on the subject of the Broadway Line north of 57 St-7 Av, how come the (MTA) didn't acknowledge back then that they could have planned two tracks on West 60th Street and another two on West 59th Street? This would have connected the outermost tracks to/from Queens Blvd and the innermost tracks to/from Astoria, with crossovers south of 59-Lex for today's (W) service to use for Broadway Local service.

Share this post


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

@RR503 or @R68OnBroadway, on the subject of the Broadway Line north of 57 St-7 Av, how come the (MTA) didn't acknowledge back then that they could have planned two tracks on West 60th Street and another two on West 59th Street? This would have connected the outermost tracks to/from Queens Blvd and the innermost tracks to/from Astoria, with crossovers south of 59-Lex for today's (W) service to use for Broadway Local service.

Because they didn't build it? The BMT and (MTA) have jack shit to do with each other in terms of the planning staff common between either.

Share this post


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

Because they didn't build it? The BMT and (MTA) have jack shit to do with each other in terms of the planning staff common between either.

Whatever. But I doubt it’s because “they didn’t build it”. While the original plan (in this case, the BMT) was for one track to run under West 59th Street and the other on West 60th Street (before they changed it to both tracks running on West 60th Street instead), I still wonder that the thought process of the BMT for two tracks (and two island platforms) on West 60th Street and West 59th Street respectively (even before deciding to build them) could have been there. That’s all I was asking.

That underpass at the 59th Street area is...trash.   

Share this post


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

@RR503 or @R68OnBroadway, on the subject of the Broadway Line north of 57 St-7 Av, how come the (MTA) didn't acknowledge back then that they could have planned two tracks on West 60th Street and another two on West 59th Street? This would have connected the outermost tracks to/from Queens Blvd and the innermost tracks to/from Astoria, with crossovers south of 59-Lex for today's (W) service to use for Broadway Local service.

The 11th street cut to QBL wasn’t built until 1955, so when the initial line was built, the idea was for expresses->57th(plan for a later extension north) and locals -> Astoria. Given that, two tracks was fine. After the connection was built, it wasn’t necessary to build two more tracks since the tracks would be shared come from Broadway local anyways. If you want to fix the capacity crunch, you just need to send the (N) up 2nd and swap the (R) and (W) northern terminals.

Share this post


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

The 11th street cut to QBL wasn’t built until 1955, so when the initial line was built, the idea was for expresses->57th(plan for a later extension north) and locals -> Astoria. Given that, two tracks was fine. After the connection was built, it wasn’t necessary to build two more tracks since the tracks would be shared come from Broadway local anyways. If you want to fix the capacity crunch, you just need to send the (N) up 2nd and swap the (R) and (W) northern terminals.

I guess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How much would it cost to rebuild the Nassau to Manhattan Bridge connection? I think that a service from Chambers St to Coney Island via 4 Av Local and Sea Beach Express would be a MASSIVE benefit to crowding on the (N).

My proposal:

(QJ)

Nassau St Local

4 Av Local

Sea Beach Express

BOLDED = stops all times

UNDERLINED = stops only during rush hours

NORMAL = stops during non-rush hour and weekends/nights

  • Broad St (J)(Z)
  • Fulton St (1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(A)(C)(E)(R)(W)
    • non-rush trains start at Chambers, rush hours extended to Broad
  • Chambers St (J)(Z)(4)(5)(6)<6>
  • Mott St
    • after the new station at Mott st, it would run via the (Q) tracks on the Bridge
    • uses (N) tracks to Atlantic during rush hour.
  • DeKalb Av (B)(Q)(R)
  • Atlantic Av (2)(3)(4)(5)(B)(D)(N)(Q)(R)(MTA)LIRR
  • Union St (R)
  • 4 Av-9 St (F)(G)(R)
  • Prospect Av (R)
  • 25 St (R)
  • 36 St (D)(N)(R)
  • 45 St (R)
  • 59 St (N)(R)
    • peak direction express 8 Av to Kings Hwy
  • 8 Av (N)
  • Fort Hamilton Pkwy (N)
  • New Utrecht Av - 62 St (N)(D)
  • 18 Av (N)
  • 20 Av (N)
  • Bay Pkwy (N)
  • Kings Hwy (N)
    • all trains run express Kings Hwy to Coney Island
    • all (QJ) trains stop on the local track at Kings Hwy unless island platforms are built.
  • Coney Island (D)(F)(N)(Q)

Thoughts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Jova42R said:

How much would it cost to rebuild the Nassau to Manhattan Bridge connection? I think that a service from Chambers St to Coney Island via 4 Av Local and Sea Beach Express would be a MASSIVE benefit to crowding on the (N).

My proposal:

(QJ)

Nassau St Local

4 Av Local

Sea Beach Express

BOLDED = stops all times

UNDERLINED = stops only during rush hours

NORMAL = stops during non-rush hour and weekends/nights

  • Broad St (J)(Z)
  • Fulton St (1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(A)(C)(E)(R)(W)
    • non-rush trains start at Chambers, rush hours extended to Broad
  • Chambers St (J)(Z)(4)(5)(6)<6>
  • Mott St
    • after the new station at Mott st, it would run via the (Q) tracks on the Bridge
    • uses (N) tracks to Atlantic during rush hour.
  • DeKalb Av (B)(Q)(R)
  • Atlantic Av (2)(3)(4)(5)(B)(D)(N)(Q)(R)(MTA)LIRR
  • Union St (R)
  • 4 Av-9 St (F)(G)(R)
  • Prospect Av (R)
  • 25 St (R)
  • 36 St (D)(N)(R)
  • 45 St (R)
  • 59 St (N)(R)
    • peak direction express 8 Av to Kings Hwy
  • 8 Av (N)
  • Fort Hamilton Pkwy (N)
  • New Utrecht Av - 62 St (N)(D)
  • 18 Av (N)
  • 20 Av (N)
  • Bay Pkwy (N)
  • Kings Hwy (N)
    • all trains run express Kings Hwy to Coney Island
    • all (QJ) trains stop on the local track at Kings Hwy unless island platforms are built.
  • Coney Island (D)(F)(N)(Q)

Thoughts?

It’s completely unnecessary to do this. And it will completely kneecap (N)(Q) service, which are already hampered enough by the (N)(R)(W) merge at 34th St and Gold St (DeKalb) Junction. And why duplicate the (N) in Brooklyn?

Edited by T to Dyre Avenue
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


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

It’s completely unnecessary to do this. And it will completely kneecap (N)(Q) service, which are already hampered enough by the (N)(R)(W) merge at 34th St and Gold St (DeKalb) Junction. And why duplicate the (N) in Brooklyn?

So that Sea Beach can have an express service. Also, the (QJ) could just run via 4 Av Local tp Bay Ridge or via Sea Beach

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This (QJ) service wouldn’t really be much of an express if it runs local on 4th Avenue and has to merge with the (B)(D)(N)(Q) at an already overtaxed DeKalb Junction and has to cross in front of (N)(Q) trains traveling in the opposite direction. Even less so during off-hours when it would be skipping only 86th St and Avenue U on the Sea Beach Line.

Edited by T to Dyre Avenue

Share this post


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

This (QJ) service wouldn’t really be much of an express if it runs local on 4th Avenue and has to merge with the (B)(D)(N)(Q) at an already overtaxed DeKalb Junction and has to cross in front of (N)(Q) trains traveling in the opposite direction. Even less so during off-hours when it would be skipping only 86th St and Avenue U on the Sea Beach Line.

It could run 4 Av express south of 36th. Also, possibly, they could build new switches, and then it would run express from 8th to New Utrecht on the Bay Ridge Branch line

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Jova42R said:

How much would it cost to rebuild the Nassau to Manhattan Bridge connection? I think that a service from Chambers St to Coney Island via 4 Av Local and Sea Beach Express would be a MASSIVE benefit to crowding on the (N).

My proposal:

(QJ)

Nassau St Local

4 Av Local

Sea Beach Express

BOLDED = stops all times

UNDERLINED = stops only during rush hours

NORMAL = stops during non-rush hour and weekends/nights

  • Broad St (J)(Z)
  • Fulton St (1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(A)(C)(E)(R)(W)
    • non-rush trains start at Chambers, rush hours extended to Broad
  • Chambers St (J)(Z)(4)(5)(6)<6>
  • Mott St
    • after the new station at Mott st, it would run via the (Q) tracks on the Bridge
    • uses (N) tracks to Atlantic during rush hour.
  • DeKalb Av (B)(Q)(R)
  • Atlantic Av (2)(3)(4)(5)(B)(D)(N)(Q)(R)(MTA)LIRR
  • Union St (R)
  • 4 Av-9 St (F)(G)(R)
  • Prospect Av (R)
  • 25 St (R)
  • 36 St (D)(N)(R)
  • 45 St (R)
  • 59 St (N)(R)
    • peak direction express 8 Av to Kings Hwy
  • 8 Av (N)
  • Fort Hamilton Pkwy (N)
  • New Utrecht Av - 62 St (N)(D)
  • 18 Av (N)
  • 20 Av (N)
  • Bay Pkwy (N)
  • Kings Hwy (N)
    • all trains run express Kings Hwy to Coney Island
    • all (QJ) trains stop on the local track at Kings Hwy unless island platforms are built.
  • Coney Island (D)(F)(N)(Q)

Thoughts?

Wouldn't it be way more straight forward to just have this run with the R to Bay Ridge like the <RR>/brown R did? And to be honest, the Manhattan Bridge connection would disrupt DeKalb more than it already is...

Speaking of which, I remember when Bay Ridge residents wanted to split the R for additional service (that was a while ago), and maybe what I said above can be a good candidate to coincide with the (R). Thoughts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Tonyboy515 said:

Wouldn't it be way more straight forward to just have this run with the R to Bay Ridge like the <RR>/brown R did? And to be honest, the Manhattan Bridge connection would disrupt DeKalb more than it already is...

Speaking of which, I remember when Bay Ridge residents wanted to split the R for additional service (that was a while ago), and maybe what I said above can be a good candidate to coincide with the (R). Thoughts?

There are additional trains on Broadway local, and they are currently terminating at South Ferry cutting the service to Brooklyn. Extend those trains and you have solved the problem of “not enough service between Lower Manhattan and Bay Ridge.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Tonyboy515 said:

Wouldn't it be way more straight forward to just have this run with the R to Bay Ridge like the <RR>/brown R did? And to be honest, the Manhattan Bridge connection would disrupt DeKalb more than it already is...

I basically proposed this with the Nassau Loop Line in the past, where it would run via the tunnel to Manhattan and via the Bridge to Brooklyn, with only the Brooklyn-bound track reconnected to the Nassau Line on the bridge (with 95th Street being the sole terminal for the line though Chambers would technically be the northern terminal.  Trains would only stop northbound at Jay-Metrotech, Court, Broad, Fulton and Nassau and go right back to Brooklyn. 

Share this post


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

I basically proposed this with the Nassau Loop Line in the past, where it would run via the tunnel to Manhattan and via the Bridge to Brooklyn, with only the Brooklyn-bound track reconnected to the Nassau Line on the bridge (with 95th Street being the sole terminal for the line though Chambers would technically be the northern terminal.  Trains would only stop northbound at Jay-Metrotech, Court, Broad, Fulton and Nassau and go right back to Brooklyn. 

Do you remember what was said in the community? I can’t find the discussions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, CenSin said:

Do you remember what was said in the community? I can’t find the discussions.

It think it was not well received as I had revived it originally when we had the pols in Bay Ridge wanting the (R) to become more reliable.  I had later adjusted that into a 95th-Essex Street line that would based out of East New York where yard runs would be in-service to and from there after feedback. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

On 2/14/2020 at 8:44 PM, Wallyhorse said:

I basically proposed this with the Nassau Loop Line in the past, where it would run via the tunnel to Manhattan and via the Bridge to Brooklyn, with only the Brooklyn-bound track reconnected to the Nassau Line on the bridge (with 95th Street being the sole terminal for the line though Chambers would technically be the northern terminal.  Trains would only stop northbound at Jay-Metrotech, Court, Broad, Fulton and Nassau and go right back to Brooklyn. 

The problems with one-way loops are that they are basically only convenient 50% of the time, which cuts ridership potential. 

Terminating at Essex would be better and require less construction, since I don't think such a local line needs to be all that busy and need two full terminating tracks.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

 

The problems with one-way loops are that they are basically only convenient 50% of the time, which cuts ridership potential. 

Terminating at Essex would be better and require less construction, since I don't think such a local line needs to be all that busy and need two full terminating tracks.

And that is what did I later on proposed (95th-Essex at all times), along with my idea for a split (J)(Z) that would between them run from 95th to Jamaica Center, with both lines terminating at Chambvers ( (J) from Jamaica Center-Chambers with a few rush hour trains to Broad, (Z) from Chambers-95th Street at all times that would eliminate the late-night (R) shuttle since those needing Whitehall specifically could switch to the (N) anywhere between 59th and Court).  

Edited by Wallyhorse

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.