Department of Subways - Proposals/Ideas

[Tonyboy515]

14 minutes ago, Jova42R said:

Why not 4 Av Express?

You obviously won't want to reverse at Essex. You could use the existing tracks from Chambers, then go under the  (not that hard as they are just about to enter the Manhattan Bridge

Not enough capacity on 6 Av, I think!

This is to prevent additional merge problems between the  and  at DeKalb and to supplement  service.
That is exactly what I meant with the connection after Chambers.

If so, then it's possible to cut some  service or run some like s to Brooklyn and have some  service go via Queens Boulevard like the . Then again, this was just an off-the-top-of-my-head ridiculous proposal 🤣

[Jova42R]

 8 Av Express / 6 Av Express / West End Local / 16 Av Local / Staten Island Local

• 207 St
  • all  stops to 59 St
• 59 St
  • all  stops to 71 St
• 71 St
• 77 St/16 Av
• 86 St/16 Av
• Shore Pkwy/16 Av
• Fort Hamilton
• Fort Wadsworth
• Arrochar (Hylan/Fingerboard) S79SBS
• Grasmere (SIR)
  • trains split here
    • every other  makes all (SIR) stops until St. George
    • every other  makes all (SIR) stops until Tottenville
    • limited rush hour s make all <SIR> stops until Tottenville

Thoughts?

[Jova42R]

15 minutes ago, Tonyboy515 said:

This is to prevent additional merge problems between the  and  at DeKalb and to supplement  service.
That is exactly what I meant with the connection after Chambers.

If so, then it's possible to cut some  service or run some like s to Brooklyn and have some  service go via Queens Boulevard like the . Then again, this was just an off-the-top-of-my-head ridiculous proposal 🤣

Having the  all on 2 tracks (Fulton and Broad) would be a recipe for massive delays.

Couldn't you just run some s via the , some terminating at Delancey?

[Tonyboy515]

2 hours ago, Jova42R said:

Having the  all on 2 tracks (Fulton and Broad) would be a recipe for massive delays.

Couldn't you just run some s via the , some terminating at Delancey?

We can also reactivate the 2 other tracks along Nassau to support all those services.

[T to Dyre Avenue]

9 hours ago, YungMarxian said:

This may have happened already in the 346 pages of this thread, but I didn't find anything in my search, so I'll ask here.

What do people here think would be the best option to resolve the congestion issues at Dekalb? My understanding is that by having the 6 Av routes on the north manh bridge tracks and the Broadway routes on the south, there would be less (or no more at all) crossover/merging issues at Dekalb. I had this idea the other day, but I don't know if it makes sense, so I was hoping to have some holes poked in it:

 and  [run the same in Manhattan in the Bronx]:

  runs the same as it does now

  runs as the  does now. The  and  both take the express track at Dekalb.

 runs as it does now.

 runs as the  does now on the Brighton Line.

I don't see there being a huge issue with this, because Broadway and 6 Av have plenty of transfer opportunities and are already pretty close as it is. Would a rider from the Brighton line who works near Bryant Park be super inconvenienced to now have to get off at Times Sq?

People riding from Sea Beach to Astoria or Brighton to the Bronx already had a pretty burdensome commute as is. I think the trade-off of less congestion-related delays makes up for the now-needed transfer.

And, to add capacity, totally unrelated the DeKalb interchange, would it also make sense to run the  Astoria to Bay Ridge and terminate the at 9 Av on the West End? I don't see a use in adding West End express service, especially now that a cleared up interchange will make West End service better to begin with.
 

 

8 hours ago, Jova42R said:

Yes, this has been proposed before. My thoughts:

: Concourse-CPW Local, 6 Av Express, 4 Av Express (except rush, see ), Sea Beach Local

: Concourse Local, CPW-6 Av Express, 4 Av Express, West End Local

: Astoria Local, Broadway-Brighton Express

: 2 Av Local, Broadway Express, Brighton Local

: NEW SERVICE:

(BOLD = all times, UNDERLINED = rush hours only, ITALICS = non-rush hours only)

• Broad St
• Fulton Center
• Chambers St
• NEW STATION: Mott St
  • runs via a new connection from Nassau St to Manhattan Bridge
  • via Manhattan Bridge
• Dekalb Av
• Atlantic Av
• Union St  - rush  - all times
• 4 Av - 9 St  - rush  - all times
• Prospect Av  - rush  - all times
• 25 St  - rush  - all times
• 36 St
• 45 St  - rush  - all times
• 53 St  - rush  - all times
• 59 St
  •  runs peak express from 8 Av to Kings Hwy, then full express from Kings Hwy to Coney Island.

I’m fine with the  running via Sea Beach and the  via Brighton Express. It certainly would help relieve the endless congestion at DeKalb Junction. But this  would completely negate the benefits of deinterlining DeKalb with the  cutting in across the  on the Manhattan side of the bridge and with the other lines at DeKalb. And like with the previous version of this proposal, why run the  via 4th Avenue Local and the  via express during rush and vice versa during non-rush? Just keep it consistent during both rush and non-rush hours. I’m not even sure if there is substantial demand for a direct Sea Beach-to-Nassau street service, especially one that uses the Manhattan Bridge and forces the return of a long unused connection plus a merge with the lines already using that side of the bridge.

[Infamous85]

 extension to Co-Op City, running directly adjacent to I-95 along a concrete viaduct to Co-Op City Blvd.

• Hutchinson River Pkwy (entrances on both sides of the highway)

• Bartow Ave

• Co-Op City Blvd (last stop)

New  (purple) running the length of I-495/LIE to Springfield Blvd, joins the  at/near Hunterspoint Ave. Majority of the line would run along the median of I-495 along a concrete viaduct.

• Van Dam St / Greenpoint Ave

• Maurice Ave* (idk, looks a bit industrial)

• Grand Ave

• “Tri-Boro RX”

• Queens Blvd / Woodhaven Blvd

• 108th St

• Flushing Meadows

• Main St

• Kissena Blvd

• 164th St

• Utopia Pkwy

• 188th St

• Francis Lewis Blvd

• Oceania St

• Springfield Blvd (last stop)

Unlike the , the  would only have two tracks due to space/weight constraints, however, the stops being placed a bit further apart should negate the need for an express track anyway.

Tunneling is very expensive, I’d have it come above ground as soon as possible (don’t know where exactly), plus you’d get some nice views that way. All elevated stations would be completely enclosed with heating/cooling, arriving trains would line up with glass doors.

Edited February 24, 2020 by Infamous85

[Jova42R]

Tram Network:

 96 St Crosstown / York Av Local / Queensboro Bridge

• 96 St - Broadway
• 96 St - CPW
• 5 Av
• Park-Lexington Avs
• 2 Av
• 92 St - York Av M86+SBS+
• 86 St M86+SBS+
• 79 St M79+SBS+
• 72 St
• 66 St
• 60 St
• 57 St-1 Av
  • QB Brg
• 11 St - LI City
• QB Plaza
• Queens Plaza

 10 Av Local / 34 St Crosstown / Park Av Local / Queensboro Bridge / Roosevelt Island

• Abingdon Sq M14A+SBS+
• 14 St-8 Av  M14+SBS+
• 23 St M23+SBS+
• 28 St
• 34 St - 10 Av - Hudson Yards  M34+SBS+
• 7-8 Avs - Penn Station  M34+SBS+
• 6 Av - Herald Sq  M34+SBS+
• Park Av
• 42 St - Grand Central
• 48 St
• 53 St
• 57 St - Lexington Av
• 57 St-1 Av
  • QB Brg
• 11 St - LI City
• QB Plaza
• 36 Av-21 St
  • RI Brg
• Roosevelt Island - Main St
• Roosevelt Island - Tramway

 and (TX) 

 Red Hook Local / Downtown Local

(TX) Red Hook Local / Downtown Express

https://drive.google.com/open?id=19TDLNqNtF21VKb70gFefV5e3ai0u0tZy&usp=sharing

Thoughts on these?

Edited February 24, 2020 by Jova42R

[paulbyron]

17 minutes ago, Jova42R said:

Tram Network:

 96 St Crosstown / York Av Local / Queensboro Bridge

• 96 St - Broadway
• 96 St - CPW
• 5 Av
• Park-Lexington Avs
• 2 Av
• 92 St - York Av M86+SBS+
• 86 St M86+SBS+
• 79 St M79+SBS+
• 72 St
• 66 St
• 60 St
• 57 St-1 Av
  • QB Brg
• 11 St - LI City
• QB Plaza
• Queens Plaza

 10 Av Local / 34 St Crosstown / Park Av Local / Queensboro Bridge / Roosevelt Island

• Abingdon Sq M14A+SBS+
• 14 St-8 Av  M14+SBS+
• 23 St M23+SBS+
• 28 St
• 34 St - 10 Av - Hudson Yards  M34+SBS+
• 7-8 Avs - Penn Station  M34+SBS+
• 6 Av - Herald Sq  M34+SBS+
• Park Av
• 42 St - Grand Central
• 48 St
• 53 St
• 57 St - Lexington Av
• 57 St-1 Av
  • QB Brg
• 11 St - LI City
• QB Plaza
• 36 Av-21 St
  • RI Brg
• Roosevelt Island - Main St
• Roosevelt Island - Tramway

 and (TX) 

 Red Hook Local / Downtown Local

(TX) Red Hook Local / Downtown Express

https://drive.google.com/open?id=19TDLNqNtF21VKb70gFefV5e3ai0u0tZy&usp=sharing

Thoughts on these?

I would love to see trams all over the city! Ideally, all major bus routes not suited to subway development would be converted.

[Jova42R]

28 minutes ago, paulbyron said:

I would love to see trams all over the city! Ideally, all major bus routes not suited to subway development would be converted.

Me too! SO many European Cities have trams. Thoughts on the Red Hook Proposal?

[paulbyron]

7 hours ago, Jova42R said:

Me too! SO many European Cities have trams. Thoughts on the Red Hook Proposal?

I don’t really have any thoughts on that, as I rarely go to that area. But isn’t most of it just barren industrial wasteland?

[T to Dyre Avenue]

23 hours ago, Tonyboy515 said:

This is to prevent additional merge problems between the  and  at DeKalb and to supplement  service.
That is exactly what I meant with the connection after Chambers.

If so, then it's possible to cut some  service or run some like s to Brooklyn and have some  service go via Queens Boulevard like the . Then again, this was just an off-the-top-of-my-head ridiculous proposal 🤣

There would be quite a lot merging if you add in the  and  services on top of the existing  and  services (though I presume the  would likely get a different letter to avoid confusion with the ). I’ve come to believe that if you have to cut a line’s existing service to fit a new service, then that new service probably isn’t worth doing. 

@Jova42R, your  proposal that runs from 207th St to Staten Island via the  and  lines is a textbook example of that. Either you’d have to cut  and  service to make this  fit, or you‘ll be forced to run it very infrequently, especially in Staten Island, where it splits to go towards St. George and Tottenville.

 

Edited February 25, 2020 by T to Dyre Avenue

[Jova42R]

 Battery Park City to Windsor Terrace

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1ZAU-j7StbmExUk68TZhUjRRIGdIyO511&usp=sharing

Thoughts?

@paulbyron this is one of my other Light Rail proposals

[Jova42R]

20 hours ago, Infamous85 said:

 extension to Co-Op City, running directly adjacent to I-95 along a concrete viaduct to Co-Op City Blvd.

• Hutchinson River Pkwy (entrances on both sides of the highway)

• Bartow Ave

• Co-Op City Blvd (last stop)

New  (purple) running the length of I-495/LIE to Springfield Blvd, joins the  at/near Hunterspoint Ave. Majority of the line would run along the median of I-495 along a concrete viaduct.

• Van Dam St / Greenpoint Ave

• Maurice Ave* (idk, looks a bit industrial)

• Grand Ave

• “Tri-Boro RX”

• Queens Blvd / Woodhaven Blvd

• 108th St

• Flushing Meadows

• Main St

• Kissena Blvd

• 164th St

• Utopia Pkwy

• 188th St

• Francis Lewis Blvd

• Oceania St

• Springfield Blvd (last stop)

Unlike the , the  would only have two tracks due to space/weight constraints, however, the stops being placed a bit further apart should negate the need for an express track anyway.

Tunneling is very expensive, I’d have it come above ground as soon as possible (don’t know where exactly), plus you’d get some nice views that way. All elevated stations would be completely enclosed with heating/cooling, arriving trains would line up with glass doors.

Your  could work, but in reality, I doubt that the  would ever do this. They may, however do a light rail similar to it.

[MysteriousBtrain]

2025 predictions on assignments:

/ : R211s and the 10 car R179s. 179s can either be exclusive to the , exclusive to the (making the more than half R179 with some R211s) or a mix on both.

: R68/68A

: R68

/ / : all 5 car R160s with Siemens acting as a supplement; 2-3 for each line

: 8 Car R160s

/ : R179

: R143 with some R211; R160 displaced to

: R160

/ : R211 with some R68/68A

 : same as above but with R160 Siemens in the mix

Franklin shuttle: R68

Rockaway shuttle: R211

 

 

[Jova42R]

 Light Rail

Manhattan-Brooklyn Link via Manhattan Bridge

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1ZAU-j7StbmExUk68TZhUjRRIGdIyO511&usp=sharing

Thoughts?

It would have track connections with the  on the Bridge, however only work trains could use those, as the  tracks would not have third rail (POSSIBLY on the bridge, the  would add a third rail.

@paulbyron this is another tram proposal that I support!

[T to Dyre Avenue]

On 2/24/2020 at 12:43 AM, Infamous85 said:

 extension to Co-Op City, running directly adjacent to I-95 along a concrete viaduct to Co-Op City Blvd.

• Hutchinson River Pkwy (entrances on both sides of the highway)

• Bartow Ave

• Co-Op City Blvd (last stop)

New  (purple) running the length of I-495/LIE to Springfield Blvd, joins the  at/near Hunterspoint Ave. Majority of the line would run along the median of I-495 along a concrete viaduct.

• Van Dam St / Greenpoint Ave

• Maurice Ave* (idk, looks a bit industrial)

• Grand Ave

• “Tri-Boro RX”

• Queens Blvd / Woodhaven Blvd

• 108th St

• Flushing Meadows

• Main St

• Kissena Blvd

• 164th St

• Utopia Pkwy

• 188th St

• Francis Lewis Blvd

• Oceania St

• Springfield Blvd (last stop)

Unlike the , the  would only have two tracks due to space/weight constraints, however, the stops being placed a bit further apart should negate the need for an express track anyway.

Tunneling is very expensive, I’d have it come above ground as soon as possible (don’t know where exactly), plus you’d get some nice views that way. All elevated stations would be completely enclosed with heating/cooling, arriving trains would line up with glass doors.

Ah yes, the long-proposed Co-Op City subway extension, first proposed by the MTA in the 70s. You see, were it not for I-95 cutting off the Bronx street grid at-grade, the Baychester Avenue  station would be within walking distance to Sections 1, 2 and 3, which would have been a big boost for ridership on the . But reconstructing Baychester and Givan avenues and East 222nd Street to continue over or under I-95 into Co-Op City would be no small task, so the only realistic subway option is the . A  extension over a concrete el would be good and it could easily serve Sections 2, 4 and 5, plus the shopping center. Though outside of weekday peak hours, when the  doesn’t run, that’s going to be one long, slow ride through the East and South Bronx.

As for the 9, while I do like that it would serve many areas of Queens that are a ways off from the existing subway lines, I feel that a location within the center of a highway wouldn’t be the most pedestrian-friendly type of rail service. In some areas, where the LIE runs through parkland, industry or alongside cemeteries, ridership would be heavily dependent upon feeder bus routes. The 9 would also force a reduction in  service, but I guess the 9 might pick up some of the ’s riders, but probably not enough to warrant a big reduction in  service. I still think Northern or Astoria boulevards are the best locations for a relief line for the . 

[Jova42R]

Extension of :

• 207 St (current terminal)
  • new tunnel under Bway
• 215 St
  • Under Harlem River
  • Then above ground onto the Putnam Branch
• 229 St
• 234 St
• 240 St
• Van Cortlandt Park - 248 St
  • this would be a new station in the park, with a new elevated bridge to Broadway
  • splits to Getty Sq Branch here
• 253 St
  • new station on top of HH Pkwy, bridge to Bway
  • after this station, the line goes on a new elevated viaduct
• Mosholu Av
• 261 St
  • termination station, new yard in VC Park, switches south of station

Also under this plan, the  would be rerouted

• 215 St
• 225 St
  • new viaduct over the MNR line
• Spuyten Duyvil
  • via a new viaduct to
• Kappock St
  • via new viaduct over HH Pkwy
• 232 St
• 239 St
• 246 St
• 252 St
  • termination station, yard would still be 240th, switches north of 239th station to the yard.

Thoughts? @Union Tpke wasn't this proposed before?

Edited February 26, 2020 by Jova42R

[paulbyron]

On 2/24/2020 at 8:43 PM, Jova42R said:

 Battery Park City to Windsor Terrace

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1ZAU-j7StbmExUk68TZhUjRRIGdIyO511&usp=sharing

Thoughts?

@paulbyron this is one of my other Light Rail proposals

Looks cool! But I think the 's highly limited budget could be used better on other light rail routes not already mostly served by subway service.

 

5 hours ago, Jova42R said:

 Light Rail

Manhattan-Brooklyn Link via Manhattan Bridge

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1ZAU-j7StbmExUk68TZhUjRRIGdIyO511&usp=sharing

Thoughts?

It would have track connections with the  on the Bridge, however only work trains could use those, as the  tracks would not have third rail (POSSIBLY on the bridge, the  would add a third rail.

@paulbyron this is another tram proposal that I support!

This looks cool, but I feel this is a little bit wasteful with the 's limited budget, as the route is mostly already served by subways.

45 minutes ago, Jova42R said:

Extension of :

• 207 St (current terminal)
  • new tunnel under Bway
• 215 St
  • Under Harlem River
  • Then above ground onto the Putnam Branch
• 229 St
• 234 St
• 240 St
• Van Cortlandt Park - 248 St
  • this would be a new station in the park, with a new elevated bridge to Broadway
  • splits to Getty Sq Branch here
• 253 St
  • new station on top of HH Pkwy, bridge to Bway
  • after this station, the line goes on a new elevated viaduct
• Mosholu Av
• 261 St
  • termination station, new yard in VC Park, switches south of station

Also under this plan, the  would be rerouted

• 215 St
• 225 St
  • new viaduct over the MNR line
• Spuyten Duyvil
  • via a new viaduct to
• Kappock St
  • via new viaduct over HH Pkwy
• 232 St
• 239 St
• 246 St
• 252 St
  • termination station, yard would still be 240th, switches north of 239th station to the yard.

Thoughts? @Union Tpke wasn't this proposed before?

I think this is a cool plan with the , but I think the engineering with the  is totally impossible for 2 main reasons. First, the Broadway Bridge would be incredibly difficult to rebuild with a curve for the upper level. You could avoid this by building the curve before the bridge, but this runs into the other main problem. The Allen Hospital is right there, and it would block any development as it's (as far as I know) one of the major hospitals in the area.

[Jova42R]

22 hours ago, Jova42R said:

Extension of :

• 207 St (current terminal)
  • new tunnel under Bway
• 215 St
  • Under Harlem River
  • Then above ground onto the Putnam Branch
• 229 St
• 234 St
• 240 St
• Van Cortlandt Park - 248 St
  • this would be a new station in the park, with a new elevated bridge to Broadway
  • splits to Getty Sq Branch here
• 253 St
  • new station on top of HH Pkwy, bridge to Bway
  • after this station, the line goes on a new elevated viaduct
• Mosholu Av
• 261 St
  • termination station, new yard in VC Park, switches south of station

Also under this plan, the  would be rerouted

• 215 St
• 225 St
  • new viaduct over the MNR line
• Spuyten Duyvil
  • via a new viaduct to
• Kappock St
  • via new viaduct over HH Pkwy
• 232 St
• 239 St
• 246 St
• 252 St
  • termination station, yard would still be 240th, switches north of 239th station to the yard.

Thoughts? @Union Tpke wasn't this proposed before?

 

21 hours ago, paulbyron said:

Looks cool! But I think the 's highly limited budget could be used better on other light rail routes not already mostly served by subway service.

 

This looks cool, but I feel this is a little bit wasteful with the 's limited budget, as the route is mostly already served by subways.

I think this is a cool plan with the , but I think the engineering with the  is totally impossible for 2 main reasons. First, the Broadway Bridge would be incredibly difficult to rebuild with a curve for the upper level. You could avoid this by building the curve before the bridge, but this runs into the other main problem. The Allen Hospital is right there, and it would block any development as it's (as far as I know) one of the major hospitals in the area.

Here's the map:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1818rFlNu8c46r1VTq8g4oPb7PSbxKcgn&usp=sharing

The  would keep the same stops, except 215 St, that would be relocated to 216th and 9th, but keeping the free  connection.

The  would run on the current pedestrian path on the lower level, and the current side shoulder on the upper level. The other side of the bridge would be converted to the pedestrian path. The  would be fully on a new viaduct

Could this work? @T to Dyre Avenue @paulbyron

 

[paulbyron]

1 hour ago, Jova42R said:

 

Here's the map:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1818rFlNu8c46r1VTq8g4oPb7PSbxKcgn&usp=sharing

The  would keep the same stops, except 215 St, that would be relocated to 216th and 9th, but keeping the free  connection.

The  would run on the current pedestrian path on the lower level, and the current side shoulder on the upper level. The other side of the bridge would be converted to the pedestrian path. The  would be fully on a new viaduct

Could this work? @T to Dyre Avenue @paulbyron

 

I thought you were proposing for it to curve across the Broadway Bridge. Under my new understanding, there would be a lot of sharp curves across the route. In addition, 218 St is wholly unsuitable for subway usage - it is surprisingly steep.

By the way, I realised my post had the same comments twice. Sorry about that!

[Jova42R]

Just now, paulbyron said:

I thought you were proposing for it to curve across the Broadway Bridge. Under my new understanding, there would be a lot of sharp curves across the route. In addition, 218 St is wholly unsuitable for subway usage - it is surprisingly steep.

By the way, I realised my post had the same comments twice. Sorry about that!

It could be straight from the HH Bridge to 10th, going around Allen, but if you did that, then why not just rebuild the Bway Bridge. Another option is to have the NB track run around allen on a bridge over the water, and the SB track to run via Isham to 10th. There'd be a stop at 218, then no stops to 207, as the  would stop at 215. This would also enable s to keep their turning-around spot at 215th, they'd turn at 218th. Thoughts @paulbyron @T to Dyre Avenue?

[paulbyron]

2 minutes ago, Jova42R said:

It could be straight from the HH Bridge to 10th, going around Allen, but if you did that, then why not just rebuild the Bway Bridge. Another option is to have the NB track run around allen on a bridge over the water, and the SB track to run via Isham to 10th. There'd be a stop at 218, then no stops to 207, as the  would stop at 215. This would also enable s to keep their turning-around spot at 215th, they'd turn at 218th. Thoughts @paulbyron @T to Dyre Avenue?

Rebuilding the Broadway Bridge shouldn't be under consideration, ever. In addition, any track over Isham should also not be under consideration because it would necessitate demolition of a large swath of Inwood Hill Park. Both would get HUGE resistance from the local community (myself included), probably unlike anything else, anywhere in the city, ever.

[Jova42R]

4 minutes ago, paulbyron said:

Rebuilding the Broadway Bridge shouldn't be under consideration, ever. In addition, any track over Isham should also not be under consideration because it would necessitate demolition of a large swath of Inwood Hill Park. Both would get HUGE resistance from the local community (myself included), probably unlike anything else, anywhere in the city, ever.

Could you run trains down Seaman to 207th? My only thought is then you'd need to rebuild 207th station...

[paulbyron]

17 minutes ago, Jova42R said:

Could you run trains down Seaman to 207th? My only thought is then you'd need to rebuild 207th station...

No way in hell. I live on a cross street less than a block from Seaman, and that's TOTALLY impossible. I think the best option would be to run it either up and over a lot of buildings (most of which are about 7 stories, so probably impossible) or to dig it into a subway and under the river.

[Jova42R]

Just now, paulbyron said:

No way in hell. I live on a cross street less than a block from Seaman, and that's TOTALLY impossible. I think the best option would be to run it either up and over a lot of buildings (most of which are about 7 stories, so probably impossible) or to dig it into a subway and under the river.

What street would be best to get from Seaman to Bway? Because that around-the-Allen Hospital bridge won't hold 2 tracks. Would it just be better to make that  tunnel into a 4 track line, and run s via the MNR line, then enter the ?