Jump to content

Department of Subways - Proposals/Ideas


Recommended Posts

20 hours ago, Deucey said:

How much congestion would it cause to run (G) to Coney Island, and end <F>(F) at Kings Hwy, or run (F)(G) like interlined buses where (G) turns into (F)<F> at either terminal and vice versa?

If you want to run (F)<F>, you're probably best off extending the yard tracks at Church at 300', reinstalling the full complement of crossovers on the lower level, and running (F)(G) local to Church and <F> express. You can do 10 <F>-KH, 10 <F>-CI,10 (F)-Church and 10 (G)-Church to keep the load on the relay op at Church to a manageable 20tph. Kings Highway can barely handle what it does today, and CI is a joke of a terminal. 

Just a friendly reminder to everyone that:

- There is about 25tph of unused capacity in the tunnels between Manhattan and Queens today

- Up to 10tph of that unused capacity is Forest Hills inefficiency, up to 15 is Astoria and the (R)'s occupancy of space in both 60 and on QB (which can be treated as an extension of 53/63)

- Some indeterminate figure (if I had to guess, 10-15tph) of that unused capacity is thanks to the extreme complexity of merge/diverge operations on Queens' services.

The fixes here should be self-evident: fix your terminals, fix your service patterns. We don't need, and cannot justify, more infrastructure until you do those things. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 12.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
17 hours ago, Deucey said:

@Jova42R:

(H): S 5th St abuts the Willy B, so you’d end up destroying buildings on S 4th and 3rd, along with the Willy B bus plaza to build the loop and junction to the Jamaica Line - not to mention having to install supports for the Willy B for the tunnel to get to S 5th St. 

That junction would look a lot like the Harlem River Drive to Triboro Bridge ramp:

 

When so much of S Williamsburg residents take (M) to Flatiron, making them switch to (F) at Essex/Delancey from (J)(brownM) would crowd already crowded (F) trains alongside <F> trains, which would free up slots on 6th Av from no more (M), but would ruin QBL with (F)<F> being local with (R) and (orangeQ) - the latter of which would ruin 6th Av since it would delay local on 6th Av.

If (Q) capacity weren’t an issue, and you brought back (brownM), you could run <F> to 96th St, but that gives a service gap on QBL Express to 179th - which I would think could be tolerable for two reasons: (A) already has two terminals so NBD, and (D) already has lower frequencies because (A) service requirements - but I don’t live in Queens on the (F) so I can’t make that user-level judgment.

Also, because Culver is three-track, and (G) has to go somewhere, you have to solve where (F)<F>(G) terminate without a conga line causing QBL Local style problems - since terminating it before 7th Av, it carries air after Bergen St.

 

17 hours ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

Let me just say that I’m not a fan of bringing back the (brownM) or (orangeQ). The current (M) and (Q) services are popular and convenient and there is really no good reason to return the M to Nassau St/4th Avenue or the Q to 6th Avenue. Not unless there’s some kind of long-term work on the Manny B or the Willy B that would prevent the M from going to 6th Avenue or the Q to Broadway. And what’s going to serve the Brighton local stops if the Q is on 6th Avenue? Is the current (Q) not being discontinued? Wouldn’t it be confusing to have both (Q) and (orangeQ) services? The (orangeQ) service you’re proposing will be of very limited use. It’s basically the (V) train (so why not call it the (V)?), but extended to 179th. And why send the (F) to Jamaica Center?

 

17 hours ago, shiznit1987 said:

 

As all 3 of you said, this (H) would not work. I think a better idea for Crosstown-Manhattan service would be the following:

2 LINES (:M: and (T))

:M: Rockaway Beach Local / Lower Montauk Local / Upper Crosstown Local / Williamsburg Bridge / LES Local / 1 Av Local / 63 St Crosstown / Columbus Av Local

(M) is renamed to (V)

Howard Beach (new express platforms) (A)(JFK)

all (A) stops to Aqueduct Racetrack

Liberty Av (connection to Rockaway Blvd (A))

via Rockaway Beach Branch

Atlantic Av (MTA)LIRR (new station)

Jamaica Av (connection to Woodhaven Blvd (J)(Z)

Myrtle Av - Forest Park

Woodhaven Blvd

via Lower Montauk Branch

88 St

Atlas Park - 80 St

Glendale - 73 St

Middle Village - Metropolitan Av (V)

Fresh Pond Rd

Flushing Av

Maspeth Av

48 St

Penny Bridge

Humboldt St/Greenpoint Av

Manhattan Av/Greenpoint Av (G)

Nassau Av (G)

Metropolitan Av (G)

Marcy Av (J)(V)(Z)(T)

via the ABANDONED TROLLEY TRACKWAY OF THE WILLY B, then via a new viaduct over Avenue C.

Note: all stops after here are share with the (T)

Houston St

8 St

14 St

Stuyvesant Town

viaduct curves to 1 Av

26 St

34 St

42 St

48 St - UN

53 St (connection to Lex-53-51 (E)(M)(6)<6>)

58 St

63 St-Lex Av (F)<F>(Q)

via the (Q) tunnel, then a new crosstown tunnel under CPW, then to a new viaduct over Columbus Av

69 St

75 St

83 St

89 St

94 St

101 St

108 St

112 St/Amsterdam Av - Mount Sinai

116 St-Columbia University (1)

122 St - Grants Tomb

(T) Culver Local* / Lower Crosstown Local /Williamsburg Bridge / LES Local / 1 Av Local / 63 St Crosstown / Columbus Av Local
* all (F)s run Culver Express

Church Av (F)(G)

all (G) stops to Broadway

Marcy Av (J)(V)(Z):M:

all :M: stops to 122 St-Grants Tomb

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, RR503 said:

If you want to run (F)<F>, you're probably best off extending the yard tracks at Church at 300', reinstalling the full complement of crossovers on the lower level, and running (F)(G) local to Church and <F> express. You can do 10 <F>-KH, 10 <F>-CI,10 (F)-Church and 10 (G)-Church to keep the load on the relay op at Church to a manageable 20tph. Kings Highway can barely handle what it does today, and CI is a joke of a terminal. 

Just a friendly reminder to everyone that:

- There is about 25tph of unused capacity in the tunnels between Manhattan and Queens today

- Up to 10tph of that unused capacity is Forest Hills inefficiency, up to 15 is Astoria and the (R)'s occupancy of space in both 60 and on QB (which can be treated as an extension of 53/63)

- Some indeterminate figure (if I had to guess, 10-15tph) of that unused capacity is thanks to the extreme complexity of merge/diverge operations on Queens' services.

The fixes here should be self-evident: fix your terminals, fix your service patterns. We don't need, and cannot justify, more infrastructure until you do those things. 

Do you know why they removed some of the crossovers on the lower level? That change has always baffled me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Jova42R said:

 

 

As all 3 of you said, this (H) would not work. I think a better idea for Crosstown-Manhattan service would be the following:

2 LINES (:M: and (T))

:M: Rockaway Beach Local / Lower Montauk Local / Upper Crosstown Local / Williamsburg Bridge / LES Local / 1 Av Local / 63 St Crosstown / Columbus Av Local

(M) is renamed to (V)

Howard Beach (new express platforms) (A)(JFK)

all (A) stops to Aqueduct Racetrack

Liberty Av (connection to Rockaway Blvd (A))

via Rockaway Beach Branch

Atlantic Av (MTA)LIRR (new station)

Jamaica Av (connection to Woodhaven Blvd (J)(Z)

Myrtle Av - Forest Park

Woodhaven Blvd

via Lower Montauk Branch

88 St

Atlas Park - 80 St

Glendale - 73 St

Middle Village - Metropolitan Av (V)

Fresh Pond Rd

Flushing Av

Maspeth Av

48 St

Penny Bridge

Humboldt St/Greenpoint Av

Manhattan Av/Greenpoint Av (G)

Nassau Av (G)

Metropolitan Av (G)

Marcy Av (J)(V)(Z)(T)

via the ABANDONED TROLLEY TRACKWAY OF THE WILLY B, then via a new viaduct over Avenue C.

Note: all stops after here are share with the (T)

Houston St

8 St

14 St

Stuyvesant Town

viaduct curves to 1 Av

26 St

34 St

42 St

48 St - UN

53 St (connection to Lex-53-51 (E)(M)(6)<6>)

58 St

63 St-Lex Av (F)<F>(Q)

via the (Q) tunnel, then a new crosstown tunnel under CPW, then to a new viaduct over Columbus Av

69 St

75 St

83 St

89 St

94 St

101 St

108 St

112 St/Amsterdam Av - Mount Sinai

116 St-Columbia University (1)

122 St - Grants Tomb

(T) Culver Local* / Lower Crosstown Local /Williamsburg Bridge / LES Local / 1 Av Local / 63 St Crosstown / Columbus Av Local
* all (F)s run Culver Express

Church Av (F)(G)

all (G) stops to Broadway

Marcy Av (J)(V)(Z):M:

all :M: stops to 122 St-Grants Tomb

 

Any thoughts on this plan @Union Tpke @RR503

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, RR503 said:

If you want to run (F)<F>, you're probably best off extending the yard tracks at Church at 300', reinstalling the full complement of crossovers on the lower level, and running (F)(G) local to Church and <F> express. You can do 10 <F>-KH, 10 <F>-CI,10 (F)-Church and 10 (G)-Church to keep the load on the relay op at Church to a manageable 20tph. Kings Highway can barely handle what it does today, and CI is a joke of a terminal. 

Just a friendly reminder to everyone that:

- There is about 25tph of unused capacity in the tunnels between Manhattan and Queens today

- Up to 10tph of that unused capacity is Forest Hills inefficiency, up to 15 is Astoria and the (R)'s occupancy of space in both 60 and on QB (which can be treated as an extension of 53/63)

- Some indeterminate figure (if I had to guess, 10-15tph) of that unused capacity is thanks to the extreme complexity of merge/diverge operations on Queens' services.

The fixes here should be self-evident: fix your terminals, fix your service patterns. We don't need, and cannot justify, more infrastructure until you do those things. 

I totally agree with this sentiment, which is why I so strongly favor de-interlining.  The devil, of course, is in the details as any deinterlining plan will always be criticized for not being able to handle this or that transfer or other group appropriately.  But you know, the only way to reall get the most bang for the buck in our system is to run as many trains as possible.  So you may have an additional transfer in your commute-- big deal.  Running more trains would be the only way to actually deal with the demand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Deucey said:

You mean get rid of the two lanes of roadway on each side and turn it back into a rail bridge?

No I mean use the trackway above the pedestrian path. That was once used as a trolley line, correct? Another option would be to make that trackway the path, and have trains run on the pedestrian path, or via a new structure on top of the (J)(M)(Z) line.

(T)s and :M:s theoretically could run Siemens Avenio trams - they would use battery along the (G), catenary at all other times.

Thoughts on that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, mrsman said:

I totally agree with this sentiment, which is why I so strongly favor de-interlining.  The devil, of course, is in the details as any deinterlining plan will always be criticized for not being able to handle this or that transfer or other group appropriately.  But you know, the only way to reall get the most bang for the buck in our system is to run as many trains as possible.  So you may have an additional transfer in your commute-- big deal.  Running more trains would be the only way to actually deal with the demand.

It certainly would have advantages for QBL, but with only one express station between Continental and Queens Plaza, won’t there be more backtracking to Roosevelt? That station has narrow platforms and already a sizable amount of riders transferring from the local to the express plus riders coming off the (7). Can that station really afford any more transfers? Even if Woodhaven is converted into an express station like it was designed to, wouldn’t there still be backtracking from the local stops west of Roosevelt?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

It certainly would have advantages for QBL, but with only one express station between Continental and Queens Plaza, won’t there be more backtracking to Roosevelt? That station has narrow platforms and already a sizable amount of riders transferring from the local to the express plus riders coming off the (7). Can that station really afford any more transfers? Even if Woodhaven is converted into an express station like it was designed to, wouldn’t there still be backtracking from the local stops west of Roosevelt?

In general people do not backtrack to express stations. People hate transfers, and a wrong-direction change at an express station is among the worst types (you have to get out, crossover, and come back down).

The idea is to force people to pick between a local or 53rd, but you can't have your cake and eat it too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/13/2020 at 3:21 PM, bobtehpanda said:

In general people do not backtrack to express stations. People hate transfers, and a wrong-direction change at an express station is among the worst types (you have to get out, crossover, and come back down).

The idea is to force people to pick between a local or 53rd, but you can't have your cake and eat it too.

Right.  If you are west of Roosevelt, I would assume that the trains that serve your station are QBL locals to 53rd street tunnel as all the expresses will go to 63rd.  You will have access to Q Plaza (and hopefully some transfer made to allow for those who need to access Qboro Plaza and the Broadway locals), your train will then continue to Court Square and then Lex.  Yes, the transfer at 53/Lex is a terrible one, but it is doable.  If you don't like it, you can use Qboro Plaza-Broadway local transfer to connect to Lex locals and expresses.

 

Then, the 53rd street trains will continue as 8th Ave trains (probably expresses in a fully deinterlined plan).  A transfer to 6th Ave trains will exist at 53/7Ave. and/or West 4th  A transfer to all Broadways and 7th Avenue trains will exist at Port Authority-Times Square.

So for Queens travelers, I do recommend a de-interlining, but it will come with improved transfers at key locations:

Q Plaza - Qboro Plaza (this has been discussed elsewhere on these forums and yes may be difficult but it could encourage a walking transfer of some sort)

63/Lex - 59/Lex (this one is so obvious a walking tansfer is already provided - basically it will allow QBL express- 6 Ave a transfer to Lex locals and expresses, it also will necessarily connect to Astoria-Broadway locals and 2 Ave-Broadway expresses, I believe that part of the construction of the SAS should be used to further untangle this potential transfer to as many as 5 separate train services, depending upon final configuration of the SAS service pattern)

42nd Street.  This is already planned and in construction.  By connecting Bryant Park to Times Square, you have a free transfer (albeit with some walking) between every local and express along the "7", the shuttle, 8th Ave, 7th Ave, Broadway, and 6th ave.  Basically every Manhattan train will connect here except Lexington trains, Nassau Street trains, the "L",  and whatever trains run down 2nd Ave for SAS phase 3.

With these measures, I believe a deinterlining will work for all the Queens lines.  My idea is with the current system to have QBL express-63-6th Ave local; QBL local - 53 - 8th Ave express; Astoria - 60 - Broadway local.  No intermixing.  People will transfer to different lines by walking using existing transfers and the three transfers outlined above.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, mrsman said:

With these measures, I believe a deinterlining will work for all the Queens lines.  My idea is with the current system to have QBL express-63-6th Ave local; QBL local - 53 - 8th Ave express; Astoria - 60 - Broadway local.  No intermixing.  People will transfer to different lines by walking using existing transfers and the three transfers outlined above.

This is good, though you also need to deinterline 8th Av, which gets you deinterlining CPW as well, so this looks like

  • CPW EXP - 6 AV EXP
  • CPW LCL - 8 AV LCL
  • QBL LCL - 53 - 8 AV EXP
  • QBL EXP - 63 - 6 AV LCL
  • 96 - BWY EXP
  • ASTORIA - BWY LCL

Which neatly sorts out the B Division's northern half. Personally, I think that most of the current subway's systems resiliency problems stem from the northern half, and southern deinterlining is unnecessary.

I think we agree, but disagree on what happens with Second Avenue, should it ever get built. Because SAS has no northern outlet, I would rather have a new south-of-Midtown trunk line be extension of the LIRR from GCT to Atlantic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/15/2020 at 2:01 PM, bobtehpanda said:

This is good, though you also need to deinterline 8th Av, which gets you deinterlining CPW as well, so this looks like

  • CPW EXP - 6 AV EXP
  • CPW LCL - 8 AV LCL
  • QBL LCL - 53 - 8 AV EXP
  • QBL EXP - 63 - 6 AV LCL
  • 96 - BWY EXP
  • ASTORIA - BWY LCL

Which neatly sorts out the B Division's northern half. Personally, I think that most of the current subway's systems resiliency problems stem from the northern half, and southern deinterlining is unnecessary.

I think we agree, but disagree on what happens with Second Avenue, should it ever get built. Because SAS has no northern outlet, I would rather have a new south-of-Midtown trunk line be extension of the LIRR from GCT to Atlantic.

Interesting. I’ve long felt that many of the system’s problems were coming from the southern end, as well as Queens Blvd. Though perhaps if the north-of-Midtown B-Division lines are neatly sorted out, it would help with problems on the southern of each route.

And I do like the idea of extending the LIRR south of Grand Central to Atlantic.

Edited by T to Dyre Avenue
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/15/2020 at 2:06 PM, bobtehpanda said:

heGs3TR.png

If only...

This looks really cool and I like these alternatives more than what’s currently being planned (sans the LIRR reactivation of RBB), but I’m confused on a few things since this isn’t (nor does it look like it’s meant to be) geographically accurate. 
 

-If the Triboro RX were to Swing Under LGA, how would it go underground for that.

- How would the Triboro RX terminate at Yankee Stadium? Would it have to be below the (B) and (D) or is there already infrastructure in place for a potential terminal at 161?

- Is the Light Green portion of the map between Fordham and Jamaica some Light Rail/Streetcar conversion of the Q44+? 

- I’m assuming that the LIRR would continue down Park Avenue, Bowery, Water Street then swing over to Atlantic Avenue. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

-If the Triboro RX were to Swing Under LGA, how would it go underground for that.

- How would the Triboro RX terminate at Yankee Stadium? Would it have to be below the (B) and (D) or is there already infrastructure in place for a potential terminal at 161?

- Is the Light Green portion of the map between Fordham and Jamaica some Light Rail/Streetcar conversion of the Q44+? 

- I’m assuming that the LIRR would continue down Park Avenue, Bowery, Water Street then swing over to Atlantic Avenue. 

  • Transition from RX ROW to follow 287. Underground somewhere, most likely taking the Home Depot property.
  • Terminate east of the existing station complex, most likely. 
  • Subway, but 5 cars.
  • Right now I'd imagine Third (I believe this is where East Side Access is) > Bowery > Madison > Gold > Pearl > river > Atlantic.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/15/2020 at 2:06 PM, bobtehpanda said:

heGs3TR.png

If only...

A few questions:

  • Why not have the TriboroRX go via the GC Pkwy Median, then over the RFK Bridge, and have that be the 125th crosstown
    • One 2nd Av service (most likely the (Q)) would run local on this segment - (T) to Bronx
  • Why not have Lower Montauk connect to SAS, then go crosstown near 60th?
  • The Jamaica-Bronx Line, IMO, should also connect with inwood (maybe a (9) rush hour via express track, then to this line?)
  • TriboroRX should have a branch to Astoria (maybe make this the 125th crosstown?)

Thoughts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/15/2020 at 2:01 PM, bobtehpanda said:

This is good, though you also need to deinterline 8th Av, which gets you deinterlining CPW as well, so this looks like

  • CPW EXP - 6 AV EXP
  • CPW LCL - 8 AV LCL
  • QBL LCL - 53 - 8 AV EXP
  • QBL EXP - 63 - 6 AV LCL
  • 96 - BWY EXP
  • ASTORIA - BWY LCL

Which neatly sorts out the B Division's northern half. Personally, I think that most of the current subway's systems resiliency problems stem from the northern half, and southern deinterlining is unnecessary.

I think we agree, but disagree on what happens with Second Avenue, should it ever get built. Because SAS has no northern outlet, I would rather have a new south-of-Midtown trunk line be extension of the LIRR from GCT to Atlantic.

Yes.  My plan for deinterlining the current system is basically the above, if ignoring new construction on 2 Ave.  After thinking about it multiple times, this does seem to be the best way to handle the northern part of the system.  My post dealt with Queens, as it would be necessary to have the improved transfers in my post to function well - particularly improved transfers to Lex and Q Plaza - Qboro Plaza.  CPW could function fine without new transfers.  Yes, there will be a lot of transferring at Columbus Circle, but there already is a lot of transferring at Columbus Circle, and the station is built for it.

Also, in my plan, both Concourse and Inwood branches would each have a 6 Av express and an 8 Av local.  It is not a pure deinterlining, but given the way the tracks are laid out at 145th, such a configuration would work well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Jova42R said:

A few questions:

  • Why not have the TriboroRX go via the GC Pkwy Median, then over the RFK Bridge, and have that be the 125th crosstown
    • One 2nd Av service (most likely the (Q)) would run local on this segment - (T) to Bronx
  • Why not have Lower Montauk connect to SAS, then go crosstown near 60th?
  • The Jamaica-Bronx Line, IMO, should also connect with inwood (maybe a (9) rush hour via express track, then to this line?)
  • TriboroRX should have a branch to Astoria (maybe make this the 125th crosstown?)

Thoughts?

  • Hell Gate Bridge is busy. Too busy for two new dedicated railway tracks, so I don't like routing it there. 
  • Don't like any usage of Lower Montauk because no one really lives there, a lot of the land next to it is permanently not developable (parks or cemeteries), and we have better things to spend money on.
  • The Bronx lines end where they do to avoid having to ask hard questions about Manhattan and the Bronx waterfront's crazy ridges and elevation changes in this area.
  • Don't care much for extending 125th east through an island that has no travel demand to speak of.
Edited by bobtehpanda
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:
  • Transition from RX ROW to follow 287. Underground somewhere, most likely taking the Home Depot property.

Seems like an interesting idea. I don’t really see much traffic going to the Home Depot in that section of Queens anyways. I could be completely wrong though. 

  • Terminate east of the existing station complex, most likely.
  • Subway, but 5 cars.

Between Flushing and Union Turnpike, I could see it happening, but wouldn’t the foundations of the Whitestone Bridge have to be rebuilt in order to handle the weight of subway service? Between Union Turnpike and Jamaica seems like a tough obstacle because of sprawled homes and the (E) and (F) in the way. I’m also assuming that a new yard would have to be built somewhere, maybe in College Point. 

  • Right now I'd imagine Third (I believe this is where East Side Access is) > Bowery > Madison > Gold > Pearl > river > Atlantic.

Other Replies are in bold. 

Correction. East Side Access is being built below the Metro North along Park Avenue judging by the renderings in the official (MTA) site and this rendering that I found attached to a Second Avenue Sagas article: 

http://web.mta.info/capital/esa_alt.html

http://secondavenuesagas.com/2012/04/30/a-look-at-the-east-side-access-escalators/

 

Link to comment
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.