Department of Subways - Proposals/Ideas

[shiznit1987]

4 hours ago, Theli11 said:

Running the  train the Bronx, is just asking to make 7th Ave-Broadway more crowded then it needs to be. The train runs ends in Manhattan to catch all of the Harlem-Uptown Riders, who can't fit on the train. trains run on Dyre Av to provide people on the Dyre Avenue line service to the East Side. The trains runs pretty light going downtown, until 96-72 St, the is usually crowded from 149 St to Franklin Av, the alleviates that. 

Running the train on the Jerome Line is just making it "a bastardized " And if you're just going to do that, you might as well just slap extra trains and call it all the  line. If we really want to fix Roger's Junction, we can do reconfigure it to look like something 59 St - Columbus Circle, that way, the merging doesn't have to be so bad. trains don't interrupt train service. and train service don't interrupt train service. This way we can remove the unnecessary elements on the line. The solution to everything doesn't always have to be deinterlining, especially when looking at other elements. As long as we don't ruin the good parts of the service we do have. 

 

Even better would be adding tail tracks to Utica Ave and simply running the  there. Yes, I realize that forces Nostrand riders into a transfer at Franklin, but if it means more service on all 4 services due to the lack of merging then it's worth it. 

Sometimes less is more. Spending billions to reconfigure junctions and services just because it looks good on the map doesn't always work out. People need both the  and the  in The Bronx, and the  serves it's purpose well (not to mention Harlem will protest the closure of 148th st). The Bronx IRT needs to be left alone. 

[Wallyhorse]

On 4/13/2020 at 3:18 PM, Theli11 said:

If we're just running the on Jerome, why don't we just extend it to Woodlawn? I mean, the and trains would practically be exactly the same from Crown Heights to Burnside/Woodlawn. I don't know how you're going to terminate an entire service on that middle track,  At least until we get a Utica Av line to Kings Plaza. I do suspect that trains and trains will both be crowded, and 7th Avenue will have too many people, so we should add a station a Central Park West to alleviate. Also the reason why  / express trains aren't going to work out on Jerome is because all stations on Jerome has high ridership. So now, you're giving less service to those stations, including especially 161 St. I suspect those trains would carry air, so what's the point of this idea that's constantly being brought up? 

If anything, I would NOT bother with the  on Jerome (keeping that as is) and instead look to have the  run via new elevated tracks to connect with the  just before Yankee Stadium, possibly building a new level of Yankee Stadium station for such (and built where such can serve as a short-turn terminal for the ) with the  joining the  to Woodlawn full-time with some peak  trains terminating at Burnside and if available as a terminal a new Yankee Stadium station).  This would have a side benefit of having additional service to Yankee Stadium from the Broadway-7th Avenue line. 

[B35 via Church]

On 4/13/2020 at 5:54 PM, Theli11 said:

Question: What are catchment areas?

In layman's terms, the general area surrounding something that draws people to it.... It's not a fixed distance or anything like that.

e.g. The catchment area for Broad Channel is the entire neighborhood of Broad Channel.... The catchment area of the 42nd st is Midtown Manhattan.

On 4/13/2020 at 8:06 PM, Trainmaster5 said:

I don’t have a dog in this fight but I have a rather simple question. Has anyone considered the average commuter in any of these ideas ? The basic idea is how much time is spent on a trip, bus, subway, railroad. Basically every transfer adds to the time spent on a trip. There’s a reason why people get upset when their one seat ride is screwed with. Just thought that point has been overlooked so far. Carry on.

I don't have a dog in the fight either, but a separate question I have is, when did this term de-interlining become such this buzzword in this community? Serious question, because back when folks were parroting, or putting their little spin on the typical subway extension ideas on RD, SC, and the early days of this forum & what not, I don't remember seeing anybody making a mention of the term - especially with such a prevalence on here lately...

Or did someone on here happen to coin the phrase or something?

20 hours ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

Mind if I ask, what’s TLC?

20 hours ago, R68OnBroadway said:

Time, Love, and Care

One of the most corrupt organizations in this city, the Taxi & Limousine Commission

Nah, TLC in that context means tender loving care.... It's a euphemism for something sorely needing to get fixed/maintained/cleaned.

[T to Dyre Avenue]

On ‎4‎/‎13‎/‎2020 at 10:32 AM, mrsman said:

It would be very nice to run something along these lines.  Imagine if the tracks could be aligned this way.  Imagine if a station somewhere near the bridge (either in Manhattan or Brooklyn) were there to allow for a cross-platform transfer between 6th Ave and Broadway.   It removes every argument against deinterlining DeKalb.

Notwithstanding this, I still feel that de-interlinining DeKalb is valuable and would still prefer all Brighton trains to 6th Ave and all West End/Sea Beach to Broadway express without this adjustment.  But it would be nice to have.

I previously suggested building such a station in the vicinity of Myrtle Ave/Gold St, but I'm not sure how feasible it is to put a dual-island platform station in that area with all the tracks switching and crossing over/under each other. It's probably even more difficult on the Manhattan side. At the very least, a Prince St transfer connecting to Broadway-Lafayette should be built first before we untangle Dekalb.

On ‎4‎/‎13‎/‎2020 at 4:56 PM, Theli11 said:

West End Riders won't have to transfer twice due to: 

Grand St being close in proximity to Canal St,

Broadway Lafayette is close to Prince St, 

West 4th St is a little bit far from NYU, but would have the to West 4 St via the line. 

From 14 St up, you have Broadway relatively close to 6th Avenue. 

If we add that Prince St Transfer, it'd help contribute to the alternative on 4th Av. 

The streets themselves are in close proximity (until Canal goes onto the Manhattan Bridge). But if your destination is somewhere east of Grand St , Canal St  is a long way off from there and will be of no use. As for  to West 4th via the , that's also a double transfer for West End riders if the  is their new service - first at Atlantic for the , then Cortlandt for the . And not a very convenient one at that.

On ‎4‎/‎14‎/‎2020 at 8:26 AM, mrsman said:

But I don't see the same issue for Southern Brooklyn.  For the majority of passengers, the two lines run within one avenue of each other from 23rd to 59th.  For all of these passengers, for a (possible) small walking penalty, we are providing a far more frequent and consistent riding pattern.  If I work near Times Square and live along the Brighton line, I will walk an extra avenue to board the  or  at 42nd/6Ave, but when I get there, every train on the express platform will get me towards home (as opposed to every other train under the current operating pattern where i would take the  and ignore the  ).  If the first train is busy, then next one will be less.  More trains can run as we removed a merge point.  All of this accomplished for a small extra walk.

Yes, the passengers going to Civic Center, Chinatown, Greenwich Village, Soho, and the 14th St area also need to be considered, but there are significantly less of them.  For many of them, their new station on the 6th Avenue line will still be within a reasonable walk of their old station on the Broadway line, but it is a further walk than the distance of one avenue.  For those that don't want to walk as far, they do have the option of getting even closer with the ability to transfer.  My earlier post outlined the possibilities.  Add to that potential new transfers that the MTA could undertake like Prince-Broadway/Laffayette and Grand-Bowery and we basically addressed every Manhattan destination that is reachable by either the 6th Ave or Broadway lines.

And of course, the Atlantic Ave transfer is still there.  A long number of years ago Atlantic and Pacific were separate stations and there was no free transfer between Brighton and 4th Ave passengers here.  Was it a mistake for MTA to open this transfer as it is so hard that nobody ever takes it?  That simply is not true.

No 6th Ave station is near Civic Center. The closest is East Broadway , and that's not very close. Much of the Lower East Side is far from Canal St.

If I may, I'd like to quote a couple posts from one of the previous times we visited the idea of DeKalb de-interlining to show why I favor swapping the  and  as opposed to  /  (which I initially was in favor of before reading some of these posts from 2018). The discussion is on pages 278-279 of this topic. I think it's worth a look.

On ‎8‎/‎3‎/‎2018 at 8:39 PM, R68OnBroadway said:

To solve the SAS and 34th issues, just send the  there while the  runs to FHills and the  runs to Astoria/LGA. If we were to deinterline DeKalb though (which I am not a fan of doing), I'd prefer swapping the  and  as Brighton riders prefer Broadway while 4th/West End/Sea Beach seem to prefer 6th as the Chinese communities there want access to Grand Street. This may eliminate the cross-platform transfer at DeKalb, but I doubt riders will want to swap to the  for just one stop as going through the transfer could be quicker than waiting for the  , taking it to DeKalb, and then waiting for another train. Under this plan, service patterns would be this way:

 -CI via 4th/Sea Beach. Operates all times, 

 same routing.

 96th/125th to Brighton Beach via Brighton express. Operates weekdays only except late nights.

 same routing.

 Astoria (later LGA) to Bay Ridge. Operates out of a new yard in Astoria. Operates all times.

 FHills to Bay Ridge. Late nights no service, use  .

 

On ‎8‎/‎3‎/‎2018 at 9:24 PM, Coney Island Av said:

My plan would look like this:

: Bedford Park Blvd to Coney Island via 6 Av Exp and 4 Av-Sea Beach Exp. Late nights from Atlantic to Coney Island, skipping all local stops. 

: 205 St to Coney Island as-is today

: 96 St (2-3 TPH) or 71 Av (9-10 TPH) to Brighton Beach via Broadway/Brighton Exp. Weekends and late nights no service. 

: 96 St to Coney Island as-is today

: LGA to 95 St via Astoria/Broadway/4 Av Local. Runs all times. 

: discontinued, if not LGA to Whitehall weekdays only 

Reasoning:

The reason why I prefer swapping the  and  over the  and  is because Brighton prefers Broadway over 6th and 4 Av in return would still have both the  to 6th and  to Broadway, the former of which they seem to prefer more. No one loses out when it comes to customer preferences. 

Unfortunately, one downside to this is that Sea Beach would lose 24/7 service to Manhattan. But it's the only option to choose from. And as mentioned earlier, the  and  would have to swap service patterns. 

I know sending the  via 63rd is basically a dead horse at this point. But since Dekalb is now deinterlined, and the bottleneck gone,  service can easily be increased to meet the demands of SAS (aka 19 TPH). This eliminates the need for the  on SAS and could instead be allowed to roam free on QBL. 

 to LGA should be self-explanatory. 

I'm slowly working on the map for Dekalb at the moment. Afterward, I'll post one for 8th, then Broadway, and finally, a global map of the system showing a (somewhat) deinterlined system. 

 

 

 

Edited April 15, 2020 by T to Dyre Avenue

[Collin]

4 hours ago, Wallyhorse said:

If anything, I would NOT bother with the  on Jerome (keeping that as is) and instead look to have the  run via new elevated tracks to connect with the  just before Yankee Stadium, possibly building a new level of Yankee Stadium station for such (and built where such can serve as a short-turn terminal for the ) with the  joining the  to Woodlawn full-time with some peak  trains terminating at Burnside and if available as a terminal a new Yankee Stadium station).  This would have a side benefit of having additional service to Yankee Stadium from the Broadway-7th Avenue line. 

And this is why you get interlined services.  People want more options and a one seat ride.  If done right, with efficient merges, it isn't a problem.  You don't often hear of problems with the merges at 145th Street on CPW or the Queens Plaza and 36th Street merges on Queens Boulevard.  But there are other areas like Columbus Circle, 34th Street, and DeKalb Avenue that are so problematic that entire divisions are scheduled backwards from them.

[T to Dyre Avenue]

6 hours ago, Wallyhorse said:

If anything, I would NOT bother with the  on Jerome (keeping that as is) and instead look to have the  run via new elevated tracks to connect with the  just before Yankee Stadium, possibly building a new level of Yankee Stadium station for such (and built where such can serve as a short-turn terminal for the ) with the  joining the  to Woodlawn full-time with some peak  trains terminating at Burnside and if available as a terminal a new Yankee Stadium station).  This would have a side benefit of having additional service to Yankee Stadium from the Broadway-7th Avenue line. 

Because the subway doesn't have enough reverse-branching as it is?

1 hour ago, Collin said:

And this is why you get interlined services.  People want more options and a one seat ride.  If done right, with efficient merges, it isn't a problem.  You don't often hear of problems with the merges at 145th Street on CPW or the Queens Plaza and 36th Street merges on Queens Boulevard.  But there are other areas like Columbus Circle, 34th Street, and DeKalb Avenue that are so problematic that entire divisions are scheduled backwards from them.

Yes we do. I've gotten stuck in all three of those merges more than once, especially 36th when I used to ride the Queens Blvd every day in 2012-15. The current QBL setup is terrible. Yes, people may want more options and one-seat rides. But they also want those services to run more frequently and with no delays. Sorry, but you can't have it both ways. If you run everything on commuter rail frequencies, then it's possible to have more options and one-seat rides. But really, who's going to take a subway service that runs only 2-4 tph in rush hours (like on LIRR or Metro-North)? Creating more one-seat rides is not going to get us more frequent service on the existing subway routes, not even with cab-signaling and automatic train operation.

Edited April 15, 2020 by T to Dyre Avenue

[LGA Link N Train]

55 minutes ago, Collin said:

And this is why you get interlined services.  People want more options and a one seat ride.  If done right, with efficient merges, it isn't a problem.  You don't often hear of problems with the merges at 145th Street on CPW or the Queens Plaza and 36th Street merges on Queens Boulevard.  But there are other areas like Columbus Circle, 34th Street, and DeKalb Avenue that are so problematic that entire divisions are scheduled backwards from them.

I guess that your statement is true though I would argue against Queens Plaza and 36th Street not being a huge deal especially since Queens Blvd is the 2nd Busiest corridor in the city and I'd argue that Queens Blvd needs as much service as it can get, and its current setup doesn't help. The second part that I put in bold and tilted, I'm going to agree with what @T to Dyre Avenue just said. Yes people want more options, but just like how de-interlining isn't the solution to all problems, giving everyone one seat rides won't help either. Also, a merge is a merge, a train is inevitably going to get help up. I would try to get rid of as many merges as possible without bringing it to the detriment of passengers. At the end of the day, I believe that the average passenger would care more about getting from point A to point B with no delays and frequent service, even if it means adding a transfer to their ride, if the average commuter KNOWS that the lines they need to take are frequent, reliable and on time, I don't think they'll care much about anything else. 

Given that, I believe that this would be the Best Compromise for those who support de-interlining and those who don't;

 - CPW Express,  CPW Local.  to Norwood-205th, to BPK,  to 168th 

- 6th Local-53rd-QB Express

- 6th Local-63rd-QB Local; IMO it should become a full time route along Queens Blvd given how popular the corridor is

- Upgrade Signals along Broadway and Astoria so that the Local tracks can handle 24+ TPH. Whereas today, it can only handle 21 TPH.

Swap at DeKalb; Trains become a full time route while 's run part time.

- to 96th Street.

- Should become a full time route between Astoria and Bay Ridge; 15 TPH

- Remains as is with 10 TPH.

 and Service should remain the same for the time being, as I believe that De-Interlining Rogers should be part of a larger capital deal to improve the IRT.

4 hours ago, B35 via Church said:

I don't have a dog in the fight either, but a separate question I have is, when did this term de-interlining become such this buzzword in this community? Serious question, because back when folks were parroting, or putting their little spin on the typical subway extension ideas on RD, SC, and the early days of this forum & what not, I don't remember seeing anybody making a mention of the term - especially with such a prevalence on here lately...

Or did someone on here happen to coin the phrase or something?

I don't know. I guess people starting using the word more often when Alon Levy and Vanshnookenraggen tapped into the subject. The earliest time I recall reading the word is when I asked someone in this thread what the best way to fix DeKalb was. I forgot who responded to me but that's when the term started getting used more often.

[CenSin]

5 hours ago, B35 via Church said:

In layman's terms, the general area surrounding something that draws people to it.... It's not a fixed distance or anything like that.

e.g. The catchment area for Broad Channel is the entire neighborhood of Broad Channel.... The catchment area of the 42nd st is Midtown Manhattan.

I’ll add that there are two differing view on this:

• There are stations entrances that people see on a map and think “Oh, that’s close by! It’s only a 10-minute walk.”  Then they make their decisions based on that.
  • “I will buy a house there. It’s within the catchment area of _.”
  • “We can still make it to the _. Google Maps says the next _ train is a 1-minute wait after walking there.”
  • “It’s not too bad even with all this luggage.”
• Reality: It’s actually a 15-minute walk if all the elevators/escalators are working.
  • “The catchment area is functionally smaller than I thought it’d be based on the 2-D map.”
  • ”We just missed the train and can’t make it to _ because Google Maps doesn’t account for the time it takes to descend a mile down to the platform.”
  • “I elevators aren’t working. We’ll have to call a Lyft with a good amount of space in the trunk for the luggage.”

When planners draw up catchment areas on the map, always shrink them by the distance from the entrances to the platforms. Because all that extra walking should count.

[T to Dyre Avenue]

4 hours ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

I guess that your statement is true though I would argue against Queens Plaza and 36th Street not being a huge deal especially since Queens Blvd is the 2nd Busiest corridor in the city and I'd argue that Queens Blvd needs as much service as it can get, and its current setup doesn't help. The second part that I put in bold and tilted, I'm going to agree with what @T to Dyre Avenue just said. Yes people want more options, but just like how de-interlining isn't the solution to all problems, giving everyone one seat rides won't help either. Also, a merge is a merge, a train is inevitably going to get help up. I would try to get rid of as many merges as possible without bringing it to the detriment of passengers. At the end of the day, I believe that the average passenger would care more about getting from point A to point B with no delays and frequent service, even if it means adding a transfer to their ride, if the average commuter KNOWS that the lines they need to take are frequent, reliable and on time, I don't think they'll care much about anything else. 

Given that, I believe that this would be the Best Compromise for those who support de-interlining and those who don't;

 - CPW Express,  CPW Local.  to Norwood-205th, to BPK,  to 168th 

- 6th Local-53rd-QB Express

- 6th Local-63rd-QB Local; IMO it should become a full time route along Queens Blvd given how popular the corridor is

- Upgrade Signals along Broadway and Astoria so that the Local tracks can handle 24+ TPH. Whereas today, it can only handle 21 TPH.

Swap at DeKalb; Trains become a full time route while 's run part time.

- to 96th Street.

- Should become a full time route between Astoria and Bay Ridge; 15 TPH

- Remains as is with 10 TPH.

 and Service should remain the same for the time being, as I believe that De-Interlining Rogers should be part of a larger capital deal to improve the IRT.

I don't know. I guess people starting using the word more often when Alon Levy and Vanshnookenraggen tapped into the subject. The earliest time I recall reading the word is when I asked someone in this thread what the best way to fix DeKalb was. I forgot who responded to me but that's when the term started getting used more often.

I first saw it used, along with reverse-branching, on Second Avenue Sagas in a guest post by Alon Levy back in 2015. I warmed up to the idea after yet another rush-hour delay between Canal and Prince on the  waiting for it to merge onto the local track (2010-15 were the bad old days, though not as bad as 1989-July 2001, when there was no Broadway Express service at all). I've never seen it in SubChat and frankly, I think the SubChat crowd would have absolutely no tolerance for de-interlining.

As for the service plan, I favor doing the 8th Avenue trains as the locals on CPW, because then you can travel straight down CPW/8th Ave without needing to transfer to the  at 7th Avenue. You probably don’t need all  trains terminating at 95th; maybe just terminate whatever can’t be turned at Whitehall and then turn all  service at Whitehall during off peak hours.

Edited April 15, 2020 by T to Dyre Avenue

[JeremiahC99]

4 hours ago, Collin said:

And this is why you get interlined services.  People want more options and a one seat ride.  If done right, with efficient merges, it isn't a problem.  You don't often hear of problems with the merges at 145th Street on CPW or the Queens Plaza and 36th Street merges on Queens Boulevard.  But there are other areas like Columbus Circle, 34th Street, and DeKalb Avenue that are so problematic that entire divisions are scheduled backwards from them.

 

9 hours ago, Wallyhorse said:

If anything, I would NOT bother with the  on Jerome (keeping that as is) and instead look to have the  run via new elevated tracks to connect with the  just before Yankee Stadium, possibly building a new level of Yankee Stadium station for such (and built where such can serve as a short-turn terminal for the ) with the  joining the  to Woodlawn full-time with some peak  trains terminating at Burnside and if available as a terminal a new Yankee Stadium station).  This would have a side benefit of having additional service to Yankee Stadium from the Broadway-7th Avenue line. 

 

22 hours ago, shiznit1987 said:

Even better would be adding tail tracks to Utica Ave and simply running the  there. Yes, I realize that forces Nostrand riders into a transfer at Franklin, but if it means more service on all 4 services due to the lack of merging then it's worth it. 

Sometimes less is more. Spending billions to reconfigure junctions and services just because it looks good on the map doesn't always work out. People need both the  and the  in The Bronx, and the  serves it's purpose well (not to mention Harlem will protest the closure of 148th st). The Bronx IRT needs to be left alone. 

Since the common point is the IRT Bronx Lines and one seat rides, specifically the Jerome Avenue Line, here's a good idea to mitigate some of these issues: Complete replacement of the three track elevated structure feeding only one trunk line with a 4 track subway feeding into both the west side and east side subways, and also rebuilding the Harlem River-Lenox connection (Note: this is a long term project).

Here is the plan:

Starting at Grand Concourse and 151st Street, two new tracks would diverge from the existing three track structure, and then operate under 153rd Street. It would continue under that street, meeting up with the new tracks from the new IRT Lenox Tunnel. Past the Yankees-East 153rd Street MNRR station, it would then transition to operate under Anderson Avenue. This would require digging up the southern end of the Macombs Dam park, and a new express station would be built at 161st Street and Jerome Avenue, near the park and the western side of Yankee Stadium. At this point, we have a 4 track line hosting the  and  trains, with the  trains taking the express tracks and the  making all stops in the area like currently does on the Jerome Avenue Line. The 4-track line would then continue under Anderson Avenue, with a local stop at 167th Street, and then shift under the Edward Grant Highway to make another local stop at 170th Street.

From that point, the new line would the operate under University Avenue through the western part of the borough. The next station on the line would be an express station at 174th Street-Featherbed Lane. This station would serve crosstown buses heading to Washington Heights and the GWB Bus Terminal to the west, and, like other stations on the line, it would also serve those same buses going to Eastern Bronx neighborhoods. The next set of stations are local stops at Tremont Avenue, Burnside Avenue, and 183rd Street, and an express stop at Fordham Road, and finally another local stop at Kingsbridge Road. After Kingsbridge Road, the line then goes under Goulden Avenue. It would make another local stop at Bedford Park Blvd near Lehman College, and finally an express stop at Gun Hill Road. A track connection will be built to connect to the existing Concourse Yard and Jerome Yard at 195th Street. Gun Hill Road will serve as the northern terminal of the local trains (the ), while the express tracks continue north. A relay area will be built north of the station for the local trains.

After Gun Hill Road, the express tracks (the train) will continue northward under Mosholu Pkwy and the Bronx River Pkwy before finally turning eastward under 233rd Street in Woodlawn. It would stop at Jerome Avenue to allow for buses from Westchester county to intercept the subway trains sooner. Another stop would be make at Katonah Avenue, before crossing into the Wakefield neighborhood and terminating at White Plains Road, with a possibility for extension eastward to the city limits. Replacement bus service will be provided along Jerome Avenue for those who need it.

The second key part of this plan is rebuilding the connection between the Jerome, White Plains, and Lenox Lines, which has a grade crossing in Manhattan, and really sharp curve in the Bronx that slow service. Starting with the grade crossing, at 138th Street and Lenox Avenue, two new tracks would split off from the existing alignment and operate under the existing tracks to a new full length, ADA station at 145th Street. This station would serve both the  and  lines, doubling service at this station. At 147th Street, the new tracks would head east under the Harlem River and enter the Bronx at 150th Street. At the Major Deegan Expressway, the tracks split into two branches. The first pair turns north under River Avenue and then under 153rd Street to become the express tracks of the Jerome Avenue Elevated replacement subway. A new station would be built under River Avenue to serve the Bronx Terminal Market. The second set continues diagonally to 149th Street, meeting up with the existing tracks to the 149th Street-Grand Concourse station, where service continues as normal. In addition, the  train merge will be rebuilt so that it avoids the 149th Street station for a smoother and faster ride. The  and  interline will be dealt with in a later project.

The Harlem-148th Street station would not be served by the  train under this scenario (the existing tracks will remain for access to the Lenox Yard for the  and , though the  will use the Jerome Avenue replacement subway. Therefore, abandoning it and replacing it with increased bus service to other stations on the line is one option. Another option is to possibility have the station served by a 5-car  shuttle train to 135th Street. This would require rebuilding the 135th Street station to a three track-two island platform station, with track access to the center track at both ends. The  would operate at 12 trains per hour, and would serve a similar purpose to the Rockaway Park Shuttle in linking Harlem-148th Street to the  and  trains for residents who live near the area. 

This plan (which should be built in phases) has many 

• Better service to Western Bronx, and Woodlawn proper (the current subway options don't reach these areas)
• All-day express service in the area, providing faster commutes between Manhattan and the Bronx
• Allows for one seat rides betwen Western Bronx either the west or east sides of Manhattan, while reducing interlining
• Ability to accommodate for service disruptions by allowing for service adjustments on the fly, allowing for service to continue running (i.e: an incident on the Lexington Avenue Express prevents  trains from coming down the line to Brooklyn. Solution: route the  to the IRT Lenox Line and West Side IRT to Brooklyn, resuming the regular service at Atlantic Avenue).
• Smoother and faster service for  train customers, improving service between the Northeast Bronx and the East Side of Manhattan

The drawbacks include:

• Potential expensive costs
• Conversion of service to Harlem-148th Street to a shuttle. 
• Inconvenient transfers between Concourse and the new subway
• Potential crowding on the IND Concourse Line?

Thoughts?

[Jova42R]

3 minutes ago, JeremiahC99 said:

 

 

Since the common point is the IRT Bronx Lines and one seat rides, specifically the Jerome Avenue Line, here's a good idea to mitigate some of these issues: Complete replacement of the three track elevated structure feeding only one trunk line with a 4 track subway feeding into both the west side and east side subways, and also rebuilding the Harlem River-Lenox connection (Note: this is a long term project).

Here is the plan:

Starting at Grand Concourse and 151st Street, two new tracks would diverge from the existing three track structure, and then operate under 153rd Street. It would continue under that street, meeting up with the new tracks from the new IRT Lenox Tunnel. Past the Yankees-East 153rd Street MNRR station, it would then transition to operate under Anderson Avenue. This would require digging up the southern end of the Macombs Dam park, and a new express station would be built at 161st Street and Jerome Avenue, near the park and the western side of Yankee Stadium. At this point, we have a 4 track line hosting the  and  trains, with the  trains taking the express tracks and the  making all stops in the area like currently does on the Jerome Avenue Line. The 4-track line would then continue under Anderson Avenue, with a local stop at 167th Street, and then shift under the Edward Grant Highway to make another local stop at 170th Street.

From that point, the new line would the operate under University Avenue through the western part of the borough. The next station on the line would be an express station at 174th Street-Featherbed Lane. This station would serve crosstown buses heading to Washington Heights and the GWB Bus Terminal to the west, and, like other stations on the line, it would also serve those same buses going to Eastern Bronx neighborhoods. The next set of stations are local stops at Tremont Avenue, Burnside Avenue, and 183rd Street, and an express stop at Fordham Road, and finally another local stop at Kingsbridge Road. After Kingsbridge Road, the line then goes under Goulden Avenue. It would make another local stop at Bedford Park Blvd near Lehman College, and finally an express stop at Gun Hill Road. A track connection will be built to connect to the existing Concourse Yard and Jerome Yard at 195th Street. Gun Hill Road will serve as the northern terminal of the local trains (the ), while the express tracks continue north. A relay area will be built north of the station for the local trains.

After Gun Hill Road, the express tracks (the train) will continue northward under Mosholu Pkwy and the Bronx River Pkwy before finally turning eastward under 233rd Street in Woodlawn. It would stop at Jerome Avenue to allow for buses from Westchester county to intercept the subway trains sooner. Another stop would be make at Katonah Avenue, before crossing into the Wakefield neighborhood and terminating at White Plains Road, with a possibility for extension eastward to the city limits. Replacement bus service will be provided along Jerome Avenue for those who need it.

The second key part of this plan is rebuilding the connection between the Jerome, White Plains, and Lenox Lines, which has a grade crossing in Manhattan, and really sharp curve in the Bronx that slow service. Starting with the grade crossing, at 138th Street and Lenox Avenue, two new tracks would split off from the existing alignment and operate under the existing tracks to a new full length, ADA station at 145th Street. This station would serve both the  and  lines, doubling service at this station. At 147th Street, the new tracks would head east under the Harlem River and enter the Bronx at 150th Street. At the Major Deegan Expressway, the tracks split into two branches. The first pair turns north under River Avenue and then under 153rd Street to become the express tracks of the Jerome Avenue Elevated replacement subway. A new station would be built under River Avenue to serve the Bronx Terminal Market. The second set continues diagonally to 149th Street, meeting up with the existing tracks to the 149th Street-Grand Concourse station, where service continues as normal. In addition, the  train merge will be rebuilt so that it avoids the 149th Street station for a smoother and faster ride. The  and  interline will be dealt with in a later project.

The Harlem-148th Street station would not be served by the  train under this scenario (the existing tracks will remain for access to the Lenox Yard for the  and , though the  will use the Jerome Avenue replacement subway. Therefore, abandoning it and replacing it with increased bus service to other stations on the line is one option. Another option is to possibility have the station served by a 5-car  shuttle train to 135th Street. This would require rebuilding the 135th Street station to a three track-two island platform station, with track access to the center track at both ends. The  would operate at 12 trains per hour, and would serve a similar purpose to the Rockaway Park Shuttle in linking Harlem-148th Street to the  and  trains for residents who live near the area. 

This plan (which should be built in phases) has many 

• Better service to Western Bronx, and Woodlawn proper (the current subway options don't reach these areas)
• All-day express service in the area, providing faster commutes between Manhattan and the Bronx
• Allows for one seat rides betwen Western Bronx either the west or east sides of Manhattan, while reducing interlining
• Ability to accommodate for service disruptions by allowing for service adjustments on the fly, allowing for service to continue running (i.e: an incident on the Lexington Avenue Express prevents  trains from coming down the line to Brooklyn. Solution: route the  to the IRT Lenox Line and West Side IRT to Brooklyn, resuming the regular service at Atlantic Avenue).
• Smoother and faster service for  train customers, improving service between the Northeast Bronx and the East Side of Manhattan

The drawbacks include:

• Potential expensive costs
• Conversion of service to Harlem-148th Street to a shuttle. 
• Inconvenient transfers between Concourse and the new subway
• Potential crowding on the IND Concourse Line?

Thoughts?

Great Idea. However, I'd say keep the  on WPR, and have the  on Jerome. The  then runs as a Mid-Bronx Line up Third Av.

For western Bx service, I'd have that be SAS service (I'll post a map link soon). Then we'd have the  to Woodlawn (or maybe even Mount Vernon MNRR via EXPRESS, and the  to Burnside via LOCAL, then across the Bronx to Throgs Neck. North of burnside is a 3-track line for  service, all s run local. s go to Astoria and s go to Forest Hills under this plan, BTW.

Ideas on this?

[JeremiahC99]

9 minutes ago, Jova42R said:

Great Idea. However, I'd say keep the  on WPR, and have the  on Jerome. The  then runs as a Mid-Bronx Line up Third Av.

For western Bx service, I'd have that be SAS service (I'll post a map link soon). Then we'd have the  to Woodlawn (or maybe even Mount Vernon MNRR via EXPRESS, and the  to Burnside via LOCAL, then across the Bronx to Throgs Neck. North of burnside is a 3-track line for  service, all s run local. s go to Astoria and s go to Forest Hills under this plan, BTW.

Ideas on this?

One of the reasons why I I had the  remain interlined with the  along WPR was to maintain the one seat ride between the Dyre Avenue Line and the East Side of Manhattan, and since this connection is popular, I decided to maintain it.

For Mid-Bronx I also made a few ideas for this, but it has undergone several modifications. My recent version has a Mid Bronx Line going via Crotona Avenue. The corridor is serviced by the Bx17 bus, and it was revealed in the Bronx bus redesign that it serves areas of the Bronx without subway service. Therefore, I decided to use this line for a a new Bronx line. 3rd Avenue/Webster Avenue and the Bx15 and Bx41 bus lines are in really close proximity to the Metro North right of way that, as of today, somewhat bypasses the area. This existing service could be revamped to better serve city residents looking to get to the east side. What I would recommend for this line is to adding additional stations on the line and charging subway fare within the city limits. The service pattern for the Harlem Line would be adjusted so that folks coming from the outer suburbs won't experience too much of an increase in travel time.

Since you bought us Second Avenue Service, while off duty from the forums, I drafted up several plans for Bronx SAS service (I also have that line 4 tracks in Manhattan). One of the ideas I had was for a crosstown spur along 163rd Street and through Southeast Bronx to function as an alternative to the Pelham Line  line. I did not consider SAS along the Western Bronx because I felt that it could be better served by service from the proximate Lenox  line and the  service from the as well. Since those lines already exist, it would be quicker to complete while SAS 3, 4, and the spur to the Bronx is still a pipe dream, while allow for more optimal  and  service as well. And that's only the beginning. The SAS is what I consider the breeding ground for potential improvements to service in all of the Bronx outside the Jerome Avenue replacement. The 163rd Street spur is being modified to be 4 tracks to at least Castle Hill Avenue. The goal of this is to provide all day express service to this area, which should siphon off a majority of riders from the Pelham  line. The SAS via Crotona line I mentioned earlier would also help siphon riders from the Concourse Line. 

[shiznit1987]

The problem with these various University Ave subway ideas is why should we be building anything in the West Bronx when they already have the  and  while much of the Central and Eastern Bronx is underserved? Even if I supported sending the  into the Bronx it would only be to serve a much needed market like 3rd-Webster Aves. Once again, we're completely ignoring Harlem and UWS residents as well, who make the switch @ 96th St from  to  

As an aside, is there any appetite for a peak direction <1> between 168th St and 96th Streets? I know the center track switch are after 145th st, the <1> would just skip 145th and 157th on the local track. One argument is missing many high ridership stops but if you had a ratio of 2 s to 1 <1> then you'd be preserving balance on the line.  

 

Edited April 15, 2020 by shiznit1987

[shiznit1987]

5 hours ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

I guess that your statement is true though I would argue against Queens Plaza and 36th Street not being a huge deal especially since Queens Blvd is the 2nd Busiest corridor in the city and I'd argue that Queens Blvd needs as much service as it can get, and its current setup doesn't help. The second part that I put in bold and tilted, I'm going to agree with what @T to Dyre Avenue just said. Yes people want more options, but just like how de-interlining isn't the solution to all problems, giving everyone one seat rides won't help either. Also, a merge is a merge, a train is inevitably going to get help up. I would try to get rid of as many merges as possible without bringing it to the detriment of passengers. At the end of the day, I believe that the average passenger would care more about getting from point A to point B with no delays and frequent service, even if it means adding a transfer to their ride, if the average commuter KNOWS that the lines they need to take are frequent, reliable and on time, I don't think they'll care much about anything else. 

Given that, I believe that this would be the Best Compromise for those who support de-interlining and those who don't;

 - CPW Express,  CPW Local.  to Norwood-205th, to BPK,  to 168th 

- 6th Local-53rd-QB Express

- 6th Local-63rd-QB Local; IMO it should become a full time route along Queens Blvd given how popular the corridor is

- Upgrade Signals along Broadway and Astoria so that the Local tracks can handle 24+ TPH. Whereas today, it can only handle 21 TPH.

Swap at DeKalb; Trains become a full time route while 's run part time.

- to 96th Street.

- Should become a full time route between Astoria and Bay Ridge; 15 TPH

- Remains as is with 10 TPH.

 and Service should remain the same for the time being, as I believe that De-Interlining Rogers should be part of a larger capital deal to improve the IRT.

I don't know. I guess people starting using the word more often when Alon Levy and Vanshnookenraggen tapped into the subject. The earliest time I recall reading the word is when I asked someone in this thread what the best way to fix DeKalb was. I forgot who responded to me but that's when the term started getting used more often.

Honestly, QB is fine as it is. My only wish is for either the  or  to run down the local on weekends. I do support the idea of making the  the full time Astoria line with both  and  going to 96th St. 

[R10 2952]

10 hours ago, B35 via Church said:

I don't have a dog in the fight either, but a separate question I have is, when did this term de-interlining become such this buzzword in this community? Serious question, because back when folks were parroting, or putting their little spin on the typical subway extension ideas on RD, SC, and the early days of this forum & what not, I don't remember seeing anybody making a mention of the term - especially with such a prevalence on here lately...

Or did someone on here happen to coin the phrase or something?

Agreed; hearing people repeat that phrase ad nauseum has actually been making me less receptive to their ideas, to be honest...

Quote

One of the most corrupt organizations in this city, the Taxi & Limousine Commission

LOL just brought back memories of when they were trying to up the standards for taxis in the '90s- trivial shit like "a cab can't be more than 5 years old" and such.  As if a taxi being 6 years or older was such a travesty, SMH.... I remember a bunch of late '80s Chevy Caprice taxis still being on the road around 2000; they were pretty solid and the fare was cheap.

1 hour ago, shiznit1987 said:

The problem with these various University Ave subway ideas is why should we be building anything in the West Bronx when they already have the  and  while much of the Central and Eastern Bronx is underserved? Even if I supported sending the  into the Bronx it would only be to serve a much needed market like 3rd-Webster Aves. Once again, we're completely ignoring Harlem and UWS residents as well, who make the switch @ 96th St from  to  

As an aside, is there any appetite for a peak direction <1> between 168th St and 96th Streets? I know the center track switch are after 145th st, the <1> would just skip 145th and 157th on the local track. One argument is missing many high ridership stops but if you had a ratio of 2 s to 1 <1> then you'd be preserving balance on the line.  

The West Bronx might have the and the /, but the current setup there isn't too great.  Jerome is too close to the Grand Concourse and too far from University Avenue, and the Concourse line isn't as useful as it could be without a 4th track. 

The is definitely too slow (too many stops) north of 96th; blame that on no 3rd track between Dyckman-145th as well as no express stations on the 3-track portions (must've been the same genius who put Burnside as the only express stop north of 149th on the ).

Not saying it will get fixed anytime soon- just saying the current setup sucks.

And the East Bronx should probably not count on getting anything in this century; the TA is in no hurry to build them a B-Division-sized line, at all.

Edited April 15, 2020 by R10 2952
grammar

[Theli11]

55 minutes ago, shiznit1987 said:

As an aside, is there any appetite for a peak direction <1> between 168th St and 96th Streets? I know the center track switch are after 145th st, the <1> would just skip 145th and 157th on the local track. One argument is missing many high ridership stops but if you had a ratio of 2 s to 1 <1> then you'd be preserving balance on the line.  

Trains should just stop at 157 St going uptown and 145 and 157 St going downtown. You'd still be skipping 137, 125, and 116 Sts which would still miss the Universities and major cross sections (more 137 and especially 116 St). 

 

2 hours ago, JeremiahC99 said:

Since the common point is the IRT Bronx Lines and one seat rides, specifically the Jerome Avenue Line, here's a good idea to mitigate some of these issues: Complete replacement of the three track elevated structure feeding only one trunk line with a 4 track subway feeding into both the west side and east side subways, and also rebuilding the Harlem River-Lenox connection (Note: this is a long term project).

Here is the plan:

Starting at Grand Concourse and 151st Street, two new tracks would diverge from the existing three track structure, and then operate under 153rd Street. It would continue under that street, meeting up with the new tracks from the new IRT Lenox Tunnel. Past the Yankees-East 153rd Street MNRR station, it would then transition to operate under Anderson Avenue. This would require digging up the southern end of the Macombs Dam park, and a new express station would be built at 161st Street and Jerome Avenue, near the park and the western side of Yankee Stadium. At this point, we have a 4 track line hosting the  and  trains, with the  trains taking the express tracks and the  making all stops in the area like currently does on the Jerome Avenue Line. The 4-track line would then continue under Anderson Avenue, with a local stop at 167th Street, and then shift under the Edward Grant Highway to make another local stop at 170th Street.

From that point, the new line would the operate under University Avenue through the western part of the borough. The next station on the line would be an express station at 174th Street-Featherbed Lane. This station would serve crosstown buses heading to Washington Heights and the GWB Bus Terminal to the west, and, like other stations on the line, it would also serve those same buses going to Eastern Bronx neighborhoods. The next set of stations are local stops at Tremont Avenue, Burnside Avenue, and 183rd Street, and an express stop at Fordham Road, and finally another local stop at Kingsbridge Road. After Kingsbridge Road, the line then goes under Goulden Avenue. It would make another local stop at Bedford Park Blvd near Lehman College, and finally an express stop at Gun Hill Road. A track connection will be built to connect to the existing Concourse Yard and Jerome Yard at 195th Street. Gun Hill Road will serve as the northern terminal of the local trains (the ), while the express tracks continue north. A relay area will be built north of the station for the local trains.

After Gun Hill Road, the express tracks (the train) will continue northward under Mosholu Pkwy and the Bronx River Pkwy before finally turning eastward under 233rd Street in Woodlawn. It would stop at Jerome Avenue to allow for buses from Westchester county to intercept the subway trains sooner. Another stop would be make at Katonah Avenue, before crossing into the Wakefield neighborhood and terminating at White Plains Road, with a possibility for extension eastward to the city limits. Replacement bus service will be provided along Jerome Avenue for those who need it.

The second key part of this plan is rebuilding the connection between the Jerome, White Plains, and Lenox Lines, which has a grade crossing in Manhattan, and really sharp curve in the Bronx that slow service. Starting with the grade crossing, at 138th Street and Lenox Avenue, two new tracks would split off from the existing alignment and operate under the existing tracks to a new full length, ADA station at 145th Street. This station would serve both the  and  lines, doubling service at this station. At 147th Street, the new tracks would head east under the Harlem River and enter the Bronx at 150th Street. At the Major Deegan Expressway, the tracks split into two branches. The first pair turns north under River Avenue and then under 153rd Street to become the express tracks of the Jerome Avenue Elevated replacement subway. A new station would be built under River Avenue to serve the Bronx Terminal Market. The second set continues diagonally to 149th Street, meeting up with the existing tracks to the 149th Street-Grand Concourse station, where service continues as normal. In addition, the  train merge will be rebuilt so that it avoids the 149th Street station for a smoother and faster ride. The  and  interline will be dealt with in a later project.

The Harlem-148th Street station would not be served by the  train under this scenario (the existing tracks will remain for access to the Lenox Yard for the  and , though the  will use the Jerome Avenue replacement subway. Therefore, abandoning it and replacing it with increased bus service to other stations on the line is one option. Another option is to possibility have the station served by a 5-car  shuttle train to 135th Street. This would require rebuilding the 135th Street station to a three track-two island platform station, with track access to the center track at both ends. The  would operate at 12 trains per hour, and would serve a similar purpose to the Rockaway Park Shuttle in linking Harlem-148th Street to the  and  trains for residents who live near the area. 

This plan (which should be built in phases) has many 

• Better service to Western Bronx, and Woodlawn proper (the current subway options don't reach these areas)
• All-day express service in the area, providing faster commutes between Manhattan and the Bronx
• Allows for one seat rides betwen Western Bronx either the west or east sides of Manhattan, while reducing interlining
• Ability to accommodate for service disruptions by allowing for service adjustments on the fly, allowing for service to continue running (i.e: an incident on the Lexington Avenue Express prevents  trains from coming down the line to Brooklyn. Solution: route the  to the IRT Lenox Line and West Side IRT to Brooklyn, resuming the regular service at Atlantic Avenue).
• Smoother and faster service for  train customers, improving service between the Northeast Bronx and the East Side of Manhattan

The drawbacks include:

• Potential expensive costs
• Conversion of service to Harlem-148th Street to a shuttle. 
• Inconvenient transfers between Concourse and the new subway
• Potential crowding on the IND Concourse Line?

I think that University Avenue would be better if it were to have just the train on it. But Harlem - 148 could still be saved if you were to create a line from the end of the tail tracks, then turn it on 7th Av, next to Macombs Bridge, and elevating it out of the tunnel onto Jerome Av, going on your planned track, but leaving the out of it, would do better. There should be a connection between the  and  trains at Yankee Station. Via a passageway connecting to the end of the station and the Southbound platform (maybe an overpass/underpass to the Northbound side). Then it can go along your route. Honestly, we don't need a route on University though. This would do better than your plan because Jerome is still essential to the Bronx. Though University Avenue would be the best place for the   

[B35 via Church]

1 hour ago, R10 2952 said:

LOL just brought back memories of when they were trying to up the standards for taxis in the '90s- trivial shit like "a cab can't be more than 5 years old" and such.  As if a taxi being 6 years or older was such a travesty, SMH....

I remember a bunch of late '80s Chevy Caprice taxis still being on the road around 2000; they were pretty solid and the fare was cheap.

Preach.

7 hours ago, CenSin said:

I’ll add that there are two differing view on this:

• There are stations entrances that people see on a map and think “Oh, that’s close by! It’s only a 10-minute walk.”  Then they make their decisions based on that.
  • “I will buy a house there. It’s within the catchment area of _.”
  • “We can still make it to the _. Google Maps says the next _ train is a 1-minute wait after walking there.”
  • “It’s not too bad even with all this luggage.”
• Reality: It’s actually a 15-minute walk if all the elevators/escalators are working.
  • “The catchment area is functionally smaller than I thought it’d be based on the 2-D map.”
  • ”We just missed the train and can’t make it to _ because Google Maps doesn’t account for the time it takes to descend a mile down to the platform.”
  • “I elevators aren’t working. We’ll have to call a Lyft with a good amount of space in the trunk for the luggage.”

When planners draw up catchment areas on the map, always shrink them by the distance from the entrances to the platforms. Because all that extra walking should count.

What's funny about that is, (the idea of) using that 5 minutes to walk to another/further out subway station would be a deterrent for a lot of people.... Using that same 5 minutes to get from street level to platform level at that proximate/initial station OTOH, is acceptable (or mentally written off as negligible)..... The meandering that takes place within Times Sq. is a good example of that.

[GojiMet86]

I've been thinking lately of what the rest of the world, especially Japan and South Korea, does in regards to the bluring of subway metro lines and commuter rail lines. I could see the subway taking over the Far Rockway, Long Beach, and Port Washington lines. I'm just wondering at the same time if the time savings is worth it.

For the FR and LB branches, I could see a Queens Boulevard-LIRR Main Line-63rd Street-6th Avenue being a top option, with Queens Blvd-53rd Street-8th Avenue and a new Lower Montauk-34th Street Crosstown line (subway vs. railroad, you decide) being close behind. A Port Washington takeover would have to be a 63rd Street-6th Avenue line.

 

I am doing  some very rough guestimates, the numbers might be off but I just want to get an idea:

A Far Rockaway and a Long Beach train both take 35-36 minutes to run FR/LB to Jamaica, but the LB trains skip stops after Valley Stream, so making all the stops between VS and JAM adds some 3-5 minutes for those LB trains. A LIRR train takes another 20 minutes to do JAM to Penn Station.

I'll be using the as an example for a QB-63rd Street service; it takes (on paper obviously) about 37 minutes to do Jamaica-179th to 34th Street, but it would 34-35 if running from Jamaica Center. It does make its first Manhattan stop in 30 minutes. If this  moves to the LIRR Main Line after Forest Hills, you might shave off some...1-2 minutes (32-33 minutes)?

Let's just say worst case it 35 minutes to do JAM-34th via the Main Line. That is an added 15 minutes over the LIRR straight 20 into Penn.........but that's not taking into account the acceleration and dwell times that would be introduced by subway cars. Not a math/physics guy by any stretch of the imagination, but I would guess that these two factors would shave off some 4-7 minutes, making it 28 minutes. That's an added 8 minutes to Penn, but now getting into Manhattan is not a big problem as before. And mind you, with the subway running into those outer reaches, transfers are easier to do.

In the end, a QB-63rd Street service runs from LB or FR going into Midtown-34th Street might range from 68 minutes (LB)/63 minutes (FR) to 75 (LB)/70 (FR), while the current LIRR trains which can take about some 55-65 (LB/FR). Of course, I would rather not this be an  that runs all the way to Brooklyn; that just becomes insufferable.

Maybe some who do better calculations might chime in?

[Lex]

6 hours ago, GojiMet86 said:

I've been thinking lately of what the rest of the world, especially Japan and South Korea, does in regards to the bluring of subway metro lines and commuter rail lines. I could see the subway taking over the Far Rockway, Long Beach, and Port Washington lines. I'm just wondering at the same time if the time savings is worth it.

For the FR and LB branches, I could see a Queens Boulevard-LIRR Main Line-63rd Street-6th Avenue being a top option, with Queens Blvd-53rd Street-8th Avenue and a new Lower Montauk-34th Street Crosstown line (subway vs. railroad, you decide) being close behind. A Port Washington takeover would have to be a 63rd Street-6th Avenue line.

 

I am doing  some very rough guestimates, the numbers might be off but I just want to get an idea:

A Far Rockaway and a Long Beach train both take 35-36 minutes to run FR/LB to Jamaica, but the LB trains skip stops after Valley Stream, so making all the stops between VS and JAM adds some 3-5 minutes for those LB trains. A LIRR train takes another 20 minutes to do JAM to Penn Station.

I'll be using the as an example for a QB-63rd Street service; it takes (on paper obviously) about 37 minutes to do Jamaica-179th to 34th Street, but it would 34-35 if running from Jamaica Center. It does make its first Manhattan stop in 30 minutes. If this  moves to the LIRR Main Line after Forest Hills, you might shave off some...1-2 minutes (32-33 minutes)?

Let's just say worst case it 35 minutes to do JAM-34th via the Main Line. That is an added 15 minutes over the LIRR straight 20 into Penn.........but that's not taking into account the acceleration and dwell times that would be introduced by subway cars. Not a math/physics guy by any stretch of the imagination, but I would guess that these two factors would shave off some 4-7 minutes, making it 28 minutes. That's an added 8 minutes to Penn, but now getting into Manhattan is not a big problem as before. And mind you, with the subway running into those outer reaches, transfers are easier to do.

In the end, a QB-63rd Street service runs from LB or FR going into Midtown-34th Street might range from 68 minutes (LB)/63 minutes (FR) to 75 (LB)/70 (FR), while the current LIRR trains which can take about some 55-65 (LB/FR). Of course, I would rather not this be an  that runs all the way to Brooklyn; that just becomes insufferable.

Maybe some who do better calculations might chime in?

I'd recommend factoring the FRA into those calculations...

[GojiMet86]

3 hours ago, Lex said:

I'd recommend factoring the FRA into those calculations...

You think I haven't? There wouldn't be any track sharing, because once a track is shared between an actively used subway line and an actively used railroad line, the subway would have to go under FRA jurisdiction. What the FRA states is that a subway track must be 30 feet away from the LIRR unless a barrier is placed between them. It's why the PATH is FRA with some strings removed (track connection in question is a yard near Harrison) and why WMATA can share the ROW with MARC and be so close to it.

[Theli11]

3 hours ago, R10 2952 said:

The West Bronx might have the and the /, but the current setup there isn't too great.  Jerome is too close to the Grand Concourse and too far from University Avenue, and the Concourse line isn't as useful as it could be without a 4th track. 

The is definitely too slow (too many stops) north of 96th; blame that on no 3rd track between Dyckman-145th as well as no express stations on the 3-track portions (must've been the same genius who put Burnside as the only express stop north of 149th on the ).

Not saying it will get fixed anytime soon- just saying the current setup sucks.

And the East Bronx should probably not count on getting anything in this century; the TA is in no hurry to build them a B-Division-sized line, at all.

train isn't in demand for an express service though, neither is the . That's because every station on the and train are stations with high ridership and stations with people who would need the train (Columbia, 125, 137, 168 St) I'd say that we could implement express service after Dyckman St, but only if passengers in the area want it. 

If we put the on University Avenue (Alone) wouldn't that fix the issue? At least partially, the real need for a service in the Bronx, is two services really. A Crosstown Service, and a 3 Avenue/Webster Service that'll serve Fordham Plaza, the Hub, and everything in between. 

 

[engineerboy6561]

17 hours ago, shiznit1987 said:

The problem with these various University Ave subway ideas is why should we be building anything in the West Bronx when they already have the  and  while much of the Central and Eastern Bronx is underserved? Even if I supported sending the  into the Bronx it would only be to serve a much needed market like 3rd-Webster Aves. Once again, we're completely ignoring Harlem and UWS residents as well, who make the switch @ 96th St from  to  

Agreed; I would personally be in favor of making 2 Av four tracks, and running that line as four tracks up 3 Av in the Bronx, with stops at 125 St (express, last stop in Manhattan), 138 St (local, transfer to ), 149 St (express, change for ), 156 St (local), 161-163 Sts (express),  168 St(local), Claremont Parkway (local), 174 St(local), E Tremont Av (express), 183 St (local), Fordham Plaza (express), 196 St (local), Bedford Park Blvd (express), and Norwood-205 St (express, transfer to ); local service would end at Norwood, and the 3 Av express tracks would combine with the   tracks to form a 3-track line serving Gun Hill Rd with stops at Williamsbridge (express, transfer to ), Bronxwood Av (local), Boston Rd (local), Seymour Av (express, transfer to ), Bartow Av (local), and Bay Plaza (express, terminal). That would effectively provide the Webster/3 Av corridor with the capacity for 30+ tph in and out of the core, with Gun Hill Rd and Co-Op City getting 15-20 of those tph. Time wise it should at least be competitive with the  (the  is timetabled at 50-55 minutes from Dyre Av to GCT, and the  is timetabled at 62 minutes from 241 St to Times Sq; the  is timetabled at 43 minutes from Norwood/205 St to 34 St, and 2 Av express service would likely be no more than 2-5 minutes slower than the , and could be faster depending on the details of the track layout between Midtown and 125 St.

 

17 hours ago, shiznit1987 said:

As an aside, is there any appetite for a peak direction <1> between 168th St and 96th Streets? I know the center track switch are after 145th st, the <1> would just skip 145th and 157th on the local track. One argument is missing many high ridership stops but if you had a ratio of 2 s to 1 <1> then you'd be preserving balance on the line.  

There might be; my understanding is some trains do that intermittently depending on passenger loads (or at least they did when I was taking it to work in the morning a couple of years ago). Having a service stop at 96 St, 116 St, 137 St, 168 St, and Dyckman St before making all local stops from there would be somewhat helpful; the issue is that the third track is in no way set up to do that, and the  runs far too many tph for you to be able to have both locals and expresses on the same track pair the way the Norristown High Speed Line in Philly does. If you wanted to have <1> trains you'd be better off building a second track pair underneath the current  line (or just rebuild the 1 between 96 and Dyckman to have four tracks) below Dyckman and then connecting it to the 7 Av local and express tracks directly between 103 and 96 Sts, and then doing something different with those tracks north of Dyckman. You could conceivably bring back the  as a Fordham Rd/Pelham Parkway crosstown line that turns south under the river and connects with the  on a new lower level at Dyckman.

The big issue with doing that is getting the tph balance right, since the  and  would likely both be running as 7 Av locals and South Ferry can only turn 24tph (and at least when I rode the  there was already a decent load by Dyckman St at 24tph; if you cut that to 12-15tph you'd likely have trains running pretty close to crushloaded on the upper end during rush. You could alleviate that by extending the   to Red Hook and building a terminal there with 30-40tph turning capacity, but you're still limited to 30tph on the 7 Av local tracks. You could run 20 tph  and 10tph  (with 5-10 additional tph running as shuttle service between Dyckman and Pelham Bay Park) on the assumption that most people heading for the west side will just take the  to the  and most people heading for the east side will take the  to the 3 Av trunk, but I'm honestly not sure how good of an assumption that is (especially since people like one-seat rides). If this were going to be done the upper 7 Av line would need a full rebuild to run four tracks to Dyckman (single level with crossover pairs at express stations, except at Dyckman (which would be a two-level station) and the 96 St connection for the   and  would need to be rebuilt to look like an IND junction; that would give you all the operational flexibility you'd ever need but it would be hilariously expensive and I'm not sure how much gain you'd get.

Actually, running the  local on upper Broadway and the  express might be better (and also more encouraging for use of the  as a crosstown rather than a one-seat ride into Manhattan); at that point the  would be fairly empty heading into Dyckman, and would mostly serve two distinct ridership bases (local riders in upper Manhattan, and crosstown riders in the Bronx), with fairly few people riding it through.

Edited April 16, 2020 by engineerboy6561

[engineerboy6561]

Accidental double post

Edited April 16, 2020 by engineerboy6561

[bobtehpanda]

On 4/14/2020 at 7:53 AM, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

Mind if I ask, what’s TLC?

It's when you don't go chasing waterfalls, and you stick to the rivers and lakes that you're used to.

[Theli11]

On 4/14/2020 at 10:53 AM, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

Mind if I ask, what’s TLC?

Some boring channel on Cable Television with reality shows.