Jump to content
Attention: In order to reply to messages, create topics, have access to other features of the community you must sign up for an account.
EE Broadway Local

Department of Subways - Proposals/Ideas

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, Jsunflyguy said:

Yeah but we're not *JUST* talking about rush hour, if we're talking about a wholistic Transit solution then the fact that half the seats will disappear is relevant to the offpeak ridership as well, or are we improving off peak service in the hopes no one will ride the train. Also I bring up the people factor because---as they are wont to tell me when any inconvenience occurs---the customer is paying $300 a month for a peak ticket, with the expectation of sitting. If you tell them half the seats are going to disappear, a significant number of this people will go into the 'screw this im driving' category, or change their commute to lines that do have seats if they can. 

As far as being too crowded, yes the LIRR doesn't seat everyone during rush hour even though nominally all but 1 train does have enough seats for everyone. Some of that is load distribution and someone of that is the fact that counts are averaging out the peak days of peak trains, that being said if we have fewer seats we're forcing people to stand closer together which is going to suck a lot harder, especially since the Class 700 just has less physical volume for a similar amount of people, why would the public perceive that as better?

This would be accompanied by an Thameslink or Overground style service plan. Pretty much all the branches listed see, at best, half-hourly service off-peak today. Regional metro-style service would see this doubled to at least quarter-hour frequencies, and doubling the amount of trains being run would increase the number of seats even if you lopped off the middle seats. In addition, this would be accompanied by the replacement of conductors on these services with proof-of-payment, which would enable the slashing of fares.

The neat parlor trick is that this doesn't necessarily have to result in a decrease in jobs, if you can cascade the current trainsets and conductors on these regional metro lines to remaining LIRR commuter services to Huntington, PJ, Babylon, and Ronkonkoma, and boost capacity there. This also would probably be revenue positive despite the slashing in fares; we have seen that Atlantic Ticket, despite being confusing and poorly advertised, has still managed to be net positive in terms of revenue, because ridership has increased.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Deucey said:

Are you always this active drawing maps, or is it just because Rona has you stuck at home?

(No diss - I used to stare at and redraw AAA maps when I was a kid in the 80s, and draw fictional maps on graph paper in the 90s.)

Yes I am quite active drawing maps!

This map is just so big that I have to work on it for a long time. Most maps I make are quite small, so this is a big-ish project

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

With the extra time I’ve got now, I’m probably going to do some fantasy maps. Assuming my kids don’t constantly interrupt me (wishful thinking). Either by computer or by hand.

Edited by T to Dyre Avenue

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My main issue with the 2 Av plan is the Broadway Line on 2nd Av, I think that Northern Blvd should be reserved for Broadway Service, with (R) trains running on the line splitting off at 36 St, via outer tracks. (W) trains will be on Astoria, and (N) trains will be at a Lower Level along with the (Q), providing service to 138 St - 3 Av and 149 St - 3 Av and extending it to Fordham Plaza. (W) trains will be a shuttle late nights, terminating at 57 - 7th Av, on the Northbound local track (running every 20 minutes), and a new switch at 5th Av. (R) trains run it's normal route from Bay Ridge to South Ferry. (during late nights).  

2 Av should also have 3 tracks (below 72 St, and after 96 St), and a 2 Av (H) train in a new Tunnel at 57 St, stopping at Queens Plaza and 36 St. And becoming the peak direction express, for both 2 Av and Northern Blvd. (All downtown trains run express in the morning, uptown trains run express in the evening). (T) trains run it's current route, and two tracks on 125 St terminating at Broadway. On the Southern side of 2 Av, we could make the (T) the local train for Fulton. The (A) train will be split at Broad Channel (Won't be need for the Shuttle except for weekends/late nights), so it can accommodate any extra capacity. (C) trains will run to Lefferts, and become a shuttle during Late Nights.

I think that 59 St should also be de-interlined so that trains can all run fluid and on schedule as planned for this to work, (A)(C) trains should run express, (C) and (D) trains would run on the Concourse, where the (C) is the peak direction express, and ends at 145 outside of rush hours. Whenever the (B) isn't running the (A) runs on the local track past 145 St. The only real solution for Southern Brooklyn, without screwing customers over, would be to create a new station on the Manhattan Side of the Bridge, and fixing the current layout. But that's a separate issue. With this plan, QBL is losing a line, the (R) . The (M) won't be able to handle all the customers at 12 TPH. So we can accommodate this, we can have a (K) train on 8th Avenue Local, that runs local in Queens. And using the rest of he capacity at WTC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Theli11 said:

My main issue with the 2 Av plan is the Broadway Line on 2nd Av, I think that Northern Blvd should be reserved for Broadway Service, with (R) trains running on the line splitting off at 36 St, via outer tracks. (W) trains will be on Astoria, and (N) trains will be at a Lower Level along with the (Q), providing service to 138 St - 3 Av and 149 St - 3 Av and extending it to Fordham Plaza.

It's an interesting idea to use the outer tracks to extend the (R) up Northern Blvd, but that would leave Astoria with just the (W) which is not enough service. Also there isn't really capacity to have (N)(Q) and (T) services all sharing the 2nd Av line. In this case, if trains should go to Northern Blvd, then it should probably just be a 2nd Av service I think. A bigger problem with the 2nd Av line for me is that South of 63rd the (T) will have terrible transfers, and that without the construction of a new tunnel, Phase 3 and 4 will have low frequencies, both of which its effectiveness in decongesting the (4)(5)(6). Someone else mentioned 3rd Av in Manhattan as an alternative, maybe just for future express service, but in my mind the 2nd Av line South of 63rd St should run down 3rd Av rather than 2nd.

 

16 hours ago, Theli11 said:

The (M) won't be able to handle all the customers at 12 TPH. So we can accommodate this, we can have a (K) train on 8th Avenue Local, that runs local in Queens. And using the rest of he capacity at WTC.

If the (R) were shifted over to Astoria and the (N) to 2nd Av, then these are changes that could happen without any new tunnel construction, barring allocating or expanding yard space for the (R). I do agree that thee (M) should join the (F) and introducing a new service 8th Av service to accompany the (E) is a good idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, EvilMonologue said:

It's an interesting idea to use the outer tracks to extend the (R) up Northern Blvd, but that would leave Astoria with just the (W) which is not enough service. Also there isn't really capacity to have (N)(Q) and (T) services all sharing the 2nd Av line. In this case, if trains should go to Northern Blvd, then it should probably just be a 2nd Av service I think. A bigger problem with the 2nd Av line for me is that South of 63rd the (T) will have terrible transfers, and that without the construction of a new tunnel, Phase 3 and 4 will have low frequencies, both of which its effectiveness in decongesting the (4)(5)(6). Someone else mentioned 3rd Av in Manhattan as an alternative, maybe just for future express service, but in my mind the 2nd Av line South of 63rd St should run down 3rd Av rather than 2nd.

I think that the East Village, would benefit from a subway on 2nd Avenue, atleast below 42 St. As someone who lives on Avenue D, the closest trains are the (L) and (J)(M)(Z) (F) trains, the (L) being 10 minutes out by bus, and the Essex/Houston being about 30 by bus with crowding. I think St. Marks Place would be great for train service, specifically since M8 buses would be a direct way to get there. A Fulton St transfer would improve on the transfers, especially if it becomes a 125 St Crosstown. Second Avenue should have a lower level for Broadway Services so that the (T)/ (H) can become maxed out. 

 

33 minutes ago, EvilMonologue said:

If the (R) were shifted over to Astoria and the (N) to 2nd Av, then these are changes that could happen without any new tunnel construction, barring allocating or expanding yard space for the (R). I do agree that thee (M) should join the (F) and introducing a new service 8th Av service to accompany the (E) is a good idea.

i think the yard space was my main issue with Astoria, though I do see a (W)(R) swap happening, but if there is ever a need for extra capacity, some (N) trains can run on Astoria

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Theli11 said:

I think that the East Village, would benefit from a subway on 2nd Avenue, atleast below 42 St. As someone who lives on Avenue D, the closest trains are the (L) and (J)(M)(Z) (F) trains, the (L) being 10 minutes out by bus, and the Essex/Houston being about 30 by bus with crowding. I think St. Marks Place would be great for train service, specifically since M8 buses would be a direct way to get there. A Fulton St transfer would improve on the transfers, especially if it becomes a 125 St Crosstown. Second Avenue should have a lower level for Broadway Services so that the (T)/ (H) can become maxed out. 

With regard to a lower level on the upper portion of the SAS, the fact is it would be much cheaper to tunnel along 3rd than to drill a new tunnel underneath the already very deep existing stations. Between 63rd and 42nd, a relief line for the (4)(5)(6) that has very long transfers at 53rd, potentially an even longer transfer at 42nd, and no transfer at all at 59th or 63rd, seems like a big problem to me. Anyone riding in from Queens wanting to travel up and down the East side would likely not choose to switch lines to the (T). If you put it the (T) on 3rd and make the transfers as good or better than Lex, then much more people will use it. 

South of 42nd St, I do agree that the alignment is better if it runs along 2nd, so in my ideal world the line would turn onto 2nd Av, giving better access to the East Village and better transfers to (B)(D)(F) and (J) trains. That being said, if I had to pick between strictly one or the other, I would pick 3rd Av. The (L) and (J)(M)(Z)(F) already go farther East than the (T) on 2nd Av would. And since there is no stop planned for St Marks Pl, you would need to walk from the M8 up to like 11th St or down to 3rd St to connect to the (T), at which point traveling one avenue further is not costing that much time I'd think. Unfortunately, either way I don't see East Village residents getting a huge service improvement.

Also, with regard to Fulton St in Manhattan, the line as currently planned would be too far East to connect to any of the subway lines down there. I personally feel like since there is not a huge need for more trains to Lower Manhattan, it would be better for the (T) to go into Brooklyn, maybe taking over the (B)(D) trains.

Share this post


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

With regard to a lower level on the upper portion of the SAS, the fact is it would be much cheaper to tunnel along 3rd than to drill a new tunnel underneath the already very deep existing stations. Between 63rd and 42nd, a relief line for the (4)(5)(6) that has very long transfers at 53rd, potentially an even longer transfer at 42nd, and no transfer at all at 59th or 63rd, seems like a big problem to me. Anyone riding in from Queens wanting to travel up and down the East side would likely not choose to switch lines to the (T). If you put it the (T) on 3rd and make the transfers as good or better than Lex, then much more people will use it. 

If we have a Third Avenue (T) line from 125 St to 14 St, I'll agree that it works. Note that in my plan (H) trains go to Queens Plaza, so there is service. 

 

3 hours ago, EvilMonologue said:

South of 42nd St, I do agree that the alignment is better if it runs along 2nd, so in my ideal world the line would turn onto 2nd Av, giving better access to the East Village and better transfers to (B)(D)(F) and (J) trains. That being said, if I had to pick between strictly one or the other, I would pick 3rd Av. The (L) and (J)(M)(Z)(F) already go farther East than the (T) on 2nd Av would. And since there is no stop planned for St Marks Pl, you would need to walk from the M8 up to like 11th St or down to 3rd St to connect to the (T), at which point traveling one avenue further is not costing that much time I'd think. Unfortunately, either way I don't see East Village residents getting a huge service improvement.

I still think that St. Marks Place should be a stop, it would serve East Village well and St. Marks Pl is a particularly crowded spot with many businesses and people going by. (If it's on 3 Av it'll be next to Astor Pl.) 

 

3 hours ago, EvilMonologue said:

Also, with regard to Fulton St in Manhattan, the line as currently planned would be too far East to connect to any of the subway lines down there. I personally feel like since there is not a huge need for more trains to Lower Manhattan, it would be better for the (T) to go into Brooklyn, maybe taking over the (B)(D) trains.

I forgot how far off on Fulton St the (T) was so that's mb. But the (B) and (D) would go to.. South 4th St? Which I'm fine with btw. The (T)(H) would take over both (B) and (D) service, which would come to the same problems that DeKalb has right now. However, the (H) can stay on the same route until C. Square, while the (T) goes over the Bridge, and via West End. With Atlantic being a replacement for the transfers missed. This would have Brighton be at a loss, losing it's express service. Perhaps the (W) could go to Brighton Beach during rush hours, so that (B) service could be replaced.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, EvilMonologue said:

With regard to a lower level on the upper portion of the SAS, the fact is it would be much cheaper to tunnel along 3rd than to drill a new tunnel underneath the already very deep existing stations. Between 63rd and 42nd, a relief line for the (4)(5)(6) that has very long transfers at 53rd, potentially an even longer transfer at 42nd, and no transfer at all at 59th or 63rd, seems like a big problem to me. Anyone riding in from Queens wanting to travel up and down the East side would likely not choose to switch lines to the (T). If you put it the (T) on 3rd and make the transfers as good or better than Lex, then much more people will use it.

A 3 Avenue alignment would be pretty interesting as it connects with these stations more directly (no overly long passageways) which is vastly better than what the 2 Avenue alignment can do:

  • 63 Street ((F)(Q))
  • 59 Street ((4)(5)(6)(N)(R)(W))
  • 53 Street ((6)(E)(M))
  • Grand Central–42 Street ((4)(5)(6)(7)(S))
  • 14 Street ((L))
  • Delancey Street ((J)(Z))

It does miss 2 stations though:

  • 2 Avenue ((F))
  • Grand Street ((B)(D))

From Chinatown and down, it has the same limitation as the 2 Avenue alignment—avoiding all the Lower Manhattan connections. So, by necessity it needs to connect to South Ferry/Whitehall Street which is not in the current 2 Avenue plans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, CenSin said:
  • 63 Street ((F)(Q))
  • 59 Street ((4)(5)(6)(N)(R)(W))
  • 53 Street ((6)(E)(M))
  • Grand Central–42 Street ((4)(5)(6)(7)(S))
  • 14 Street ((L))
  • Delancey Street ((J)(Z))

It does miss 2 stations though:

  • 2 Avenue ((F))
  • Grand Street ((B)(D))

From Chinatown and down, it has the same limitation as the 2 Avenue alignment—avoiding all the Lower Manhattan connections. So, by necessity it needs to connect to South Ferry/Whitehall Street which is not in the current 2 Avenue plans.

Couldn't it shift over somewhere between 42 and 14 St? the (L) train's Third Avenue station still spans from 3 to 2 Av, so it's not really a long passageway. I think Grand St is important for a connection to the Manhattan Bridge, If we were to place a (T) train in Downtown Brooklyn, there's Fulton St and Manhattan Bridge as both possibilities. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Theli11 said:

Couldn't it shift over somewhere between 42 and 14 St? the (L) train's Third Avenue station still spans from 3 to 2 Av, so it's not really a long passageway. I think Grand St is important for a connection to the Manhattan Bridge, If we were to place a (T) train in Downtown Brooklyn, there's Fulton St and Manhattan Bridge as both possibilities. 

Yes, it can.  If one were to look at a map of Manhattan, you can realize that the East River is about a block east of First Ave for most of Midtown, but then south of 14th, the river is many blocks away (beyond Ave D).  In the old days, to account for service for so many people living east of First Ave, the Second Ave el ran along 2nd Ave north of 23rd and along 1st Ave south of 23rd.  This allowed the line to be closer to Midtown points and serve areas like the Lower East Side.

There is no reason why this can't be done for the SAS:  A 3rd Ave line through midtown to provide connections to all the subway lines between 42nd and 63rd.  Then, it can be routed to 2nd Ave to serve areas south of 23rd, to provide better service to (L)(F) and grand Ave and the like.  

And if you want to provide connections in Lower Manhattan, perhaps the SAS should take over part of the Nassau Street subway so that it can reach Fulton station (and perhaps Chambers and Canal as well, depending on the routing).  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, mrsman said:

Yes, it can.  If one were to look at a map of Manhattan, you can realize that the East River is about a block east of First Ave for most of Midtown, but then south of 14th, the river is many blocks away (beyond Ave D).  In the old days, to account for service for so many people living east of First Ave, the Second Ave el ran along 2nd Ave north of 23rd and along 1st Ave south of 23rd.  This allowed the line to be closer to Midtown points and serve areas like the Lower East Side.

There is no reason why this can't be done for the SAS:  A 3rd Ave line through midtown to provide connections to all the subway lines between 42nd and 63rd.  Then, it can be routed to 2nd Ave to serve areas south of 23rd, to provide better service to (L)(F) and grand Ave and the like.  

And if you want to provide connections in Lower Manhattan, perhaps the SAS should take over part of the Nassau Street subway so that it can reach Fulton station (and perhaps Chambers and Canal as well, depending on the routing).  

 

For it to go on Nassau you would have to cut either (J)(Z) service back to Chambers or make (T) service cut back to Chambers St, short of Fulton St. If we can figure out a way to rehabilitate the east side of the Nassau tracks (The one that's not in use), or swap (J) and (Z) trains. (Where instead of Bowery, it goes to Grand St until Hanover Sq. However, it'll be a loss for (J)(Z)  routes since that doesn't connect to the line.) Combining the (J)(Z) with (T) service will significantly cut service along Second Avenue.

Edited by Theli11

Share this post


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

A 3 Avenue alignment would be pretty interesting as it connects with these stations more directly (no overly long passageways) which is vastly better than what the 2 Avenue alignment can do:

  • 63 Street ((F)(Q))
  • 59 Street ((4)(5)(6)(N)(R)(W))
  • 53 Street ((6)(E)(M))
  • Grand Central–42 Street ((4)(5)(6)(7)(S))
  • 14 Street ((L))
  • Delancey Street ((J)(Z))

It does miss 2 stations though:

  • 2 Avenue ((F))
  • Grand Street ((B)(D))

From Chinatown and down, it has the same limitation as the 2 Avenue alignment—avoiding all the Lower Manhattan connections. So, by necessity it needs to connect to South Ferry/Whitehall Street which is not in the current 2 Avenue plans.

Bowery and 2nd Av/Christie Street aren't that far apart at Houston Street...

You can swing over and still hit the (B)(D) and (F)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Theli11 said:

For it to go on Nassau you would have to cut either (J)(Z) service back to Chambers or make (T) service cut back to Chambers St, short of Fulton St. If we can figure out a way to rehabilitate the east side of the Nassau tracks (The one that's not in use), or swap (J) and (Z) trains. (Where instead of Bowery, it goes to Grand St until Hanover Sq. However, it'll be a loss for (J)(Z)  routes since that doesn't connect to the line.) Combining the (J)(Z) with (T) service will significantly cut service along Second Avenue.

Cutting back the (J)(Z) isn’t too bad provided the connections are good, but they’d lose Manhattan connections to both west side trunks ((2)(3)(A)(C)). The loss of the (A)(C) connection isn’t too bad though since getting it at Broadway Junction doesn’t entail additional travel time nor effort and those two provide good coverage of the stations served by the (1)(2)(3) in most of Manhattan anyway.

8 hours ago, Theli11 said:

the (L) train's Third Avenue station still spans from 3 to 2 Av

I didn’t suggest that it didn’t…

1 hour ago, Around the Horn said:

Bowery and 2nd Av/Christie Street aren't that far apart at Houston Street...

You can swing over and still hit the (B)(D) and (F)

Probably, but that would entail deep-bore tunneling to cut across diagonally. I believe the express tracks fly over the local tracks in that area before dipping down to make way for the 2 Avenue tracks crossing over the (F). Better if the route did both 3 Avenue and 2 Avenue, crossing over to 2 Avenue south of East 37 Street where there are relatively fewer structures above ground to grovel to for build permission. That way, they’d hit all of the midtown connections and still end up intersecting the existing stations at 2 Avenue and Grand Street.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

Cutting back the (J)(Z) isn’t too bad provided the connections are good, but they’d lose Manhattan connections to both west side trunks ((2)(3)(A)(C)). The loss of the (A)(C) connection isn’t too bad though since getting it at Broadway Junction doesn’t entail additional travel time nor effort and those two provide good coverage of the stations served by the (1)(2)(3) in most of Manhattan anyway.

 

I agree with this.  For (J)(Z) service that is headed to Midtown, I assume that most people on those lines would transfer to (M) so as not to have to head south to then turn back and go north.  Along the (M), one can transfer at W4th for 8th Ave services.  Do people on the J/Z really go all the way to Fulton so that they can transfer to A/C or 2/3 if they are headed to West Midtown?

Given the track layout, even if the lower part of Nassau is taken over by SAS, J/Z can still run to Chambers.  In Manhattan, the J/Z will maintain connections to the following lines:  (F)(M) at Essex, all Broadway trains and (6) at Canal, and all Lexington trains at Chambers.  If a transfer were built, there can also be a connection to (B)(D) at Grand/Bowery.  Depending upon the configuration of the SAS, there should be a direct transfer to the SAS as well.

I see two possibilities for connecting Nassau tracks to SAS, both of which preserve J/Z service to Chambers.  The first has SAS running down 2 Ave (or 3rd Ave) south of 14th, connecting with (F) at Houston, B/D at Grand, and then somehow making its way to the Chambers station providing a transfer to J/Z and 4/5/6 and continuing south.  Part of the alignment may repurpose the old tracks that took Nassau trains to the Manhattan Bridge and I definitely see most of the route being dug under Park Row.

The second possibility provides for a connecting track from the outer tracks at Kenmare street to Bowery (for 3rd Ave) or Chrystie (for 2nd Ave).  This also preserves J/Z service to Chambers along the inner tracks of the Centre street line.  This will allow SAS to have transfers to Canal and the Broadway trains connections to the Manhattan Bridge, but  will preclude the connection to Grand Street and the 6th Ave connections to the Manhattan Bridge.  So there is a trade-off.  Nevertheless, both options provide a lot of connections for the SAS in Lower Manhattan and allow the J/Z to run to Chambers.  Both options also limit new tunneling in the Financial District, which I am not convince is needed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 5/11/2020 at 12:53 PM, engineerboy6561 said:

https://www.google.com/maps/d/view?mid=1zhIa6KPRstAdc6lm_hlyskX0SVHM7NPh&ll=40.7265655209285%2C-73.87552185000004&z=11

That should work. 

@bobtehpanda We'll likely need to replace the Jamaica el in 30-50 years anyway, we're getting a 2 Av line anyway, and we need a subway up 3rd anyway to keep the Lex from bursting at the seams. The marginal cost and pain in the ass of building those out with four tracks and enough junction work to provide a bunch of useful connections is likely lower than the marginal cost of building all that plus the ESA-Atlantic tunnel. I say you'll still need a whole bunch of subway trackage there because LIRR and MNR stations are somewhat farther apart than express subway stations, and you're not gonna be able to get a full 24tph through those stations because of what that does to commute time from outer suburbs (and the true capacity will be a lot lower because most MNR/LIRR trains are pretty full coming into the city, and the extra passengers from trying to use them would likely pack them pretty badly). 

Adding an ESA-Atlantic tunnel would be an awesome infrastructure project in its own right, and I would love to see it succeed, but I would do that alongside new four-track subway corridors rather than in lieu of them.

On 5/13/2020 at 12:33 AM, bobtehpanda said:

This would be accompanied by an Thameslink or Overground style service plan. Pretty much all the branches listed see, at best, half-hourly service off-peak today. Regional metro-style service would see this doubled to at least quarter-hour frequencies, and doubling the amount of trains being run would increase the number of seats even if you lopped off the middle seats. In addition, this would be accompanied by the replacement of conductors on these services with proof-of-payment, which would enable the slashing of fares.

The neat parlor trick is that this doesn't necessarily have to result in a decrease in jobs, if you can cascade the current trainsets and conductors on these regional metro lines to remaining LIRR commuter services to Huntington, PJ, Babylon, and Ronkonkoma, and boost capacity there. This also would probably be revenue positive despite the slashing in fares; we have seen that Atlantic Ticket, despite being confusing and poorly advertised, has still managed to be net positive in terms of revenue, because ridership has increased.

 

On 5/12/2020 at 10:10 PM, Jova42R said:

 

I'm working on a Map for this, so it will be much easier to explain then, but my BASIC plan is:

  • Atlantic to GCT with a branch to Penn: 4 tracks (possibly 6)
    • branch at Broome St with a tunnel to Newport NJ, connection to HBLR.
  • Penn to GCT connector: 3 tracks
    • connects to a new lower level of GCT that runs from 3 Av to Madison, has 10 tracks.
      • track connections to Sunnyside Yard
      • track connections to ESA and MNR
    • Used for some NJT and some Amtrak trains as a termination location. This frees up space in Penn for more service
  • West Side Line
    • LOCAL service from Riverdale to 14th
    • re-activated High Line
      • 4 tracks, some LIRR trains will run down the center tracks and terminate at 14th St.
    • provisions for a tunnel to NJ from 14 St
  • HBLR gets rebuilt with 4 tracks
    • tunnel from 34 St, via MOTBY and St George, to Bay Ridge
      • track connections to HBLR
    • connector to the Broome St Tunnel from Harborside
    • provisions to connect with a proposed Staten Island LRT System (see my post here)
  • Regional Metro takeover of the following lines:
    • Port Washington
    • Far Rockaway
    • West Hempstead
    • Long Beach
  • Rolling Stock would be either a TMU (tri-modal multiple unit) with the following power sources
    • Third Rail
    • Catenary
    • Diesel
      • would this be needed, or could we electrify everything?

Any thoughts? @engineerboy6561 @LaGuardia Link N Tra @Deucey @R32-DTrain @WillF40PH @Mnrr6131 @S78 via Hylan @BM5 via Woodhaven

 

 

On 5/12/2020 at 10:16 PM, Deucey said:

Are you always this active drawing maps, or is it just because Rona has you stuck at home?

(No diss - I used to stare at and redraw AAA maps when I was a kid in the 80s, and draw fictional maps on graph paper in the 90s.)

I finally finished my NYC Regional Metro Map!! Yay! Here's the link:

https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/edit?hl=en&mid=1lv3yCmRBFUWwFeuOSRyZ3vv9aTY4b8ZE&ll=40.89638287706388%2C-73.88160290112717&z=12

I added A LOT of new lines, thoughts anyone?

(NOTE: this is in addition to the takeover of the inner LIRR branches, as @bobtehpanda suggested. This map DOES NOT show that takeover. Just new lines!)

Thoughts @Jsunflyguy @LegoBrickBreaker101 @gtNovaBusRTS9369?

Edited by Jova42R

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Jova42R I'm not sure how I feel about some of these proposed routes of yours. 

- First off, I'd like to ask "How the hell are Regional Rail Trains going to make the loops presented in your map?" Cause I can't see any Regional Rail Train being able to do that.

- Second, I'm gonna have to disagree with you on a Fort Hamilton Line. For the First Half of it, it imitates the Shuttle, then for the second half, it goes down Fort Hamilton Parkway and into NJ. Preferably, I'd like to see some SBS-type service or for the Franklin Shuttle to be extended to 9th Avenue via Fort Hamilton instead. 

- Third, I'd leave the high line alone. Its Better to extend the (L) Train Up 10th Avenue. 

- As for a Crosstown Tunnel between Midtown and NJ, That idea ain't too shabby. Once again, My preference for an NY-NJ Crosstown line would be PATH. (Though, I'll have to look up PATH's History and previous proposals before I finally come up with any ideas for PATH) 

- Downtown Regional Route(S) I don't have any thoughts. 

- RBB. While I agree with @bobtehpanda's idea of making it part of some C Division Class, I don't think that the line would prevail as a regional line. I know that the main push for reactivating the line is to give people at JFK a one Seat ride, but If the (MTA) built the LIRR going to JFK via RBB, you wouldn't really get a big bang for your buck especially if you're coming from any terminal other than Terminal 1 because you would still have to make a transfer if you came from any of the other terminals. Personally, I think that connecting RBB to the subway would be easier (given that you Remove certain bottlenecks here and there like Queens Plaza, 59th-Columbus, and DeKalb) because it'll better serve those within the borough of Queens (especially the Rockaways which If I'm not mistaken, are the biggest advocates for reactivating the RBB). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

- First off, I'd like to ask "How the hell are Regional Rail Trains going to make the loops presented in your map?" Cause I can't see any Regional Rail Train being able to do that.

Why do they have to run in loops?

3 hours ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

- Second, I'm gonna have to disagree with you on a Fort Hamilton Line. For the First Half of it, it imitates the Shuttle, then for the second half, it goes down Fort Hamilton Parkway and into NJ. Preferably, I'd like to see some SBS-type service or for the Franklin Shuttle to be extended to 9th Avenue via Fort Hamilton instead. 

- Third, I'd leave the high line alone. Its Better to extend the (L) Train Up 10th Avenue. 

Ok, understood. But, wouldn't it be cheaper to use the High Line?

3 hours ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

- RBB. While I agree with @bobtehpanda's idea of making it part of some C Division Class, I don't think that the line would prevail as a regional line. I know that the main push for reactivating the line is to give people at JFK a one Seat ride, but If the (MTA) built the LIRR going to JFK via RBB, you wouldn't really get a big bang for your buck especially if you're coming from any terminal other than Terminal 1 because you would still have to make a transfer if you came from any of the other terminals. Personally, I think that connecting RBB to the subway would be easier (given that you Remove certain bottlenecks here and there like Queens Plaza, 59th-Columbus, and DeKalb) because it'll better serve those within the borough of Queens (especially the Rockaways which If I'm not mistaken, are the biggest advocates for reactivating the RBB). 

Could it not even work if it had track connections to the Atlantic Branch?

Edited by Jova42R

Share this post


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

Why do they have to run in loops?

That’s what I’m seeing in your map. 

3 minutes ago, Jova42R said:

Ok, understood.

okay.

3 minutes ago, Jova42R said:

Could it not even work if it had track connections to the Atlantic Branch?

It could. I just prefer the subway option over the LIRR option, that’s all. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

That’s what I’m seeing in your map. 

They don't run in loops. Which loops are you seeing?

BTW, what should the service patterns be, do you think?

2 minutes ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

okay.

see below vvv

7 minutes ago, Jova42R said:

But, wouldn't it be cheaper to use the High Line?

 

3 minutes ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

It could. I just prefer the subway option over the LIRR option, that’s all. 

Ahh ok.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

RBB. While I agree with [my] idea of making it part of some C Division Class, I don't think that the line would prevail as a regional line. I know that the main push for reactivating the line is to give people at JFK a one Seat ride, but If the (MTA) built the LIRR going to JFK via RBB, you wouldn't really get a big bang for your buck especially if you're coming from any terminal other than Terminal 1 because you would still have to make a transfer if you came from any of the other terminals. Personally, I think that connecting RBB to the subway would be easier (given that you Remove certain bottlenecks here and there like Queens Plaza, 59th-Columbus, and DeKalb) because it'll better serve those within the borough of Queens (especially the Rockaways which If I'm not mistaken, are the biggest advocates for reactivating the RBB). 

1. Don't @ me
2. If anything RBB has better connections via the LIRR Main Line ROW; Woodside gives an express connection to Flushing and a local connection to all other destinations on the (7) , as well as Western Queens access. The QBL is not very well connected to anything; if you wanted Jamaica you would use the RBB to connect to the (J) anyways, and if you wanted a place like Forest Hills you're probably better off taking the bus.

Share this post


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

I finally finished my NYC Regional Metro Map!! Yay! Here's the link:

https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/edit?hl=en&mid=1lv3yCmRBFUWwFeuOSRyZ3vv9aTY4b8ZE&ll=40.89638287706388%2C-73.88160290112717&z=12

I added A LOT of new lines, thoughts anyone?

(NOTE: this is in addition to the takeover of the inner LIRR branches, as @bobtehpanda suggested. This map DOES NOT show that takeover. Just new lines!)

Thoughts @Jsunflyguy @LegoBrickBreaker101 @gtNovaBusRTS9369?

Harrington Park intermodal terminal? Using the Bay Ridge ROW to connect to Bayonne via St. George Ferry & Cape Liberty? Tearing up the hiking trail in Rockland county to ultimately connect New Jersey to Tarrytown?

What are we doing here.......

1 hour ago, Jova42R said:

They don't run in loops. Which loops are you seeing?

Cuomo Tappan Zee approach (NY side) & Bayonne bridge approach (SI side)......

Share this post


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

1. Don't @ me
2. If anything RBB has better connections via the LIRR Main Line ROW; Woodside gives an express connection to Flushing and a local connection to all other destinations on the (7) , as well as Western Queens access. The QBL is not very well connected to anything; if you wanted Jamaica you would use the RBB to connect to the (J) anyways, and if you wanted a place like Forest Hills you're probably better off taking the bus.

1. My apologies. 

2. In terms of transit connections within the Right of Way, both options would practically connect to the same buses and the (J) Train within the vicinity of Howard Beach and Jackson Heights. Now when it comes to Western Queens, I'm going to disagree with you there. While the LIRR Option has the benefit of connecting to the (7)<7>, rest of the Mainline and the Port Washington Branch, it loses out on the fact that there is no Station Present along Sunnyside, thus not providing a connection to Western Queens (unless you transfer to the (7)<7>). Also I'd argue that QBL has a better connection to Western Queens as Queens Plaza is not the only thing there. Court Square, Steinway, Northern Blvd, the (G) Train. All of these areas within Western Queens are places where connections can be made (sure they're bus connections, but connections nonetheless). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

1. My apologies. 

2. In terms of transit connections within the Right of Way, both options would practically connect to the same buses and the (J) Train within the vicinity of Howard Beach and Jackson Heights. Now when it comes to Western Queens, I'm going to disagree with you there. While the LIRR Option has the benefit of connecting to the (7)<7>, rest of the Mainline and the Port Washington Branch, it loses out on the fact that there is no Station Present along Sunnyside, thus not providing a connection to Western Queens (unless you transfer to the (7)<7>). Also I'd argue that QBL has a better connection to Western Queens as Queens Plaza is not the only thing there. Court Square, Steinway, Northern Blvd, the (G) Train. All of these areas within Western Queens are places where connections can be made (sure they're bus connections, but connections nonetheless). 

But connections where? If you want to go to Williamsburg or Downtown Brooklyn you can do that on the bus from Woodhaven Blvd, and using the RBB would be a pretty roundabout way to do it.

The only connections missing would be to Astoria/Steinway and IMO that's not a huge deal.

I don't know where this meme of Sunnyside station not happening comes from. It is currently budgeted for in the Capital Plan and it is literally the cornerstone of Sunnyside Yards redevelopment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, B35 via Church said:

Harrington Park intermodal terminal? Using the Bay Ridge ROW to connect to Bayonne via St. George Ferry & Cape Liberty? Tearing up the hiking trail in Rockland county to ultimately connect New Jersey to Tarrytown?

What are we doing here.......

Cuomo Tappan Zee approach (NY side) & Bayonne bridge approach (SI side)......

Harrington Park: more of a transit center than a full blown terminal.

Bay Ridge: It was originally going to be just a Bay Ridge-Bayonne tunnel, but it would carry subways from St George to Bay Ridge, hence the stop in SI.

It could be a rails-by trails solution, that is quite a wide ROW.

Tappan Zee: so build a new approach - I thought that it would be ok with Light Rail trains (that is a LRT line)

Bayonne: What would be a better solution?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.