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

11 minutes ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

Not that I know of, but maybe someone else has that answer on here.

Anyways, since we're on the topic of the (J) LIne, might was well present a map that I've kept to myself for 2 years, but never went anywhere with it. I scaled the projects from High Priority to Low Priority:

https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?mid=1len8Pe9UFEkHuFGIbxvp6YA9qGILXHx_&usp=sharing

 

If you have WBP and Union I don't really see a point in keeping Hewes, it's a roughly 12 minute walk. Depending on how you position the platforms you can cut that distance in half from end to end.

Share this post


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

That not a dawback IMO since 57th could serve as a viable alternative if 59th goes down. 

If the SAS is ever built it could branch out as a spur to the Upper West Side of Manhattan off the planned 55th Street station, and it would turn at Tenth Avenue to the 72nd Street (1)(2)(3) station. It could also pave the way for a new SAS route to Brooklyn via Fulton Street if a tunnel to the Hoyt-Schermerhorn Streets (A)(C) is ever approved for building. A crosstown route via 57th Street would serve the following stations:

Third Avenue (transfer to (F)(Q)* (N)(R)(W)(4)(5)(6) at Lexington Avenue-59th Street)

Fifth Avenue (transfer to (F) at 57th Street/Sixth Avenue; (N)(Q)(R)(W) at 57th Street/Seventh Avenue)

Eighth Avenue (transfer to (A)(B)(C)(D)(1) at 59th Street-Columbus Circle)

72nd Street (transfer to (1)(2)(3))

*Out-of system transfer good for two hours

Edited by Armandito
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, bobtehpanda said:

If you have WBP and Union I don't really see a point in keeping Hewes, it's a roughly 12 minute walk. Depending on how you position the platforms you can cut that distance in half from end to end.

The reason I kept Hewes was to keep a reasonable stop spacing between Union and WBP since in my map, I have Union Avenue facing towards Loimer Street. 

7 minutes ago, Armandito said:

If the SAS is ever built it could branch out as a spur to the Upper West Side of Manhattan off the planned 55th Street station, and it would turn at Tenth Avenue to the 72nd Street (1)(2)(3) station. It could also pave the way for a new SAS route to Brooklyn via Fulton Street if a tunnel to the Hoyt-Schermerhorn Streets (A)(C) is ever approved for building. A crosstown route via 57th Street would serve the following stations:

Third Avenue (transfer to (F)(Q)* (N)(R)(W)(4)(5)(6) at Lexington Avenue-59th Street)

Sixth Avenue (transfer to (F) at 57th Street/Sixth Avenue; (N)(Q)(R)(W) at 57th Street/Seventh Avenue)

Ninth Avenue (transfer to (A)(B)(C)(D)(1) at 59th Street-Columbus Circle)

72nd Street (transfer to(1)(2)(3))

Maybe having the 57th Street line turning on 10th/Amsterdam Avenue to connect with the (1)(2) and (3) is a smart idea, But I personally wouldn't connect it to SAS via a junction. Phase 3 is better off being redesigned (especially around 63rd and 42nd) or not built at all. 

I don't know what'd I call this new Line, but I know that I'd have it run local from Jamaica-179th up until Queens Plaza. Then redirect the 11th Street cut via a new tube to go under 57th and the stops would be the following:

3rd Avenue - Transfer to the (4)(5)(6)(F)(N)(Q)(R)(W) with a passageway provisioned to connect with SAS.

5th Avenue - PAssageway transfer to the (F)

7th Avenue - Transfer to the (N)(Q)(R)(W) 

 9th Avenue - Transfer to the (A)(B)(C)(D)(1) 

65th Street - Lincoln Center

72nd Street - (1)(2)(3)

I'm unsure as to how the spacing would work between the stops.

 

Share this post


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

The reason I kept Hewes was to keep a reasonable stop spacing between Union and WBP since in my map, I have Union Avenue facing towards Loimer Street. 

The problem is that Hewes' eastern end is a 3 minute walk from Union St. At that point that'd probably be even closer than Beverly/Cortelyou.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heard quite often that the (R) is unreliable because of its sheer route length and slow speed, especially for commuters living in southwest Brooklyn. Would seem like a good idea to split the (R) into two separate routes, but how could that plan be designed?

Share this post


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

Shower thought:

The old Jamaica Line is very old with parts of the line dating from the 1880s and stop spacing to match.

One thing that Chicago was considering when it was redoing its el for reconstruction was reconstructing either as a subway or el, but going from 4 tracks to 2. However, they were going to consolidate stop spacing (mostly by moving from stations with one exit in the middle to stations with two exits on either end), and the analysis showed that this would actually result in faster trips than even the current express runs on that line.

I wonder if it would be worth investigating something similar for the Jamaica Line, and if it would be possible to also replace the el with a concrete structure to reduce noise.

I'm working on what is essentially a "subway redesign" that would show what the system would look like in a few hundred years (or however long they take to get stuff done). In my proposal, a 2 Av Line (call it the (T) for simplicity sake) from Utica Av, the (M) coming from Myrtle Av, and the (J)(Z) from Jamaica Av all meet up at Myrtle Av in an underground Broadway/S 4 St line that has 4-5 tracks. The (T) runs express, some (M) trips are express during rush hours, and all (J)(Z) trips are local. Then they all go on their respective routes in Manhattan. Of course, there would also be a direct, local (G) connection.

Edited by Bay Ridge Express

Share this post


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

Heard quite often that the (R) is unreliable because of its sheer route length and slow speed, especially for commuters living in southwest Brooklyn. Would seem like a good idea to split the (R) into two separate routes, but how could that plan be designed?

(R) Astoria - Bay Ridge + (W) Forest Hills - Whitehall St or (K) Forest Hills - WTC.

Regarding the BMT Jamaica Line, one course of action would be to

  1. Build an accessible Union Ave stop with a free transfer to the (G) and close Hewes and Lorimer Streets.
  2. Build a flying junction at Myrtle Ave for the (M).
  3. Run all trains local between Marcy Ave and Broadway Junction to increase ridership along this gentrifying part of Brooklyn.
  4. Chrystie St reconfiguration - Connect the Williamsburg Bridge to the 6 Ave express tracks and send the Manhattan Bridge north tracks up 2 Ave.

I haven't thought of a good solution for the eastern Jamaica Line yet because the walkshed there is so bad. Maybe split the line into two: a new elevated express section between Cypress Hills and Broadway Junction for the (J) to Jamaica, while the Fulton St segment (Z) is extended down Rockaway Blvd towards the (A). Alternatively, the subway could take over the LIRR Atlantic Branch / BMT Archer Ave Line, build some intermediate stops along the LIRR ROW, and abandon most of the Jamaica Ave segment. In any case, the eastern Jamaica Ave has an outdated route for modern NYC and it's hard to do much with it at the moment.

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

(R) Astoria - Bay Ridge + (W) Forest Hills - Whitehall St or (K) Forest Hills - WTC.

Nice try but this could only work if there's a new storage facility built in Astoria; (R) trains were sent over to the QBL in 1987 so trains could access the Jamaica Yard. And also note that such a plan would require (R) trains to terminate at Court Street on weekends to allow for scheduled construction work to take place.

Edited by Armandito

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Around the Horn said:

If you center Union Av station on the street proper then there is no need for either Hewes or Lorimer to remain.

The stop spacing improves further if you move Marcy to Williamsburg Bridge Plaza.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


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

The reason I kept Hewes was to keep a reasonable stop spacing between Union and WBP since in my map, I have Union Avenue facing towards Loimer Street. 

Maybe having the 57th Street line turning on 10th/Amsterdam Avenue to connect with the (1)(2) and (3) is a smart idea, But I personally wouldn't connect it to SAS via a junction. Phase 3 is better off being redesigned (especially around 63rd and 42nd) or not built at all. 

I don't know what'd I call this new Line, but I know that I'd have it run local from Jamaica-179th up until Queens Plaza. Then redirect the 11th Street cut via a new tube to go under 57th and the stops would be the following:

3rd Avenue - Transfer to the (4)(5)(6)(F)(N)(Q)(R)(W) with a passageway provisioned to connect with SAS.

5th Avenue - PAssageway transfer to the (F)

7th Avenue - Transfer to the (N)(Q)(R)(W) 

 9th Avenue - Transfer to the (A)(B)(C)(D)(1) 

65th Street - Lincoln Center

72nd Street - (1)(2)(3)

I'm unsure as to how the spacing would work between the stops.

 

I see that some of the plans for a 57th street line involve a superstation in northeast midtown.  That is a good thing.

Basically, combining the following five platforms into one station with free transfers:

* 59 Street on the Lexington line (4)(5)(6)

* Lexington on the 60th street line (Broadway BMT local)  (N)(R)(W) 

* Lexington-63rd on the 63rd street line (F)(Q) 

* 55th street on the SAS (T) 

* 3rd Ave/Lexington station on the new 57th street line

Even without the 57th street line, something like this could be extremely useful.  If the transfers are good enough, you could make real improvements to service operations and separate the services better.  For example, with a better connection for the 63rd street line to (4)(5)(6) , we can fully eliminate the need for Broadway BMT service to the Queens Blvd line allowing all Broadway locals to Astoria and also separating the Broadway locals from the Broadway expresses (i.e. no more (N) shifting from local to express in Midtown).  Transfers like this may also allow for a deinterlined SAS.

Share this post


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

Nice try but this could only work if there's a new storage facility built in Astoria; (R) trains were sent over to the QBL in 1987 so trains could access the Jamaica Yard. And also note that such a plan would require (R) trains to terminate at Court Street on weekends to allow for scheduled construction work to take place.

I personally don't understand what is so difficult about simply rerouting some (R) trips to the (E) past Lexington Av for access to the yard during times of low ridership/emergency situations only. It could also be based out of Coney Island and use the (D) or (N) express tracks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
18 minutes ago, Bay Ridge Express said:

I personally don't understand what is so difficult about simply rerouting some (R) trips to the (E) past Lexington Av for access to the yard during times of low ridership/emergency situations only. It could also be based out of Coney Island and use the (D) or (N) express tracks.

Prior to the terminal swap with the (N)(R) trains had to be repeatedly sent back and forth to and from CI, like the (3) to Flatbush before its own swapping with the (2) in 1983. Most likely had to do with reducing OOS mileage on trains heading to and from the yards to increase equipment efficiency.

Edited by Armandito

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Bay Ridge Express said:

I'm working on what is essentially a "subway redesign" that would show what the system would look like in a few hundred years (or however long they take to get stuff done). In my proposal, a 2 Av Line (call it the (T) for simplicity sake) from Utica Av, the (M) coming from Myrtle Av, and the (J)(Z) from Jamaica Av all meet up at Myrtle Av in an underground Broadway/S 4 St line that has 4-5 tracks. The (T) runs express, some (M) trips are express during rush hours, and all (J)(Z) trips are local. Then they all go on their respective routes in Manhattan. Of course, there would also be a direct, local (G) connection.

I thought of something similar not too long ago. Is this map on par with what you're proposing? (There are a few things I have to change in it that don't make sense)

21 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

The problem is that Hewes' eastern end is a 3 minute walk from Union St. At that point that'd probably be even closer than Beverly/Cortelyou.

I understand what you mean, but I positioned Hewes to be 100' to the West in my map so that it wouldn't be too close to Union Avenue, but since I've noticed a consensus that Williamsburg Bridge Plaza and Union Avenue would be at a reasonable distance from each other, I'll remove it. 

8 hours ago, Caelestor said:

Regarding the BMT Jamaica Line, one course of action would be to

  1. Build an accessible Union Ave stop with a free transfer to the (G) and close Hewes and Lorimer Streets.
  2. Build a flying junction at Myrtle Ave for the (M).
  3. Run all trains local between Marcy Ave and Broadway Junction to increase ridership along this gentrifying part of Brooklyn.
  4. Chrystie St reconfiguration - Connect the Williamsburg Bridge to the 6 Ave express tracks and send the Manhattan Bridge north tracks up 2 Ave.

I haven't thought of a good solution for the eastern Jamaica Line yet because the walkshed there is so bad. Maybe split the line into two: a new elevated express section between Cypress Hills and Broadway Junction for the (J) to Jamaica, while the Fulton St segment (Z) is extended down Rockaway Blvd towards the (A). Alternatively, the subway could take over the LIRR Atlantic Branch / BMT Archer Ave Line, build some intermediate stops along the LIRR ROW, and abandon most of the Jamaica Ave segment. In any case, the eastern Jamaica Ave has an outdated route for modern NYC and it's hard to do much with it at the moment.

Connecting the Jamaica EL to the LIRR Atlantic Avenue Branch is something that I have mixed feelings on. Its better to connect the Atlantic Branch to East Side Access so that people don't crowd the (4)(5)(6) any further than they were pre-COVID. As for everything on the list that I highlighted in Bold, that's the consensus that I think everyone on the forums has come to although with #3 on your list, I think it'd be better to send half of all (J) trains peak express given that building a flying junction at Myrtle would resolve the bottleneck that takes place around there. What you could do for eastern Jamaica is rebuild the EL from scratch so that the el itself can emit less noise (or you can do what the (MTA) did with the Astoria line) I'd also add making every station ADA accessible in some fashion even though the entirety of the System needs to be ADA Accessible at some point. 

 

3 hours ago, Armandito said:

Prior to the terminal swap with the (N)(R) trains had to be repeatedly sent back and forth to and from CI, like the (3) to Flatbush before its own swapping with the (2) in 1983. Most likely had to do with reducing OOS mileage on trains heading to and from the yards to increase equipment efficiency.

That's true, but I personally don't see whats difficult about building new Interlockings south of 36th Street/4th Avenue so that the (D) and (R) could be swapped given that the (D) already has access to Concourse yard. 

Share this post


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

I thought of something similar not too long ago. Is this map on par with what you're proposing? (There are a few things I have to change in it that don't make sense)

Yes, the 2 Av service would connect to S 4 St, but in my proposal, instead of the (M) running on Lafayette Av, it would also run on the S 4 St line and then go on its normal route. The (J)(Z)'s route between Myrtle Av and Broadway Junction would also be intact for local access to Lower Manhattan. Thankfully, capacity wouldn't be an issue since there would be an optimal number of tracks on the new line for service to run smoothly.

Share this post


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

Heard quite often that the (R) is unreliable because of its sheer route length and slow speed, especially for commuters living in southwest Brooklyn. Would seem like a good idea to split the (R) into two separate routes, but how could that plan be designed?

10 hours ago, Armandito said:

Nice try but this could only work if there's a new storage facility built in Astoria; (R) trains were sent over to the QBL in 1987 so trains could access the Jamaica Yard. And also note that such a plan would require (R) trains to terminate at Court Street on weekends to allow for scheduled construction work to take place.

We had a whole discussion about splitting the (R) just last year. But between Corona and losing Andy Byford to Transport for London, I get the feeling this one’s not high up on any politician or MTA upper manager’s list now.


And I have to disagree with the notion that the (R) must have a storage facility built in Astoria for it to work. The (G) has to travel some distance from its southern terminal is at Church Avenue, to its home base at Coney Island. And for decades prior to 1987, the Bay Ridge service (known as the RR since the late 50s and the (R) since 1985), has not had a yard on its line, with trains deadheading over Sea Beach or West End to CIY for maintenance. In fact, the (M) has to deadhead via the (J) to ENY for maintenance. It always has. I’ll let the above thread I linked to speak for itself, but I will say that moving the (R) to the merge-prone QBL and Jamaica Yard has not made it a particularly reliable line and that a change might really do the (R) line some good. I’m certainly open to sending the (R) back to Astoria, while making space in 36th St Yard in Brooklyn to stable (R) trains. Or I’m open to splitting the Brooklyn section of the (R) into a separate line from the Queens-Manhattan section, which would terminate at Whitehall St.

Edited by T to Dyre Avenue
My opinion on what to do about the R train
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's an interesting idea: a two-track, more aggressively spaced stop spacing Jamaica Line (think IND or SAS style stop spacing:)

tU2xNeb.png

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

We had a whole discussion about splitting the (R) just last year. But between Corona and losing Andy Byford to Transport for London, I get the feeling this one’s not high up on any politician or MTA upper manager’s list now.

 

Man, reading that thread now is a trip... lol

  • LMAO! 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

We had a whole discussion about splitting the (R) just last year. But between Corona and losing Andy Byford to Transport for London, I get the feeling this one’s not high up on any politician or MTA upper manager’s list now.


And I have to disagree with the notion that the (R) must have a storage facility built in Astoria for it to work. The (G) has to travel some distance from its southern terminal is at Church Avenue, to its home base at Coney Island. And for decades prior to 1987, the Bay Ridge service (known as the RR since the late 50s and the (R) since 1985), has not had a yard on its line, with trains deadheading over Sea Beach or West End to CIY for maintenance. In fact, the (M) has to deadhead via the (J) to ENY for maintenance. It always has. I’ll let the above thread I linked to speak for itself, but I will say that moving the (R) to the merge-prone QBL and Jamaica Yard has not made it a particularly reliable line and that a change might really do the (R) line some good. I’m certainly open to sending the (R) back to Astoria, while making space in 36th St Yard in Brooklyn to stable (R) trains. Or I’m open to splitting the Brooklyn section of the (R) into a separate line from the Queens-Manhattan section, which would terminate at Whitehall St.

If sending the (R) back to Ditmars is the way to go, all that's left is the willpower of the (MTA) to get their heads in the game...

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

Here's an interesting idea: a two-track, more aggressively spaced stop spacing Jamaica Line (think IND or SAS style stop spacing:)

tU2xNeb.png

Interesting, though I have a handful of questions. 

I assume all of these stations would be 600-610 feet long, but why reduce the Jamaica Line to 2 tracks?

How would this affect the Myrtle Line?

Between Myrtle Avenue and 121st (or in your map Lefferts/Myrtle) isn't the spacing between the stops a bit too unreasonable. For example, between Broadway Junction and Crescent Street, wouldn't it be better to Consolidate everything in between that (Norwood with Cleveland and Van Siclen with Alabama)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

8 minutes ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

I assume all of these stations would be 600-610 feet long, but why reduce the Jamaica Line to 2 tracks?

On 8/1/2020 at 9:52 AM, bobtehpanda said:

The old Jamaica Line is very old with parts of the line dating from the 1880s and stop spacing to match.

One thing that Chicago was considering when it was redoing its el for reconstruction was reconstructing either as a subway or el, but going from 4 tracks to 2. However, they were going to consolidate stop spacing (mostly by moving from stations with one exit in the middle to stations with two exits on either end), and the analysis showed that this would actually result in faster trips than even the current express runs on that line.

I wonder if it would be worth investigating something similar for the Jamaica Line, and if it would be possible to also replace the el with a concrete structure to reduce noise.

If you don't have a full four tracks, both skip stop and a three-track express cut frequencies in half at less used stations.

Modern subways today (e.g. Beijing, Shanghai, etc.) realize this and mostly use two-tracks with wider stop spacing, because while people may have to walk a bit farther they get double the frequency, and people not getting off at those stations get faster trips.

13 minutes ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

How would this affect the Myrtle Line?

Flying junction is assumed.

13 minutes ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

Between Myrtle Avenue and 121st (or in your map Lefferts/Myrtle) isn't the spacing between the stops a bit too unreasonable. For example, between Broadway Junction and Crescent Street, wouldn't it be better to Consolidate everything in between that (Norwood with Cleveland and Van Siclen with Alabama)?

Not at all.

Population density along the eastern segment of the Jamaica Line is not very high, so they don't have a massive need for stops. And those streets are the ones that have perpendicular buses on them.

Pretty much all the stations that have been consolidated on this stretch are in the bottom quarter of ridership.

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Regarding the whole (R)/(W) thing, I may have mentioned this before, but 36th Street Yard is supposed to become a revenue yard in the long term.  I'm assuming it would essentially be a satellite yard to Coney Island, but either way it would probably allow for shortening the route- 95th to Ditmars, 71st to Whitehall (I guess the only question would be which route gets which letter).

The Whitehall bottleneck would still be an issue; only practical solutions I see to that would either be have trains terminate at City Hall's lower level, or have the (brownM) run to 95th...

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by R10 2952
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
18 minutes ago, R10 2952 said:

Regarding the whole (R)/(W) thing, I may have mentioned this before, but 36th Street Yard is supposed to become a revenue yard in the long term.  I'm assuming it would essentially be a satellite yard to Coney Island, but either way it would probably allow for shortening the route- 95th to Ditmars, 71st to Whitehall (I guess the only question would be which route gets which letter).

The Whitehall bottleneck would still be an issue; only practical solutions I see to that would either be have trains terminate at City Hall's lower level, or have the (brownM) run to 95th...

 

 

 

 

 

Can the whole (R) train segment from Whitehall to 95th accommodate 24-30 trains per hour or is it capped at a certain level? There could be a potential to bring more than 15-20 trains per hour down there.

Edited by JeremiahC99

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@JeremiahC99 I have no idea; I don't immerse myself in those kind of operational details.  Best answer I can offer you is that having more than one local along 4th Avenue will/would definitely limit capacity to and from 95th.

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, R10 2952 said:

The Whitehall bottleneck would still be an issue; only practical solutions I see to that would either be have trains terminate at City Hall's lower level, or have the (brownM) run to 95th...

Your best bet is to extend the (J) there, not the (M). The (M) will forever remain a Sixth Avenue service given its popularity with Ridgewood commuters who already benefit from a one-seat ride to Midtown.

As a matter of fact, a (J) extension to 95th isn't really new; it was previously extended there on a temporary basis when (R) service was left idle in the aftermath of 9/11.

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.