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

1 hour ago, bobtehpanda said:

Compare this to the Broadway to IND transfer. There is one transfer that isn't done well that this additional transfer would do better, and that is Astoria/East Side traffic to the UWS and beyond. You can kind of do this change at Times Square, but 57th St is an earlier opportunity to make this connection and it moves transfer volume out of Times Square.

How much would something like that cost? Presumably more than the Jay St - Metrotech Connection which was shorter and something like $150 million? Or was that cost mainly because of station renovation? I also wonder if there are better transfers that could be constructed or station upgrades for that kind of money. 

Share this post


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

How much would something like that cost? Presumably more than the Jay St - Metrotech Connection which was shorter and something like $150 million? Or was that cost mainly because of station renovation? I also wonder if there are better transfers that could be constructed or station upgrades for that kind of money. 

The Dey Street passageway between WTC and Fulton was $200M.

In the grand scheme of things $200M is a lot cheaper than building brand new stations (New South Ferry alone was $5-600M) or new extensions. And sometimes you can even get them built with concurrent developments; that's how the Court Square connection was finally built, at a cost of $50M.

Junius-Livonia, which has 1000 ft of distance and is above ground, is $38M including ADA upgrades.

I think there was a thread a while ago on what transfers people would like to see. Personally I would like to see, in no particular order:

  • 57th-7th and Columbus Circle
  • Lex-63 and Lex-59
  • Bway Lafayette and Prince St
  • QBP and Queens Plaza
  • Fulton (G) and Atlantic Terminal
  • Hoyt-Hoyt
  • Broadway-Hewes
  • A new 149th St Metro-North station as the south Bronx complement to Fordham Plaza
  • A new Elmhurst LIRR station

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

@RR503 How's this track layout? I removed the second platform and introduced a scissor crossover this time:

hoIwapl.png

Edited by Armandito

Share this post


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

@RR503 How's this track layout? I removed the second platform and introduced a scissor crossover this time:

hoIwapl.png

I don’t think you need the layup tracks (the operational benefit of being able to put in trains from/stash trains at Court Sq vs the cost of underpinning a line just doesn’t pan out in my eyes), but otherwise this is what I’d propose for the area should we ever need high throughput terminal ops there.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
14 minutes ago, RR503 said:

I don’t think you need the layup tracks (the operational benefit of being able to put in trains from/stash trains at Court Sq vs the cost of underpinning a line just doesn’t pan out in my eyes), but otherwise this is what I’d propose for the area should we ever need high throughput terminal ops there.

Understood. Now suppose the (V) never came to be and the (G) still operated to Forest Hills. Though it may still be possible to turn X trains at Court Square by relaying on the middle track in this scenario (the same track (G) trains use to relay there), it would seem rather unusual because terminating trains would have to go the opposite direction to access the track and then return to the other side of the platform to depart. This would be the only way to turn there if there still were to be through service to QBL, assuming the alternative scenario I envisioned here.

Edited by Armandito

Share this post


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

Understood. Now suppose the (V) never came to be and the (G) still operated to Forest Hills. Though it may still be possible to turn X trains at Court Square by relaying on the middle track in this scenario (the same track (G) trains use to relay there), it would seem rather unusual because terminating trains would have to go the opposite direction to access the track and then return to the other side of the platform to depart. This would be the only way to turn there if there still were to be through service to QBL, assuming the alternative scenario I envisioned here.

The 63 St Tunnel exists now. Absent a massive reorientation in NYC job geographies, there simply isn’t any reason for us to be wasting QB capacity on the (G), so it’s really okay if we build infrastructure that impedes that operation. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, RR503 said:

The 63 St Tunnel exists now. Absent a massive reorientation in NYC job geographies, there simply isn’t any reason for us to be wasting QB capacity on the (G), so it’s really okay if we build infrastructure that impedes that operation.

Continuing from your response, it seems like the (G) wasn't at all useful along QBL even before the 63rd Street Connection was finished, correct?

  • Thumbs Up 1

Share this post


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

Continuing from your response, it seems like the (G) wasn't at all useful along QBL even before the 63rd Street Connection was finished, correct?

I almost never rode the (G) on QBL in the pre- (V) days. That’s because I almost never saw it. The (R) seemed to be much more frequent than the (G). I only knew about the (G) from my classmates in high school who used the (G) to get between Brooklyn and Queens. I joyrode it a few times from Fulton St. It was usually empty after Queens Plaza (not surprising since both the (E) and (F) were available across the platform at the time).

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

I almost never rode the (G) on QBL in the pre- (V) days. That’s because I almost never saw it. The (R) seemed to be much more frequent than the (G). I only knew about the (G) from my classmates in high school who used the (G) to get between Brooklyn and Queens. I joyrode it a few times from Fulton St. It was usually empty after Queens Plaza (not surprising since both the (E) and (F) were available across the platform at the time).

So it would've made more sense for the (G) to be permanently cut back to Court Square after the transfer to the (E) and (F) at 23rd Street-Ely Avenue was opened in 1989. And if you're saying trains were mostly empty after Queens Plaza, it's most likely the (G) to Forest Hills was kept purely for political reasons. To make an analogy, the (G) to Forest Hills was basically the old (M) to Coney Island via Brighton before 1986, and then to Bay Parkway via West End from there till 2010. From what I read before, the (M) was not useful as a part-time service anywhere in south Brooklyn.

Edited by Armandito

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since we're on the topic of the (G), I've thought about the fact that some people thought about the fact that a logical extension of the (G) would be up 21st Street. (which requires the abandonment and demolition of 21st Street-Van Alst) But what if it were to continue up Vernon Blvd to make an early transfer with the (7) and THEN connect with the (E)(F) and (M) on 21st Street via 46th Avenue. That leaves room for Court Square to be used by a potential New service. And instead of Demolishing the current 21st Street, THAT could be retrofitted to become a 2nd (or relocated) Transit Museum. 

Share this post


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

So it would've made more sense for the (G) to be permanently cut back to Court Square after the transfer to the (E) and (F) at 23rd Street-Ely Avenue was opened in 1989. And if you're saying trains were mostly empty after Queens Plaza, it's most likely the (G) to Forest Hills was kept purely for political reasons. To make an analogy, the (G) to Forest Hills was basically the old (M) to Coney Island via Brighton before 1986, and then to Bay Parkway via West End from there till 2010. From what I read before, the (M) was not useful as a part-time service anywhere in south Brooklyn.

Well, not exactly. Before 63 was linked with QBL in 2001, your Manhattan capacity was limited to the (E)(F)(R), and the (R) alone was not enough to sate demand on the local tracks. That’s the role the (G) played.

As for the (brownM), the demand demographics along its route were actually quite downtown-biased relative to the rest of the city until the aughts. Then that changed, we needed to cut service, and we got the (M)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

Since we're on the topic of the (G), I've thought about the fact that some people thought about the fact that a logical extension of the (G) would be up 21st Street. (which requires the abandonment and demolition of 21st Street-Van Alst) But what if it were to continue up Vernon Blvd to make an early transfer with the (7) and THEN connect with the (E)(F) and (M) on 21st Street via 46th Avenue. That leaves room for Court Square to be used by a potential New service. And instead of Demolishing the current 21st Street, THAT could be retrofitted to become a 2nd (or relocated) Transit Museum. 

Two curves are going to slow down the train and it's going to require a lot of property taking.

The best place for a Transit Museum if it's going to be relocated is the unused bits of Chambers St. The space is very large and isn't being used for anything.

  • Thumbs Up 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

file:///C:/Users/Owner/Pictures/New%20York%20Future%20Subway%20Network.png

This is a link to a future transit map that I edited. The streetcar lines are shown in Black and the rest is all subways and light rails. I hope to hear and reply to all of your comments soon, Eggballo out.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, eggballo said:

file:///C:/Users/Owner/Pictures/New%20York%20Future%20Subway%20Network.png

This is a link to a future transit map that I edited. The streetcar lines are shown in Black and the rest is all subways and light rails. I hope to hear and reply to all of your comments soon, Eggballo out.

 

I can't access it

Share this post


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

It's best just to copy the link and paste it in a new tab. That's what I did and it seemed to work just fine.

 

Share this post


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

Two curves are going to slow down the train and it's going to require a lot of property taking.

The best place for a Transit Museum if it's going to be relocated is the unused bits of Chambers St. The space is very large and isn't being used for anything.

Agreed. Especially if the mythical SAS ever gets extended into Brooklyn via a new East River tunnel past the current site of the Transit Museum, which would require returning the museum tracks to revenue service.

Edited by Armandito

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, eggballo said:

Whatever do you mean? 

... (mutters several swear words under her breath) Okay, new meat, time for a quick Computer science 101.

that is NOT a “LINK” to anything. What you wrote there is the directory location for the map on YOUR hard drive. 
 

You can see it there because it’s your drive. You have have access to it.

We do not have access to your drive remotely. Your image needs to be uploaded to a file storage and sharing site, like Flickr.
 

the link to the image will be the URL (aka the web address) of the image on the sharing site.

 

got it?

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


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

So it would've made more sense for the (G) to be permanently cut back to Court Square after the transfer to the (E) and (F) at 23rd Street-Ely Avenue was opened in 1989. And if you're saying trains were mostly empty after Queens Plaza, it's most likely the (G) to Forest Hills was kept purely for political reasons. To make an analogy, the (G) to Forest Hills was basically the old (M) to Coney Island via Brighton before 1986, and then to Bay Parkway via West End from there till 2010. From what I read before, the (M) was not useful as a part-time service anywhere in south Brooklyn.

The (M) was useful before ridership patterns were changing from people wanting to go downtown to people wanting to go to midtown.

Not to mention the (M) was also there to supplement the (R) on 4th Av. If it wasn't for the 2010 car shortage, the (J) would've replaced the (M) to Bay Pkwy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Lawrence St said:

The (M) was useful before ridership patterns were changing from people wanting to go downtown to people wanting to go to midtown.

Not to mention the (M) was also there to supplement the (R) on 4th Av. If it wasn't for the 2010 car shortage, the (J) would've replaced the (M) to Bay Pkwy.

If a (J) extension to south Brooklyn is ever in the books, it would most likely supplement the (R) to Bay Ridge. After all, Bay Ridge could benefit from a second line during rush hours.

Share this post


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

Since we're on the topic of the (G), I've thought about the fact that some people thought about the fact that a logical extension of the (G) would be up 21st Street. (which requires the abandonment and demolition of 21st Street-Van Alst) But what if it were to continue up Vernon Blvd to make an early transfer with the (7) and THEN connect with the (E)(F) and (M) on 21st Street via 46th Avenue. That leaves room for Court Square to be used by a potential New service. And instead of Demolishing the current 21st Street, THAT could be retrofitted to become a 2nd (or relocated) Transit Museum. 

Why bother? Just send it directly up 21st Street, and if that (7) transfer is really that important, find a way to facilitate it under Jackson Avenue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Lex said:

Why bother? Just send it directly up 21st Street, and if that (7) transfer is really that important, find a way to facilitate it under Jackson Avenue.

I mean I don't even really understand why we want to bother with it anyways. The (7) is right there at Court Square too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, bobtehpanda said:

I mean I don't even really understand why we want to bother with it anyways. The (7) is right there at Court Square too.

It would be on the other side of the complex.

Share this post


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

I mean I don't even really understand why we want to bother with it anyways. The (7) is right there at Court Square too.

The (7) transfer was originally created as a free out-of-system connection to appease (G) customers who would otherwise lose their old transfer point at Roosevelt Avenue when the route got truncated to Court Square upon the opening of the 63rd Street Connection in December 2001. That and the resulting slew of service changes along the QBL, which included the birth of the (V) train, is what led the MTA to make Court Square a secondary transfer point to the QBL, or in laymen's terms, an alternative to the more popular Roosevelt complex in Jackson Heights.

Edited by Armandito

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.