Department of Subways - Proposals/Ideas

[bobtehpanda]

24 minutes ago, Lex said:

It would be on the other side of the complex.

It still wouldn't be anywhere close to the longest transfer in the system, and it's not really worth diverting a whole line for just to build a second transfer at Vernon-Jackson too.

18 minutes ago, Armandito said:

The transfer was originally created as a free out-of-system connection to appease 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 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.

I don't get what the point of this history lesson is in the current context.

[Armandito]

2 minutes ago, bobtehpanda said:

I don't get what the point of this history lesson is in the current context.

It was to prove a supporting point for the recent posts about why maintaining a transfer to the in LIC would matter if the Crosstown Line should ever see an extension toward Astoria along 21st Street.

[Caelestor]

The best transfers connect multiple-service lines that are perpendicular with each other. The 7 Ave  transfer to 57 St -7 Ave  is like Lexington Ave - 63 St  but with 4 track pairs instead of 2, plus the added flexibility of connecting 8 Ave with SAS / Astoria. Similarly, the Columbus Circle  transfer to 57 St - 7 Ave effectively is another orthogonal transfer because the CPW riders can access the 60 / 63 St lines heading east. A superstation complex in northwest Midtown would be a nice complement to the gigantic Times Sq / PABT complex, which is being connected further to Bryant Park via the TSQ - GCT .

Lexington Ave / 59 St - 63 St can be another superstation in northeast Midtown, and if a 3 Ave line is ever built, building a 60-63 Sts stop would neatly connect the two complexes together.

On 8/4/2020 at 7:50 PM, R10 2952 said:

With the Sixth Avenue Line, it would've been interesting to see how things turned out if the Second System tunnel from 2nd-Houston to South 4th had been constructed and tied in somewhere to the Crosstown or Franklin Avenue Line; I feel such a thing could've brought many benefits.  A Culver local service to Manhattan, or relief for the Dekalb Junction and Manhattan Bridge- perhaps this is something that the MTA ought to plan for in the long term.  Moving trains off the Manhattan Bridge before it starts disintegrating again would spare us another 20-year headache of "temporary" reroute gymnastics.

If the northern tracks of the Manhattan Bridge had to be shut down again for a very extended period of time, it might be worth doing a Chrystie St Redux to connect the Williamsburg Bridge tracks with the 6 Ave express tracks and redirect the Manhattan Bridge north tracks up 2 Ave. The  combined with the current  would allow for greater  service along the Rutgers St tunnel.

[CenSin]

3 hours ago, Caelestor said:

7 Ave  transfer to 57 St -7 Ave 

The merit of this one over a connection to Columbus Circle is the fact that this is the shorter walk of the two (less than half the length). And I don’t mean the distance between the fare control regions, but the platforms which is what really matters. The transfer to the is already pretty good. The platforms are nearly parallel there and less than a street block apart. If it comes to an either-or choice, the connection to 7 Avenue should be built.

[bobtehpanda]

2 hours ago, CenSin said:

The merit of this one over a connection to Columbus Circle is the fact that this is the shorter walk of the two (less than half the length). And I don’t mean the distance between the fare control regions, but the platforms which is what really matters. The transfer to the is already pretty good. The platforms are nearly parallel there and less than a street block apart. If it comes to an either-or choice, the connection to 7 Avenue should be built.

So the counterpoint to this argument is that the utility of the transfer is the Queens/Eastside -> UWS, Inwood and Concourse connections. All services at Columbus Circle head that way, but only two at 53rd do, and only one on weekends and nights. Also the increased walking time is made up by both the higher frequency of trains at Columbus Circle, and the fact that a 57th-Columbus Circle connection saves a stop.

(Also, depending on how fantasy you want to get, 57th St is one of the logical places for a crosstown line, and if that's getting built then you can basically build the new platforms in the middle and get a transfer for free.)

Edited August 9, 2020 by bobtehpanda

[Armandito]

6 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

(Also, depending on how fantasy you want to get, 57th St is one of the logical places for a crosstown line, and if that's getting built then you can basically build the new platforms in the middle and get a transfer for free.)

An even bigger question is, should it be a new trunk line to Queens or is it better as a crosstown shuttle?

[Bay Ridge Express]

I would like to see a transfer from 57 St-7 Av  connecting to both 59 St-Columbus Circle  and 7 Av . But if I had to choose, I would say 57 St w/ 59 St.

[CenSin]

7 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

So the counterpoint to this argument is that the utility of the transfer is the Queens/Eastside -> UWS, Inwood and Concourse connections. All services at Columbus Circle head that way, but only two at 53rd do, and only one on weekends and nights. Also the increased walking time is made up by both the higher frequency of trains at Columbus Circle, and the fact that a 57th-Columbus Circle connection saves a stop.

We’re talking about 1,500 feet (minimum) of walking before you can even reach any of the platforms at the other end of the passageway. The existing transfer at Times Square–42 Street’s Broadway platforms is only 1,150 feet (minimum) from 42 Street–Port Authority Bus Terminal’s platforms. And the transfer between 57 Street–7 Avenue and 7 Avenue would be 475 feet (minimum).

• 1,500 feet (57 St–7 Av ↔ 59 St–CC) ＊
  • Options: ➊　　🅐🅑🅒🅓
• 1,150 feet (42 St–TS ↔ 42 St–PABT)
  • Options: 　　　🅐　🅒　🅔
• 475 feet (57 St–7 Av ↔ 7 Av) ＊
  • Options: 　　　　🅑　🅓🅔
• 200 feet (42 St–TS ↔ 42 St–TS)
  • Options: ➊➋➌

The Columbus Circle transfer provides no additional options worthy of a longer walk even though it’s 2 local stops less. Frequency and choices are greater at Times Square, and walking is shorter for any of the other options. It really boils down to a case of the “iron triangle” here; pick any 2 of 3 choices:

Given that the tech-savvy commuters will be an ever growing share of the ridership, I put high weight on minimizing the fixed cost of transferring followed by choice of routes. If you know when and where the trains you need are and there are multiple easy transfer opportunities, then you don’t need frequency to decrease your likelihood of waiting.

7 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

(Also, depending on how fantasy you want to get, 57th St is one of the logical places for a crosstown line, and if that's getting built then you can basically build the new platforms in the middle and get a transfer for free.)

I’m not holding my breath for the fantasy line, but the 7 Avenue connection is within reach. It’s low hanging fruit along with: Prince Street/Broadway–Lafayette Street; Broadway/Hewes Street; Queensboro Plaza/Queens Plaza; and Lexington Avenue–59 Street/Lexington Avenue–63 Street.

I’m ambivalent about the connection with Lexington Avenue–63 Street, but that’s only because I had to do a bloody long jog up the stairs and non-functioning escalators to run 4 blocks down to 59 Street. It’s probably a lot closer underground and less physical effort required.

[mrsman]

1 hour ago, Bay Ridge Express said:

I would like to see a transfer from 57 St-7 Av  connecting to both 59 St-Columbus Circle  and 7 Av . But if I had to choose, I would say 57 St w/ 59 St.

I agree.  The additional utility of a transfer between the Broadway BMT and the lines to the Upper West Side would be to save on the walking distance that exists between 8th Ave and Times Square and to cut a number of stops.  2 Ave/Astoria/QBL to 7th Ave downtown already has Times Square and 2 Ave/Astoria/QBL to 6th Ave downtown already has Herald Square.  But to get from 2 Ave/Astoria/QBL to the Broadway-7th uptown and the CPW lines uptown , you do save some time by making the transfer here.  And you save considerable walking if need to get from 2 Ave/Astoria/QBL to 8th Ave downtown.

[CenSin]

10 minutes ago, mrsman said:

I agree.  The additional utility of a transfer between the Broadway BMT and the lines to the Upper West Side would be to save on the walking distance that exists between 8th Ave and Times Square and to cut a number of stops.  2 Ave/Astoria/QBL to 7th Ave downtown already has Times Square and 2 Ave/Astoria/QBL to 6th Ave downtown already has Herald Square.  But to get from 2 Ave/Astoria/QBL to the Broadway-7th uptown and the CPW lines uptown , you do save some time by making the transfer here.  And you save considerable walking if need to get from 2 Ave/Astoria/QBL to 8th Ave downtown.

The whole conversations has been about Queens/UES–UWS scenarios, going down from midtown the trunks are basically backups for each other.

As noted before, the Columbus Circle connection is longer than the longest transfer (at Times Square–42 Street) by 350 feet, and we’re still just talking about the very southern tip of the platforms at Columbus Circle to the very northern tip of the platforms at 57 Street–7 Avenue. Anyone coming from Queens/UES could avail themselves of the walk for the by going another 2 local stops (or just 1 express stop) for a transfer that is just 200 feet long (or 250 feet between the midpoint of each pair of platforms). Safe to say we can take the transfer out as a distinct advantage.

The distance savings is less dramatic for a connection to CPW, but it’s shorter nevertheless. Whether the trek is worth saving on making extra station stops down to Times Square is up to the rider in this case. But the 7 Avenue connection would provide a primary option before the rider would have to resort to Times Square. As the MTA says: “know before you go.” Check the train arrival data to know whether to get off the train to make a transfer earlier.

Anyhow, if we want to make a rigorous comparison, we’d have to model where most people are going (destinations), how much time people would have to wait on average for a train that goes there, and the fixed time cost of navigating the transfer passageway. My hunch is that a 7 Avenue connection minimizes commute time best, but it’s quite a long extra mile to go to pull data on it and push out a report.

[bobtehpanda]

37 minutes ago, CenSin said:

We’re talking about 1,500 feet (minimum) of walking before you can even reach any of the platforms at the other end of the passageway. The existing transfer at Times Square–42 Street’s Broadway platforms is only 1,150 feet (minimum) from 42 Street–Port Authority Bus Terminal’s platforms. And the transfer between 57 Street–7 Avenue and 7 Avenue would be 475 feet (minimum).

• 1,500 feet (57 St–7 Av ↔ 59 St–CC) ＊
  • Options: ➊　　🅐🅑🅒🅓
• 1,150 feet (42 St–TS ↔ 42 St–PABT)
  • Options: 　　　🅐　🅒　🅔
• 475 feet (57 St–7 Av ↔ 7 Av) ＊
  • Options: 　　　　🅑　🅓🅔
• 200 feet (42 St–TS ↔ 42 St–TS)
  • Options: ➊➋➌

The Columbus Circle transfer provides no additional options worthy of a longer walk even though it’s 2 local stops less. Frequency and choices are greater at Times Square, and walking is shorter for any of the other options. It really boils down to a case of the “iron triangle” here; pick any 2 of 3 choices:

Given that the tech-savvy commuters will be an ever growing share of the ridership, I put high weight on minimizing the fixed cost of transferring followed by choice of routes. If you know when and where the trains you need are and there are multiple easy transfer opportunities, then you don’t need frequency to decrease your likelihood of waiting.

I mean you do, because then you roll the dice on which transfer will have the train you want at the time you need. And stuff like this is more important during late night, GOs, etc.

If the MTA was a reasonably competent agency, the time spent on 1500 ft of walking could be shortened using moving walkways, but we kind of already know that we can't trust the MTA to maintain the physical plant of anything in a station with moving parts, so that's kind of moot.

40 minutes ago, CenSin said:

I’m ambivalent about the connection with Lexington Avenue–63 Street, but that’s only because I had to do a bloody long jog up the stairs and non-functioning escalators to run 4 blocks down to 59 Street. It’s probably a lot closer underground and less physical effort required.

Ideally the 63rd St line would've been run down 57 St, thus actually hitting Lex-59 and QBP/Queens Plaza, but what's done is done, unfortunately.

[Lawrence St]

While On the topic about the Franklin Av line, does anyone know why decided to rebuild the line the way that they did, with Park Place and Franklin Av becoming single platforms?

If were to ever connect the Franklin Av line with Crosstown, that would require another extensive rebuild of the line north of Botanic Garden, as the station houses and platforms need to be moved and modified again.

Another thing is the service patterns. The way how Prospect Park is designed is going to limit the amount of TPH that can pass through that station, unless there's a way to reroute the somewhere else and have the become Brighton Express. Even then, your going to have a crowd of customers wanting to transfer to a Manhattan bound train at Prospect Park, similar to what happens between 96th St and Chambers St on 7th Av, where customers will take a or to 96th St and then wait for the there. This leads to even more dwell times. 

Regarding ridership patterns; not a lot of people want to go from the Brighton Line to the Crosstown line and vice versa. The way how Crosstown is currently designed also makes this new service pattern difficult, which makes me wonder why never built a connection to the 53rd St or 63rd St tunnels from crosstown going towards Manhattan.

[Armandito]

1 hour ago, Lawrence St said:

While On the topic about the Franklin Av line, does anyone know why decided to rebuild the line the way that they did, with Park Place and Franklin Av becoming single platforms?

If were to ever connect the Franklin Av line with Crosstown, that would require another extensive rebuild of the line north of Botanic Garden, as the station houses and platforms need to be moved and modified again.

Another thing is the service patterns. The way how Prospect Park is designed is going to limit the amount of TPH that can pass through that station, unless there's a way to reroute the somewhere else and have the become Brighton Express. Even then, your going to have a crowd of customers wanting to transfer to a Manhattan bound train at Prospect Park, similar to what happens between 96th St and Chambers St on 7th Av, where customers will take a or to 96th St and then wait for the there. This leads to even more dwell times. 

Regarding ridership patterns; not a lot of people want to go from the Brighton Line to the Crosstown line and vice versa. The way how Crosstown is currently designed also makes this new service pattern difficult, which makes me wonder why never built a connection to the 53rd St or 63rd St tunnels from crosstown going towards Manhattan.

The Franklin-Crosstown connection was first proposed in 1946, but for unknown reasons it was shelved at the eleventh hour. If it were to already be built, the original pre-1998 Franklin line would still be maintained, but with the old Dean Street station razed and the platforms at the other three stations lengthened to accommodate longer trains. There would also be a pair of ramps leading underground toward a new junction at Bedford-Nostrand using the middle track at that station. A new station around Gates Avenue would have been built as well.

In addition, there would be some sort of flyover built between Neck Road and Sheepshead Bay so locals could terminate at Brighton while expresses would continue toward Stillwell (going back to my proposed and  terminal swap). This could have allowed for the outer stub tracks at Brighton to be used for additional layups, thus increasing capacity there. (On the other hand, one commenter here has argued that the building of a flyover would be a low-value investment if it were to be built today or in the future.)

Edited August 9, 2020 by Armandito

[CenSin]

41 minutes ago, bobtehpanda said:

roll the dice on which transfer will have the train you want at the time you need

That’s why I brought this up:

1 hour ago, CenSin said:

Given that the tech-savvy commuters will be an ever growing share of the ridership, I put high weight on minimizing the fixed cost of transferring followed by choice of routes. If you know when and where the trains you need are and there are multiple easy transfer opportunities, then you don’t need frequency to decrease your likelihood of waiting.

I do it all the time and a lot more when I commuted from Flushing when I had to make decisions like getting off at 74 Street–Broadway if I knew an or were coming. If I ended up at 7 Avenue, I had to decide whether to take the down to West 4 Street–Washington Square or get out and walk to 57 Street–7 Avenue (as I did one time when CPW was knocked out during PM rush after I had already made the decision to take the ).

[RR503]

1 hour ago, Lawrence St said:

While On the topic about the Franklin Av line, does anyone know why decided to rebuild the line the way that they did, with Park Place and Franklin Av becoming single platforms?

It's an example of intelligent value engineering.  demand is not likely to exceed loads that can be handled on trains running a ten minute headway, so to reduce maintenance costs they built the line's infrastructure to be sufficient for running a 10 with 2 car trains. Neither then nor now has a  to  connection been an at all realistic possibility -- which isn't to say it's not a good idea, merely that it isn't on any list. 

[bobtehpanda]

18 minutes ago, RR503 said:

It's an example of intelligent value engineering.  demand is not likely to exceed loads that can be handled on trains running a ten minute headway, so to reduce maintenance costs they built the line's infrastructure to be sufficient for running a 10 with 2 car trains. Neither then nor now has a  to  connection been an at all realistic possibility -- which isn't to say it's not a good idea, merely that it isn't on any list. 

Yeah, even in a fantasy world where construction costs turned reasonable overnight, you'd have to get quite far down the list for a Crosstown-Franklin connection to be worth it over spending money on something else.

[T to Dyre Avenue]

5 hours ago, CenSin said:

We’re talking about 1,500 feet (minimum) of walking before you can even reach any of the platforms at the other end of the passageway. The existing transfer at Times Square–42 Street’s Broadway platforms is only 1,150 feet (minimum) from 42 Street–Port Authority Bus Terminal’s platforms. And the transfer between 57 Street–7 Avenue and 7 Avenue would be 475 feet (minimum).

• 1,500 feet (57 St–7 Av ↔ 59 St–CC) ＊
  • Options: ➊　　🅐🅑🅒🅓
• 1,150 feet (42 St–TS ↔ 42 St–PABT)
  • Options: 　　　🅐　🅒　🅔
• 475 feet (57 St–7 Av ↔ 7 Av) ＊
  • Options: 　　　　🅑　🅓🅔
• 200 feet (42 St–TS ↔ 42 St–TS)
  • Options: ➊➋➌

The Columbus Circle transfer provides no additional options worthy of a longer walk even though it’s 2 local stops less. Frequency and choices are greater at Times Square, and walking is shorter for any of the other options. It really boils down to a case of the “iron triangle” here; pick any 2 of 3 choices:

Given that the tech-savvy commuters will be an ever growing share of the ridership, I put high weight on minimizing the fixed cost of transferring followed by choice of routes. If you know when and where the trains you need are and there are multiple easy transfer opportunities, then you don’t need frequency to decrease your likelihood of waiting.

I’m not holding my breath for the fantasy line, but the 7 Avenue connection is within reach. It’s low hanging fruit along with: Prince Street/Broadway–Lafayette Street; Broadway/Hewes Street; Queensboro Plaza/Queens Plaza; and Lexington Avenue–59 Street/Lexington Avenue–63 Street.

I’m ambivalent about the connection with Lexington Avenue–63 Street, but that’s only because I had to do a bloody long jog up the stairs and non-functioning escalators to run 4 blocks down to 59 Street. It’s probably a lot closer underground and less physical effort required.

If that’s the case, then I think the 57th-7th/53rd-7th is a good place to start for building a new connection between trains in Midtown. It allows a second transfer between the  and . The  transfer would especially be helpful if there’s some sort of interruption of service service on either the  or  line between Queens and Manhattan.

[T to Dyre Avenue]

13 hours ago, Armandito said:

An even bigger question is, should it be a new trunk line to Queens or is it better as a crosstown shuttle?

Or maybe a connection into the  (X) in LIC? It can tie into the existing  line by turning off 43rd Ave (which lines up with 57th St in Manhattan) onto 21st St (with a new station to connect with the ) and tying in between Court Sq and 21-Van Alst.  

Edited August 10, 2020 by T to Dyre Avenue

[LGA Link N Train]

Question for those who proposed the to be rerouted up 21st Street, how exactly would that make deinterlining Queens easier and would it be better for QB Express to go via 53rd or 63rd?

[Armandito]

22 hours ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

Or maybe a connection into the  (X) in LIC? It can tie into the existing  line by turning off 43rd Ave (which lines up with 57th St in Manhattan) onto 21st St (with a new station to connect with the ) and tying in between Court Sq and 21-Van Alst.  

That could work too, and it would surely be beneficial to both my proposed X line as well as the . If routing it via 21st Street to reach 43rd Avenue and then 57th Street should be the way to go, the Van Alst station would need to be demolished to make way for the new tunneling, not to mention the station having very low ridership. Likewise, the existing Court Square station would be closed and a new station would be opened at 21st Street and 44th Drive to replace it.

In addition, I would have the planned 57th Street extension go up along Amsterdam Avenue to the 72nd Street station to provide service coverage for the far west side of Midtown.

Or...would it be better to split the and X between a 57th Street crosstown line and a 21st Street line up to Astoria? If so, which of the two services would be the one to serve Astoria?

Edited August 11, 2020 by Armandito

[Bay Ridge Express]

7 hours ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

Question for those who proposed the to be rerouted up 21st Street, how exactly would that make deinterlining Queens easier and would it be better for QB Express to go via 53rd or 63rd?

Deinterlining wouldn't really be affected. As is, the  doesn't really interline itself with anything in Queens except before 2010...

As for the second question, I would say if you had to deinterline that section so that the QB Express/Local would each respectively go on either 53/63, I would say to put the QB Express on 53 and QB Local on 63. Reason being is you wouldn't lose local connectivity to Queens Plaza since the  would make local stops. However, you would lose express connectivity at 21 St-Queensbridge and the  would further increase its stop count. Therefore, I wouldn't deinterline it this way. 

[RR503]

7 hours ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

Question for those who proposed the to be rerouted up 21st Street, how exactly would that make deinterlining Queens easier and would it be better for QB Express to go via 53rd or 63rd?

It helps deinterlining because  riders aren't stuck with only 8th Avenue IND service after the dust settles; they retain their 6th Avenue option, as well as access to both QB express and local trains. 

I vote for local to 53/express 63, for all the reasons I've discussed at length in the past. 

[Union Tpke]

On 8/9/2020 at 3:27 PM, RR503 said:

It's an example of intelligent value engineering.  demand is not likely to exceed loads that can be handled on trains running a ten minute headway, so to reduce maintenance costs they built the line's infrastructure to be sufficient for running a 10 with 2 car trains. Neither then nor now has a  to  connection been an at all realistic possibility -- which isn't to say it's not a good idea, merely that it isn't on any list. 

We must also keep in mind that the line would have been closed without the work of neighborhood activists and the Straphangers Campaign. The MTA did not want to keep the line open, and it is honestly a miracle that the line was even rebuilt.

[T to Dyre Avenue]

22 hours ago, Armandito said:

That could work too, and it would surely be beneficial to both my proposed X line as well as the . If routing it via 21st Street to reach 43rd Avenue and then 57th Street should be the way to go, the Van Alst station would need to be demolished to make way for the new tunneling, not to mention the station having very low ridership. Likewise, the existing Court Square station would be closed and a new station would be opened at 21st Street and 44th Drive to replace it.

In addition, I would have the planned 57th Street extension go up along Amsterdam Avenue to the 72nd Street station to provide service coverage for the far west side of Midtown.

Or...would it be better to split the and X between a 57th Street crosstown line and a 21st Street line up to Astoria? If so, which of the two services would be the one to serve Astoria?

It’s probably better if the  and X both went via 43rd Ave/57th St because there would almost certainly be enough potential ridership on 57th that running either the  or X would be unable to provide sufficient service on its own. You would need both. On the other hand, that would result in no connection to the  (and , if QBL is deinterlined) at 21st St-Queensbridge. 

18 hours ago, RR503 said:

It helps deinterlining because  riders aren't stuck with only 8th Avenue IND service after the dust settles; they retain their 6th Avenue option, as well as access to both QB express and local trains. 

I vote for local to 53/express 63, for all the reasons I've discussed at length in the past. 

True, but then the  (and X in @Armandito’s plan) would have to focus solely as a feeder to the  and  at Court Square and the  at Queensbridge. That isn’t necessarily a bad thing, as it could entice Astoria Line riders and relieve Queensboro Plaza with the transfer to the  at Court Square. Though the ’s new Court Sq platforms at 21st St would be much further away from the  than the current Court Sq platform is, so that’s likely to be less appealing than the current   -to-  cross-platform transfer around QBP.

11 hours ago, Union Tpke said:

We must also keep in mind that the line would have been closed without the work of neighborhood activists and the Straphangers Campaign. The MTA did not want to keep the line open, and it is honestly a miracle that the line was even rebuilt.

I remember in high school reading in the Times and the Daily News about the back-and-forth between the neighborhood activists and the MTA over the Franklin ‘s future. It really was a miracle the MTA kept and rebuilt it, even though they didn’t rebuild it to be anything more than a two-car shuttle between Franklin/Fulton and Prospect Park. I think connecting the Franklin  to the  and renaming it the X is a good idea, though I do have mixed feelings about extending it to Brighton Beach via the  because I feel it would take away capacity that could be used for additional  service to Manhattan, though that does depend on fixing what ails DeKalb Junction.

Edited August 11, 2020 by T to Dyre Avenue

[CenSin]

I have a hard time discussing without visuals. Is this what we are talking about?