Department of Subways - Proposals/Ideas

[Caelestor]

2 hours ago, shiznit1987 said:

Here's my idea for 50th St Crosstown (8) train to Flushing: 

Start at Hudson Yards (new station built under 10th Ave/34th St), then have stops at: 50th St/7th Ave (Transfer to ), 50th St/5th Ave, 50th St/Lex (transfer to ), tunnel comes into Queens at 45th Ave and stops at Court Sq (Transfer to , Train then runs under LIRR to Woodside (Transfer to ), then follows PW Branch with stops at Broadway/Elmhurst Ave (Transfer to ) and Junction Blvd and finally terminates under the Main St-Flushing LIRR station.  service would be discontinued. 

The first advantage would be Flushing, Woodside, Elmhurst and Corona getting bi-directional all-day express service.  The next big advantage is due to the connection at Elmhurst Ave,  the  trains as well as the Roosevelt Ave station itself would see significant crowding relief. 

I think the 50 St Crosstown should stay on 50 St, terminating at a transfer with a  extension up 10 Ave. So the stops in Manhattan would be Hells Kitchen - 10 Ave , 8 Ave-Broadway  (with potential transfer to Broadway 49 St), 6 Ave - Rockefeller Center , and Lexington - 3 Aves .

I also think that the (8) shouldn't be duplicating LIRR service. Either build an entirely new line under Northern Blvd, or have it takeover the PW branch completely. In the latter case, the stops would be all existing LIRR stops + new stops at Queens Blvd (future Triboro RX), Broadway/Elmhurst QBL, Junction Blvd, 108 St, and Bayview Ave. Great Neck would be significantly reconstructed to allow most trains to terminate there.

[loveofelevators]

Line:  Extension

Stations:

168 St:

175 St:

181 St:

190 St:

Dyckman St-200 St:

207 St-10 Av:  (X) *grey like *

[mrsman]

9 hours ago, Caelestor said:

I think the 50 St Crosstown should stay on 50 St, terminating at a transfer with a  extension up 10 Ave. So the stops in Manhattan would be Hells Kitchen - 10 Ave , 8 Ave-Broadway  (with potential transfer to Broadway 49 St), 6 Ave - Rockefeller Center , and Lexington - 3 Aves .

I also think that the (8) shouldn't be duplicating LIRR service. Either build an entirely new line under Northern Blvd, or have it takeover the PW branch completely. In the latter case, the stops would be all existing LIRR stops + new stops at Queens Blvd (future Triboro RX), Broadway/Elmhurst QBL, Junction Blvd, 108 St, and Bayview Ave. Great Neck would be significantly reconstructed to allow most trains to terminate there.

The PW branch is definitely a good corridor for conversion to subway like service.  I am definitely a fan of utilizing existing infrastructure where its available.  I can imagine some level of "scoot" shuttle service between PW and Great Neck at additional fare, and then subway style service at the stops that you suggest.  Building it as an (8) service means IRT standards but it will effectively replace the  albeit at a slightly different right of way.  If there is no money for a new East River tunnel and crosstown, it would make sense to have the (8) follow the  route in Manhattan and through the Steinway tunnels and then split off from the  to follow the PW line to Great Neck.

If this is to be built as part of a 50th street crosstown, then in my mind it would make more sense under BMT/IND standards with the stops that you suggest for maximum transfes to all the local lines on the main Manhattan trunk lines.  Can the Flushing yard handles BMT type trains, or are they relegated to only handling IRT trains.

 

[MottAvFarRockaway]

Revised new ideas for the lettered trains as of August 2020

• Proposal A: Run the  and  service normally to their respective destinations during non-rush hours (Bedford Park Boulevard and 168 Street), but during rush hours, swap the terminals and run under the labels of  and  from Bay Parkway, Brooklyn and Rockaway Park to 168 Street and Bedford Park Boulevard respectively. This resurrects the 1980s form in the new proposal.
• Proposal B: Make the  skip Avenue N and Avenue I during morning rush hours, and stop at Bergen Street which would require renovations of lower level.
• Proposal C: During evening rush hours, reroute the  and  via the  line and give the designations of yellow B and D respectively.
• Proposal D: During morning rush hours, reroute the  to operate via the  line and give it orange A.
• Proposal E: Restore the Brown Diamond R service (Chambers Street, Manhattan to 95 Street, Brooklyn) under the designation brown V. (The  designation was last used in 2010 for a Sixth Avenue Line service.)
• Proposal F: Run a new skip-stop service in the Canarsie Line pairing with the , called the grey .
• Proposal G: Restore the  route under the new label  (The diamond N was last used for a Whitehall Street short turn service, until 1987).
• Proposal H: During evening rush hours, reroute the  via the Sixth Avenue Line and call it the orange .

[F O O L]

2 hours ago, SampleOnly said:

Revised new ideas for the lettered trains as of August 2020

• Proposal A: Run the  and  service normally to their respective destinations during non-rush hours (Bedford Park Boulevard and 168 Street), but during rush hours, swap the terminals and run under the labels of  and  from Bay Parkway, Brooklyn and Rockaway Park to 168 Street and Bedford Park Boulevard respectively. This resurrects the 1980s form in the new proposal.
• Proposal B: Make the  skip Avenue N and Avenue I during morning rush hours, and stop at Bergen Street which would require renovations of lower level.
• Proposal C: During evening rush hours, reroute the  and  via the  line and give the designations of yellow B and D respectively.
• Proposal D: During morning rush hours, reroute the  to operate via the  line and give it orange A.
• Proposal E: Restore the Brown Diamond R service (Chambers Street, Manhattan to 95 Street, Brooklyn) under the designation brown V. (The  designation was last used in 2010 for a Sixth Avenue Line service.)
• Proposal F: Run a new skip-stop service in the Canarsie Line pairing with the , called the grey .
• Proposal G: Restore the  route under the new label  (The diamond N was last used for a Whitehall Street short turn service, until 1987).
• Proposal H: During evening rush hours, reroute the  via the Sixth Avenue Line and call it the orange .

These all seem interesting but I'm not sure I understand the rationale behind some of these(aside from the F express). A lot of these seem to use whatever switches are available to complicate service or maybe I'm just not seeing it. What benefits did you have in mind?

[Armandito]

I don't agree with most of those proposals at all.

You do realize most Brighton customers prefer Broadway service, which is why the MTA decided to make service full time after the reopening of the Manhattan Bridge north tracks in 2004. Also, I don't see any benefit from rerouting some trains along different trunk corridors during different times of the day, especially if there will be more confusion among commuters when it comes to arriving to their destinations and transfer points.

On the other hand, the only proposals I agree with are B and E, though for the former I would wait till signal upgrades along the Culver Line are finished before such a plan is considered. Although skip-stop service along the line was once proposed in 1991, I wouldn't say the same for the line today, given the rapid increases in ridership over the past several years. I can guarantee you that skip-stop service on this route will be doomed to suffer the same fate as the train before it.

[bobtehpanda]

The subway is for commuting, not for musical chairs.

[T to Dyre Avenue]

6 hours ago, SampleOnly said:

<proposals>

Out of all these proposals, I like E the best. The ( V ) certainly would be an idea worth considering if the perennial suggestion to split the  in Lower Manhattan ever gets traction (with the Queens-Manhattan section terminating at Whitehall and keeping the current  designation). 

G (the  service) was already tried in 1967 and lasted about one year. It skipped too many stops to be useful as a rush hour service. I can’t see how a new  running that same service would be any different. Not to mention the chaos that will exist at Stillwell with the current  and  trains terminating there and at Brighton Beach with the  turning there. A, C, D and H will just be way too confusing, both for regular commuters and occasional riders. And that  service will be hell on  crews. F was indeed proposed in 1991, but even then with almost the of areas surrounding the  line in terrible shape, a skip-stop pattern would have done more harm than good and that’s why it never saw the light of day.

B isn’t bad, but why have the  skip only Avenues I and N?

Edited August 20, 2020 by T to Dyre Avenue

[Armandito]

3 hours ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

Out of all these proposals, I like E the best. The ( V ) certainly would be an idea worth considering if the perennial suggestion to split the  in Lower Manhattan ever gets traction (with the Queens-Manhattan section terminating at Whitehall and keeping the current  designation). 

Or you could just extend trains to Bay Ridge. Not really a new service plan since it once ran there in the weeks immediately following 9/11.

[JeremiahC99]

8 minutes ago, Armandito said:

Or you could just extend trains to Bay Ridge. Not really a new service plan since it once ran there in the weeks immediately following 9/11.

An extension of the  without altering any other service, something I proposed last year, would hurt reliability on the  and  since both lines would now have another merge to deal with and the  would become the same length as the , already one of the least reliable routes in the system. There’s a reason why the  went to 4th Avenue instead of the .

If you want a supplement service on 4th Avenue Local, your best options would be to have a supplement Nassau service or extending the  to 95th Street, or just straight up rerouting  service back to Astoria-Ditmars. Doing the latter would allow for more reliable service on the  overall.

[loveofelevators]

33 minutes ago, Armandito said:

Or you could just extend trains to Bay Ridge. Not really a new service plan since it once ran there in the weeks immediately following 9/11.

Which is what i've planned!

Read n' Weep!:

Line: The  and  Extension

Stations:

Broad St:

Court St:

MetroTech Center-Jay St:

DeKalb Av:

 Atlantic Av-Pacific St:

Union St:

4 Av-9 St:

Prospect Av:

25 St:

36 St:

45 St:

53 St:

59 St:

Bay Ridge Av:

77 St:

86 St:

Bay Ridge-95 St:

Marine Av:

Shore Rd-Verrazano Bridge:

 

[Armandito]

2 hours ago, JeremiahC99 said:

If you want a supplement service on 4th Avenue Local, your best options would be to have a supplement Nassau service or extending the  to 95th Street, or just straight up rerouting  service back to Astoria-Ditmars. Doing the latter would allow for more reliable service on the  overall.

Or in other words, revive the pre-1987 service arrangement with trains rerouted back to Forest Hills. One other change I would suggest is building a new connection between Queens Plaza and 21st Street-Queensbridge so trains could access the 63rd Street line from the former. That way, you would have 59th Street  trains from Astoria run local with 63rd Street trains running express. On the other hand, the loss of direct access to Jamaica Yard would be somewhat of a drawback, though I suppose the 1987 terminal swap with the came to be because of greater maintenance needs for rolling stock at the time.

If such a service plan comes along, several adjustments to current service patterns would be needed. In this case, trains would run express in Queens at all times while trains would be routed via the new connection to Queens Plaza making all local stops to Forest Hills, replacing service which would terminate at 96th Street. (Overnight  trains would terminate at Atlantic Avenue-Barclays Center with service in Manhattan replaced by trains.) During weekday hours, the would be eliminated and become part of the rerouted train, with select rush-hour trains from Astoria terminating at Whitehall Street.

Edited August 21, 2020 by Armandito

[CenSin]

Okay… I’m turning in my subway badge, effective immediately. Transferring to another department. Wish me luck.

[JeremiahC99]

1 hour ago, Armandito said:

Or in other words, revive the pre-1987 service arrangement with trains rerouted back to Forest Hills. One other change I would suggest is building a new connection between Queens Plaza and 21st Street-Queensbridge so trains could access the 63rd Street line from the former. That way, you would have 59th Street  trains from Astoria run local with 63rd Street trains running express. On the other hand, the loss of direct access to Jamaica Yard would be somewhat of a drawback, though I suppose the 1987 terminal swap with the came to be because of greater maintenance needs for rolling stock at the time.

If such a service plan comes along, several adjustments to current service patterns would be needed. In this case, trains would run express in Queens at all times while trains would be routed via the new connection to Queens Plaza making all local stops to Forest Hills, replacing service which would terminate at Whitehall Street. Once trains return to Astoria, its full routing will operate 24/7 and replace local service in Manhattan during those hours. During weekday hours, the would be eliminated and become part of the rerouted train, with select rush-hour trains from Astoria terminating at Whitehall Street.

I am not a big fan of having a Broadway Line service on Queens Blvd, since it takes away from capacity you can run on both Astoria Line and Queens Blvd Line, and this in turn limits capacity elsewhere on the main lines. I’m in favor of straight up eliminating Broadway service on QB to allow for increased service and to deinterline the Queens trunk lines.

I’m also a bit skeptical of the connection between Queensbridge and Queens Plaza, because I do kinda see it as an out of the way route, even though it retains the local-express connection to Queens Plaza. For me, what I’d suggest it having the  be the QB local and the  and  on the express tracks or a mix of both if other deinterlinings occur. Longer term, I would suggest using the 11th Street cut for a new tunnel to a (hopefully) expanded SAS and competing the Queens bypass. You could then have SAS trains serving the local tracks and the the 8th Avenue trains serving the express tracks to 53rd Street. With this, you now have direct service between Queens and the East side of Manhattan, allowing riders to avoid the Lexington-Queens transfer stops and take one train between Queens Plaza and the East side.

The NYC Subway of 2020 is not the same as the NYC Subway of 1987, when the  last served Astoria on a regular basis. No longer do we have rackety trains of crumbling R27 and R30s. Now the Broadway Line have newer trains of R160s and a fleet of R46s that have gone a long way in terms of improvements since their days as lemons. With the increased fleet reliability compared to then, we can handle not having a yard in the meanwhile. However, should you have other concerns, the 36th Street Yard in Sunset Park is planned to be converted into a revenue service yard for Second Avenue Subway service, so it should also be able to handle  train service as well.

[Lex]

1 hour ago, CenSin said:

Okay… I’m turning in my subway badge, effective immediately. Transferring to another department. Wish me luck.

That bad, huh? Well, I don't blame you.

[MottAvFarRockaway]

Maptrack 1

Proposal ideas for the New York City Subway, 21 August 2020, page 1 (for lettered lines)

1. Restore the JFK  as the .
2. Reroute the  to include 205th Street. Note: The  would be eliminated and be replaced by the re-routed , which would go to Coney Island. There will be the local and express types of B service: local service is the , which makes all stops; the express version is the , which runs express in Brooklyn.
3. Restore the  service (running from Bedford Park Boulevard to Euclid Avenue or Rockaway Park) to replace parts of the  during AM rush hours and to complement the existing  which runs from 168th Street to Euclid Avenue. This is to strengthen the current  service. Doing so will force the  via the  line, giving it the yellow .
4. Make the  stop at Bergen Street.
5. Extend the IND Crosstown Line to Flushing Main Street, and implement a / skip-stop pattern. ( is Rockaway Shuttle's internal designation letter.)
6. Restore the  service as the .
7. Implement a skip-stop pattern for the Canarsie Line, the  and .
8. Eliminate the  and replace with parts of the rerouted ,  and .
9. Restore the  service under the  label.
10. Restore the  service under the new label, the brown .
11. Extend the  to LaGuardia Airport. When the  is extended to LaGuardia Airport, include a new super-express service called the yellow .
12. Reroute the  via the Sixth Avenue Line, and call it the orange .
13. Restore the  service as the turquoise , but it would extend to include the Second Avenue Subway.

[MottAvFarRockaway]

Maptrack 1

Proposal ideas for the New York City Subway, 21 August 2020, page 2 (for lettered lines)

14. Eliminate the Rockaway , and replace it with a rerouted  and  services.

15. Implement a late-night  service between Queensboro Plaza and Broadway on the  and  lines.

16. Implement a Rockaway Park - Jamaica 179th Street Express service, called the .

Edited August 21, 2020 by SampleOnly

[MottAvFarRockaway]

Maptrack 1

Proposal ideas for the New York City Subway, 21 August 2020, page 3 (for numbered lines)

17. Eliminate the  and replace with a skip-stop with the . Therefore, / skip-stop. The  will no longer serve the White Plains Line, or join in with the .

18. Implement the Woodlawn Express service on the , called the .

19. Implement the White Plains Express service on the , called the .

20. Revive the skip-stop service on the , the latter will be called the .

21. Build a new line with IRT specifications to Westchester in New York. Called the IRT Westchester line, it will be pink and it will be served by the , 10 and 11 services. The  and 10 will run in a local manner, and the 11 will run in an express manner.

22. Eliminate the Times Square  and replace it with a 14 which would use parts of the  route, as well as the route to Westchester to reduce overcrowding.

23. Restore the  service under the label 16.

Maptrack is a proposal program for New York City Subway.

Which of the proposals out of the 23 do you like the best, and why?

Edited August 21, 2020 by SampleOnly
change for numbered lines

[Mtatransit]

44 minutes ago, MottAvFarRockaway said:

Maptrack 1

Proposal ideas for the New York City Subway, 21 August 2020, page 1 (for lettered lines)

1. Restore the JFK  as the .
2. Reroute the  to include 205th Street. Note: The  would be eliminated and be replaced by the re-routed , which would go to Coney Island. There will be the local and express types of B service: local service is the , which makes all stops; the express version is the , which runs express in Brooklyn.
3. Restore the  service (running from Bedford Park Boulevard to Euclid Avenue or Rockaway Park) to replace parts of the  during AM rush hours and to complement the existing  which runs from 168th Street to Euclid Avenue. This is to strengthen the current  service. Doing so will force the  via the  line, giving it the yellow .
4. Make the  stop at Bergen Street.
5. Extend the IND Crosstown Line to Flushing Main Street, and implement a / skip-stop pattern. ( is Rockaway Shuttle's internal designation letter.)
6. Restore the  service as the .
7. Implement a skip-stop pattern for the Canarsie Line, the  and .
8. Eliminate the  and replace with parts of the rerouted ,  and .
9. Restore the  service under the  label.
10. Restore the  service under the new label, the brown .
11. Extend the  to LaGuardia Airport. When the  is extended to LaGuardia Airport, include a new super-express service called the yellow .
12. Reroute the  via the Sixth Avenue Line, and call it the orange .
13. Restore the  service as the turquoise , but it would extend to include the Second Avenue Subway.

1) I don't think JFK Express needed to be restored. The service was 6.75! back in the 1990s. Plus with the Airtrain at Jamaica, people are not willing to go the long way via Manhattan, especially with the 6.75 fare + 7.75 airtrain fare. 

2) Why? That is just over complicating things. 

3) I do agree with extending the  out to Lefferts or the Rockaways but thats about it

4) When we get the money, I agree this could be a worthwhile investment for those south of Church Ave

5) huh??? That would require tremondous investment to extend all the platform on the  with literally NO GAIN in service. In fact with skip stop, most will lose service

6) Not necessary

7) Canarsie is way too busy for a skip stop service. There would also be no time saving because trains will be on top of each other anyways

11) If we do get the money for this, it is definitely good for the airport and the line.

 

32 minutes ago, MottAvFarRockaway said:

Maptrack 1

Proposal ideas for the New York City Subway, 21 August 2020, page 2 (for lettered lines)

14. Eliminate the Rockaway , and replace it with a rerouted  and  services.

15. Implement a late-night  service between Queensboro Plaza and Broadway on the  and  lines.

16. Implement a Rockaway Park - Jamaica 179th Street Express service, called the .

14) If we could get the  down to Leffert or Far Rock, I could see the  eliminated. But definitely NOT with the  

15) Is Broadway your home station?

16) The Q53-60 even with traffic is faster than the subway you are proposing here.

31 minutes ago, MottAvFarRockaway said:

Maptrack 1

Proposal ideas for the New York City Subway, 21 August 2020, page 3 (for numbered lines)

17. Eliminate the  and replace with a skip-stop with the . Therefore, / skip-stop. The  will no longer serve the White Plains Line, or join in with the .

18. Implement the Woodlawn Express service on the , called the .

19. Implement the White Plains Express service on the , called the .

20. Revive the skip-stop service on the , the latter will be called the .

21. Build a new line with IRT specifications to Westchester in New York. Called the IRT Westchester line, it will be pink and it will be served by the , 10 and 11 services. The  and 10 will run in a local manner, and the 11 will run in an express manner.

22. Eliminate the Times Square  and replace it with a 14 which would use parts of the  route, as well as the route to Westchester to reduce overcrowding.

23. Restore the  service under the label 16.

Maptrack is a proposal program for New York City Subway.

Which of the proposals out of the 23 do you like the best, and why?

18 and 19) Local stops will lose service with negilible time savings for those on the outer portions

20) Skip Stop/Express = Reduction in service

21) MTA don't need to go to Westchester. But the only one I even imagine see happening is to Mt Vernon/Yonkers.

 

Overall 

The system as a whole need LESS interlining and merging. These proposals will create chaos throughout the system. 

Skip Stop as a whole means people lose service. If your station had a train every 4 minutes, and the first train skips your station, it essentially means that your wait will be 8 minutes. Whats worse is that with only two tracks, the second train will NEVER overtake the first one. That is why skip stop is being abandoned all over the world.

Alot of these proposals seem to be nostagia from an earlier era. Alot of these proposals would change service significantly but worsen service for commuters

 

[Vulturious]

21 minutes ago, SampleOnly said:

Maptrack 1

Proposal ideas for the New York City Subway, 21 August 2020, page 1 (for lettered lines)

1. Restore the JFK  as the .
2. Reroute the  to include 205th Street. Note: The  would be eliminated and be replaced by the re-routed , which would go to Coney Island. There will be the local and express types of B service: local service is the , which makes all stops; the express version is the , which runs express in Brooklyn.
3. Restore the  service (running from Bedford Park Boulevard to Euclid Avenue or Rockaway Park) to replace parts of the  during AM rush hours and to complement the existing  which runs from 168th Street to Euclid Avenue. This is to strengthen the current  service. Doing so will force the  via the  line, giving it the yellow .
4. Make the  stop at Bergen Street.
5. Extend the IND Crosstown Line to Flushing Main Street, and implement a / skip-stop pattern. ( is Rockaway Shuttle's internal designation letter.)
6. Restore the  service as the .
7. Implement a skip-stop pattern for the Canarsie Line, the  and .
8. Eliminate the  and replace with parts of the rerouted ,  and .
9. Restore the  service under the  label.
10. Restore the  service under the new label, the brown .
11. Extend the  to LaGuardia Airport. When the  is extended to LaGuardia Airport, include a new super-express service called the yellow .
12. Reroute the  via the Sixth Avenue Line, and call it the orange .
13. Restore the  service as the turquoise , but it would extend to include the Second Avenue Subway.

1.) The JFK  was sounded like a good idea, but couldn't be executed properly as people didn't take it too often for it to last. Pretty sure it was also expensive to run as well so a big no. If it was to be brought back today, I think it would be a good idea as many people (before this whole pandemic happened) were going to the Airport and there needs to be a better and cheaper way to get to the Airport. However, I do have to account for the fact that this train also went as a Super Express making only 1 stop in Brooklyn which was Jay St and the last stop which is Howard Beach. Many people take the and and having the back would cause delays for all of them. It would also cause delays on 6th Av since it also runs via 6th Av and can only access 6th Av running on a local track which would also interfere with all 6th Av trains. Not to mention, where can the terminate now?
2.) There is really no need to just straight up cut the  and replace it with the as people have been used to taking the since forever now. What would happen to West End line and Brighton line?
3.) I don't mind the running to Bedford if it stayed at Euclid as the line was already long as is running all local too. 
4.) Already self-explanatory as this should be done.
5.) I don't mind if it gets extended, but there is no way in hell would Skip-Stop be a thing, it's going to be another scenario.
6.) That I can actually agree with you on since trains run express, sometimes people don't know if a is running express or not, so better to just have it designated as a . Honestly, they should just rebuild the whole line to accommodate a third track for express as skip-stop is just the worst idea. Both Brighton and the  proved it is just horrible.
7.) As I said earlier, skip-stop is just the worst idea and just doesn't work, makes things even more complicating.
8.) There is a reason why the  was created in the first place (even though the  is just an extended , change my mind). It works well, the  needed an extension and this was the thing that Williamsburg people needed. Sure I do miss the , but there really is no way for it to come back.
9.) Having the  sounds good on paper, but there are way too many stops between 59th and Coney Island for that to ever happen, they need to at least convert one of the stations to be a 2 island platform to be an express station instead of every station being 2 side platforms local stations.
10.) This one isn't a bad idea, but there would be delays involving any train along Montague which would be the (because it usually sometimes go via Montague a lot of the times), , , and  trains. Unless the platforms and tracks were to be restored.
11.) This should've happened a very long time ago, but people really didn't want this to happen, honestly the  should sometimes stop listening to the public as they sometimes need to just get used to it.
12.) Why would you do this, for what purpose? There is no need to reroute a train entirely for it to run via 6th Av. That is just dumb.
13.) I don't exactly know what the  was as I never really cared for it much, so I'm not going to answer this one.

[shiznit1987]

On 8/19/2020 at 9:45 PM, Caelestor said:

I think the 50 St Crosstown should stay on 50 St, terminating at a transfer with a  extension up 10 Ave. So the stops in Manhattan would be Hells Kitchen - 10 Ave , 8 Ave-Broadway  (with potential transfer to Broadway 49 St), 6 Ave - Rockefeller Center , and Lexington - 3 Aves .

I also think that the (8) shouldn't be duplicating LIRR service. Either build an entirely new line under Northern Blvd, or have it takeover the PW branch completely. In the latter case, the stops would be all existing LIRR stops + new stops at Queens Blvd (future Triboro RX), Broadway/Elmhurst QBL, Junction Blvd, 108 St, and Bayview Ave. Great Neck would be significantly reconstructed to allow most trains to terminate there.

I'm definitely open to the PW being taken over. I don't think a Northern Blvd subway is as needed as a properly implemented SBS at this time. It's nice to have, but this plan helps out Queens Blvd and serves the heart of both Corona and Elmhurst. 

 

If the (8) takes over the PW, then the only stops should be Junction Blvd and Elmhurst/Broadway, along with Woodside of course. The whole idea is for the (8) to serve as a permanent two-direction version of the   

[bobtehpanda]

5 hours ago, shiznit1987 said:

I'm definitely open to the PW being taken over. I don't think a Northern Blvd subway is as needed as a properly implemented SBS at this time. It's nice to have, but this plan helps out Queens Blvd and serves the heart of both Corona and Elmhurst.

Personally, if we're going to do a subway in Queens in that area it should probably be Northern Blvd.

• PW already has frequent train service during peak, and six tracks of Main Line will feed six tracks of East River Tubes once ESA is open. Without PW the East River Tubes will probably be underutilized.
• Northern is more of a subway desert than PW is, since PW splits the difference between the 7 and QBL.
• Density in Queens is more north along Northern Blvd rather than south around Corona Av (which is roughly where the PW is)

[Reptile]

Here's a quick fantasy map for Brand New Subway (on the home page for jpwright click "Load" and select this file)
http://www.mediafire.com/file/onb4u9izs688k3i/BNSfantasymap.json/file 

Mainly focused on the SAS. Deinterlining wasn't really considered making this although I will use it in future.

[shiznit1987]

Quote

PW already has frequent train service during peak, and six tracks of Main Line will feed six tracks of East River Tubes once ESA is open. Without PW the East River Tubes will probably be underutilized.

2 of the East River tubes are primarily used for Amtrak and NJT layups in Sunnyside Yard. Even without the PW, the LIRR will still find plenty of use for 2 tubes to Penn and 2 tracks to GC, especially if the Port Jeff gets electrified. 

Quote

Northern is more of a subway desert than PW is, since PW splits the difference between the 7 and QBL.

True, however by my own admission my line is less of an attempt to fill in gaps per say than to kill two birds with one stone: 

1) create a  "relief" line that gives Flushing/NE Queens all times express service. Jamaica/SE Queens has all times express service in both the  and , and this line is meant to give NE Queens the same privilege. 

2) Relieve the , as well as the Roosevelt Ave station complex, by draining away QB Local riders at Elmhurst Ave. 

Quote

Density in Queens is more north along Northern Blvd rather than south around Corona Av (which is roughly where the PW is)

According to that map, south of Roosevelt is no slouch either. Also, if the  goes away, then individuals along Northern will be treated to 30-32 tph  service at 111, 103, 90, 82nd Sts where they can then transfer to (now much less crowded)  trains @ Roosevelt, or simply stay on to Woodside for the (8) 

 

Edited August 21, 2020 by shiznit1987
Oops!

[T to Dyre Avenue]

On 8/20/2020 at 7:15 AM, mrsman said:

The PW branch is definitely a good corridor for conversion to subway like service.  I am definitely a fan of utilizing existing infrastructure where its available.  I can imagine some level of "scoot" shuttle service between PW and Great Neck at additional fare, and then subway style service at the stops that you suggest.  Building it as an (8) service means IRT standards but it will effectively replace the  albeit at a slightly different right of way.  If there is no money for a new East River tunnel and crosstown, it would make sense to have the (8) follow the  route in Manhattan and through the Steinway tunnels and then split off from the  to follow the PW line to Great Neck.

If this is to be built as part of a 50th street crosstown, then in my mind it would make more sense under BMT/IND standards with the stops that you suggest for maximum transfes to all the local lines on the main Manhattan trunk lines.  Can the Flushing yard handles BMT type trains, or are they relegated to only handling IRT trains.

 

It makes more sense for the (8) to be a 50th St crosstown than to follow the  in Manhattan. Because then both lines can run at full track capacity and there can still be a  service. If the (8) splits off to follow the PW line, then it would force the  to run at a far lower capacity than it currently runs. And you could run B-Division size trains on the (8), so I guess it would get a letter. Let’s call it ( H ), since that’s the eighth letter of the alphabet (the Rock Park shuttle is only called  internally). 

On 8/20/2020 at 6:00 PM, JeremiahC99 said:

An extension of the  without altering any other service, something I proposed last year, would hurt reliability on the  and  since both lines would now have another merge to deal with and the  would become the same length as the , already one of the least reliable routes in the system. There’s a reason why the  went to 4th Avenue instead of the .

If you want a supplement service on 4th Avenue Local, your best options would be to have a supplement Nassau service or extending the  to 95th Street, or just straight up rerouting  service back to Astoria-Ditmars. Doing the latter would allow for more reliable service on the  overall.

I’d prefer the  as a supplement service on 4th Avenue local only if the primary service is a Nassau St service (the opposite of how it was done until the 2010 service cuts). I suggested this as an option in the “split ” thread, in the event that the loss of direct service from Bay Ridge to Lower Broadway is a big loss. If the  is not split and stays in Brooklyn, then I agree it should go back to Astoria.

1 hour ago, shiznit1987 said:

2 of the East River tubes are primarily used for Amtrak and NJT layups in Sunnyside Yard. Even without the PW, the LIRR will still find plenty of use for 2 tubes to Penn and 2 tracks to GC, especially if the Port Jeff gets electrified. 

True, however by my own admission my line is less of an attempt to fill in gaps per say than to kill two birds with one stone: 

1) create a  "relief" line that gives Flushing/NE Queens all times express service. Jamaica/SE Queens has all times express service in both the  and , and this line is meant to give NE Queens the same privilege. 

2) Relieve the , as well as the Roosevelt Ave station complex, by draining away QB Local riders at Elmhurst Ave. 

According to that map, south of Roosevelt is no slouch either. Also, if the  goes away, then individuals along Northern will be treated to 30-32 tph  service at 111, 103, 90, 82nd Sts where they can then transfer to (now much less crowded)  trains @ Roosevelt, or simply stay on to Woodside for the (8) 

 

You’ve got to assume the (8) would a completely separate trunk line from the  for 30-32 tph at the Flushing Local stations. You won’t be able to get that if the  and (8) merge somewhere before the Steinway Tubes. I’m not against capturing the PW line for better subway service between Flushing and Bayside. East of Bayside is a different story as the population density drops off after the Cross Island Pkwy. But west of Flushing, the PW r-o-w is far from Northern Blvd and is only close to Queens Blvd by near the Elmhurst Ave station. That’s just one station, and not a very crowded one by QBL standards (63rd Drive, Woodhaven and Grand are way busier). Otherwise the PW r-o-w is not anywhere near the Queens Blvd and won’t do much to relieve the . Converting Woodhaven Blvd to an express stop would do far more to relieve Roosevelt. 

Edited August 21, 2020 by T to Dyre Avenue