Department of Subways - Proposals/Ideas

[Vulturious]

32 minutes ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

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.

That is actually not a bad idea keeping 4th Av line as a Nassau Primary and having a Broadway line as supplement. The  is too long as is, would've been better if it stayed on Astoria, but obviously because of no direct yard access it had to go to Forest Hills. But now raises a couple of questions such as:

1.) Where would the  terminate if it was extended during rush hours?

2.) What about the , would it still terminate at Broad St, or be extended towards Bay Ridge?

[shiznit1987]

57 minutes ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

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. 

I'm agnostic regarding capturing the PW line or not, it's a good idea, but as you said past Bayside the densities don't call for subway frequencies. It should be pointed out that a little past the Bayside station there is a spot a few layup tracks could be placed, which means maybe turning 3 out of 4 trains @ Bayside and sending the rest to PW, which would pretty much match current LIRR frequencies out there. 

My (8) train is a totally seperate trunk down 50th St. That's how you get that 30-32 tph figure for the local . As far as Queens Blvd is concerned, the idea is passengers coming from Grand, Woodhaven, 63rd and 67th would take advantage of the transfer @ Elmhurst Ave for a faster ride on the (8) to Manhattan. I think if you run the (8) At >20tph most people would rather take that than an already crowded  that's less frequent at Roosevelt. 

The Northern Blvd issue is helped in the sense that the local  stations now have twice as much service as before + the fact that those who will inevitably switch at Roosevelt for the  trains will be looking at much less crowding due to people on the  heading for the (8) @ Elmhurst Ave.

W/O drifting too much into Surface Operations issues, there is v a s t room for improvement in the Q66's operations and in how the routes are structured in Jackson Hts/Corona in general. I live two blocks off the route and can tell you this from first hand knowledge. Keep in mind that many folks in the Northern Blvd catchment area take Q33/Q72 buses to the . Maybe having the Q32 run up 89/90th Sts and upping Q47 frequencies would help grab more riders who currently use the Q66.  

[Bay Ridge Express]

19 hours 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 would be fine with this if 1) it stops at more stations, preferably: Euclid Av, either Utica/Nostrand, Jay St, and then all Manhattan stations, 2) it just continues on the  route up to 207 St, 3) the price is reduced from $6.75, and 4) it doesn't interfere with merging/delays on the  or  (and we all know how well that would go).

2. Would this hypothetical  operate via West End or Brighton in Brooklyn?

3. I don't see how the  would be forced to run via the  line here.

4. Agreed.

5. How so? By building a new lower level with B Division standards? Such a proposal, while it may be useful, would not be easy to build and is not worth constructing right now.

7. I would argue that high frequency at all stations > skip-stop

9. Would bypass too many (important and useful, residential) stations. I could see the possibility of 1-2  or  rush hour trips at some point, however.

11. How would this super-express run (by "super-express" I'm assuming it could run under something like  --> from Queensboro Plaza, LIRR ROW, then merge onto Northern Blvd, 68 St, BQE E, and GCP if you're proposing something other than peak express on the Astoria Line)?

12. Brighton riders prefer Broadway.

19 hours 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 and 16. The  would be too long there, and I'm pretty sure Rockaway was reduced to a shuttle for a reason...

15. Why?

19 hours 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?

 

20. Calling it the  would just confuse riders since it's not actually a peak express. You would just bring back the .

21. And on what route would this line run, exactly?

23. Unnecessary, both in terms of instituting a  and calling it the 16, for the same reasons as the .

 

[LGA Link N Train]

24 minutes ago, Bay Ridge Express said:

How so? By building a new lower level with B Division standards? Such a proposal, while it may be useful, would not be easy to build and is not worth constructing right now.

A lower level already exists at Bergen Street. 

[Bay Ridge Express]

3 minutes ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

A lower level already exists at Bergen Street. 

You responded to the wrong thing. I agree with the Bergen St idea.

[T to Dyre Avenue]

3 hours ago, Vulturious said:

That is actually not a bad idea keeping 4th Av line as a Nassau Primary and having a Broadway line as supplement. The  is too long as is, would've been better if it stayed on Astoria, but obviously because of no direct yard access it had to go to Forest Hills. But now raises a couple of questions such as:

1.) Where would the  terminate if it was extended during rush hours?

2.) What about the , would it still terminate at Broad St, or be extended towards Bay Ridge?

The 4th Avenue line has a middle track between 86th and 95th. However it’s only accessible from the south end. I’ve suggested adding in switches at the north end, so trains can terminate at 86th St and reverse on that pocket track. 

As for the , it can either stay the same as now, with the Nassau service being a completely separate line that ends at Chambers, like the Bankers  did. Or we can kill two birds with one stone and the new Nassau/4th service can originate at Broadway Junction and run local between there and Marcy Avenue, while the  runs peak express. 

[bobtehpanda]

11 hours ago, shiznit1987 said:

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. 

 

Really, all you need to actually achieve this is to cut the fare on the PW. Which is possible, just not something the MTA is interested in pursuing at this time.

It's also worth noting that transferring it to subway usage is actually effectively a capacity cut. The PW and LIRR in general could run many more trains per hour, and a 12-car LIRR train is much longer than a 11-car IRT train; 450 ft longer, in fact. If you were to cut fares on the PW, increase frequency to a very achieveable 8tph, and created a LIRR-length train with a similar seating and door configuration to a subway train, you'd have pretty much a new subway line all with no new construction.

[shiznit1987]

5 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

Really, all you need to actually achieve this is to cut the fare on the PW. Which is possible, just not something the MTA is interested in pursuing at this time.

It's also worth noting that transferring it to subway usage is actually effectively a capacity cut. The PW and LIRR in general could run many more trains per hour, and a 12-car LIRR train is much longer than a 11-car IRT train; 450 ft longer, in fact. If you were to cut fares on the PW, increase frequency to a very achieveable 8tph, and created a LIRR-length train with a similar seating and door configuration to a subway train, you'd have pretty much a new subway line all with no new construction.

I hear you. 

The thing is I tend to shy away from proposals to better utilize the railroads because institutional inertia in the railroad industry is a real thing. Mix in general MTA nonsense and even common sense like your idea goes down the drain. Plus, I am worried about fare and systemic integration, such as let's say I want to grab the  to head to Union Sq, how do I make this transfer under your proposal? 

Finally, I tend to value the network effects subway expansion provides. Railroads bring you to a fixed point in Midtown while with extra subway trunks you increase passenger fluidity which is similar to how building a freeway in one part of the city causes traffic to increase systemically since now there's space here and there. 

But yes, I can see the value in keeping the PW in house. I think what others have said about building a "C" division has merit. 

 

[bobtehpanda]

1 hour ago, shiznit1987 said:

I hear you. 

The thing is I tend to shy away from proposals to better utilize the railroads because institutional inertia in the railroad industry is a real thing. Mix in general MTA nonsense and even common sense like your idea goes down the drain. Plus, I am worried about fare and systemic integration, such as let's say I want to grab the  to head to Union Sq, how do I make this transfer under your proposal? 

Finally, I tend to value the network effects subway expansion provides. Railroads bring you to a fixed point in Midtown while with extra subway trunks you increase passenger fluidity which is similar to how building a freeway in one part of the city causes traffic to increase systemically since now there's space here and there. 

But yes, I can see the value in keeping the PW in house. I think what others have said about building a "C" division has merit. 

 

POP on the railways. London is an example of a system that mixes turnstiles and POP.

I notice that for some reason you discount the possibility of railroad expansion. Fundamentally speaking, the requirements for a subway and railroad tunnel are the same, other than the lack of space; the insane space requirements of a project like ARC or ESA is the terminal. Main Line and PW trains run via a new tunnel on Third going to GCT, USQ, Fulton, and Atlantic to the South Shore branches. Long distance trains from Babylon, Huntington/PJ, Oyster Bay, and Ronkonkoma and beyond continue using Penn Station. LIRR trains continue running on LIRR territory, just terminating outside the city rather than wasting space on an inner city terminal.

Tokyo has done it, Paris has done it, London is doing it. New York needs to be economizing and doing this. This would likely be cheaper than a new subway line and provide more bang for the buck since the outer borough extensions already exist and don't need to change much, other than upgrading platform lengths here and there.

[loveofelevators]

Line:  Extension

Stations:

116 St:

3 Av-138 St:

The Hub-149 St:

163 St

169 St

174 St:

W Farms Sq:

Unionport Rd

Castle Hill Av

Morris Park

[LGA Link N Train]

2 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

POP on the railways. London is an example of a system that mixes turnstiles and POP.

I notice that for some reason you discount the possibility of railroad expansion. Fundamentally speaking, the requirements for a subway and railroad tunnel are the same, other than the lack of space; the insane space requirements of a project like ARC or ESA is the terminal. Main Line and PW trains run via a new tunnel on Third going to GCT, USQ, Fulton, and Atlantic to the South Shore branches. Long distance trains from Babylon, Huntington/PJ, Oyster Bay, and Ronkonkoma and beyond continue using Penn Station. LIRR trains continue running on LIRR territory, just terminating outside the city rather than wasting space on an inner city terminal.

Tokyo has done it, Paris has done it, London is doing it. New York needs to be economizing and doing this. This would likely be cheaper than a new subway line and provide more bang for the buck since the outer borough extensions already exist and don't need to change much, other than upgrading platform lengths here and there.

The idea of having Inner LIRR services operate similarly to the subway system (and at $2.75) is an idea that I can get behind with, but I've been wondering to ask: Is such a system for Inner LIRR services one that can be easily implemented without (or during the construction of) a crossrail type connection between GCT and Atlantic?

[Lex]

1 hour ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

The idea of having Inner LIRR services operate similarly to the subway system (and at $2.75) is an idea that I can get behind with, but I've been wondering to ask: Is such a system for Inner LIRR services one that can be easily implemented without (or during the construction of) a crossrail type connection between GCT and Atlantic?

In theory, you could. In practice? I'm not sold on it. Separately, they're too limited in range and can't pool resources or provide half-decent short-turns. This drastically hampers their usefulness, especially if relief lines are of utmost concern.

[bobtehpanda]

2 hours ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

The idea of having Inner LIRR services operate similarly to the subway system (and at $2.75) is an idea that I can get behind with, but I've been wondering to ask: Is such a system for Inner LIRR services one that can be easily implemented without (or during the construction of) a crossrail type connection between GCT and Atlantic?

I mean this is basically what Atlantic Ticket is, and the weekend City Ticket. The problem with Atlantic Ticket is that Atlantic isn't all that useful of a destination by itself, and people will fight you if they lose direct services to Midtown for more frequent services to Atlantic. And if you don't remove the inner South Shore lines from the equation that doesn't leave a lot of space to beef up services on PW and Hempstead.

At least with a tunnel, you stay on the train past Atlantic and go to Midtown anyways.

[checkmatechamp13]

 

On 6/15/2020 at 3:48 PM, engineerboy6561 said:

Yup; that's basically it. 57 St misses the  but lets me hit the ; it lets me basically serve every major corridor in Manhattan. I wasn't really thinking of bringing the PATH to Queens (unless it were actually integrated with NYC subway), but that might be an option if we had fare integration.

The only thing is it is pretty close to the lines on 59th and 53rd Streets (then again we're spending all this money to renovate a line along 42nd Street which is directly duplicated by the Flushing Line)

On 7/8/2020 at 11:16 PM, Mtatransit said:

Its mostly just for the visuals. Its designed to show how severe this upcoming budget shortfall will be. Remember in 2010, those custs only saved roughly 400-500 million.

The 2010 cuts saved about $93 million IIRC (I think they put back $16 million worth and in the end brought it to $77 million)

On 7/10/2020 at 12:17 AM, Bay Ridge Express said:

 

 125 St-Parkchester, use  for service south of 125 St.  eliminated.

So you would cut off the Parkchester-PBP segment?

On 8/1/2020 at 1:00 PM, Armandito said:

One drawback, however, is that 57th Street lies too close to the 59th Street corridor east of Seventh Avenue. While it could be argued that 50th Street is better, it's not served by most express trains which could inconvenience some potential riders.

Agreed.

On 8/4/2020 at 12:39 AM, Bay Ridge Express said:

When people talk about the , they always point to its use on West End. The  simply doesn't need to go to West End; that's not the point of the routing. The point is for it to provide a split for the , which doesn't switch tracks at all in Brooklyn.

Not sure what you mean by that? If anything the merges make it worse for those who directly depend on the by reducing reliability.

On 8/11/2020 at 7:10 PM, T to Dyre Avenue said:

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. 

At least the transfer can be made at 57th & 6th but of course that is a backtrack for Queens-bound riders.

On 8/15/2020 at 3:45 PM, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

 

 - 2 Stop reroute up 21st Street. The stops are Court Square and Queens Bridge. Connections to the  and surrounding bus lines along 21st Street would be enhanced. However, those from Brooklyn trying to access the would see a downgrade as they would have to pass through the Train platforms just to reach the . This could be compensated by running a huttle between Queens Plaza and the current  trains Court Square Platform. Part of 21st Street-Van Alst is demolished as Discussed, but a track connection from Crosstown to Court Square should be Preserved.  If anything, the current Mezzinane of 21st Street could be an employee facility while the abandoned part of the mezzanine could be some sort of NYTM Exhibit. 

There wouldn't be a point to that QP-Court Square shuttle. By the time you wait for that train you might as well make that transfer directly at Court Square. (Similar to the old Bowling Green-South Ferry shuttle)

Edited August 22, 2020 by checkmatechamp13

[Reptile]

Queens Expansion ideas:

 

Northern Blvd Subway: Runs to Bell Blvd with a spur to LGA. Either the and another Crosstown Line or the Second Ave subway and the . Whatever way, a Northern subway is necessary.

LGA extension: Basic extension, with or without in-between stops.

LIE subway: An extension of the from Metropolitan Av or a branch off the QBL

A super-express wouldn't really be necessary if the become more reliable.

Edited August 23, 2020 by Reptile

[Bay Ridge Express]

17 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

Really, all you need to actually achieve this is to cut the fare on the PW. Which is possible, just not something the MTA is interested in pursuing at this time.

It's also worth noting that transferring it to subway usage is actually effectively a capacity cut. The PW and LIRR in general could run many more trains per hour, and a 12-car LIRR train is much longer than a 11-car IRT train; 450 ft longer, in fact. If you were to cut fares on the PW, increase frequency to a very achieveable 8tph, and created a LIRR-length train with a similar seating and door configuration to a subway train, you'd have pretty much a new subway line all with no new construction.

Imo they really should do Atlantic Ticket style fares for all LIRR stations in the city (including PW's).

4 hours ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

So you would cut off the Parkchester-PBP segment?

I don't recall why I said this, but I assume that was a mistake. Considering the lack of proximity to other lines, it would probably be best to keep the Parkchester-PBP segment.

4 hours ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

Not sure what you mean by that? If anything the merges make it worse for those who directly depend on the by reducing reliability.

Yes, you're right that it would make things worse for those who directly depend on the  (assuming that both the  AND  run on the 4 Av Lcl). However, if one were to include a Nassau St service on the 4 Av Lcl, the  should probably terminate at Whitehall and run solely in Manhattan and Queens (with some rush hour trips to 95, since after all, that is the point of the split... to increase reliability on the ). And during rush hour, the only real merge would be at the Montague Tunnel. Additionally, added tph on the 4 Av Local between the  and (whatever other Nassau St service running to/from 95 St) would lead to a net benefit, largely because most of the travel done on the line is either A) between 4 Av Local stations or B) from a 4 Av Local station to the express stations with the  (and even other expresses at Atlantic) and vice versa. The only real loss would be for riders who depend directly on service between Brooklyn stations and Lower Manhattan stations (which is not that many people). Regardless, with a dedicated Nassau St service that doesn't have to go through Queens Blvd and enhanced terminal operations at 95, the 4 Av Lcl could be much more reliable.

[Armandito]

9 hours ago, Bay Ridge Express said:

Imo they really should do Atlantic Ticket style fares for all LIRR stations in the city (including PW's).

I don't recall why I said this, but I assume that was a mistake. Considering the lack of proximity to other lines, it would probably be best to keep the Parkchester-PBP segment.

Yes, you're right that it would make things worse for those who directly depend on the  (assuming that both the  AND  run on the 4 Av Lcl). However, if one were to include a Nassau St service on the 4 Av Lcl, the  should probably terminate at Whitehall and run solely in Manhattan and Queens (with some rush hour trips to 95, since after all, that is the point of the split... to increase reliability on the ). And during rush hour, the only real merge would be at the Montague Tunnel. Additionally, added tph on the 4 Av Local between the  and (whatever other Nassau St service running to/from 95 St) would lead to a net benefit, largely because most of the travel done on the line is either A) between 4 Av Local stations or B) from a 4 Av Local station to the express stations with the  (and even other expresses at Atlantic) and vice versa. The only real loss would be for riders who depend directly on service between Brooklyn stations and Lower Manhattan stations (which is not that many people). Regardless, with a dedicated Nassau St service that doesn't have to go through Queens Blvd and enhanced terminal operations at 95, the 4 Av Lcl could be much more reliable.

I would name this new Nassau/Fourth Avenue service as the brown . It would replicate the route of the old brown , but would operate at all times instead of rush hours only.

However, due to limited terminal capacity at Whitehall, there would still be six rush-hour trains extended to Bay Ridge. Also note that the terminal will have to be moved to Canal Street to allow for trains to terminate at Whitehall.

Edited August 23, 2020 by Armandito

[bobtehpanda]

20 hours ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

The only thing is it is pretty close to the lines on 59th and 53rd Streets (then again we're spending all this money to renovate a line along 42nd Street which is directly duplicated by the Flushing Line)

There are three reasons why'd you build a line.

1. Coverage. Coverage in Midtown bounded between 42nd and 59th is pretty good, I don't think anyone is arguing Midtown's core needs more coverage.

2. To serve density and jobs. 42nd-59th continues to be for the foreseeable future the most concentrated job center in Manhattan. If you want to bring people to jobs, 50th and to a lesser degree 57th are pretty much the golden corridors. Any further north or south (say, 72nd or 34th) and you are too peripheral.

3. To relieve congestion. 53rd really should've been four tracks throughout, to avoid among other things the stupidity of originally making QBL local only the  . 53rd is very congested. 59th is also very congested. 63rd is not congested, but 63rd is peripheral to where the jobs are and only half of it is really available. Once you use up that track capacity the next step is building a new line.

[bobtehpanda]

20 hours ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

The only thing is it is pretty close to the lines on 59th and 53rd Streets (then again we're spending all this money to renovate a line along 42nd Street which is directly duplicated by the Flushing Line)

There are three reasons why'd you build a line.

1. Coverage. Coverage in Midtown bounded between 42nd and 59th is pretty good, I don't think anyone is arguing Midtown's core needs more coverage.

2. To serve density and jobs. 42nd-59th continues to be for the foreseeable future the most concentrated job center in Manhattan. If you want to bring people to jobs, 50th and to a lesser degree 57th are pretty much the golden corridors. Any further north or south (say, 72nd or 34th) and you are too peripheral.

3. To relieve congestion. 53rd really should've been four tracks throughout, to avoid among other things the stupidity of originally making QBL local only the  . 53rd is very congested. 59th is also very congested. 63rd is not congested, but 63rd is peripheral to where the jobs are and only half of it is really available. Once you use up that track capacity the next step is building a new line.

[Reptile]

Let's talk Second Avenue:

Here's a proposal of mine for if the SAS gets 4 tracks (It'd have to be lower level above 57th Street 😕)

(U) local, (P) (Y) express

Main Trunk (125th - hanover)

125th Broadway, St nicholas, Lenox, and Lexington

116th: meets with (U) from Bronx

106th: (U)

96th (U)

86 (U)

72 (U) (P) (Y) P, Y from 79th Street tunnel

57th Express

50th Local

42nd Express

34th local

23rd local

14th Express

8th Street Local

Houston Express

Grand: (P) (Y) diverge and replace in Brooklyn

Chatham Sq (U)

Seaport (U)

Hanover (U)

South Ferry (U)

Unsure to have the (U) go to Fulton or to Staten Island, other opinions would help

In Queens, the (P) (Y) run straight on Northern Blvd. The (Y) goes to Bell Blvd and the (P) turns to LGA which the would also serve.

In the Bronx the goes up 3rd Ave and to Co-op City and the (U) will run to Throgs Neck.

 

[Vulturious]

5 hours ago, Reptile said:

Let's talk Second Avenue:

Here's a proposal of mine for if the SAS gets 4 tracks (It'd have to be lower level above 57th Street 😕)

(U) local, (P) (Y) express

Main Trunk (125th - hanover)

125th Broadway, St nicholas, Lenox, and Lexington

116th: meets with (U) from Bronx

106th: (U)

96th (U)

86 (U)

72 (U) (P) (Y) P, Y from 79th Street tunnel

57th Express

50th Local

42nd Express

34th local

23rd local

14th Express

8th Street Local

Houston Express

Grand: (P) (Y) diverge and replace in Brooklyn

Chatham Sq (U)

Seaport (U)

Hanover (U)

South Ferry (U)

Unsure to have the (U) go to Fulton or to Staten Island, other opinions would help

In Queens, the (P) (Y) run straight on Northern Blvd. The (Y) goes to Bell Blvd and the (P) turns to LGA which the would also serve.

In the Bronx the goes up 3rd Ave and to Co-op City and the (U) will run to Throgs Neck.

 

I'm confused onto why you would want to replace the  and  in Brooklyn, there is a reason why man people wanted  trains running via West End over having the . You also have to remember, this all depends on demands as well.

I don't mind having a train go towards Staten Island or Fulton (I would argue having an express train running to Staten Island instead of a local), however, they need to be extended into Brooklyn probably running via 4th Av local since its more direct and closer towards Staten Island since its way too far from Manhattan. Which is why I say have an express train running towards Staten Island, I guess the same with Fulton, but we also have the  as well so right now which is all local so I guess why not send a local via Fulton.

[Armandito]

Here's my proposed service plan for the split:

: Between 71 Av and Whitehall St at all times except late nights. Six trains extended in each direction to/from 95 St during rush hours. Late nights use in Manhattan; in Queens.

: Between Ditmars Blvd and Canal St weekdays only. Use for continuing service to Whitehall St.

: Between Chambers St and 95 St at all times. Replaces former service in Brooklyn during non-rush hours.

A map will be coming soon

Edited August 24, 2020 by Armandito

[JeremiahC99]

1 hour ago, Vulturious said:

I'm confused onto why you would want to replace the  and  in Brooklyn, there is a reason why man people wanted  trains running via West End over having the . You also have to remember, this all depends on demands as well.

There will still be full time access to Chinatown with this plan. Trains on West End will still be stopping at Grand Street.

[Armandito]

3 hours ago, Vulturious said:

I'm confused onto why you would want to replace the  and  in Brooklyn, there is a reason why man people wanted  trains running via West End over having the . You also have to remember, this all depends on demands as well.

Just like how the ended up as a full-time service after the Manhattan Bridge reopened all tracks in 2004. Brighton riders wanted Broadway service while those living along West End wanted full-time access to Manhattan without having to transfer trains at different times of the day. Swapping the and routes in Brooklyn eliminated the need to operate shortened routes during off-hours which in turn resulted in better service.

[mrsman]

8 hours ago, Armandito said:

Here's my proposed service plan for the split:

: Between 71 Av and Whitehall St at all times except late nights. Six trains extended in each direction to/from 95 St during rush hours. Late nights use in Manhattan; in Queens.

: Between Ditmars Blvd and Canal St weekdays only. Use for continuing service to Whitehall St.

: Between Chambers St and 95 St at all times. Replaces former service in Brooklyn during non-rush hours.

A map will be coming soon

I'd like to explore some of the discussion with regard to the options for Montague tunnel lines (and by extension the Nassau and Broadway lines)

First, it seems wise to avoid interference between Broadway express and local.  So all  and  trains to 96th.

With regard to what remains, we can have 7 TPH  from Forest Hills and 14 TPH  from Astoria can service the Broadway local tracks.  [The shortfall in QBL local service can be met by an increase in 6th Ave service, the specifics of that are beyond the scope of this discussion.]

Terminate the  at Whitehall.  This now means 14 TPH  in the Montague tunnel all the way to Bay Ridge.

To supplement the Bay Ridge service, add 7 TPH along the Nassau line from Chambers to 95th.

 

-----------------

Another possibility seems to suggest having the Nassau line be the main source for Bay Ridge trains.  So have 14 TPH from Chambers (or possibly extend 14 TPH of  trains) to 95th.

This will mean that the Broadway local trains can be divided as such:

7 TPH Forest Hills - Whitehall  

7 TPH Astoria - Canal  short line

7 TPH Astoria - Bay Ridge  long line.

 

 

Of course helpful to the discussion are the actual limitation of the different chokepoints along the Broadway and Nassau lines.  From these forums, I know that the City Hall curves take a max of 21 TPH and there is a max of 15 TPH from Ditmars.  I don't know what the max turning capacities are at 95th, Whitehall, Canal, Chambers which would be important for this discussion.