Department of Subways - Proposals/Ideas

[Theli11]

4 hours ago, Bklyn Bound 2 Local said:

14th St - Canarsie Express - Jamaica Local

Northern Terminus: Jamaica Center - 168th St

Southern Terminus: 8th Avenue - 14th Street

Stops

Jamaica Center - 168th St  

Parsons Blvd

Sutphin Blvd - Archer Ave - JFK  

121st St

111th St

104th St

Woodhaven Blvd

85th St - Forest Park

75th St - Elderts Ln

Forest Park

Cooper Ave

Halsey St

Myrtle - Wyckoffs Avs

DeKalb Ave* 

Jefferson St* 

Morgan Ave*

Montrose Ave

Grand St*

Graham Ave* 

Lorimer St

Bedford Ave

1st Ave*

3rd Ave* 

14th St - Union Square

6th Ave  

8th Ave - 14th St

 

(I changed the local stations to stars)
The isn't particularly need. It's kinda like having a express service on the train. (though that's if the  and ever share the same trackage.) the misses a lot of important stops since Grand St, 1 Ave, Jefferson and DeKalb are all local stops with good service. I'm also not sure how you're going to build this or why this needs to be built. The is 37 minutes from Canarsie to 8 Av. (As someone who takes the line from 1 Av to Broadway Junction, the 7:21-22a train departing from 1 Av gets me to Broadway Junction at around 7:47. It's not a long trip at all, and doesn't need express service. For your second half.. the same thing. It'd have to run the same frequencies as the  train. Having skip stop service while the is running on the same track? Not a good idea. The also doesn't even go to Broadway Junction, and only gets to the last quarter of  stops. If anyone needs to go to Jamaica Center, they can take the  skip stop and get there fast. The real issue is the stations from Jamaica Center to Myrtle that get half frequencies 

Edited October 5, 2020 by Theli11

[Armandito]

My revised  track map: 

[Armandito]

8 hours ago, Armandito said:

 14th St - Canarsie Express - Jamaica Local

Northern Terminus: Jamaica Center - 168th St

Southern Terminus: 8th Avenue - 14th Street

Stops

Jamaica Center - 168th St  

Parsons Blvd 

Sutphin Blvd - Archer Ave - JFK  

121st St 

111th St 

104th St 

Woodhaven Blvd 

85th St - Forest Park 

75th St - Elderts Ln 

Forest Park 

Cooper Ave 

Halsey St 

Myrtle - Wyckoffs Avs 

DeKalb Ave* 

Jefferson St* 

Morgan Ave*

Montrose Ave 

Grand St*

Graham Ave* 

Lorimer St 

Bedford Ave 

1st Ave*

3rd Ave* 

14th St - Union Square 

6th Ave  

8th Ave - 14th St 

@Bklyn Bound 2 Local no need for an express on the line. It would be impossible to build express tracks and platforms underneath the existing local-only route... unless you want to shut down the entire line for it to happen.

Edited October 6, 2020 by Armandito

[Armandito]

10 hours ago, Armandito said:

My revised  track map: 

UPDATE: Reconfigured yard tracks 

[Reptile]

7 hours ago, Armandito said:

UPDATE: Reconfigured yard tracks 

Do you think an extension of the and to NJ would be warranted? The would be extended north to 72nd St in order to connect the West Side.

[Theli11]

4 minutes ago, Reptile said:

Do you think an extension of the and to NJ would be warranted? The would be extended north to 72nd St in order to connect the West Side.

Depends on where you want it to go, and i'm not even sure if this can happen legally. 

[Armandito]

18 minutes ago, Reptile said:

Do you think an extension of the and to NJ would be warranted? The would be extended north to 72nd St in order to connect the West Side.

Realistically speaking, the would most likely be extended along Tenth Avenue to around 20-23rd Streets near Chelsea Piers. That part of Manhattan is still relatively isolated from the subway, which means this should be a bigger priority than another expensive tunnel under the Hudson into the Garden State.

[Theli11]

1 hour ago, Armandito said:

Realistically speaking, the would most likely be extended along Tenth Avenue to around 20-23rd Streets near Chelsea Piers. That part of Manhattan is still relatively isolated from the subway, which means this should be a bigger priority than another expensive tunnel under the Hudson into the Garden State.

You could just tie it in with having an corridor on 10th Av. you'll leave 9th Av open, but 50th, 14th and 42 Sts will tie that in.  

[Bklyn Bound 2 Local]

2 hours ago, Reptile said:

Do you think an extension of the and to NJ would be warranted? The would be extended north to 72nd St in order to connect the West Side.

If that were to happen, PANYNJ would take over the line, and just by looking at PATH's weekend service frequency, you can tell that won't be a good thing

[EvilMonologue]

2 hours ago, Reptile said:

Do you think an extension of the and to NJ would be warranted? The would be extended north to 72nd St in order to connect the West Side.

I think PATH and Subway integration is something that should definitely happen, at least in so far as allowing free transfers between the two systems. Personally, I'd like it if the  and  were extended to NJ, since I agree that the  is in a preferable location to serve as a 72nd St line, and there is a lot of demand to connect NJ with NY. I understand Hudson County isn't as populous as Brooklyn, but if Brooklyn has 9 track pairs, I'd think NJ could handle 1 or 2 more. Queens is a greater priority though.

7 minutes ago, Bklyn Bound 2 Local said:

If that were to happen, PANYNJ would take over the line, and just by looking at PATH's weekend service frequency, you can tell that won't be a good thing

I mean the MTA operates Metro North trains through New Jersey and into Connecticut, so I'm not sure that is necessarily the case.

[Reptile]

De-interlining DeKalb Ave is a short-term idea and would fix problems with slow service. I think this would be a good service plan

to Brighton Beach (Local)

to Coney Island (Express)

to Coney Island - Sea Beach

to Coney Island - West End

Coney Island still has , so Manhattan retains any connections that existed before this.

Downside is 4th Ave riders lose 6th Ave and Brighton riders lose Broadway.

[Bklyn Bound 2 Local]

7 minutes ago, Reptile said:

De-interlining DeKalb Ave is a short-term idea and would fix problems with slow service. I think this would be a good service plan

to Brighton Beach (Local)

to Coney Island (Express)

to Coney Island - Sea Beach

to Coney Island - West End

Coney Island still has , so Manhattan retains any connections that existed before this.

Downside is 4th Ave riders lose 6th Ave and Brighton riders lose Broadway.

That would cause a lot of trains to go over a lot of switches around the DeKalb area, which would slow them down. Plus, that would make it so that all  and  trains would have to stop at DeKalb, and that would cause some confusion with  riders, as it's meant to be fully express. And the only way to get the  to stop at DeKalb would be to run it via local north of 36th St.  trains running express to make  up for the  would just mess with the line in general. And there is little to no demand for a west end

[Around the Horn]

1 hour ago, Bklyn Bound 2 Local said:

Plus, that would make it so that all  and  trains would have to stop at DeKalb, and that would cause some confusion with  riders, as it's meant to be fully express. And the only way to get the  to stop at DeKalb would be to run it via local north of 36th St.

No and no. The train is under no obligation to always skip DeKalb (in fact unscheduled stops there are quite common) and there is no obligation for the train to stop at DeKalb when operating via 4th Avenue. The via West End was a G.O. a few years ago and it skipped DeKalb then as it would now under a de-interlining proposal. These are both non-issues.

[Bklyn Bound 2 Local]

2 minutes ago, Around the Horn said:

No and no. The train is under no obligation to always skip DeKalb (in fact unscheduled stops there are quite common) and there is no obligation for the train to stop at DeKalb when operating via 4th Avenue. The via West End was a G.O. a few years ago and it skipped DeKalb then as it would now under a de-interlining proposal. These are both non-issues.

But just the  at DeKalb would cause some issues with people going from DUMBO to Broadway as an example, because they mainly would take the  since it's express and faster.

 

[Bklyn Bound 2 Local]

1 hour ago, Reptile said:

to Brighton Beach (Local)

to Coney Island (Express)

to Coney Island - Sea Beach

to Coney Island - West End

Another thing I just thought of, is that having the  run like this would be like running the  and  to Flatbush with the  and  running to New Lots and Utica. In that case the  would be pretty useless and could easily be replaced with a reinstated Lenox Shuttle and 2X as many  trains, just like the  and  in your scenario.

And there is no demand for a  to New Lots, just like there is no demand for a West End

[Theli11]

12 minutes ago, Bklyn Bound 2 Local said:

Another thing I just thought of, is that having the  run like this would be like running the  and  to Flatbush with the  and  running to New Lots and Utica. In that case the  would be pretty useless and could easily be replaced with a reinstated Lenox Shuttle and 2X as many  trains, just like the  and  in your scenario.

And there is no demand for a  to New Lots, just like there is no demand for a West End

the  wouldn't be useless though, it'll have less passengers on the train and would be a relief train for the , otherwise there would be a lot of over crowding. 

 

1 hour ago, Reptile said:

De-interlining DeKalb Ave is a short-term idea and would fix problems with slow service. I think this would be a good service plan

to Brighton Beach (Local)

to Coney Island (Express)

to Coney Island - Sea Beach

to Coney Island - West End

Coney Island still has , so Manhattan retains any connections that existed before this.

Downside is 4th Ave riders lose 6th Ave and Brighton riders lose Broadway.

There's also the alternative of  to Brighton, to Coney Island via Brighton, to Coney Island via West End and to Coney Island via Sea Beach. While that leaves no 6 Av service on DeKalb meaning that there is no service but since 6th Av and Broadway are close in proximity it's not that much of a problem. This forces trains to run full time since Sea Beach needs that service, but there can be service down the line as well. 

Edited October 6, 2020 by Theli11

[Theli11]

33 minutes ago, Bklyn Bound 2 Local said:

But just the  at DeKalb would cause some issues with people going from DUMBO to Broadway as an example, because they mainly would take the  since it's express and faster.

 

Routes WOULD change, but Broadway and 6th are in direct proximity of each other. 
Canal/Grand,
Prince/Lafayette,
NYU/West 4th
34th St Hearld Square
Times Square/Bryant Park
Rockefeller Center or 7th Av/49th St
Columbus Circle/57 St. 
All of those stops are close to each other, and if they can take the they can take the . 

[Lex]

17 minutes ago, Theli11 said:

the  wouldn't be useless though, it'll have less passengers on the train and would be a relief train for the , otherwise there would be a lot of over crowding. 

If there's one place the  doesn't need more relief, it's Brooklyn.

[Theli11]

1 hour ago, Lex said:

If there's one place the  doesn't need more relief, it's Brooklyn.

It really comes down to the terminal, it was suggested that the entire line would be made pretty useless and to replace it with 2 times as many  trains.  

 

2 hours ago, Bklyn Bound 2 Local said:

Another thing I just thought of, is that having the  run like this would be like running the  and  to Flatbush with the  and  running to New Lots and Utica. In that case the  would be pretty useless and could easily be replaced with a reinstated Lenox Shuttle and 2X as many  trains, just like the  and  in your scenario.

Also the  train wouldn't be useless if it is providing the local service to Brighton (pause, how do the train even turn?? local express on Brighton. would be better). It's definitely not useless though. The local service along 8th Av is so valuable, along with the need for a Peak Direction , and local service to serve those stations. The and trains are not useless and are important to how their respective lines run. 

[Vulturious]

1 hour ago, Theli11 said:

Routes WOULD change, but Broadway and 6th are in direct proximity of each other. 
Canal/Grand,
Prince/Lafayette,
NYU/West 4th
34th St Hearld Square
Times Square/Bryant Park
Rockefeller Center or 7th Av/49th St
Columbus Circle/57 St. 
All of those stops are close to each other, and if they can take the they can take the . 

I was sort of thinking that when it came to some of the stations near by, but wasn't sure if I was the only one thinking that. Regardless, both the  and  are running express on 6th Av anyways, ridership would be confusing at the start, but as we go down the line in the long run it would be better service on both lines because at least in this scenario, Dekalb wouldn't have much interference, if at all. Plus,  trains in this scenario could run full time on 4th Av express instead of having it run local during late nights like both the  and  does which is a terrible idea because  trains are still at least going to Manhattan with the  backing it up.

[Lex]

40 minutes ago, Theli11 said:

It really comes down to the terminal, it was suggested that the entire line would be made pretty useless and to replace it with 2 times as many  trains. 

Well, it would be if it goes down Nostrand Avenue. Most of the people who actually care about the  are in Harlem and are simply trying to dive between points in Manhattan. Brooklyn riders are more inclined to use Lexington Avenue trains in general, and the  in particular is already hit-or-miss about people staying on the train upon reaching Franklin Avenue (hell, its importance is lower than its normal weekend service would lead one to believe, as its frequency is more for Bronx riders and it has no good places to turn in Manhattan).

[Theli11]

57 minutes ago, Lex said:

Well, it would be if it goes down Nostrand Avenue. Most of the people who actually care about the  are in Harlem and are simply trying to dive between points in Manhattan. Brooklyn riders are more inclined to use Lexington Avenue trains in general, and the  in particular is already hit-or-miss about people staying on the train upon reaching Franklin Avenue (hell, its importance is lower than its normal weekend service would lead one to believe, as its frequency is more for Bronx riders and it has no good places to turn in Manhattan).

Yes and No, the is generally the least crowded line going into 96 St, thus passengers go into there. The going to Nostrand doesn't change that status, it'll still be useful even if i goes to Nostrand. I don't even think it's possible to have double the amount of  trains because of the fact that it shares a track with the line. (And the Lenox Shuttle?) so you're not even doing anything effective by eliminating the entirely because you can't double the amount of trains..  

[Around the Horn]

6 hours ago, Bklyn Bound 2 Local said:

But just the  at DeKalb would cause some issues with people going from DUMBO to Broadway as an example, because they mainly would take the  since it's express and faster.

 

As others have said before me, other than 14th Street-Union Square, the and 's stops in Midtown Manhattan are within walking distance of each other. Even Canal and Grand aren't that far apart from each other.

[bobtehpanda]

11 hours ago, EvilMonologue said:

I mean the MTA operates Metro North trains through New Jersey and into Connecticut, so I'm not sure that is necessarily the case.

I believe the arrangement is that the MTA pays New Jersey Transit to operate those.

I don't think that Metro-North and NJT have wildly different operating costs. However, the PATH has a very extreme level of subsidy compared to the subway (which IIRC is net profitable) so I don't think this would work out.

[mrsman]

So long as Manhattan Bridge trains serve Broadway express and 6th Ave express, deinterlining DeKalb is a good idea.  For the vast majority of passengers, you are only slightly increasing their walk, yet at the same time removing interference that causes significant delay.  (Deinterlining DeKalb would not be possible if SAS trains were routed onto the bridge and 6th Ave trains went to Williamsburg Bridge as some others have proposed.  In that case, the distance between Broadway and SAS midtown stations would be too great.)

IMO, I think it was unfortunate that MTA did not implement this in 2004 when both the north and south sides of teh bridge were opened after a constuction project that closed 2 of the 4 tracks for the previous 15 years or so.  During the 1990's  Brighton local, Q-orange Brighton express, and  West End trains all served 6th Ave while the  from Sea Beach was sent to the Montague tunnel.  Then, from 2001-2004,  Brighton local,  Brighton express, and  West End trains all served Broadway express only while the  from Sea Beach was sent to the Montague tunnel.  These service patterns showed that the ridership was adaptable and that Brighton and West End riders directly (and Sea Beach and Bay Ridge indirectly via a transfer at 36 St) were able to ride EITHER 6th Ave express or Broadway express without complaint, because only one set of tracks were open.  In 2004, when teh Manhattan Bridge project was completed was teh perfect time to implement a deinterlining regime as all riders would have a memory of either restoring back to the 1990s pattern (for their branch) or continuing the 2001-2004 pattern for their branch.  

So Brighton local and express to 6th Avenue restores the 1990's plan for those riders, sending West End to Broadway continues the 2001-2004 service, and making Sea Beach a Broadway express is a clear service benefit.  Alternatively, sending Brighton local and express to Broadway continues the 2001-2004 service, sending West End to 6th Ave restores the 1990's plan, and making Sea Beach a 6th Ave express is also a clear service benefit.  In both cases, (from the perspective of a 2004 rider) you can provide a familiar service pattern for Brighton and West End riders, a new express service for Sea Beach riders, and less interference for all riders.  Unfortunately, MTA restored the 1980's service pattern which caused more interference and wasn't reallly necessary in 2004.  And unfortunately to propose something different now would be politically difficult as people got used to the past service pattern that was in place since 2004 for over 16 years.

Nonetheless, deinterlining DeKalb in some way would still be overall benefitical for the system and the ridership, just more difficult to do now then to have done it in 2004.