Department of Subways - Proposals/Ideas

[Armandito]

Question, does anyone here know a thread where I could get custom-made R142/143 strip maps? It would be nice if I could get one for my line...

[Vulturious]

6 hours ago, mrsman said:

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.

 

 

It's unfortunate that the  themselves wanted to keep both service of 6th Av and Broadway service on both 4th Av and Brighton line. However, I feel there is more of a benefit having a Broadway service running via West End as someone has stated that stations in Manhattan with Broadway and 6th Av are close enough to each other that wouldn't really make a difference. It's also better because if both  and  trains serve Brighton, you could have the  still running weekdays only without having to screw any other service. If the  was sent running via Sea Beach, it would end up making a hassle as it needs to be running full time to Manhattan now which can also be difficult to provide extra trains for the . It wouldn't be bad to now have  trains running full time again, it would just be bad for service because like I said before, it ends up leaving less trains for the  to run.

[T to Dyre Avenue]

On 10/6/2020 at 1:47 PM, Theli11 said:

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. 

Interestingly enough, DeKalb already has no direct service to 6th Avenue on weekends and Federal holidays, as well as during the “Essential Service” plan during the early part of the pandemic when the  was suspended. It’s not out of the question that DeKalb may lose that service again if the  are forced to implement 40 percent service cuts. I’m really hoping it doesn’t come to that, because ridership is starting to rise again from where it was six months ago. If that keeps up, and they still have to go through with cutting service, expect overcrowded trains with no way to contain Covid. 

That said, my preference (assuming Covid goes the way of polio) is also to do  express to Brighton,  local to Stillwell via Brighton,  to Sea Beach with expanded service hours and  to Stillwell via West End. This is because it’s been stated in past discussions that the  found there was a stronger preference from Brighton riders for Broadway and from southwest Brooklyn riders for 6th Avenue. 

12 hours ago, mrsman said:

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.

 

 

That may well be. Surprisingly (outside of the occasional weekend service diversions), we’ve actually managed to have a pretty consistent service pattern in South Brooklyn for 16 years. It may very well be difficult to change what we’ve already got there, though there is persistent speculation on the forums that the  will be one of the services to go if the  implements long-term, Covid-related service cuts. If so, then Brighton would be left with just the , as it was during the early part of the pandemic. I saw in another thread a suggestion to run a  express in Brooklyn in the event that the  is cut. Though I doubt such a service would be much less expensive than running the . You’d need additional crews to run it. Essentially it would likely be the same  service that ran from 2001-04, except it would run to/from 96th-2nd, which is the way I suggested running the  in a deinterlined DeKalb service plan.

On 10/6/2020 at 1:24 PM, 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.

 

Personally I think it would be more beneficial to have  along 4th Avenue than just at DeKalb, because then more riders would have direct access to Broadway and 6th over a longer stretch of route. 

5 hours ago, Vulturious said:

It's unfortunate that the  themselves wanted to keep both service of 6th Av and Broadway service on both 4th Av and Brighton line. However, I feel there is more of a benefit having a Broadway service running via West End as someone has stated that stations in Manhattan with Broadway and 6th Av are close enough to each other that wouldn't really make a difference. It's also better because if both  and  trains serve Brighton, you could have the  still running weekdays only without having to screw any other service. If the  was sent running via Sea Beach, it would end up making a hassle as it needs to be running full time to Manhattan now which can also be difficult to provide extra trains for the . It wouldn't be bad to now have  trains running full time again, it would just be bad for service because like I said before, it ends up leaving less trains for the  to run.

Well really, it depends. It’s likely that the  would have reduced service hours if it swaps with the . In past discussions, I suggested this as part of deinterlining the Broadway Line (so weekdays-only  to 2nd Ave alongside the full time ). If the  is running to 2nd Ave with the , then it’s not that big of a deal if it runs less service (it probably wouldn’t run less frequently during rush and middays). The other way is simpler, but it’ll force more riders to transfer at Atlantic Avenue.

Edited October 8, 2020 by T to Dyre Avenue

[LGA Link N Train]

55 minutes ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

Personally I think it would be more beneficial to have  along 4th Avenue than just at DeKalb, because then more riders would have direct access to Broadway and 6th over a longer stretch of route. 

This may sound a bit silly, but would it be ideal to swap the and  route designations to keep some sort of familiaraity amongst riders?

To get an idea of what I'm saying is to have the following:

- ,  and  serve 4th Avenue

- Yellow  and  aling Brighton

 

[T to Dyre Avenue]

4 minutes ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

This may sound a bit silly, but would it be ideal to swap the and  route designations to keep some sort of familiaraity amongst riders?

To get an idea of what I'm saying is to have the following:

- ,  and  serve 4th Avenue

- Yellow  and  aling Brighton

 

Probably not. Q has been a Brighton service far longer than B (or even D) has.

[mrsman]

10 hours ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

Quote

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.  

Interestingly enough, DeKalb already has no direct service to 6th Avenue on weekends and Federal holidays, as well as during the “Essential Service” plan during the early part of the pandemic when the  was suspended. It’s not out of the question that DeKalb may lose that service again if the  are forced to implement 40 percent service cuts. I’m really hoping it doesn’t come to that, because ridership is starting to rise again from where it was six months ago. If that keeps up, and they still have to go through with cutting service, expect overcrowded trains with no way to contain Covid. 

That said, my preference (assuming Covid goes the way of polio) is also to do  express to Brighton,  local to Stillwell via Brighton,  to Sea Beach with expanded service hours and  to Stillwell via West End. This is because it’s been stated in past discussions that the  found there was a stronger preference from Brighton riders for Broadway and from southwest Brooklyn riders for 6th Avenue. 

 

It is interesting to imagine a deinterllining in the context of service reduction.  One of the greatest benefits of deinterlining is being able to run more trains, not fewer.

One could contemplate as a service reduction the following:

 eliminated

 Concourse - CPW express - 6th Ave - 4th Ave express - West End

 Astoria - Broadway local - Montague tunnel - 4th Ave local - Sea Beach

 96th - Broadway express - Brighton local

 Rush hour Q route with Brighton express

 Forest Hills - Broadway local - Montague tunnel - 4th Ave local - Bay Ridge

Such a pattern would be a cut, and would be very bad for Sea Beach riders, but can illustrate a deinterlined system.  Of course the provision of  comes at the direct expense of  so whether such a service is maintained would have to be analyzed carefully.

 

9 hours ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

This may sound a bit silly, but would it be ideal to swap the and  route designations to keep some sort of familiaraity amongst riders?

To get an idea of what I'm saying is to have the following:

- ,  and  serve 4th Avenue

- Yellow  and  aling Brighton

 

I don't like it.  The letter designations should have some sort of meaning and one of the easiest systems of meaning is that A-H are IND and J-R are BMT.  Of course, there are some lines that run as both BMT and IND lines, but at its basic core, 6th Ave is IND and should be designated by B and D, whereas Broadway is BMT designated by N, Q, and R.

[P3F]

1 hour ago, mrsman said:

The letter designations should have some sort of meaning and one of the easiest systems of meaning is that A-H are IND and J-R are BMT.  Of course, there are some lines that run as both BMT and IND lines, but at its basic core, 6th Ave is IND and should be designated by B and D, whereas Broadway is BMT designated by N, Q, and R.

Almost none of the people using these trains care about this to any extent.

[Theli11]

2 hours ago, mrsman said:

It is interesting to imagine a deinterllining in the context of service reduction.  One of the greatest benefits of deinterlining is being able to run more trains, not fewer.

One could contemplate as a service reduction the following:

 eliminated

 Concourse - CPW express - 6th Ave - 4th Ave express - West End

 Astoria - Broadway local - Montague tunnel - 4th Ave local - Sea Beach

 96th - Broadway express - Brighton local

 Rush hour Q route with Brighton express

 Forest Hills - Broadway local - Montague tunnel - 4th Ave local - Bay Ridge

Such a pattern would be a cut, and would be very bad for Sea Beach riders, but can illustrate a deinterlined system.  Of course the provision of  comes at the direct expense of  so whether such a service is maintained would have to be analyzed carefully.

 

I don't like it.  The letter designations should have some sort of meaning and one of the easiest systems of meaning is that A-H are IND and J-R are BMT.  Of course, there are some lines that run as both BMT and IND lines, but at its basic core, 6th Ave is IND and should be designated by B and D, whereas Broadway is BMT designated by N, Q, and R.

Your train is pretty much the train going to Coney Island, and I'm not sure if both and trains can go through the Montague Tunnel at all times. That's just a capacity issue, you would be seeing much less service to either Sea Beach or Bay Ridge. The elimination of the without a proper replacement is disastrous because you'd have only  trains on CPW. (You also can't raise the amount of trains because it'll share the same tracks with  and service from 50th to Jay St. 


Nobody cares about which is IND or BMT or IRT anymore. They're old companies. I'm sure that customers don't care about lettering/nomenclature more than getting to their destination the best way possible. 

[Armandito]

How the  line would look on the subway map:

(Note that I used an older map because the current one doesn't have enough space to show the route)

Edited October 8, 2020 by Armandito

[Vulturious]

4 hours ago, mrsman said:

It is interesting to imagine a deinterllining in the context of service reduction.  One of the greatest benefits of deinterlining is being able to run more trains, not fewer.

One could contemplate as a service reduction the following:

 eliminated

 Concourse - CPW express - 6th Ave - 4th Ave express - West End

 Astoria - Broadway local - Montague tunnel - 4th Ave local - Sea Beach

 96th - Broadway express - Brighton local

 Rush hour Q route with Brighton express

 Forest Hills - Broadway local - Montague tunnel - 4th Ave local - Bay Ridge

Such a pattern would be a cut, and would be very bad for Sea Beach riders, but can illustrate a deinterlined system.  Of course the provision of  comes at the direct expense of  so whether such a service is maintained would have to be analyzed carefully.

 

I don't like it.  The letter designations should have some sort of meaning and one of the easiest systems of meaning is that A-H are IND and J-R are BMT.  Of course, there are some lines that run as both BMT and IND lines, but at its basic core, 6th Ave is IND and should be designated by B and D, whereas Broadway is BMT designated by N, Q, and R.

2 hours ago, Theli11 said:

Your train is pretty much the train going to Coney Island, and I'm not sure if both and trains can go through the Montague Tunnel at all times. That's just a capacity issue, you would be seeing much less service to either Sea Beach or Bay Ridge. The elimination of the without a proper replacement is disastrous because you'd have only  trains on CPW. (You also can't raise the amount of trains because it'll share the same tracks with  and service from 50th to Jay St. 


Nobody cares about which is IND or BMT or IRT anymore. They're old companies. I'm sure that customers don't care about lettering/nomenclature more than getting to their destination the best way possible. 

I was actually about to say something about what you said how eliminating the  would be a disaster on CPW. Of course, I also wanted to something about having both the  and  running through Montague. I would make it worse for Sea Beach riders as they have to now also run local going to Manhattan which is already 20 stops from Coney Island already just in Brooklyn alone. Sure you could make the same argument about  which has about just as much, but ridership isn't that high between Church and Neptune or West 8th St, however, it is on Sea Beach. The idea is allow more trains to run, not make service run much worse than already is. You somehow just made Weekday service become Weeknight service in South Brooklyn with the addition of the  on Brighton Express and made service worse in Manhattan as well and the Bronx for the , , and  trains (maybe the  depending on how much service gets impacted by the loss of the ).

[T to Dyre Avenue]

5 hours ago, mrsman said:

It is interesting to imagine a deinterllining in the context of service reduction.  One of the greatest benefits of deinterlining is being able to run more trains, not fewer.

One could contemplate as a service reduction the following:

 eliminated

 Concourse - CPW express - 6th Ave - 4th Ave express - West End

 Astoria - Broadway local - Montague tunnel - 4th Ave local - Sea Beach

 96th - Broadway express - Brighton local

 Rush hour Q route with Brighton express

 Forest Hills - Broadway local - Montague tunnel - 4th Ave local - Bay Ridge

Such a pattern would be a cut, and would be very bad for Sea Beach riders, but can illustrate a deinterlined system.  Of course the provision of  comes at the direct expense of  so whether such a service is maintained would have to be analyzed carefully.

 

I don't like it.  The letter designations should have some sort of meaning and one of the easiest systems of meaning is that A-H are IND and J-R are BMT.  Of course, there are some lines that run as both BMT and IND lines, but at its basic core, 6th Ave is IND and should be designated by B and D, whereas Broadway is BMT designated by N, Q, and R.

Well, this certainly would be a deinterlined DeKalb with all-Broadway service on Brighton, but Sea Beach riders shouldn’t have to pay the price for it by being rerouted to the Montague Tunnel and adding 10 or minutes to their commutes. Also, the  would be duplicating the  if it’s rerouted to the tunnel and there really isn’t a need for that. Also, moving the  to the tunnel would push more riders to crowd the  at DeKalb, even with this extra  service. With no  there would be fewer trains running (which would happen with 40 percent less service anyway), so I think DeKalb shouldn’t completely go to pieces with , ,  and  services. It should be feasible for the  to go on the bridge even with a  (unlike 2001-04, when the south tracks reopened and the north tracks closed long term for the second time). There would, however, be much more service on the south side of the bridge vs the north, and that could present structural damage issues in the long run, especially if Covid-related service cuts/patterns stay in effect for years to come.

3 hours ago, Theli11 said:

Your train is pretty much the train going to Coney Island, and I'm not sure if both and trains can go through the Montague Tunnel at all times. That's just a capacity issue, you would be seeing much less service to either Sea Beach or Bay Ridge. The elimination of the without a proper replacement is disastrous because you'd have only  trains on CPW. (You also can't raise the amount of trains because it'll share the same tracks with  and service from 50th to Jay St. 


Nobody cares about which is IND or BMT or IRT anymore. They're old companies. I'm sure that customers don't care about lettering/nomenclature more than getting to their destination the best way possible. 

Some customers do. That’s why we don’t have a  train running from Continental to Metro via the Williamsburg Bridge; instead it’s called the . Thirty years ago, the  proposed extending the then-6th Ave  to 207th St in place of the , which would have been cut back to 168th St and run local in place of the , which would have been cut. But there was community outrage over cutting the  out of Inwood/Washington Heights, and in the end they kept the then-current Central Park West service plan. In past discussions about splitting the , there’s been debate about whether or not the Brooklyn segment should continue to be called R, even if it’s rerouted to Nassau St since it’s always been the R (or RR) since NYCTA implemented the letters J-T for the former BMT lines in the late 1950s. But then, maybe it wouldn’t matter to Bay Ridge/Sunset Park riders.

As for eliminating the , I’m not in favor of it either, although we already don’t have it on the weekends and it was gone completely for the early part of the pandemic (although so was the  very early on). I wonder if the  would be a easier option for elimination because it runs less frequently (only 6 tph) and there isn’t a single stop on the  line that the  or another train can’t stop at in its place. 

Edited October 8, 2020 by T to Dyre Avenue

[Bklyn Bound 2 Local]

55 minutes ago, Armandito said:

How the  line would look on the subway map:

(Note that I used an older map because the current one doesn't have enough space to show the route)

How in the world did you do this?

[Theli11]

9 minutes ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

Some customers do. That’s why we don’t have a  train running from Continental to Metro via the Williamsburg Bridge; instead it’s called the . Thirty years ago, the  proposed extending the then-6th Ave  to 207th St in place of the , which would have been cut back to 168th St and run local in place of the , which would have been cut. But there was community outrage over cutting the  out of Inwood/Washington Heights, and in the end they kept the then-current Central Park West service plan. In past discussions about splitting the , there’s been debate about whether or not the Brooklyn segment should continue to be called R, even if it’s rerouted to Nassau St since it’s always been the R (or RR) since NYCTA implemented the letters J-T for the former BMT lines in the late 1950s. But then, maybe it wouldn’t matter to Bay Ridge/Sunset Park riders.

I meant the comment as in IND and BMT, but i made it too general which is my fault. I usually think of the as 8th/Fulton, as 6th, as Jamaica,  as Brighton, so yeah I get the letters thing. I was saying it wouldn't matter in terms of service not familiarity. 

 

12 minutes ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

As for eliminating the , I’m not in favor of it either. I wonder if the  would be a easier option for elimination because it runs less frequently (only 6 tph) and there isn’t a single stop on the  line that the  or another train can’t stop at in its place. 

Eliminating the  would make you extend the to Euclid (Which would be pretty bad since it's the most reliable and flexible service on the QBL.) and make the local on CPW (because the  can't handle the line on it's own). This would also make you run the local past 145 St and I'm not exactly sure how that would work in terms of switches. All of this is dependent on whether the runs local on 4th Av or not. If it does run local, you can probably add more service. 

[Theli11]

1 hour ago, Armandito said:

How the  line would look on the subway map:

(Note that I used an older map because the current one doesn't have enough space to show the route)

I'm assuming that the 8th Av station has a 7th Avenue exit (for the transfers) and the 6th Av station has a 5th Avenue exit, otherwise this is great.

[Armandito]

8 minutes ago, Bklyn Bound 2 Local said:

How in the world did you do this?

Photoshop.

1 minute ago, Theli11 said:

I'm assuming that the 8th Av station has a 7th Avenue exit (for the transfers) and the 6th Av station has a 5th Avenue exit, otherwise this is great.

My plans call for the 8 Av station to have an exit to 9 Av with a new transfer passageway to the trains at Broadway and 7 Av.

[JeremiahC99]

44 minutes ago, Armandito said:

How the  line would look on the subway map:

(Note that I used an older map because the current one doesn't have enough space to show the route)

While I do like the idea for a Northern Blvd subway, do you think Eastern Queens along Northern Blvd can be better served by extending the already-existing  train east from its current terminal at Main Street? It's already there, so when that time comes, we can simply extend it east, and just like that, NE Queens has subway service sooner rather than waiting for the rest of the Northern Blvd Line to be built.

The extension would be a 3-track line out to 162nd Street, and then two tracks from 162nd to Bell Blvd. The stops would be as follows: Parsons Blvd, 149th Street, 162nd Street (express), Utopia Pkwy, Francis Lewis Blvd, Bayside-Bell Blvd. At Bell Blvd, Q12 bus service would pick up the slack out to the City Line. At the 162nd Street station, a two track spur would split off and run to a lower level used for relaying trains. For the service pattern, in the peak direction, the  would operate to/from Bell Blvd, while the  would operate express to 162nd Street, and then make the remaining stops to Bell Blvd. In the off-peak, when the  isn't running, the  would serve Bell Blvd. Essentially, the service would be like the  and  to some extent.

 

The remaining part of the Northern Blvd line could remain.

[engineerboy6561]

Just now, JeremiahC99 said:

While I do like the idea for a Northern Blvd subway, do you think Eastern Queens along Northern Blvd can be better served by extending the already-existing  train east from its current terminal at Main Street? It's already there, so when that time comes, we can simply extend it east, and just like that, NE Queens has subway service sooner rather than waiting for the rest of the Northern Blvd Line to be built.

The extension would be a 3-track line out to 162nd Street, and then two tracks from 162nd to Bell Blvd. The stops would be as follows: Parsons Blvd, 149th Street, 162nd Street (express), Utopia Pkwy, Francis Lewis Blvd, Bayside-Bell Blvd. At Bell Blvd, Q12 bus service would pick up the slack out to the City Line. At the 162nd Street station, a two track spur would split off and run to a lower level used for relaying trains. For the service pattern, in the peak direction, the  would operate to/from Bell Blvd, while the  would operate express to 162nd Street, and then make the remaining stops to Bell Blvd. In the off-peak, when the  isn't running, the  would serve Bell Blvd. Essentially, the service would be like the  and  to some extent.

 

The remaining part of the Northern Blvd line could remain.

You could extend the , but the way Flushing Main St is constructed it would be a massive PITA to do so. You'd have to close Main St Flushing because of the way the mezzanine was built, redo all the wheelchair access things, and there's not enough road capacity to extend all the Flushing buses to Shea for a couple years while you do that. If you build the IND out to Flushing then closing the IRT station to do work isn't so bad.

[Armandito]

9 minutes ago, JeremiahC99 said:

While I do like the idea for a Northern Blvd subway, do you think Eastern Queens along Northern Blvd can be better served by extending the already-existing  train east from its current terminal at Main Street? It's already there, so when that time comes, we can simply extend it east, and just like that, NE Queens has subway service sooner rather than waiting for the rest of the Northern Blvd Line to be built.

The extension would be a 3-track line out to 162nd Street, and then two tracks from 162nd to Bell Blvd. The stops would be as follows: Parsons Blvd, 149th Street, 162nd Street (express), Utopia Pkwy, Francis Lewis Blvd, Bayside-Bell Blvd. At Bell Blvd, Q12 bus service would pick up the slack out to the City Line. At the 162nd Street station, a two track spur would split off and run to a lower level used for relaying trains. For the service pattern, in the peak direction, the  would operate to/from Bell Blvd, while the  would operate express to 162nd Street, and then make the remaining stops to Bell Blvd. In the off-peak, when the  isn't running, the  would serve Bell Blvd. Essentially, the service would be like the  and  to some extent.

 

The remaining part of the Northern Blvd line could remain.

Not a fan of extending the for two reasons. One, that line is already beyond capacity during rush hours, and two, the layout of the entrances at Lippmann Pl will surely make any extension beyond Main St unlikely. Capacity constraints are also why the  and trains can't be extended beyond their respective termini at Jamaica Center and 179 St.

Also, one important purpose of the is to help relieve overcrowding on the rest of the in Queens and Manhattan.

Edited October 8, 2020 by Armandito

[Theli11]

6 minutes ago, Armandito said:

My plans call for the 8 Av station to have an exit to 9 Av with a new transfer passageway to the trains at Broadway and 7 Av.

I think that's a really long passage way for 8th Av, and if any passengers wanted to get to the  they'd have to walk extra. That passageway would be like a slightly better 2nd Av-Grand Central transfer and could be made better with moving the exit to 7th Av. My two cents.

 

8 minutes ago, JeremiahC99 said:

While I do like the idea for a Northern Blvd subway, do you think Eastern Queens along Northern Blvd can be better served by extending the already-existing  train east from its current terminal at Main Street? It's already there, so when that time comes, we can simply extend it east, and just like that, NE Queens has subway service sooner rather than waiting for the rest of the Northern Blvd Line to be built.

The extension would be a 3-track line out to 162nd Street, and then two tracks from 162nd to Bell Blvd. The stops would be as follows: Parsons Blvd, 149th Street, 162nd Street (express), Utopia Pkwy, Francis Lewis Blvd, Bayside-Bell Blvd. At Bell Blvd, Q12 bus service would pick up the slack out to the City Line. At the 162nd Street station, a two track spur would split off and run to a lower level used for relaying trains. For the service pattern, in the peak direction, the  would operate to/from Bell Blvd, while the  would operate express to 162nd Street, and then make the remaining stops to Bell Blvd. In the off-peak, when the  isn't running, the  would serve Bell Blvd. Essentially, the service would be like the  and  to some extent.

IF this were to be made, the should not have to go past Main St since it serves that main line. 

[Armandito]

5 minutes ago, Theli11 said:

I think that's a really long passage way for 8th Av, and if any passengers wanted to get to the  they'd have to walk extra. That passageway would be like a slightly better 2nd Av-Grand Central transfer and could be made better with moving the exit to 7th Av. My two cents.

One reason why I opted for a 9 Av exit is because it's already difficult to access any subway line in Midtown west of 8 Av. After all, the walking distance to 9 Av is longer than the distance to Broadway.

Edited October 8, 2020 by Armandito

[bobtehpanda]

2 hours ago, Armandito said:

How the  line would look on the subway map:

<map>

(Note that I used an older map because the current one doesn't have enough space to show the route)

Eh, now that I look at this more the less I like the plan.

Personally I don't think there should be any stops between the Broadway and Queens Plaza stations, that area isn't particularly far from the subway as it is and the QBL local in that area is not crowded. 

I really do think that any Northern Blvd line should actually have a transfer with the  ; I would like to avoid a Jamaica-like situation where the two lines are annoyingly close to each other and buses have to do all sorts of convoluted routings to connect to both. So in that vein, I would actually turn the Northern line onto Main and keep going down either Main or Kissena to Jamaica. Which has the added benefit of not duplicating the PW as well. If you really need a separate eastern Northern line I would have the  do that.

[bobtehpanda]

53 minutes ago, Armandito said:

One reason why I opted for a 9 Av exit is because it's already difficult to access any subway line in Midtown west of 8 Av. After all, the walking distance to 9 Av is longer than the distance to Broadway.

This is very aggressive east-west stop spacing in one of the densest parts of the city with the most jobs. 

Honestly there should probably be 9th, 7th, and 5th stations, which is not all that different from the  . 

[Armandito]

12 minutes ago, bobtehpanda said:

This is very aggressive east-west stop spacing in one of the densest parts of the city with the most jobs. 

Honestly there should probably be 9th, 7th, and 5th stations, which is not all that different from the  . 

Opted for fewer stations with greater catchment areas as opposed to more stations spaced closer together with smaller catchment. These would be the proposed locations for the entrances and exits:

Lexington Av/50 St: at 3 Av and Park Av

6 Av-Rockefeller Ctr: at 5 Av and 6 Av

8 Av: at 8 Av and 9 Av (and 7 Av via transfer passageway)

Clinton-42 St: at 44 St and 42 St

Edited October 8, 2020 by Armandito

[Theli11]

17 minutes ago, bobtehpanda said:

Eh, now that I look at this more the less I like the plan.

Personally I don't think there should be any stops between the Broadway and Queens Plaza stations, that area isn't particularly far from the subway as it is and the QBL local in that area is not crowded. 

I really do think that any Northern Blvd line should actually have a transfer with the  ; I would like to avoid a Jamaica-like situation where the two lines are annoyingly close to each other and buses have to do all sorts of convoluted routings to connect to both. So in that vein, I would actually turn the Northern line onto Main and keep going down either Main or Kissena to Jamaica. Which has the added benefit of not duplicating the PW as well. If you really need a separate eastern Northern line I would have the  do that.

I kinda agree with you on Main being a better corridor and having it end in Jamaica Center or even just two seperate branches. 

 

14 minutes ago, bobtehpanda said:

This is very aggressive east-west stop spacing in one of the densest parts of the city with the most jobs. 

Honestly there should probably be 9th, 7th, and 5th stations, which is not all that different from the  . 

9th with a transfer to 8th  , 7th with a transfer to   , and 5th can have a Madison Exit.

Edited October 8, 2020 by Theli11

[Theli11]

1 minute ago, Armandito said:

Lexington Av/50 St: at 3 Av and Park Av

6 Av-Rockefeller Ctr: at 5 Av and 6 Av

8 Av: at 8 Av and 9 Av

Clinton-42 St: at 44 St and 42 St

I only agree with Lexington/50th but if you're going to spread it across 3 blocks, make it Lexington, 3rd and 2nd Avenues. 
6th-Rock... 6th and 7th would be better, but it leaves a gap from Lexington to 6th, which is why i think 8th Av should have an exit at 7th Av, so 6th and 5th can have that exit. 

Clinton - 42 is fine because it doesn't go past that 7 line, and leaves those provisions for later.. working like 8th Av - 14 St.