Department of Subways - Proposals/Ideas

[T to Dyre Avenue]

On 10/10/2020 at 8:44 PM, Trainmaster5 said:

Let me put it in the simplest terms. There was no IRT express service in Brooklyn except for the commission hours.  or  to Atlantic Avenue. The BMT ran the Brighton with express and local services. Fourth Avenue had the Sea Beach  running express to 59th St while West End had a Montague/ Fourth Avenue service non rush and an Astoria Broadway express service in the rush hours. This was before the 6th Avenue connection with the Manny B. The IND ran no express service in Brooklyn except for the commission hours. Commission hours means rush hours in my school car training. BTW rush hours were 6:30-8:30 am and 4:30-6:30 pm daily. Can the NYCTA do the same thing today? If the funding isn’t coming there’s no choice. If the ridership doesn’t come back to 1980-2000 levels there’s no reason to run more service even if the pandemic problem is over. Businesses dictate the service levels of bus and subways. The NYT, WAPO, WSJ, and other business outlets have already made it clear that they see downsizing or relocation as the smart move. No one except the fanning community is trying to justify an increase in service from pre-pandemic levels. This is what my contemporaries and mentors see for future. None of us claim to be Nostradamus but they all agree that this is the likely path for Transit. Just a collection of opinions from some very knowledgeable folks. I’m just the messenger. Carry on. 

I remember the lack of IRT express service in Brooklyn outside of rush hours in the early to mid-80s. If service cuts have to go through, that could certainly be a possibility. The  also ran as a shuttle between Pelham Bay Park and 125th overnights, leaving the  to run local and be the sole late night Lexington service back then and that can’t be ruled out either. 

While nothing can be ruled out completely, it’s tough to say if the pre-Chrystie plan you mentioned for south Brooklyn would work, precisely because of the Chrystie connection, as well as the decline in importance of the Nassau St Line. If that plan did get implemented,  service between Manhattan and Brooklyn would have to be factored in, unlike in the 50s and early to mid-60s. This could make for some interesting speculation, but I’m not going to try right now, because the MTA still aren’t saying much of anything beyond “40 percent cut.” 

On 10/10/2020 at 12:57 AM, Theli11 said:

Not just the local, but the via Montague so it could run local.. Whole idea was a mess.

Manhattan Bridge lines, CPW* and QBL all need to be detangled within the B-Division. 

Queens Blvd needs that train off the line. My solution is to have 25% of  trains go to Sea Beach and end at 86 St, while the rest go to Bay Ridge.
Now the  will end at Astoria and  trains will end at 96 St (which will just make it the  but full time, and  can probably just split frequencies (or just more locals than expresses) since they're running on the same track from 96 to Prospect Park). and Queens Blvd will have and trains. this way trains run local, that have the same frequency as the *, run express while  trains run express and  trains run local via 63 St. 

*For CPW, any plan that's put in place [  express, local being the best possible one without any Northern terminals changing] would either lengthen the  or  trains. Of course, the  would have to be express in the bracketed scenario, unless you make a switch to the express tracks pre-50th st, then the  can be the local line (and more reliable.) service would be the express until Hoyt where they split into current day service. You'll probably be able to run a lot more service since there are less merges between , , , ,  trains. Whatever plan in place, it might screw some passengers over, while helping others. 


 

Getting rid of the  on QBL has long been discussed as a solution to cure QBL of its service woes. There’s already people on here who have posted that they don’t like the idea of doing that, so I can only imagine people at community meetings voicing their displeasure about it as well. I used to ride the  local on QBL and through 60th, when I lived in Forest Hills from 2012-15. I did so because I didn’t want to deal with crush loaded  or  trains and transfers at Roosevelt Avenue. Plus, I could get a direct transfer to the  or , which you can’t do from the ,  or . But I often found my  trains to not be all that crowded and there were even times when I’d board an  train at Lex-59th and get a seat... at 5:30 in the evening. Maybe there just weren’t that many people on QB who needed that transfer to the Lex express trains, I don’t really know. Or maybe they found a different way home in the evening rush vs the morning.

[Trainmaster5]

2 hours ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

I remember the lack of IRT express service in Brooklyn outside of rush hours in the early to mid-80s. If service cuts have to go through, that could certainly be a possibility. The  also ran as a shuttle between Pelham Bay Park and 125th overnights, leaving the  to run local and be the sole late night Lexington service back then and that can’t be ruled out either. 

While nothing can be ruled out completely, it’s tough to say if the pre-Chrystie plan you mentioned for south Brooklyn would work, precisely because of the Chrystie connection, as well as the decline in importance of the Nassau St Line. If that plan did get implemented,  service between Manhattan and Brooklyn would have to be factored in, unlike in the 50s and early to mid-60s. This could make for some interesting speculation, but I’m not going to try right now, because the MTA still aren’t saying much of anything beyond “40 percent cut.” 

Getting rid of the  on QBL has long been discussed as a solution to cure QBL of its service woes. There’s already people on here who have posted that they don’t like the idea of doing that, so I can only imagine people at community meetings voicing their displeasure about it as well. I used to ride the  local on QBL and through 60th, when I lived in Forest Hills from 2012-15. I did so because I didn’t want to deal with crush loaded  or  trains and transfers at Roosevelt Avenue. Plus, I could get a direct transfer to the  or , which you can’t do from the ,  or . But I often found my  trains to not be all that crowded and there were even times when I’d board an  train at Lex-59th and get a seat... at 5:30 in the evening. Maybe there just weren’t that many people on QB who needed that transfer to the Lex express trains, I don’t really know. Or maybe they found a different way home in the evening rush vs the morning.

I actually wasn't advocating the reactivation of the Nassau St / Montague service but pointing out the Brooklyn services back then.  As far as QBL service via Broadway IMO I would return the to Astoria and run the to Forest Hills. Before people cry about yard access the Bay Ridge and Sea Beach combination would mitigate that problem. One thing that might be solved is the complaints about service in South Brooklyn. Doing so would also give the Operation and Planning  folks the option of running either Brooklyn line to Astoria or short turning service at 57-7th, Whitehall, or 59th and Fourth Avenue when or if necessary. Just idle speculation from someone who has experienced many different service patterns over the years as a passenger and as an employee. Carry on. 

[LGA Link N Train]

10 hours ago, Trainmaster5 said:

As far as QBL service via Broadway IMO I would return the to Astoria and run the to Forest Hills. Before people cry about yard access the Bay Ridge and Sea Beach combination would mitigate that problem.

If I'm reading this correctly, the  wouldn't be altered in this swap that you propose?

...comiing to think of it, that's actually not a bad idea (albiet, it doesn't solve the main issue with Broadway which is that merge at 34th, but I still like it)

Edited October 12, 2020 by LaGuardia Link N Tra
Additional thoughts

[R10 2952]

9 minutes ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

If I'm reading this correctly, the  wouldn't be altered in this swap that you propose?

...comiing to think of it, that's actually not a bad idea (albiet, it doesn't solve the main issue with Broadway which is that merge at 34th, but I still like it)

The 34th Street merge issue is trivial; they can just have the  skip 49th and run express with the  to 57th, merging there.

[Theli11]

9 hours ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

If I'm reading this correctly, the  wouldn't be altered in this swap that you propose?

...comiing to think of it, that's actually not a bad idea (albiet, it doesn't solve the main issue with Broadway which is that merge at 34th, but I still like it)

I only fear that there's going to be less  local service, though that can be solved with  service. Personally, you don't need service on Astoria, if the  is going to run to it and you can have the  go to 96 St. 

Edited October 13, 2020 by Theli11

[Armandito]

UPDATES: New airport symbols on subway and strip maps; resolution increase for strip map

Edited October 13, 2020 by Armandito

[Armandito]

11 hours ago, Theli11 said:

I only fear that there's going to be less  local service, though that can be solved with  service. Personally, you don't need service on Astoria, if the  is going to run to it and you can have the  go to 96 St. 

I wouldn't be too sure about having two Broadway services going to 96th. IIRC there's a steep grade just where the layup tracks start, and that itself could limit terminal capacity at that station. More importantly, the subpar brakes of the R46 trains that make up the majority of their fleets could mean safety concerns as well, as T/O's are afraid these trains could slip off the top of the grade and careen down the tracks.

[T to Dyre Avenue]

43 minutes ago, Armandito said:

I wouldn't be too sure about having two Broadway services going to 96th. IIRC there's a steep grade just where the layup tracks start, and that itself could limit terminal capacity at that station. More importantly, the subpar brakes of the R46 trains that make up the majority of their fleets could mean safety concerns as well, as T/O's are afraid these trains could slip off the top of the grade and careen down the tracks.

Then that’s an issue with the R46 train cars’ brakes. If that’s the reason the MTA would give to justify not running two Broadway services to 96th, well, that’s kind of a lame excuse (but then again, it is the MTA we’re talking about here). Shouldn’t the subpar brakes be addressed, instead of using them as an excuse to continue running an inferior service pattern on Broadway (i.e., the  switching from express to local to get to Astoria)? And the R46s, which may be kept in service a bit longer than some of us might like, will not be in service forever.

Edited October 13, 2020 by T to Dyre Avenue

[Theli11]

31 minutes ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

Then that’s an issue with the R46 train cars’ brakes. If that’s the reason the MTA would give to justify not running two Broadway services to 96th, well, that’s kind of a lame excuse (but then again, it is the MTA we’re talking about here). Shouldn’t the subpar brakes be addressed, instead of using them as an excuse to continue running an inferior service pattern on Broadway (i.e., the  switching from express to local to get to Astoria)? And the R46s, which may be kept in service a bit longer than some of us might like, will not be in service forever.

I really don't think that R46s will last long on the Broadway Express anyways. By the time the R211 comes, the R160s should be going back to the and lines. If you need more cars, put remaining R46s on the . 

Edited October 13, 2020 by Theli11

[Armandito]

36 minutes ago, Theli11 said:

I really don't think that R46s will last long on the Broadway Express anyways. By the time the R211 comes, the R160s should be going back to the and lines. If you need more cars, put remaining R46s on the . 

We'll have to stretch our patience to the limits unfortunately, because the R211s will be delayed in their deliveries AFAIK.

[Theli11]

8 minutes ago, Armandito said:

We'll have to stretch our patience to the limits unfortunately, because the R211s will be delayed in their deliveries AFAIK.

I do believe that they'll have delivered by this time next year. Of course, there's still the R179s but those are horrible. We're really just waiting for either R179s to come back with adequate service or R211s to go into service. 

[Vulturious]

2 hours ago, Theli11 said:

I do believe that they'll have delivered by this time next year. Of course, there's still the R179s but those are horrible. We're really just waiting for either R179s to come back with adequate service or R211s to go into service. 

I know those of you are going to say otherwise, but I strongly feel by the time all the R179's are back in service, the R211A will already be in revenue testing. But that is just anyone's guess at this point.

[Armandito]

3 hours ago, Theli11 said:

I do believe that they'll have delivered by this time next year. Of course, there's still the R179s but those are horrible. We're really just waiting for either R179s to come back with adequate service or R211s to go into service. 

It's about time we hoped that would happen. The R211s will be the most luxurious subway cars yet, with open gangways, free Wi-Fi, and USB charging ports for phones so we can all commute in comfort and convenience.

[Bklyn Bound 2 Local]

On 10/13/2020 at 3:25 PM, Armandito said:

It's about time we hoped that would happen. The R211s will be the most luxurious subway cars yet, with open gangways, free Wi-Fi, and USB charging ports for phones so we can all commute in comfort and convenience.

If only that was available on system like the Washington DC Metro. As someone who was been there frequently, the only way to get constant WiFi is a hotspot. Only 50% stations on the metro have WiFi, and Cell Service is out of the question due to the depth of the system. WMATA was going to get their new 8000 series cars with WiFi if they were built by Bombardier, but when WMATA saw the failure of the R179, that job was given to Hitachi Rail

Edited October 15, 2020 by Bklyn Bound 2 Local

[Theli11]

On 10/13/2020 at 2:21 PM, Vulturious said:

I know those of you are going to say otherwise, but I strongly feel by the time all the R179's are back in service, the R211A will already be in revenue testing. But that is just anyone's guess at this point.

It's just as likely for either cars to come into service for. 55% prediction, I think that the R179 will come first because the R211A will likely be delayed back a little bit.

Edited October 15, 2020 by Theli11

[Vulturious]

1 hour ago, Theli11 said:

It's just as likely for either cars to come into service for. 55% prediction, I think that the R179 will come first because the R211A will likely be delayed back a little bit.

Yeah, it's very likely that will be the case, but it's anyone's guess at this point.

[LGA Link N Train]

Backtracking the converstion a bit, I think if a hypothetical Northern Line were built to end at Flushing-Main Street, it could continue down Kissena Blvd and the former Northeast LIRR Line before ening at Springfield along the Horace Harding. (i'm just brainstorming so don't take this as an official proposal)

[bobtehpanda]

6 minutes ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

Backtracking the converstion a bit, I think if a hypothetical Northern Line were built to end at Flushing-Main Street, it could continue down Kissena Blvd and the former Northeast LIRR Line before ening at Springfield along the Horace Harding. (i'm just brainstorming so don't take this as an official proposal)

FYI taking of parkland in NYS requires an act of the legislature, and even in that case requires replacement of parkland. That entire rail line is now a park.

(It, like most other LIRR lines of that vintage, also ran back in a time when Queens was mostly farmland, and there aren't really activity centers along that route. In fact I would say that the Kissena Park corridor usually runs through the quietest parts of the streets it intersects.)

Edited October 15, 2020 by bobtehpanda

[Armandito]

5 minutes ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

Backtracking the converstion a bit, I think if a hypothetical Northern Line were built to end at Flushing-Main Street, it could continue down Kissena Blvd and the former Northeast LIRR Line before ening at Springfield along the Horace Harding. (i'm just brainstorming so don't take this as an official proposal)

On the other hand, taking history into account, any potential subway service to Springfield would most likely be an extension of the Queens Boulevard Line beyond the 179 St station, as originally envisioned by urban planners in the 1940s and 1950s.

[T to Dyre Avenue]

On 10/12/2020 at 2:15 AM, Trainmaster5 said:

I actually wasn't advocating the reactivation of the Nassau St / Montague service but pointing out the Brooklyn services back then.  As far as QBL service via Broadway IMO I would return the to Astoria and run the to Forest Hills. Before people cry about yard access the Bay Ridge and Sea Beach combination would mitigate that problem. One thing that might be solved is the complaints about service in South Brooklyn. Doing so would also give the Operation and Planning  folks the option of running either Brooklyn line to Astoria or short turning service at 57-7th, Whitehall, or 59th and Fourth Avenue when or if necessary. Just idle speculation from someone who has experienced many different service patterns over the years as a passenger and as an employee. Carry on. 

Agreed. I’ve long been in favor of returning the  to Astoria and running the  to/from Forest Hills, with the  rerouted to 2nd Ave as a base service, with short-turns or extensions as needed. It’s feasible if the will to do it exists. 

On 10/12/2020 at 1:12 PM, R10 2952 said:

The 34th Street merge issue is trivial; they can just have the  skip 49th and run express with the  to 57th, merging there.

But you’d still have a merge between the  and the  at 57th. Any time you have a merge between trains from one line switching from the express to local with other trains running through on both tracks, it’s going to create delays and limit the number of trains per hour you can run on all the lines. I’d much rather get rid of that merge entirely. 

[R10 2952]

I wouldn't count on them taking the  off Broadway or moving it to the local tracks anytime in this century.  The MTA's current service practices, for reasons right or wrong, clearly favor interlined service, as exemplified by the majority of the routes we currently have.  I don't expect it to change anytime soon.

[Armandito]

1 hour ago, R10 2952 said:

I wouldn't count on them taking the  off Broadway or moving it to the local tracks anytime in this century.  The MTA's current service practices, for reasons right or wrong, clearly favor interlined service, as exemplified by the majority of the routes we currently have.  I don't expect it to change anytime soon.

Me neither.

Needlessto say, while the IRT and BMT have the and lines as their own respective routes that don't interline with other services, the IND doesn't have one of its own, partly because this sub-division of the subway was intentionally designed for interlined services right from the start.

Edited October 15, 2020 by Armandito

[LGA Link N Train]

4 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

FYI taking of parkland in NYS requires an act of the legislature, and even in that case requires replacement of parkland. That entire rail line is now a park.

(It, like most other LIRR lines of that vintage, also ran back in a time when Queens was mostly farmland, and there aren't really activity centers along that route. In fact I would say that the Kissena Park corridor usually runs through the quietest parts of the streets it intersects.)

Ahh I see. Thanks for pointing out the part I highlighted in bold. I did intend to keep the line underground as to not interfere with the parkland at a large degree.

Also, seeing that the Kissena Park corridor is one of the Quietest corridors, I see now that it’s not as good of an idea as I thought it was. So with that being the case, I have a question for both you and @Armandito:

If a Northern Blvd Line ended at Flushing-Main Street to provide a transfer with the  and LIRR, where would be the next best place to extend it?
 

 

[Armandito]

20 minutes ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

Ahh I see. Thanks for pointing out the part I highlighted in bold. I did intend to keep the line underground as to not interfere with the parkland at a large degree.

Also, seeing that the Kissena Park corridor is one of the Quietest corridors, I see now that it’s not as good of an idea as I thought it was. So with that being the case, I have a question for both you and @Armandito:

If a Northern Blvd Line ended at Flushing-Main Street to provide a transfer with the  and LIRR, where would be the next best place to extend it?
 

 

Along Sanford Avenue and Northern Boulevard to Bayside/Bell Boulevard. Bayside is dense enough to warrant a new subway and is the most direct destination for a Northern Boulevard line.

[bobtehpanda]

2 hours ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

Ahh I see. Thanks for pointing out the part I highlighted in bold. I did intend to keep the line underground as to not interfere with the parkland at a large degree.

Also, seeing that the Kissena Park corridor is one of the Quietest corridors, I see now that it’s not as good of an idea as I thought it was. So with that being the case, I have a question for both you and @Armandito:

If a Northern Blvd Line ended at Flushing-Main Street to provide a transfer with the  and LIRR, where would be the next best place to extend it?

 

2 hours ago, Armandito said:

Along Sanford Avenue and Northern Boulevard to Bayside/Bell Boulevard. Bayside is dense enough to warrant a new subway and is the most direct destination for a Northern Boulevard line.

I'm going to disagree here, and say south either on Main St or Kissena/Parsons down to Jamaica. Bayside already has a train line, it's just underutilized and overpriced because it's part of the LIRR, but we shouldn't be spending billions of dollars to fix a fixable political problem.

Central Queens is very dense, has a lot of worthwhile destinations (Queens College, New York Hospital, all those tall towers on Kissena, etc.) and this is a trip that has no rail at all. The existing Q44 and Q25/34 are some of the busiest routes in Queens today.

Main currently has the stronger-ridership bus (the Q44), but Kissena has an easier path getting into Jamaica proper. And a Kissena subway allows you to truncate some routes that use Kissena to get into Flushing proper.