Jump to content
Attention: In order to reply to messages, create topics, have access to other features of the community you must sign up for an account.

Department of Subways - Proposals/Ideas


Recommended Posts

On 11/20/2020 at 10:10 PM, Bay Ridge Express said:

I like the idea of connecting to the Rockaways considering it will mostly be used for Queens-Manhattan travel but I might prefer a direct North-South Queens line.

The North south line could end up as an extension of either the (M) or (R) by sending it south after Forest Hills, through Forest Park, across Jamaica Ave, and meeting the (A) at Rockaway Blvd.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 11.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
14 hours ago, Vulturious said:

I don't see a big problem with this at all. Service coming from QBL would just terminate at Hanover Square, there isn't a need for it to keep it running into Brooklyn at all, just transfer to the (T) for service towards Brooklyn, problem solved. It's like you said about the (E), there is no need to really extend it. Although, personally I'd like it to have some sort of connection to other lines like 4th Av line and Brighton if possible. I do not know how doable it is, but it would allow for reroutes.

AFAIK the proposed design for Hanover Sq calls for the station to be a single island platform with just one X-switch; there's nothing in the blueprints that mention a third track for relaying trains that would terminate there despite a provision for a Brooklyn extension being on the books. (It would be helpful if someone could draw a track map depicting a possible track layout for Hanover Sq in a way that allows it to be used as both a terminal and a through station.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/21/2020 at 6:25 AM, Armandito said:

While I do support extending the (T) to Brooklyn via the LIRR Atlantic Branch, one drawback with this plan is that we don't know if Hanover Sq could still serve as a terminal station for SAS trains coming from the QBL. Making Queens-Manhattan SAS trains run into Brooklyn would mean a longer, less reliable route--and this is a big reason why we shouldn't extend (E) trains beyond World Trade Center (especially since it's a very busy and congested route).

The (F) and (M) both do this; the reason the (E) doesn't go to Brooklyn isn't because of its length, it's because the Cranberry merge is a shitshow. If 8th Avenue had local tracks under the river you'd bet they'd be sending service to Brooklyn without a thought.

My major issue with using the Atlantic Branch for subway service is; why? Neither the (A) or (J)(Z) is at full track capacity or full. Jamaica - Downtown Brooklyn - Downtown travel demand isn't very high and is perfectly doable today. Fulton local would be a shorter connection providing much the same benefit, and is already helpfully grade separated through the thicket of lines in Downtown Brooklyn.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, bobtehpanda said:

My major issue with using the Atlantic Branch for subway service is; why? Neither the (A) or (J)(Z) is at full track capacity or full. Jamaica - Downtown Brooklyn - Downtown travel demand isn't very high and is perfectly doable today. Fulton local would be a shorter connection providing much the same benefit, and is already helpfully grade separated through the thicket of lines in Downtown Brooklyn.

The only reasons I brought it up were:

1) Stemming Revenue Losses from converting it to a LIRR Shuttle after ESA opens - fares along the RoR, along with fewer patrons who use it now buying unlimited MetroCards or PPRs in high amounts after not needing to transfer to the subway to get to Midtown, will drop. So it's a way to make the branch a bit more useful than a shuttle, and boost some fare revenue from locals;

2) Connecting it to an existing subway service - whether IRT or BMT - could provide more capacity by shifting or reducing bottlenecks and associated delays in Brooklyn;

3) Building SAS to connect to it, and a Red Hook spur that could connect to SIR would possibly relieve traffic congestion on the VZ and Belt Pkwy/BQE by giving SIers and Jersey folks direct rail to LI and Manhattan - so more MetroCard fares and maybe LIRR fares, and cleaner air.

IDK what everyone else is on, but kudos to @Wallyhorse for having a sane idea about it without including his #BringBackTheBMT campaign. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Deucey said:

The only reasons I brought it up were:

1) Stemming Revenue Losses from converting it to a LIRR Shuttle after ESA opens - fares along the RoR, along with fewer patrons who use it now buying unlimited MetroCards or PPRs in high amounts after not needing to transfer to the subway to get to Midtown, will drop. So it's a way to make the branch a bit more useful than a shuttle, and boost some fare revenue from locals;

2) Connecting it to an existing subway service - whether IRT or BMT - could provide more capacity by shifting or reducing bottlenecks and associated delays in Brooklyn;

3) Building SAS to connect to it, and a Red Hook spur that could connect to SIR would possibly relieve traffic congestion on the VZ and Belt Pkwy/BQE by giving SIers and Jersey folks direct rail to LI and Manhattan - so more MetroCard fares and maybe LIRR fares, and cleaner air.

IDK what everyone else is on, but kudos to @Wallyhorse for having a sane idea about it without including his #BringBackTheBMT campaign. 

1 is a self inflicted wound that the MTA decided it was going to inflict on itself; given that there are eight tracks into Jamaica and four tracks out into the Main Line, there was no need to sever the Atlantic connection.

2 is achievable with SAS to Fulton local, which is a shorter distance and wouldn't necessitate changing the loading gauge or the voltage on miles of track.

I would hazard a guess and say most VZ/Belt traffic is not SI bound. Not even the majority portion of it. There aren't that many truck-friendly crossings of the Hudson in the area that take you through a highway only route. In any case SI is just extremely poorly located geographically and even if we cut costs significantly any SI rail link would still be at the back of the line. In any case you don't need SAS or the Atlantic branch for that; there's spare track capacity from the south on the Nassau Street line, and weren't the powers that be tossing around a branch of the (1) to Red Hook?

Edited by bobtehpanda
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

I would hazard a guess and say most VZ/Belt traffic is not SI bound. Not even the majority portion of it

The traffic jams I used to hit going from Bensonhurst to Garden City say there's a good number of people leaving the VZ bound for the SSP - Not in the same volume as that going on the BQE to the tunnel and downtown Bk, but enough that while a lot of the Belt's catchment area would be missed by a Red Hook-St George or Stapleton connection, a good number of pax on SI could opt for using it to get to Downtown or LI.

Not to mention the economic expansion that'd come from folks in the customer service call center demographic having access to those jobs in Woodbury and Garden City via a 60-75 minute two-seat ride.

2 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

In any case you don't need SAS or the Atlantic branch for that; there's spare track capacity from the south on the Nassau Street line, and weren't the powers that be tossing around a branch of the (1) to Red Hook?

Either way there'd have to be two tunnels built - to SI and to Manhattan. (1) to Red Hook was a Cuomo deflection idea - like Christie's "no overnight PATH service". It could be viable and go to SI and on Atlantic (which would make foamers happy by bringing back (9)) - since any connections between SIR and NYCT would require resignalling and platform reconstruction. (I'm not wedded to any particular route being picked over another.)

Point for me is that there'll be a piece of infrastructure that'll be underutilized in a few years, and it can be used for expanding transit options, transit access, and economic opportunities and benefits if it's thought on properly and evaluated honestly.

Edited by Deucey
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/22/2020 at 2:21 PM, bobtehpanda said:

The (F) and (M) both do this; the reason the (E) doesn't go to Brooklyn isn't because of its length, it's because the Cranberry merge is a shitshow. If 8th Avenue had local tracks under the river you'd bet they'd be sending service to Brooklyn without a thought.

My major issue with using the Atlantic Branch for subway service is; why? Neither the (A) or (J)(Z) is at full track capacity or full. Jamaica - Downtown Brooklyn - Downtown travel demand isn't very high and is perfectly doable today. Fulton local would be a shorter connection providing much the same benefit, and is already helpfully grade separated through the thicket of lines in Downtown Brooklyn.

I agree, not only did the (E) once go as far as Rockaway Park - Beach 116th St, having more than 2 lines with frequent service on 2 tracks is just a recipe for disaster.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/22/2020 at 2:21 PM, bobtehpanda said:

My major issue with using the Atlantic Branch for subway service is; why? Neither the (A) or (J)(Z) is at full track capacity or full. Jamaica - Downtown Brooklyn - Downtown travel demand isn't very high and is perfectly doable today. Fulton local would be a shorter connection providing much the same benefit, and is already helpfully grade separated through the thicket of lines in Downtown Brooklyn.

By converting the Atlantic Branch to a subway line, The cost of operation will go down. LIRR has a very high cost of operation. Plus service could be more frequent under the subway proposal. 

In the future the Woodhaven Station could be reopened, providing a transfer to the "hopefully subway" Rockaway Beach Line. 

Its a win- win for everyone. MTA saves money, no crew will lose their positions (LIRR will be reallocated to ESA service) and more work for NYC operators

Edited by Mtatransit
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Mtatransit said:

By converting the Atlantic Branch to a subway line, The cost of operation will go down. LIRR has a very high cost of operation. Plus service could be more frequent under the subway proposal. 

In the future the Woodhaven Station could be reopened, providing a transfer to the "hopefully subway" Rockaway Beach Line. 

Its a win- win for everyone. MTA saves money, no crew will lose their positions (LIRR will be reallocated to ESA service) and more work for NYC operators

I remember having this conversation some years ago on a different site devoted to railroads in particular. A history buff brought up the subject of the charter of the Long Island Rail Road company.  Supposedly it states that the LIRR must provide service from Brooklyn to points East or the charter is revoked. Not sure if that's a fact or not or if it's still valid. My question revolves around maintenance of any subway cars on the Atlantic Branch. Hillside Facility is a Long Island RR shop and I doubt that any NYCT would be welcome there. They might borrow a TGO car from time to time,  or so I've heard,  but finding a connection and barn to service subway equipment might be problematic,  IMO. Just my take.  Carry on. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/22/2020 at 1:59 PM, Armandito said:

AFAIK the proposed design for Hanover Sq calls for the station to be a single island platform with just one X-switch; there's nothing in the blueprints that mention a third track for relaying trains that would terminate there despite a provision for a Brooklyn extension being on the books. (It would be helpful if someone could draw a track map depicting a possible track layout for Hanover Sq in a way that allows it to be used as both a terminal and a through station.)

The Hanover Sq station would be pointed away from Brooklyn and would require a sharp turn to go toward the East River, given that Water St runs northeast-southwest. Maybe it would be easier to have Brooklyn-SAS trains branch off the main SAS line before getting to Water St. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

The Hanover Sq station would be pointed away from Brooklyn and would require a sharp turn to go toward the East River, given that Water St runs northeast-southwest. Maybe it would be easier to have Brooklyn-SAS trains branch off the main SAS line before getting to Water St. 

The diagram has the tail tracks ultimately pointing more or less due south.

I assume that, with either Atlantic or Fulton connection, you would be looking at a tunnel well to the south of all the other Brooklyn-Manhattan tunnels anyways.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

The Hanover Sq station would be pointed away from Brooklyn and would require a sharp turn to go toward the East River, given that Water St runs northeast-southwest. Maybe it would be easier to have Brooklyn-SAS trains branch off the main SAS line before getting to Water St. 

There have been plans to reroute a second SAS service down Nassau Street, cutting the (J)(Z) at Chambers St and continuing into Brooklyn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

The diagram has the tail tracks ultimately pointing more or less due south.

I assume that, with either Atlantic or Fulton connection, you would be looking at a tunnel well to the south of all the other Brooklyn-Manhattan tunnels anyways.

I looked at the diagram, and I wonder if they can also build a train station at Whitehall and Water to allow for connections to the (R) and (W) while allowing for a new tunnel to Brooklyn, or even provide a transfer point to trains going into Brooklyn via the Montague Street Tunnel before a new tunnel could be completed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Bklyn Bound 2 Local said:

There have been plans to reroute a second SAS service down Nassau Street, cutting the (J)(Z) at Chambers St and continuing into Brooklyn

Those plans were rejected in the 2004 DEIS for being too disruptive and too expensive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, JeremiahC99 said:

I looked at the diagram, and I wonder if they can also build a train station at Whitehall and Water to allow for connections to the (R) and (W) while allowing for a new tunnel to Brooklyn, or even provide a transfer point to trains going into Brooklyn via the Montague Street Tunnel before a new tunnel could be completed.

Any tunnel to Brooklyn from Water St is going to be sloping at that point. There's a reason no cross-river tunnel has stations that close to the shore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

Any tunnel to Brooklyn from Water St is going to be sloping at that point. There's a reason no cross-river tunnel has stations that close to the shore.

Which is why none of the East River tunnels connecting Queens and Manhattan have stations east of Third/Lexington Avenues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

Any tunnel to Brooklyn from Water St is going to be sloping at that point. There's a reason no cross-river tunnel has stations that close to the shore.

I don’t know...the current Whitehall station is pretty close to the shore. And it slopes. And has a flyover junction with the Nassau St Line underwater. A (T) station at Whitehall would almost certainly be at a lower level than the existing (R)(W) station, which already isn’t close to the surface. On the off, off-chance that we ever get in our lifetimes funding for SAS Phase 4 and Brooklyn, this is something that should be given strong consideration. With transfers to the (R) , (W) and (1) trains plus connections to the Staten Island Ferry and other ferries, this would be a major increase in connectivity for a segment of the SAS that as currently planned, is woefully bereft of connections. Currently the only connection planned for Phase 4 is at Grand with the (B)(D). And even that connection is going to be shit because they chose the “Deep Chrystie” option, which will be less convenient than a cross-platform transfer. I think they should forgo the Hanover Sq station and have a stop on Water located between Whitehall and Broad. By that point, the SAS should already be deep enough to get under the Cranberry St (A)(C) and Clark St (2)(3) tunnels. By locating the station to the north of Whitehall, that should give the station a fair amount of distance before it hits the shore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

I don’t know...the current Whitehall station is pretty close to the shore. And it slopes. And has a flyover junction with the Nassau St Line underwater. A (T) station at Whitehall would almost certainly be at a lower level than the existing (R)(W) station, which already isn’t close to the surface. On the off, off-chance that we ever get in our lifetimes funding for SAS Phase 4 and Brooklyn, this is something that should be given strong consideration. With transfers to the (R) , (W) and (1) trains plus connections to the Staten Island Ferry and other ferries, this would be a major increase in connectivity for a segment of the SAS that as currently planned, is woefully bereft of connections. Currently the only connection planned for Phase 4 is at Grand with the (B)(D). And even that connection is going to be shit because they chose the “Deep Chrystie” option, which will be less convenient than a cross-platform transfer. I think they should forgo the Hanover Sq station and have a stop on Water located between Whitehall and Broad. By that point, the SAS should already be deep enough to get under the Cranberry St (A)(C) and Clark St (2)(3) tunnels. By locating the station to the north of Whitehall, that should give the station a fair amount of distance before it hits the shore.

this might interest you then: http://web.mta.info/capital/sas_docs/2ndave.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

Any tunnel to Brooklyn from Water St is going to be sloping at that point. There's a reason no cross-river tunnel has stations that close to the shore.

Okay, but wouldn't the Water Street section be 110 feet deep below ground, or would that also prevent a station at that location from being built (while also complying with ADA requirements)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, JeremiahC99 said:

Okay, but wouldn't the Water Street section be 110 feet deep below ground, or would that also prevent a station at that location from being built (while also complying with ADA requirements)?

Stations that deep are not abnormal. But you have to have a flat station.

Right now, the tail tracks proposed for Phase IV are not flat. If you want it to be flat and clear the river, you have to deepen the rest of the line (it has to make it to that depth somehow), which raises costs on the entire rest of the line, and we're not exactly in a hot situation there either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
On 11/30/2020 at 7:27 PM, Mtatransit said:

By converting the Atlantic Branch to a subway line, The cost of operation will go down. LIRR has a very high cost of operation. Plus service could be more frequent under the subway proposal. 

In the future the Woodhaven Station could be reopened, providing a transfer to the "hopefully subway" Rockaway Beach Line. 

Its a win- win for everyone. MTA saves money, no crew will lose their positions (LIRR will be reallocated to ESA service) and more work for NYC operators

I think this idea is really cool, however the stations on the Branch are much farther apart than normal subway stations, and Atlantic Terminal has tons of tracks which would definitely not be filled up by subway trains. Where do you propose the connection between the Branch and the rest of the system should be? And are the platform lengths the same?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Not sure if I should put this here or in the random thoughts thread, but I made a map of what the 1968 Program for Action would've looked like had the fiascial crisis of 1975 never happened. Coming to think of it, most of these plans were only feasible for their time:

https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/1/edit?mid=17Skn9jKS7hkW5-T7-5KEu5sYHELi5__x&usp=sharing

A little side note is that I used the current day nomenclature that the (MTA) uses to avoid any confusion. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

Not sure if I should put this here or in the random thoughts thread, but I made a map of what the 1968 Program for Action would've looked like had the fiascial crisis of 1975 never happened. Coming to think of it, most of these plans were only feasible for their time:

https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/1/edit?mid=17Skn9jKS7hkW5-T7-5KEu5sYHELi5__x&usp=sharing

A little side note is that I used the current day nomenclature that the (MTA) uses to avoid any confusion. 

 

Don't think anyone other than you has access to it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/10/2021 at 1:02 PM, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

Not sure if I should put this here or in the random thoughts thread, but I made a map of what the 1968 Program for Action would've looked like had the fiascial crisis of 1975 never happened. Coming to think of it, most of these plans were only feasible for their time:

https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/1/edit?mid=17Skn9jKS7hkW5-T7-5KEu5sYHELi5__x&usp=sharing

A little side note is that I used the current day nomenclature that the (MTA) uses to avoid any confusion. 

 

What happens to the (M) between Woodhaven Blvd and Court Square? Express or local on QB? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.