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

1 hour ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

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

In the map, I have it displayed as running Express. But its anyones guess as to how that would've turned out had the LIE Proposal gotten to the construction stage

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 11.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
53 minutes ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

In the map, I have it displayed as running Express. But its anyones guess as to how that would've turned out had the LIE Proposal gotten to the construction stage

I though the line was to be in a flying junction with both local and express tracks.

Also, why didn’t the original plan include stops at Junction Blvd and 108th Street? Those two corridors serve bus routes going from one end of Queens to another? Did it have something to do with stop spacing, or was it something else?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, lormier st said:

Who remembers R142 (6)

It's one thing to segue into this.

It's another to bring it way out of left field, particularly in a thread not designed for it.

(As an aside, this concept has only been a thing while borrowing equipment.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, JeremiahC99 said:

I though the line was to be in a flying junction with both local and express tracks.

Also, why didn’t the original plan include stops at Junction Blvd and 108th Street? Those two corridors serve bus routes going from one end of Queens to another? Did it have something to do with stop spacing, or was it something else?

1. Yes. The flying junction was a part of the plan, I just decided to display an express service using it. Whatever service would’ve ran up there would be anyone’s guess at this point. 

2. Nope. The original plan was supposed to have a stop at 99th Street. Junction Blvd would be too close to Woodhaven Blvd and while I agree with having a stop on 108th Street, I don’t know why it wasn’t considered, maybe it would’ve been too close to 99th.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

2. Nope. The original plan was supposed to have a stop at 99th Street. Junction Blvd would be too close to Woodhaven Blvd and while I agree with having a stop on 108th Street, I don’t know why it wasn’t considered, maybe it would’ve been too close to 99th.

Interesting. If they are going to plan this in the modern day, they should have at stop at 108th Street to provide more transfer opportunities.

Isn't also the distance between Junction Blvd and Woodhaven Blvd the same distance between 47th-50th on the 6th Avenue line and both the 7th Avenue and 5th Avenue stations on the Queens Blvd Line?

There's also this big gap between 99th Street and Main Street. Why not also add a stop at College Point Blvd and Van Wyck (the same location as the old Worlds Fair station) to connect with the Q58 and provide park access? After all, the (7) train is the only subway line to get to the park and it's on the north end, so it doesn't hurt to consider another stop there to provide another subway line directly to the park and the surrounding area. Or would the area be unhospitable for park users?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, JeremiahC99 said:

Interesting. If they are going to plan this in the modern day, they should have at stop at 108th Street to provide more transfer opportunities.

Isn't also the distance between Junction Blvd and Woodhaven Blvd the same distance between 47th-50th on the 6th Avenue line and both the 7th Avenue and 5th Avenue stations on the Queens Blvd Line?

There's also this big gap between 99th Street and Main Street. Why not also add a stop at College Point Blvd and Van Wyck (the same location as the old Worlds Fair station) to connect with the Q58 and provide park access? After all, the (7) train is the only subway line to get to the park and it's on the north end, so it doesn't hurt to consider another stop there to provide another subway line directly to the park and the surrounding area. Or would the area be unhospitable for park users?

College Point and LIE is today a massive interchange. All things considered, this would be a shitty place to get off a train. And none of the things inside the park are very close to that highway interchange; Citi Field and the US Open Center are all closer to the Flushing Line and LIRR stations.

To make matters worse, pretty much only one quadrant of that area is actually developable; the west side of the interchange is Corona Park but mostly cut off by both the highways and Flushing Creek, the southeast quadrant is a cemetery.

The 1968 plan has generally aggressive stop spacing, but there is a reason why College Point Blvd has been a no man's land for as long as it has. Skyview has struggled for the longest time and none of the other areas have redeveloped.

Edited by bobtehpanda
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

1. Yes. The flying junction was a part of the plan, I just decided to display an express service using it. Whatever service would’ve ran up there would be anyone’s guess at this point. 

2. Nope. The original plan was supposed to have a stop at 99th Street. Junction Blvd would be too close to Woodhaven Blvd and while I agree with having a stop on 108th Street, I don’t know why it wasn’t considered, maybe it would’ve been too close to 99th.

 

4 hours ago, JeremiahC99 said:

Interesting. If they are going to plan this in the modern day, they should have at stop at 108th Street to provide more transfer opportunities.

Isn't also the distance between Junction Blvd and Woodhaven Blvd the same distance between 47th-50th on the 6th Avenue line and both the 7th Avenue and 5th Avenue stations on the Queens Blvd Line?

There's also this big gap between 99th Street and Main Street. Why not also add a stop at College Point Blvd and Van Wyck (the same location as the old Worlds Fair station) to connect with the Q58 and provide park access? After all, the (7) train is the only subway line to get to the park and it's on the north end, so it doesn't hurt to consider another stop there to provide another subway line directly to the park and the surrounding area. Or would the area be unhospitable for park users?

It’s possible that a potential stop at LIE and Junction would cannibalize ridership from 63rd Drive as the stations would be within easy walking distance of each other. But given how busy 63rd Dr can get, maybe that’s not such a bad thing. But if it is, then perhaps have stops at 99th and 108th. 108th is a very busy street and you can still have a connection with the Q58 and Q88 there, along with the very busy Q23. And it’s not a long walk to the park either. I like the LIE line extension, as that would really plug a giant hole in subway coverage in north central Queens and bring service to northeastern Queens.

Edited by T to Dyre Avenue
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

 

It’s possible that a potential stop at LIE and Junction would cannibalize ridership from 63rd Drive as the stations would be within easy walking distance of each other. But given how busy 63rd Dr can get, maybe that’s not such a bad thing. But if it is, then perhaps have stops at 99th and 108th. 108th is a very busy street and you can still have a connection with the Q58 and Q88 there, along with the very busy Q23. And it’s not a long walk to the park either. I like the LIE line extension, as that would really plug a giant hole in subway coverage in north central Queens and bring service to northeastern Queens.

Were the LIE branch to be built, there should be two stops at Junction and 108 St to enable north-south bus transfers. The stop at Junction is important because presumably the LIE branch would diverge from the QBL west of Woodhaven Blvd; a passageway connecting the west end of LIE / Junction with Woodhaven Blvd (which itself should be turned into an express stop) could be built to facilitate transfers. As for 99 St, it wouldn't be too far from the east end of the Junction Blvd stop or the west exits of the 108 St station.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With regard to the LIE line, I echo the statements above.  Add a station for 108th.  No need for a station at College Point.  And extend this line as far as you can into Alley Pond Park to provide park and ride facilities and an alternative to the Port Washington line.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, mrsman said:

With regard to the LIE line, I echo the statements above.  Add a station for 108th.  No need for a station at College Point.  And extend this line as far as you can into Alley Pond Park to provide park and ride facilities and an alternative to the Port Washington line.

P&Rs are pretty pointless in the NYC subway; they're extremely low capacity for the price (to put this in perspective, a P&R in my area is $120M for 500 parking spaces, which would fill up a total of 2 R160 cars to capacity), and it's so far west in the metro area that not a whole lot of people would be saving time by driving to the parking lot. Congestion is already very bad around Alley Pond by the LIE/CIP interchange.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Caelestor said:

Were the LIE branch to be built, there should be two stops at Junction and 108 St to enable north-south bus transfers. The stop at Junction is important because presumably the LIE branch would diverge from the QBL west of Woodhaven Blvd; a passageway connecting the west end of LIE / Junction with Woodhaven Blvd (which itself should be turned into an express stop) could be built to facilitate transfers. As for 99 St, it wouldn't be too far from the east end of the Junction Blvd stop or the west exits of the 108 St station.

 

Prefer to see stops at Junction and 108, especially if the LIE branch runs under the westbound service road. There seems to be more commercial activity and housing density (Lefrak City) to the north of the expressway. Is Junction/LIE close enough to Woodhaven/Queens Blvd to make a passageway between the two stations convenient? Eyeing it on both Google Maps and the MTA’s Neighborhood Maps page makes it look like Junction Blvd by the LIE is a bit too far away from Woodhaven/QB for a convenient passageway. Said passageway would likely have to tunnel under the expressway ramps and the new station’s platforms would likely be located under a section of the service road that’s quite narrow. 

I had in mind that the LIE branch would turn off the QBL east of Woodhaven and run under the eastbound LIE service road, so the turn-off for northbound trains would be less severe. But it might be less convenient for walk-on riders who aren’t transferring from buses. Though a passageway from Woodhaven/QB to Junction appears to be much shorter and probably more feasible to build if the branch goes under the eastbound service road.

4 hours ago, mrsman said:

With regard to the LIE line, I echo the statements above.  Add a station for 108th.  No need for a station at College Point.  And extend this line as far as you can into Alley Pond Park to provide park and ride facilities and an alternative to the Port Washington line.

Agree that College Point Blvd doesn’t need a station. Main Street isn’t that far away anyway. And Main has more bus routes, including the Q44 SBS. The LIE line should go as far as Springfield Blvd for Queensboro Community College. I think it’s too far away from the Port Washington line to entice LIRR riders away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have any plans been released for the rebuild of Mets-Willets Point? I'm interested to see if it will be a rehab like Howard Beach (where they kept the platform and track layout) or if they plan on rebuilding it from the ground up. If it's the second option, then this would be a good opportunity to install an island platform between the westbound local and express tracks; this would make it so that AM rush (7) and <7> trains don't have to share a track and potentially hold each other up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I thought of a proposal that gives 3rd Avenue a long awaited EL replacement (assuming that demand for 1 still exists) while simultaneously reducing the amount of reverse branching that occurs in the Bronx. How about sending the (5) up via 3rd Avenue to Fordham Plaza.

Stops (going south) are the following.

Fordham Plaza - Transfer to MNRR, Bx12+, Bx15+

183rd Street

Tremont Avenue

Clearmont Parkway 

169th Street

Melrose/Boston Road

156th Street (placed either under Saint Anns Avenue or Brook Avenue)

Once the 3rd Avenue Subway (or (5) in this case) reaches 3rd Avenue-149th Street, two options will be proposed:

Option 1 - Shallow 3rd Avenue-149th Street. This option would expand 149th Street to 4 tracks and convert the side platforms to Island platforms to allow for a Cross transfer between the (2)(3) (which would replace the (5) on Dyre in this proposal) and (5). West of the station, new X-Over switches will be built to allow for operational flexibility in case of a delay. This however, might make the S-Curve at 149th Street Junction obsolete. Having the 3rd Avenue EL swing under Brook Avenue after Melrose would be preferable for this option. Note that the (5) will head straight to 138th under both options.

Option 2 - Deep 3rd Avenue-149th Street Option. Just like the SAS proposal for Grand Street, the (5) could have a new station and platform underneath the existing station before heading straight to 138th. This would reduce the amount of curves that are made with the (5) running under Saint Anns Avenue after Melrose/Boston Road. 

In addition, a new Harlem (S) shuttle can be added between 135th and 148th. Which would require expanding 135th. 

Benefits:

  • 3rd Avenue Finally gets a long awaited Subway Replacement 
  • Reverse Branching is reduced on the Bronx End of the IRT
  • Service along the East 180th Junction can be simplified since it’ll just be serving 7th Avenue Services
  • (Shallow 3rd Av-149th) allows for Operational Flexibility. 
  • 149th Street-Grand Concourse gets some relief as there will be 2 7th/Lexington Transfer stations instead of 1.

Downfalls:

  • WPR and Dyre Avenue Loses direct Lexington Service.
  • Construction could take a while given (MTA)’s recent track record. Which raises the question:

Would it be cheaper or more effective  if a 3rd Party Organization were to build this 3rd Avenue replacement?

Edited by LaGuardia Link N Tra
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

So I thought of a proposal that gives 3rd Avenue a long awaited EL replacement (assuming that demand for 1 still exists) while simultaneously reducing the amount of reverse branching that occurs in the Bronx. How about sending the (5) up via 3rd Avenue to Fordham Plaza.

Stops (going south) are the following.

Fordham Plaza - Transfer to MNRR, Bx12+, Bx15+

183rd Street

Tremont Avenue

Clearmont Parkway 

169th Street

Melrose/Boston Road

156th Street (placed either under Saint Anns Avenue or Brook Avenue)

Once the 3rd Avenue Subway (or (5) in this case) reaches 3rd Avenue-149th Street, two options will be proposed:

Option 1 - Shallow 3rd Avenue-149th Street. This option would expand 149th Street to 4 tracks and convert the side platforms to Island platforms to allow for a Cross transfer between the (2)(3) (which would replace the (5) on Dyre in this proposal) and (5). West of the station, new X-Over switches will be built to allow for operational flexibility in case of a delay. This however, might make the S-Curve at 149th Street Junction obsolete. Having the 3rd Avenue EL swing under Brook Avenue after Melrose would be preferable for this option. Note that the (5) will head straight to 138th under both options.

Option 2 - Deep 3rd Avenue-149th Street Option. Just like the SAS proposal for Grand Street, the (5) could have a new station and platform underneath the existing station before heading straight to 138th. This would reduce the amount of curves that are made with the (5) running under Saint Anns Avenue after Melrose/Boston Road. 

In addition, a new Harlem (S) shuttle can be added between 135th and 148th. Which would require expanding 135th. 

Benefits:

  • 3rd Avenue Finally gets a long awaited Subway Replacement 
  • Reverse Branching is reduced on the Bronx End of the IRT
  • Service along the East 180th Junction can be simplified since it’ll just be serving 7th Avenue Services
  • (Shallow 3rd Av-149th) allows for Operational Flexibility. 
  • 149th Street-Grand Concourse gets some relief as there will be 2 7th/Lexington Transfer stations instead of 1.

Downfalls:

  • WPR and Dyre Avenue Loses direct Lexington Service.
  • Construction could take a while given (MTA)’s recent track record. Which raises the question:

Would it be cheaper or more effective  if a 3rd Party Organization were to build this 3rd Avenue replacement?

Not a bad plan. 

My stations will probably be

Fordham Plaza

East 181 Street

East 176 Street

East 167 Street

East 156rd St

and then 3rd Av-149th

To reduce the number of stations required.

I wouldn't use the (5) though. I prefer an SAS extension from 125 St/2nd Ave. If we are going to do an Lex Av extension, we need to find a way for the (5) to branch off before 138th-GC to reduce the curvature. 

I was wondering about your interlining proposal though. What if, we completely shut down 145th/H-148th and just reroute all the Lex trains to Woodlawn and all the 7th Ave train via East 180th St.

 

That being said, bronx do need a crosstown subway. preferable one that crosses Fordham Rd

 

Now I completely ignored (MTA) 's construction track record. Because if I have to take that into account, there will be no subway

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Mtatransit said:

Not a bad plan. 

My stations will probably be

*list of stations*

To reduce the number of stations required.

I wouldn't use the (5) though. I prefer an SAS extension from 125 St/2nd Ave. If we are going to do an Lex Av extension, we need to find a way for the (5) to branch off before 138th-GC to reduce the curvature. 

I was wondering about your interlining proposal though. What if, we completely shut down 145th/H-148th and just reroute all the Lex trains to Woodlawn and all the 7th Ave train via East 180th St.

 

That being said, bronx do need a crosstown subway. preferable one that crosses Fordham Rd

 

Now I completely ignored (MTA) 's construction track record. Because if I have to take that into account, there will be no subway

I’ll respond to all parts of your post in the order that you listed them:

List of Stations - I understand what you mean by reducing the number of stops. I guess 181st would be a better connection since the Bx36 runs along East 180th Street. Pretty sure another bus runs along that corridor. Don’t remember cause I haven’t been to the Bronx in 5 months. 

The reason I chose the (5) as opposed to some SAS route was because I have something else in mind for SAS. Happened to make a visualized map of the 1968 Program for Action (which you can see in the previous page or 2 of this thread) and drew the (5) as the Park Avenue line given that SAS was planned to replace the IRT along Dyre and Pelham (north of Hunts Point Avenue). Thus I wanted to leave room for an SAS Bronx extension that could potentially serve an underserved area like Throggs Neck. TBH I’d prefer that over some B Division Pelham replacement. As for branching off 138th, I am proposing tunnels that would bypass 149/Grand Concourse so that would put the current (S-Curve) tunnels out of service. These new tunnels would obviously be wider than the current ones. 

For the part in bold here - No. For one, if we were to abandon 145th and 148th, that section of Harlem would only be left with bus service and I don’t think that’ll bode well with Harlem Riders. Secondly, while I did support the idea of sending all 7th Avenue Trains to WPR (which still happens in this proposal) and all Lexington Trains up Jerome, that would require a massive expansion of the 149th/Grand Concourse Station to deal with that potential transfer load. Also, while Jerome Avenue could use better service, I don’t think duplicating services would be a good idea. Especially when you have the (B) and (D) under Grand Concourse a few blocks away. With White Plains Road, its different because trains Branch out after East 180th Street whereas Jerome doesn’t have that Luxury. With a (2)(3)(5) (cross platform) Transfer under 3rd Avenue-149th Street, it at least WPR Riders will still have access to Lexington if they choose not to transfer at 149th-Grand Concourse. 

A Fordham Subway would provide very nice crosstown service for the Bronx, however the problem lMO lies in the geography between Crane Concourse and the University Heights Bridge. For starters, individual transfer stations with the (4) under Jerome and the (B)(D) at Grand Concourse would be too close to each other, and even if you were to build a mega transfer station in that area, it wouldn’t be a desirable place to transfer given that Fordham Road makes a sharp turn between Jerome Avenue and Grand Concourse, and a few sharp turns between Jerome and the University Heights Bridge. You also have to take into account that the area I listed is somewhat of a mountainous region so taking that into account along with the sharp curves, wouldn’t make building a subway desirable. Finally, I have to mention 207th Street. 207th Street is on the opposite end of the University Heights Bridge facing west. And As far as I know, the tunnels that connect the (A) and (C) with 207th Street yard are under 207th. Meaning that a Fordham Subway would have to run beneath those tracks to terminate at Inwood with the (A), and that would be DEEP. While not impossible, I don’t find building a subway across Fordham Road to be a desirable choice due to geographical reasons. A streetcar or LRT is more plausible for Fordham Road IMO. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/17/2021 at 9:13 PM, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

The reason I chose the (5) as opposed to some SAS route was because I have something else in mind for SAS. Happened to make a visualized map of the 1968 Program for Action (which you can see in the previous page or 2 of this thread) and drew the (5) as the Park Avenue line given that SAS was planned to replace the IRT along Dyre and Pelham (north of Hunts Point Avenue). Thus I wanted to leave room for an SAS Bronx extension that could potentially serve an underserved area like Throggs Neck. TBH I’d prefer that over some B Division Pelham replacement. As for branching off 138th, I am proposing tunnels that would bypass 149/Grand Concourse so that would put the current (S-Curve) tunnels out of service. These new tunnels would obviously be wider than the current ones. 

For the part in bold here - No. For one, if we were to abandon 145th and 148th, that section of Harlem would only be left with bus service and I don’t think that’ll bode well with Harlem Riders. Secondly, while I did support the idea of sending all 7th Avenue Trains to WPR (which still happens in this proposal) and all Lexington Trains up Jerome, that would require a massive expansion of the 149th/Grand Concourse Station to deal with that potential transfer load. Also, while Jerome Avenue could use better service, I don’t think duplicating services would be a good idea. Especially when you have the (B) and (D) under Grand Concourse a few blocks away. With White Plains Road, its different because trains Branch out after East 180th Street whereas Jerome doesn’t have that Luxury. With a (2)(3)(5) (cross platform) Transfer under 3rd Avenue-149th Street, it at least WPR Riders will still have access to Lexington if they choose not to transfer at 149th-Grand Concourse. 

A Fordham Subway would provide very nice crosstown service for the Bronx, however the problem lMO lies in the geography between Crane Concourse and the University Heights Bridge. For starters, individual transfer stations with the (4) under Jerome and the (B)(D) at Grand Concourse would be too close to each other, and even if you were to build a mega transfer station in that area, it wouldn’t be a desirable place to transfer given that Fordham Road makes a sharp turn between Jerome Avenue and Grand Concourse, and a few sharp turns between Jerome and the University Heights Bridge. You also have to take into account that the area I listed is somewhat of a mountainous region so taking that into account along with the sharp curves, wouldn’t make building a subway desirable. Finally, I have to mention 207th Street. 207th Street is on the opposite end of the University Heights Bridge facing west. And As far as I know, the tunnels that connect the (A) and (C) with 207th Street yard are under 207th. Meaning that a Fordham Subway would have to run beneath those tracks to terminate at Inwood with the (A), and that would be DEEP. While not impossible, I don’t find building a subway across Fordham Road to be a desirable choice due to geographical reasons. A streetcar or LRT is more plausible for Fordham Road IMO. 

I choose the SAS over the (5) for 3rd Avenue because there the curvature will be less than compared tot trying to get the Lex Av train from 138th - GC. 

For Throgs Neck, I would then just build a spur off the (6) at Castle Hill Avenue. I will also convert that station to an Express station.

Regarding Lenox Avenue, while I understand that some people will be left with bus service. The two stations are no more than a 15 minute walk from 145th Street on the IND or 135th on the (2) . I just don't think its worth the expense maintaining a shuttle between 148th and 135th (I don't see a need for that Times Sq shuttle either, but I guess MTA maintained it for some reason)

I believe more people use Jerome over GC for some reason (I think its because the (D) runs like crap). You may be right about the transfer load though. But hopefully under my proposal, people transfer at 3rd Av-149th to the SAS service, alleviating the loads at 149th-GC.

Regarding Fordham Rd, if they could convert the bus lane into a LRT Track that would be great. But we should also consider looking at an extension of the (D) to Co-Op or something

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mtatransit said:

I choose the SAS over the (5) for 3rd Avenue because there the curvature will be less than compared tot trying to get the Lex Av train from 138th - GC. 

For Throgs Neck, I would then just build a spur off the (6) at Castle Hill Avenue. I will also convert that station to an Express station.

Regarding Lenox Avenue, while I understand that some people will be left with bus service. The two stations are no more than a 15 minute walk from 145th Street on the IND or 135th on the (2) . I just don't think its worth the expense maintaining a shuttle between 148th and 135th (I don't see a need for that Times Sq shuttle either, but I guess MTA maintained it for some reason)

I believe more people use Jerome over GC for some reason (I think its because the (D) runs like crap). You may be right about the transfer load though. But hopefully under my proposal, people transfer at 3rd Av-149th to the SAS service, alleviating the loads at 149th-GC.

Regarding Fordham Rd, if they could convert the bus lane into a LRT Track that would be great. But we should also consider looking at an extension of the (D) to Co-Op or something

 

 

It helps to avoid overloading the (7) in Manhattan (well, beyond what it's already handling, anyway). It's easier to understand when comparing normal loads, as opposed to pandemic loads.

Rockaway Park gets a small amount of peak service to/from Manhattan, while Franklin Avenue has its own niche of connecting people between the southern and eastern parts of Brooklyn, as well as some parts of Queens, all without touching Manhattan, a bus, or the LIRR. Any Lenox Avenue shuttle proposal would lack unique connections or the ability to substantially offload crowding. As such, the only thing it would be good for is setting it up for permanent closure, save for a limited amount of non-revenue moves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/19/2021 at 2:24 PM, Mtatransit said:

I believe more people use Jerome over GC for some reason (I think its because the (D) runs like crap). You may be right about the transfer load though. But hopefully under my proposal, people transfer at 3rd Av-149th to the SAS service, alleviating the loads at 149th-GC.

Regarding Fordham Rd, if they could convert the bus lane into a LRT Track that would be great. But we should also consider looking at an extension of the (D) to Co-Op or something

We should problem solve the issue of the (D) train running horrible before extending it to Co-Op. 

On 1/19/2021 at 4:35 PM, Lex said:

It helps to avoid overloading the (7) in Manhattan (well, beyond what it's already handling, anyway). It's easier to understand when comparing normal loads, as opposed to pandemic loads.

Rockaway Park gets a small amount of peak service to/from Manhattan, while Franklin Avenue has its own niche of connecting people between the southern and eastern parts of Brooklyn, as well as some parts of Queens, all without touching Manhattan, a bus, or the LIRR. Any Lenox Avenue shuttle proposal would lack unique connections or the ability to substantially offload crowding. As such, the only thing it would be good for is setting it up for permanent closure, save for a limited amount of non-revenue moves.

On 1/19/2021 at 2:24 PM, Mtatransit said:

Regarding Lenox Avenue, while I understand that some people will be left with bus service. The two stations are no more than a 15 minute walk from 145th Street on the IND or 135th on the (2) . I just don't think its worth the expense maintaining a shuttle between 148th and 135th (I don't see a need for that Times Sq shuttle either, but I guess MTA maintained it for some reason)

 

On 1/17/2021 at 9:13 PM, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

For the part in bold here - No. For one, if we were to abandon 145th and 148th, that section of Harlem would only be left with bus service and I don’t think that’ll bode well with Harlem Riders. Secondly, while I did support the idea of sending all 7th Avenue Trains to WPR (which still happens in this proposal) and all Lexington Trains up Jerome, that would require a massive expansion of the 149th/Grand Concourse Station to deal with that potential transfer load. Also, while Jerome Avenue could use better service, I don’t think duplicating services would be a good idea. Especially when you have the (B) and (D) under Grand Concourse a few blocks away. With White Plains Road, its different because trains Branch out after East 180th Street whereas Jerome doesn’t have that Luxury. With a (2)(3)(5) (cross platform) Transfer under 3rd Avenue-149th Street, it at least WPR Riders will still have access to Lexington if they choose not to transfer at 149th-Grand Concourse. 

 

The (3) train should stay in Harlem. (3) trains are usually the emptier trains because they stay there. It's not for the benefit of Harlem Riders, it's for the benefit of 7th Avenue Express Riders. I'd rather just do SAS with two branches (Bronx (T) and 125th St (Q) ). 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/19/2021 at 2:24 PM, Mtatransit said:

I believe more people use Jerome over GC for some reason (I think its because the (D) runs like crap). You may be right about the transfer load though. But hopefully under my proposal, people transfer at 3rd Av-149th to the SAS service, alleviating the loads at 149th-GC.

Regarding Fordham Rd, if they could convert the bus lane into a LRT Track that would be great. But we should also consider looking at an extension of the (D) to Co-Op or something

20 minutes ago, Theli11 said:

We should problem solve the issue of the (D) train running horrible before extending it to Co-Op. 

The (3) train should stay in Harlem. (3) trains are usually the emptier trains because they stay there. It's not for the benefit of Harlem Riders, it's for the benefit of 7th Avenue Express Riders. I'd rather just do SAS with two branches (Bronx (T) and 125th St (Q) ). 

 

Thank you for pointing that out as (D) train service frequency is already horrible. I wouldn't mind an extension towards Co-Op, but the problem is because of how (D) trains are running. We have the biggest issue that is the Dekalb interlock. Not only is it forced to wait for the (B) to pass by, but it is forced to wait for the (N) to go through as well in which a (Q) could already be trying to either enter or leave Dekalb from either side. Dekalb interlock needs to be fixed before doing anything. I would also mention CPW, but I don't think it is that bad compared to Dekalb. I feel if Dekalb were to be deinterlined, (D) trains would be able to run more trains in and out. West End has been suffering from the lack of (D) trains, its also not rare to see it being forced to run express as well as that happens practically every day. What makes it worse is that I've seen (N) and (W) trains operate on West End so casually every day as well which just shows how bad the service frequency is because I never see any (D) trains until like 30 mins later at the very least. As much as I hate the idea of implementing Van's plan to deinterline Dekalb and sending down the (R) (in my opinion it should be the (W) since the (R) rarely ever operates any service on West End and the (W) was born on that line) which also means people on that line are shafted to run on 4th Av local, it wouldn't really be as bad because regardless of whatever express service comes by on 4th Av, (B) or (D), both would run express into Manhattan. At least here, (D) trains would get a boost in service as well as maybe having (B) trains operate full time to Bedford instead of only peak rush hour service if the (MTA) were to consider an extension for (D) trains to Co-Op. It wouldn't hurt the (MTA) to at least take a look at the idea as it is pretty cheap to switch around a few lines as well as I'm assuming to implement a new switch south of 36 St. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/19/2021 at 2:24 PM, Mtatransit said:

Finally, I have to mention 207th Street. 207th Street is on the opposite end of the University Heights Bridge facing west. And As far as I know, the tunnels that connect the (A) and (C) with 207th Street yard are under 207th. Meaning that a Fordham Subway would have to run beneath those tracks to terminate at Inwood with the (A), and that would be DEEP. While not impossible, I don’t find building a subway across Fordham Road to be a desirable choice due to geographical reasons. A streetcar or LRT is more plausible for Fordham Road IMO.

You’d have to tunnel under Devoe Park, and then create an exit portal in Fordham Playground (all the trees on the SB side of Sedgwick) to make an El across the River and through the yard.

Then there’d be a choice - El along 211th St to Isham/Broadway to connect to 207th St (A), or create another tunnel entry in the yard and then connect it to (A) tracks to make a thru-service from 8th Av lines to Fordham Line, or a 14th St situation where the Fordham Line ends right under 207th St Station.

That avoids the curve between Cedar and Sedgwick, but eliminates a transfer to MNRR at University Heights.

====
The curve between Morris Av and Grand Concourse is bad because of the GC underpass, but the one between Marion Av and Webster is worse IMO because of the traffic and hill grade there being ~3-5%. With both, you’re looking at a deep tunnel a la (7) Hudson Yards with only elevator access to get to the Fordham line from the surface and (D). And the curve is severe enough that I’d wonder if a LRT longer than a PCC car could do it and maintain the center of gravity. Plus the traffic means that if it’s not segregated from traffic, many wrecks because of the consist having to both maintain downhill speed and stopping to avoid the gypsy cabs u-turning whenever they feel. 
 

(Although to avoid all the basements in buildings over there, a deep tube probably would be required anyway.)

But if it was done, to give some distance between stations at Jerome and GC, Jerome station would have to be directly under Grand and Davidson, so the station would effectively be University Av-Jerome Av, and no station at Sedgwick. 
 

/my2centsfromlivingovertherefortwoyears

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Deucey said:

You’d have to tunnel under Devoe Park, and then create an exit portal in Fordham Playground (all the trees on the SB side of Sedgwick) to make an El across the River and through the yard.

Then there’d be a choice - El along 211th St to Isham/Broadway to connect to 207th St (A), or create another tunnel entry in the yard and then connect it to (A) tracks to make a thru-service from 8th Av lines to Fordham Line, or a 14th St situation where the Fordham Line ends right under 207th St Station.

That avoids the curve between Cedar and Sedgwick, but eliminates a transfer to MNRR at University Heights.

====
The curve between Morris Av and Grand Concourse is bad because of the GC underpass, but the one between Marion Av and Webster is worse IMO because of the traffic and hill grade there being ~3-5%. With both, you’re looking at a deep tunnel a la (7) Hudson Yards with only elevator access to get to the Fordham line from the surface and (D). And the curve is severe enough that I’d wonder if a LRT longer than a PCC car could do it and maintain the center of gravity. Plus the traffic means that if it’s not segregated from traffic, many wrecks because of the consist having to both maintain downhill speed and stopping to avoid the gypsy cabs u-turning whenever they feel. 
 

(Although to avoid all the basements in buildings over there, a deep tube probably would be required anyway.)

But if it was done, to give some distance between stations at Jerome and GC, Jerome station would have to be directly under Grand and Davidson, so the station would effectively be University Av-Jerome Av, and no station at Sedgwick. 
 

/my2centsfromlivingovertherefortwoyears

I'd prefer an elevated light metro line, though I have no idea how crazy the portion west of Fordham Plaza would theoretically look.

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.