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

15 minutes ago, ActiveCity said:

Send the (B)  to 2 Av-Houston St via 6 Av Express / Concourse Local / Central Park West Local.

Send the (J) to Bay Ridge-95 St via Broadway-Brooklyn Local / 4 Av Local / Canarsie Local.

Send the (N) to Astoria-Ditmars Blvd via Broadway Express / 4 Av Express / Astoria / Sea Beach. 

Send the (Q) to Forest Hills-71 Av via Broadway Express / Brighton Express / Queens Blvd Local. 

Send the (R) to 96 St-2 Av via Broadway Local / 4 Av Local / 2 Av Local / West End.

Send the (Z) to Broad St via Broadway-Brooklyn Express (rush hours only) / Jamaica Av.

Extend the platforms on the Franklin Av Shuttle to accommodate 8 car-60 ft trains or 10 car-60 ft trains and restore the second track. Then, extend the Franklin Av line and connect it with the Myrtle Av line running from Coney Island-Stillwell Av or Brighton Beach to Metropolitan Av-Middle Village via Brighton Local / Myrtle Av. Finally, there will be 4 new stops added along the way at Lafayette Av, Spencer St, Tompkins Av, and Myrtle Av-Broadway. This new line, if built, would bring back the brown M train and will provide transfers to the G, J, L, and Z trains. 

I don't think you have to bring back the (brownM) because people do like the on seat ride of Midtown. That (brownM) will definitely carry air.

(J) Canarsie Local? I'm wondering how service is going to get to Jamaica Av during off-peak?  Or even rush hour? 

(N)(Q)(R) trains are going to have some merging issues.. the (N)(Q) are running express and the (R) (assuming there is no (W) ) will have to cross into the local tracks somewhere.. 

Don't know where the (D) is in this plan, but the (B) running to 2nd Avenue means there's no Brighton Local ((Q) is on Brighton Express) to manhattan. 

Actually I don't even know where the (D) would even go, but with the entire plan 6th Avenue is only served by (B) and (F) trains, Grand St isn't being served by anything (Unless the (D) is running to... Bay Ridge via Broadway Express? it feels like this is incomplete.. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 11.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

56 minutes ago, ActiveCity said:

Send the B to 2 Av-Houston St via 6 Av Express / Concourse Local / Central Park West Local. Send the J to Bay Ridge-95 St via Broadway-Brooklyn Local / 4 Av Local / Canarsie Local. Send the N to Astoria-Ditmars Blvd via Broadway Express / 4 Av Express / Astoria / Sea Beach. Send the Q to Forest Hills-71 Av via Broadway Express / Brighton Express / Queens Blvd Local. Send the R to 96 St-2 Av via Broadway Local / 4 Av Local / 2 Av Local / West End. Send the Z to Broad St via Broadway-Brooklyn Express (rush hours only) / Jamaica Av. Extend the platforms on the Franklin Av Shuttle to accommodate 8 car-60 ft trains or 10 car-60 ft trains and restore the second track. Then, extend the Franklin Av line and connect it with the Myrtle Av line running from Coney Island-Stillwell Av or Brighton Beach to Metropolitan Av-Middle Village via Brighton Local / Myrtle Av. Finally, there will be 4 new stops added along the way at Lafayette Av, Spencer St, Tompkins Av, and Myrtle Av-Broadway. This new line, if built, would bring back the brown M train and will provide transfers to the G, J, L, and Z trains. 

There is way too much going on with this and none of these would ever happen (well maybe except extending the Franklin Av Shuttle platform length but definitely not to 8 car-60 ft trains length, but it still depends because of what the (MTA) has done to this line over the decades). I'll explain as to why this can't work at all.

(B) to 2 Av-Houston St:
There's really no reason to truncating the (B) to 2 Av at all, it just makes running the (B) a little more complicated because now Southbound trains has to run on the local tracks from West 4 St. There are no switches that can allow for the (B) to run to 2 Av from Broadway-Lafayette, not to mention there are no tracks that allow the (B) or any express trains on 6 Av to 2 Av without running on the local tracks. This would just end up screwing over any local trains, specifically the (F).

(J) from Canarsie to Bay Ridge-95 St:
While I am in favor of sending (J) trains along 4 Av and getting rid of the long, all local line we call the (R), the (J) would also be too long for this. But then you decide to route the (J) instead from Jamaica Center, it runs from Canarsie? Why? This doesn't make any sense at all. For starters, you have the (L) to deal with which is an already pretty isolated line and should stay that way, then you have the part about no direct service running uptown. No one would want to take this new (J) because of it. Then you have no other line that is running along Jamaica Av portion other than the (Z) (which I'll get to in a bit). The line would be very useless carrying dead air.

(N) running express:
The (N) already runs express during weekdays along Broadway, during weekends, it runs local. So unless you mean full time express along Broadway, it's usually helping out the (R) (which I'll get to that in a bit).

(Q) to Forest Hills-71 Av:
This is where things become vague, I'd assume it would run it's normal service then run via 60 St making all (R) stops. As much as I wouldn't mind an express Broadway service replacing the (R) along QBL, there's an issue with that. Both the (N) and (Q) would have to switch to local north of 34 St-Herald Square in order for both to run into Queens. Well there is also running the (Q) along 63 St tunnel with the (F) but even then that still causes delays.

(R) to 96 St-2 Av:
Now as much as I wouldn't mind seeing Vanshnook's idea of sending a Broadway local line to run along West End, sending via SAS doesn't really help it at all because now you also have the merge issue with the (N) and (Q). All 3 lines would be crossing over each other which can get very annoying and cause delays. Then you also have the question of where exactly are you sending the (R) along West End? Is it replacing the (D) or running to Bay Parkway?

(Z) full time:
Personally, there isn't much I can really say about this topic other than the (Z) having to run on its own from Broadway Junction to Jamaica Center. There's a reason why the (Z) is still around even though it only appears during rush hour for skip stop service. The Jamaica Av El doesn't have an express service so the (MTA) decided to stick around with it. But getting rid of the (J) or moving it off of Jamaica Av doesn't solve anything because now you have to run more (Z) trains around to compensate for not having the (J) around.

Franklin Av Shuttle platform extension and (brownM):
Extending the platform length along the Franklin Av Shuttle isn't a bad idea, although because of what the (MTA) did to the line for the past decade or so, it probably isn't possible anymore. Then you also have bringing back the (brownM), making service along Brighton. Just like (J) along Canarsie, it would be very useless because no one would want to take it. People along Brighton prefer Broadway service and since the (Q) runs express into Manhattan and uptown as well just further proves my point of how useless this would be. Then you also have the buildings in the way which just makes it impossible to run. You also have the people at Williamsburg that gets screwed over for not having direct uptown service which is what the (M) is. The (M) was created for a reason which is basically an extended (V) to Metropolitan Av. 

This is basically all I have as to why these won't work, if there's anything I'm missing, y'all can add on.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Theli11 said:

Wouldn't this make the Broadway Line a lot worse.. I'm not sure how many people need to take a one seat ride into Manhattan via the Bridge when the Canarsie tunnel is perfectly fine. Making the (Z) full time would also mean cutting service past Broadway Junction in half at all times. It's already bad enough in Skip Stop rush hours. And you're still forcing people to transfer at Atlantic rather than Broadway Junction.. yes it can work doesn't mean it should happen.. 

Wally keeps trying to make downtown services more important because Cuomo needs the bankers or something.

  • LMAO! 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been working a fantasy map for a while (okay, maybe some 8 years now), but I never put much thought into the yards.

Two of my lines would be a (R) from Forest Hills to Bay Ridge via 2nd Avenue, not Broadway. Another would be a (V) from the two Rockaways to Hanover Square, again via 2nd Avenue and not 6th Avenue. Both would probably use a new tunnel under 57th Street to reach 2nd Avenue and run on their own tracks, seperately from the (T) and a (U) running on their own tracks, while the (F) and (M) would use the 63rd Street tunnels.

Now I can see the (R) using Jamaica Yard, but the bulk of the (V) would have more difficulty getting there. Trains would have to finish their runs in Manhattan and then head back to Queens.

In this map, Jamaica Yard would house an extended (E) , the (R) , and the (F) , with some (M) trains, although a Rochdale yard would be used for the (M) to Rosedale.

Would it be worth it to expand Rockaway Park yard? I've been leaning heavily to no, because of flood risks....unless the yard is elevated and can occupy that land between Beach Channel Drive

How about making a curve from the Rockaway line, have it head east under the existing Queens Blvd line, and connect it with the Jamaica Yard leads? Maybe, but that would be a long 12-mile deadhead, and with 3, almost 4 lines using it, it might be strained to house 5 lines.

A third possibility would be a yard next to Aqueduct Racetrack. It would replace that huge parking lot in the south. The leads at the southern end would flyover and replace the current "express" tracks, descend and use the switches south of Howard Beach. The northern leads would do the same, but the flyover would descend within the Racetrack station and have switches north of the station.

Some maps:

bmxEjrM.png

 

3IHJbl3.jpg

 

wIPMRW6.png

 

 

 

Thoughts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, GojiMet86 said:

Thoughts

You really wanna steal all that parking and the walkway from the folks going to the casino?

You hate Long Islanders and old people, huh?

/Sarcasm

Edited by Deucey
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Deucey said:

You really wanna steal all that parking and the walkway from the folks going to the casino?

You hate Long Islanders and old people, huh?

/Sarcasm

 

Don't forget the gold courses, too.

  • LMAO! 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, GojiMet86 said:

 

Don't forget the gold courses, too.

Honestly I just don't get why they just didn't move North Conduit station and consolidate Aqueduct station into it.

Not why they're not doing it as part of CBTC installation. Especially when they've done it on SIR - so not unprecedented.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Deucey said:

Honestly I just don't get why they just didn't move North Conduit station and consolidate Aqueduct station into it.

Not why they're not doing it as part of CBTC installation. Especially when they've done it on SIR - so not unprecedented.

They may do so if the Rockaway Beach Branch is reactivated for LIRR service.

In other words, don't get your hopes up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Deucey said:

Honestly I just don't get why they just didn't move North Conduit station and consolidate Aqueduct station into it.

Not why they're not doing it as part of CBTC installation. Especially when they've done it on SIR - so not unprecedented.

Not much of a reason to. Atlantic and Nassau were by all accounts more or less falling apart. The A train stations are not anywhere near that bad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Speaking of the Rockaway Beach Branch, Andrew Yang actually supports the Queensway plan which is a slap in the face for central Queens residents. A train will always be better than no train at all. Check his recent instagram post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, ActiveCity said:

Speaking of the Rockaway Beach Branch, Andrew Yang actually supports the Queensway plan which is a slap in the face for central Queens residents. A train will always be better than no train at all. Check his recent instagram post.

I mean just because someone is in support of a transit plan, that don't mean it'll always mean it's better either. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ActiveCity said:

Speaking of the Rockaway Beach Branch, Andrew Yang actually supports the Queensway plan which is a slap in the face for central Queens residents. A train will always be better than no train at all. Check his recent instagram post.

You're right...Yang is indeed one big encyclopedic ignorance. Ask him how long he's been living in NYC and he'll stare at you with a blank face.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

My thoughts on untangling Broadway while helping improve Queens Blvd Local service (Which I admittedly have a personal stake in):

(N) 96st-2nd Ave to Coney Island via the Broadway Exp + Manhattan Bridge -> 4th Ave Express -> Sea Beach

(Q) 179st-Hillside to Coney Island via Queens Blvd Exp -> 63rd St -> Broadway Exp + Manhattan Bridge -> Brighton

(R) Same route, no late night service

(W) Astoria-Ditmars to 9th Ave, Brooklyn via Broadway Local + Lower Manhattan, late nights runs to 95th-Bay Ridge to replace (R) 

(F) 71st-Continential to Coney Island via Queens Blvd Local -> 53rd Street -> 6th Ave Local -> Culver

(E) No changes

(J) Extended to 57st/6th Ave all times via 6th Ave Local

(M) To Broad St, Manhattan All times

 

So Broadway looks like this:

(N)(Q) Express (R)(W) Local with zero merges

Queens Blvd looks like this:

(E)(Q) Express (F)(R) Local

This will give the Queens Blvd local two major trunk lines at all times (late nights (E)(F) run local) which IMHO is needed. An additional benefit is the (J) is extended up 6th Ave all times giving more of Brooklyn full time Manhattan access. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, shiznit1987 said:

My thoughts on untangling Broadway while helping improve Queens Blvd Local service (Which I admittedly have a personal stake in):

(N) 96st-2nd Ave to Coney Island via the Broadway Exp + Manhattan Bridge -> 4th Ave Express -> Sea Beach

(Q) 179st-Hillside to Coney Island via Queens Blvd Exp -> 63rd St -> Broadway Exp + Manhattan Bridge -> Brighton

(R) Same route, no late night service

(W) Astoria-Ditmars to 9th Ave, Brooklyn via Broadway Local + Lower Manhattan, late nights runs to 95th-Bay Ridge to replace (R) 

(F) 71st-Continential to Coney Island via Queens Blvd Local -> 53rd Street -> 6th Ave Local -> Culver

(E) No changes

(J) Extended to 57st/6th Ave all times via 6th Ave Local

(M) To Broad St, Manhattan All times

 

So Broadway looks like this:

(N)(Q) Express (R)(W) Local with zero merges

Queens Blvd looks like this:

(E)(Q) Express (F)(R) Local

This will give the Queens Blvd local two major trunk lines at all times (late nights (E)(F) run local) which IMHO is needed. An additional benefit is the (J) is extended up 6th Ave all times giving more of Brooklyn full time Manhattan access. 

 

 

I'm not going to lie, I do like most of this, but there are things that I would disagree with when it comes to this layout along with some changes.

Pros:

  • Yes, with all of Broadway deinterlined, this allows for more service frequencies, something that is very needed.
  • Broadway taking over 63 St allows while having 6 and 8 Av along 53 St helps since there isn't any interference. 
  • (W) trains running into South Brooklyn and terminating at 9 Av actually makes a lot of sense which I still do not know why it doesn't run into South Brooklyn more often, especially along West End where I believe service is needed most (I'll get to more about the (W) in a bit).
  • (R) trains having little interference from other lines or at the very least, a lot less interference is definitely a huge plus and can definitely allow for more trains per hour because of it.

Cons:

  • The biggest one I would consider changing is the (E) and (F) along QBL swapping each other with the (E) running local to Forest Hills and the (F) to Jamaica Center or 179 St with the (Q) to Jamaica Center, either or works. The reason is because the (F) is still a long route and is now all local. People wouldn't want to take it anymore because it's a long route now being all local. It's the same issue with the (R) but with just as much interlining as before. You have the (F) merging and split with the (G) along Culver, then merging with the (J) along 6 Av to split up and run along 53 St with the (E) to then split and run local and run local with the (R) along QBL. This is a bad combo and kind of defeats the purpose of deinterlining as the whole point was to also deinterline as much of QBL as possible. The (E) still would only have about 3 merges, that being the (C), (F), and (R), but it's a much shorter route compared to the long (F) line. It might not be the best idea, but it's definitely better than sticking with the (F) being all local with merging issues, we don't need another line local line.
  • This was a questionable move, but not entirely. I can definitely say cutting back 6 Av service running along 63 St is probably a better move, but running the (J) instead of the (M) to 57 St-6 Av is pretty questionable. The (M) compared to the (J) is much shorter and is a better candidate since the (J) is a pretty long line with very little to work with. Jamaica Av branch doesn't have any express service or rather a 3rd track to run faster service, so running the (J) along 6 Av might not be a great idea entirely, personally I wouldn't mind it still, just trying to run service better.
  • Onto the final one which is the (W), I personally would've had the (W) run further along West End to Bay Parkway at the very least. Even with Broadway deinterlined, there is the issue of (D) service not running often enough from time to time because of how much service interferes with it. The (W) to 9 Av would definitely affect (D) service so to at least maybe compensate for that, run it along West End to Bay Parkway. 

All in all, I feel this is something the (MTA) should look into. Service even before the pandemic wasn't the best and definitely needs to run better, with this in mind people can adapt to it and most likely find service running better than what it currently runs as. This was mainly just my input, you could totally disagree with all of what I said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Vulturious said:

I'm not going to lie, I do like most of this, but there are things that I would disagree with when it comes to this layout along with some changes.

Pros:

  • Yes, with all of Broadway deinterlined, this allows for more service frequencies, something that is very needed.
  • Broadway taking over 63 St allows while having 6 and 8 Av along 53 St helps since there isn't any interference. 
  • (W) trains running into South Brooklyn and terminating at 9 Av actually makes a lot of sense which I still do not know why it doesn't run into South Brooklyn more often, especially along West End where I believe service is needed most (I'll get to more about the (W) in a bit).
  • (R) trains having little interference from other lines or at the very least, a lot less interference is definitely a huge plus and can definitely allow for more trains per hour because of it.

Cons:

  • The biggest one I would consider changing is the (E) and (F) along QBL swapping each other with the (E) running local to Forest Hills and the (F) to Jamaica Center or 179 St with the (Q) to Jamaica Center, either or works. The reason is because the (F) is still a long route and is now all local. People wouldn't want to take it anymore because it's a long route now being all local. It's the same issue with the (R) but with just as much interlining as before. You have the (F) merging and split with the (G) along Culver, then merging with the (J) along 6 Av to split up and run along 53 St with the (E) to then split and run local and run local with the (R) along QBL. This is a bad combo and kind of defeats the purpose of deinterlining as the whole point was to also deinterline as much of QBL as possible. The (E) still would only have about 3 merges, that being the (C), (F), and (R), but it's a much shorter route compared to the long (F) line. It might not be the best idea, but it's definitely better than sticking with the (F) being all local with merging issues, we don't need another line local line.
  • This was a questionable move, but not entirely. I can definitely say cutting back 6 Av service running along 63 St is probably a better move, but running the (J) instead of the (M) to 57 St-6 Av is pretty questionable. The (M) compared to the (J) is much shorter and is a better candidate since the (J) is a pretty long line with very little to work with. Jamaica Av branch doesn't have any express service or rather a 3rd track to run faster service, so running the (J) along 6 Av might not be a great idea entirely, personally I wouldn't mind it still, just trying to run service better.
  • Onto the final one which is the (W), I personally would've had the (W) run further along West End to Bay Parkway at the very least. Even with Broadway deinterlined, there is the issue of (D) service not running often enough from time to time because of how much service interferes with it. The (W) to 9 Av would definitely affect (D) service so to at least maybe compensate for that, run it along West End to Bay Parkway. 

All in all, I feel this is something the (MTA) should look into. Service even before the pandemic wasn't the best and definitely needs to run better, with this in mind people can adapt to it and most likely find service running better than what it currently runs as. This was mainly just my input, you could totally disagree with all of what I said.

Thank you for your response! I'm glad you like the majority of it, and let me answer your points:

(W) to Bay Parkway:

I don't mind this at all. If the cars are there for it then I say why not. I just thought there wouldn't be much interest from West End riders due to the (D) already providing express service.

(J) to 57th St-6th Ave:

I'm totally good with having the (M) run to 57th-6th Av full time instead of the (J). I just wanted riders from Cypress Hill/Eastern Bushwick to have better Manhattan options. 

(E)/(F)  Express/Local swap on Queens Blvd:

I do understand your points about merges, but one thing to consider is that the current (M) makes the same three merges as my proposed (F) between 47-50 Rock Ctr and Queens Plaza. The (F) does have the (G) to contend with but then again the (M) has a flat junction @ Myrtle Ave so all in all it's a wash. Yes, this does create another "Mega Local" line ala (C)/(J) /(R)  but if run properly it might not be such a poop show. 

The bigger issue is that the (E)(Q) mixture preserves the same balance on the QB Express the current (E)(F) does today. My fear is doing a (F) through 53rd St will undo all the efforts made at easing congestion at Lex/53rd + 5th/53rd. Alot of folks might take the first (F) that slides in at Roosevelt rather than grab the (Q) right behind it due to it getting them to 6th Ave. Unless a QB Local (E) is willing to be cut to say 10 TPH so the 53rd St (F) can go 20 TPH I think it's a precarious situation.

All in all, I like my setup for Queens Blvd, but thank you for your feedback :) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, shiznit1987 said:

My thoughts on untangling Broadway while helping improve Queens Blvd Local service (Which I admittedly have a personal stake in):

(N) 96st-2nd Ave to Coney Island via the Broadway Exp + Manhattan Bridge -> 4th Ave Express -> Sea Beach

(Q) 179st-Hillside to Coney Island via Queens Blvd Exp -> 63rd St -> Broadway Exp + Manhattan Bridge -> Brighton

(R) Same route, no late night service

(W) Astoria-Ditmars to 9th Ave, Brooklyn via Broadway Local + Lower Manhattan, late nights runs to 95th-Bay Ridge to replace (R) 

(F) 71st-Continential to Coney Island via Queens Blvd Local -> 53rd Street -> 6th Ave Local -> Culver

(E) No changes

(J) Extended to 57st/6th Ave all times via 6th Ave Local

(M) To Broad St, Manhattan All times

 

So Broadway looks like this:

(N)(Q) Express (R)(W) Local with zero merges

Queens Blvd looks like this:

(E)(Q) Express (F)(R) Local

This will give the Queens Blvd local two major trunk lines at all times (late nights (E)(F) run local) which IMHO is needed. An additional benefit is the (J) is extended up 6th Ave all times giving more of Brooklyn full time Manhattan access. 

 

 

What if the (F) and (Q) were the Queens Blvd express services, while the (E) and (M) were the locals? This way, there would be no messy merging in the Queens Plaza/36th St area, like with the current setup. Admittedly, there would be some delays at Lex-63rd with the (Q) merging in with the (N), but the absence of merging at Queens Plaza and 36th St might make it possible to run more (E) and (F) trains. The (J) would stay as is.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

What if the (F) and (Q) were the Queens Blvd express services, while the (E) and (M) were the locals? This way, there would be no messy merging in the Queens Plaza/36th St area, like with the current setup. Admittedly, there would be some delays at Lex-63rd with the (Q) merging in with the (N), but the absence of merging at Queens Plaza and 36th St might make it possible to run more (E) and (F) trains. The (J) would stay as is.

I'd be fine with that, provided the TA built a passageway between 63rd/Lex and 59th/Lex. Otherwise, the screams from riders would be deafening. It seems the two "untouchables" about QB is 1) There must be a Broadway line and 2) Something must go to the East Side on the Express. 

The MTA screwed up not building a Queens Plaza stop along the 63rd St line around 41st Ave/28th st in LIC, and connecting it to the current Queens Plaza. Otherwise people to this day would just take (F) to (M) trips rather than wait for the (E).  Truthfully, the "63rd st" line should have been built at 61st St with a connection at Lex/59th but obviously that ship has more than sailed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, shiznit1987 said:

My thoughts on untangling Broadway while helping improve Queens Blvd Local service (Which I admittedly have a personal stake in):

(N) 96st-2nd Ave to Coney Island via the Broadway Exp + Manhattan Bridge -> 4th Ave Express -> Sea Beach

(Q) 179st-Hillside to Coney Island via Queens Blvd Exp -> 63rd St -> Broadway Exp + Manhattan Bridge -> Brighton

(R) Same route, no late night service

(W) Astoria-Ditmars to 9th Ave, Brooklyn via Broadway Local + Lower Manhattan, late nights runs to 95th-Bay Ridge to replace (R) 

(F) 71st-Continential to Coney Island via Queens Blvd Local -> 53rd Street -> 6th Ave Local -> Culver

(E) No changes

(J) Extended to 57st/6th Ave all times via 6th Ave Local

(M) To Broad St, Manhattan All times

 

So Broadway looks like this:

(N)(Q) Express (R)(W) Local with zero merges

Queens Blvd looks like this:

(E)(Q) Express (F)(R) Local

This will give the Queens Blvd local two major trunk lines at all times (late nights (E)(F) run local) which IMHO is needed. An additional benefit is the (J) is extended up 6th Ave all times giving more of Brooklyn full time Manhattan access. 

Here are my thoughts on this:

(E): If you are going to make some of the other changes, I would look at returning the (E) full-time to 179th Street as the (F) runs a very long route as it is.

(F): Still a long route, and some may not like the (F) being local, but it could work.  Moving it to 53rd, however, cuts out half the trains stopping at 63rd and eliminates the transfer at 63rd from the Broadway to the 6th Avenue line and vice versa.  If you want to run the (F) via 53rd/QBL local. you would need to likely make the (M) a full-time line from Metropolitan to 96th Street and 2nd Avenue, which would not be the worst thing (and identical to my idea of an "Orange (T)" train when we were originally were going to have the full Canarsie shutdown), thought it would mean you would have trains crossing over from both 6th Avenue and Broadway at 63rd.

(J): I like this idea, but I do it with the (M)

I have in the past proposed the idea of doing one long route from 95th St.-Bay Ridge to Jamaica Center that would actually be a split into two lines that would both terminate at Chambers: The (J) that would do so and relay to go back on the "express" tracks at Chambers from Jamaica Center while you could have a "Brown (K)" train run from Chambers (terminating on the "local" track at Chambers and once a (J) comes through from Canal to Chambers quickly relayed from the "uptown local" to the "downtown local" track at Chambers to start back once the next (J) train arrives at Chambers and people have a chance to cross over (NOTE: As part of this, during rush hours the (Z) would actually run in both directions (skip-stop and express in the peak direction) between Jamaica Center and Broad Street as the "Brown (K)" would be maxed at 8TPH since the (R) would also still be running.  The "Brown (K)" would in the overnights replace the (R) that would not run at all except if a G.O. forced service to be suspended on Nassau with the (R) then running its current late-night route in that situation only.   

As an alternative to this, I would look to reconnect the Manhattan Bridge to the Broadway-Brooklyn line in the Brooklyn-bound direction only and have such a "Brown (K)" become a Nassau Street loop line that would at Jay-Metrotech, Court, Broad, Fulton and Chambers operate northbound only with Chambers technically being the northbound "terminal" but for all intents and purposes the line having only one terminal at 95th Street-Bay Ridge as this line would operate via the tunnel to Manhattan and the Bridge back to Brooklyn.  If need be in this scenario, I would have a limited number of (N) trains operate via the tunnel southbound during peak hours to accomodate this "Brown (K)" if it were run as a loop line. 

(M): As noted, as part of this I would have it run to 96th Street/2nd Avenue with whatever Broadway line train runs at all times (becoming a 24/7 line).  This would give SAS riders both a 6th Avenue and a Broadway option at all times (which likely would become more important once the line is extended to 125th Street). 

(N) and (Q): I like the idea of the (N) replacing the (Q) as the 96th Street-2nd Avenue train from the Broadway Line, but in reality, you could have either the (N) or (Q) operate between Coney Island and Jamaica Center in this scenario (with also in this scenario, if necessary some (N) or (Q) trains operating to 179th street during peak hours).  

(R): As noted, the only change here is since in my scenario you would also have a "Brown (K)" operating with the (R) between 95th and Court before going via Nassau Street in Manhattan, except when there is a G.O. that would prevent there being Nassau service to Broad Street and so forth, the (R) would not operate at all in the overnights.   

(W): This change likely would work, but it would not be necessary to have the (W) in this scenario operate in the overnights to Bay Ridge since the "Brown (K)" would do that.    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Correction to what I wrote about:

I would have a limited number of (Q) trains, not (N) trains operate via the tunnel southbound during peak hours if my proposed "Brown (K)" became a Nassau Street loop line as the (Q) could use that to reach the Brighton line tracks the way the old :M: used to when it operated on Brighton.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Wallyhorse said:

I have in the past proposed the idea of doing one long route from 95th St.-Bay Ridge to Jamaica Center that would actually be a split into two lines that would both terminate at Chambers: The (J) that would do so and relay to go back on the "express" tracks at Chambers from Jamaica Center while you could have a "Brown (K)" train run from Chambers (terminating on the "local" track at Chambers and once a (J) comes through from Canal to Chambers quickly relayed from the "uptown local" to the "downtown local" track at Chambers to start back once the next (J) train arrives at Chambers and people have a chance to cross over (NOTE: As part of this, during rush hours the (Z) would actually run in both directions (skip-stop and express in the peak direction) between Jamaica Center and Broad Street as the "Brown (K)" would be maxed at 8TPH since the (R) would also still be running.  The "Brown (K)" would in the overnights replace the (R) that would not run at all except if a G.O. forced service to be suspended on Nassau with the (R) then running its current late-night route in that situation only.   

As an alternative to this, I would look to reconnect the Manhattan Bridge to the Broadway-Brooklyn line in the Brooklyn-bound direction only and have such a "Brown (K)" become a Nassau Street loop line that would at Jay-Metrotech, Court, Broad, Fulton and Chambers operate northbound only with Chambers technically being the northbound "terminal" but for all intents and purposes the line having only one terminal at 95th Street-Bay Ridge as this line would operate via the tunnel to Manhattan and the Bridge back to Brooklyn.  If need be in this scenario, I would have a limited number of (N) trains operate via the tunnel southbound during peak hours to accomodate this "Brown (K)" if it were run as a loop line. 

I feel like your brown (K) is too much. There's easier, more simpler ways to get service to Bay Ridge

 

19 hours ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

What if the (F) and (Q) were the Queens Blvd express services, while the (E) and (M) were the locals? This way, there would be no messy merging in the Queens Plaza/36th St area, like with the current setup. Admittedly, there would be some delays at Lex-63rd with the (Q) merging in with the (N), but the absence of merging at Queens Plaza and 36th St might make it possible to run more (E) and (F) trains. The (J) would stay as is.

Always felt like 63 Express 53 Local was the way to go, but i was thought of that was (F)(M) via 63 instead of (F) + Broadway Express. I like this idea (your idea) best. 

2 hours ago, Wallyhorse said:

(M): As noted, as part of this I would have it run to 96th Street/2nd Avenue with whatever Broadway line train runs at all times (becoming a 24/7 line).  This would give SAS riders both a 6th Avenue and a Broadway option at all times (which likely would become more important once the line is extended to 125th Street). 

(N) and (Q): I like the idea of the (N) replacing the (Q) as the 96th Street-2nd Avenue train from the Broadway Line, but in reality, you could have either the (N) or (Q) operate between Coney Island and Jamaica Center in this scenario (with also in this scenario, if necessary some (N) or (Q) trains operating to 179th street during peak hours).  

I think this will result in double merging which will ruin the point of the plan. I'd say leave the (M) alone for now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
On 6/6/2021 at 7:39 PM, Theli11 said:

I feel like your brown (K) is too much. There's easier, more simpler ways to get service to Bay Ridge

 

Always felt like 63 Express 53 Local was the way to go, but i was thought of that was (F)(M) via 63 instead of (F) + Broadway Express. I like this idea (your idea) best. 

I think this will result in double merging which will ruin the point of the plan. I'd say leave the (M) alone for now.

Agreed about the brown K service. And I agree with leaving the (M) alone.

My original preference was 63 Local/53 Express because then there would be no short trains on the express. But that cuts off the QB local stations between Roosevelt and Queens Plaza from Long Island City, so I got on board with 63 Express/53 Local. My biggest problem with (F)(M) express via 63 is that it forces either the Hillside or the Archer stations to run with 8-car (M) trains, which is definitely not going to fly. However, by doing the (E) and (M) local via 53 and the (F) and (N) (or (Q)) via 63, short trains on the QB express wouldn't be an issue. And we can keep a Broadway service on QB. There would still be some reverse branching on QB, but much less than the current setup. And there would be no merging at Queens Plaza and 36th St either. 

On 6/6/2021 at 4:49 PM, Wallyhorse said:


(F): Still a long route, and some may not like the (F) being local, but it could work.  Moving it to 53rd, however, cuts out half the trains stopping at 63rd and eliminates the transfer at 63rd from the Broadway to the 6th Avenue line and vice versa.  If you want to run the (F) via 53rd/QBL local. you would need to likely make the (M) a full-time line from Metropolitan to 96th Street and 2nd Avenue, which would not be the worst thing (and identical to my idea of an "Orange (T)" train when we were originally were going to have the full Canarsie shutdown), thought it would mean you would have trains crossing over from both 6th Avenue and Broadway at 63rd.

(M): As noted, as part of this I would have it run to 96th Street/2nd Avenue with whatever Broadway line train runs at all times (becoming a 24/7 line).  This would give SAS riders both a 6th Avenue and a Broadway option at all times (which likely would become more important once the line is extended to 125th Street). 

    

But you don't have to do that. If the (F) and (M) operate as Queens Blvd locals via 63rd, the (M) can continue to run on its current service hours. And why would it be more important for SAS to have both a full time Broadway and a full time 6th Ave service? And please don't say, "one seat ride" when you respond. Just don't!

On 6/6/2021 at 12:03 PM, shiznit1987 said:

I'd be fine with that, provided the TA built a passageway between 63rd/Lex and 59th/Lex. Otherwise, the screams from riders would be deafening. It seems the two "untouchables" about QB is 1) There must be a Broadway line and 2) Something must go to the East Side on the Express. 

The MTA screwed up not building a Queens Plaza stop along the 63rd St line around 41st Ave/28th st in LIC, and connecting it to the current Queens Plaza. Otherwise people to this day would just take (F) to (M) trips rather than wait for the (E)Truthfully, the "63rd st" line should have been built at 61st St with a connection at Lex/59th but obviously that ship has more than sailed.

That's why I proposed this option. We still have a Broadway/QB service, however, it would be express instead of local. But all of the current QB services go to the East Side when the enter Manhattan, so why would a passageway between 63rd and 59th be required? Yes, the (R) connects directly to the (4) and (5) at 59th, whereas the (E)(F) and (M) don't. But would it be a really big loss if the new Broadway/QB service runs via 63rd and doesn't have an in-system connection to the (4)(5) ?

And I fully agree, the 63rd St Tunnel should have been at 61st Street, like proposed in an earlier NYCTA plan. But they moved it further north when the old Board of Estimate determined it would be cheaper to build it under 64th St (moved to 63rd under pressure from Rockefeller Institute) The MTA only made it worse when they decided to connect the tunnel into the QB between Queens Plaza and 36th, but I suppose there was no other feasible place to tie it in, and in the 90s, they had no intention of building the Super Express bypass line. 

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

Lots of good discussion on the deinterlining subject here.  Keep it up!

It would seem to be important to keep the locals and expresses separated on QBL, so have all the expresses on 53rd and have some locals servicing 63rd and 60th.

As part of  larger deinterlining "lite" of the B division, I would call for (E) and (F)  to serve as 8th Ave exp-53rd-QBL exp trains and (M)  and (R) to serve as the QBL locals.  THe (R) would still be needed to run in order to connect QBL local stations to LIC.

(Q) and (N) are Broadway expresses from 96/2 into Brooklyn.  (R) from Forest Hills joins the full time (W) from Astoria as the Broadway locals.  (W) would have increased frequency to adequately serve Astoria, but critically, we avoid having any trains serving on both local and express tracks along the Broadway BMT in Manhattan (as the current N service does).

BDFM as currently run, except that (B) and (D) are locals along CPW and (F) and (M) switch tunnels.  When (M) does not run to Queens, (F) will run on the 63rd tunnel as an express in Queens.

(A) and (C) are express.  (E) is local to WTC.  Very clean, the only train (E) will mix with is the (F).

One key aspect of my idea is that the number of trains on each line isn't necessarily equal.  I envision 14 TPH (M) and 14 TPH (W) which will be paired with 7 TPH (R).  This means a 2:1 ratio between M and R and W and R.  So the primary local train on QBL serves 63rd and the primary local train on Broadway serves Astoria, but there is still a limited amount of trains that will occupy both sets of tracks as an (R) to serve QBL local connection to LIC and the 456 trains and any areas of the city that are uniquely served by the Broadway line.   [For most of Midtown M and R are a block apart, so most riders can take either train.]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/8/2021 at 1:52 PM, T to Dyre Avenue said:

And I fully agree, the 63rd St Tunnel should have been at 61st Street, like proposed in an earlier NYCTA plan. But they moved it further north when the old Board of Estimate determined it would be cheaper to build it under 64th St (moved to 63rd under pressure from Rockefeller Institute) The MTA only made it worse when they decided to connect the tunnel into the QB between Queens Plaza and 36th, but I suppose there was no other feasible place to tie it in, and in the 90s, they had no intention of building the Super Express bypass line. 

For what it's worth, there was a plan in the late '70s or early '80s to tie the 63rd Street Tunnel into a repurposed Lower Montauk Branch, but the Archie Bunkers in that part of Queens killed it. 

Edited by R10 2952
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, mrsman said:

Lots of good discussion on the deinterlining subject here.  Keep it up!

It would seem to be important to keep the locals and expresses separated on QBL, so have all the expresses on 53rd and have some locals servicing 63rd and 60th.

As part of  larger deinterlining "lite" of the B division, I would call for (E) and (F)  to serve as 8th Ave exp-53rd-QBL exp trains and (M)  and (R) to serve as the QBL locals.  THe (R) would still be needed to run in order to connect QBL local stations to LIC.

(Q) and (N) are Broadway expresses from 96/2 into Brooklyn.  (R) from Forest Hills joins the full time (W) from Astoria as the Broadway locals.  (W) would have increased frequency to adequately serve Astoria, but critically, we avoid having any trains serving on both local and express tracks along the Broadway BMT in Manhattan (as the current N service does).

BDFM as currently run, except that (B) and (D) are locals along CPW and (F) and (M) switch tunnels.  When (M) does not run to Queens, (F) will run on the 63rd tunnel as an express in Queens.

(A) and (C) are express.  (E) is local to WTC.  Very clean, the only train (E) will mix with is the (F).

One key aspect of my idea is that the number of trains on each line isn't necessarily equal.  I envision 14 TPH (M) and 14 TPH (W) which will be paired with 7 TPH (R).  This means a 2:1 ratio between M and R and W and R.  So the primary local train on QBL serves 63rd and the primary local train on Broadway serves Astoria, but there is still a limited amount of trains that will occupy both sets of tracks as an (R) to serve QBL local connection to LIC and the 456 trains and any areas of the city that are uniquely served by the Broadway line.   [For most of Midtown M and R are a block apart, so most riders can take either train.]

Agreed, and your plan does that for the QBL trains, outside of the (F) running through 63rd when the (M) doesn't run there. But I don't know if it's feasible to run the (M) at 14tph because then you have to reduce the (J) / (Z) to 10 tph, which would likely require ending the (Z) and running an all-stop (J) through South Queens and eastern Brooklyn. I'd also prefer to run the (A) and (C) local on CPW and 8th Ave, so that the CPW local stops are not cut off from the 8th Ave local stops (they are the same street, after all).

12 hours ago, R10 2952 said:

For what it's worth, there was a plan in the late '70s or early '80s to tie the 63rd Street Tunnel into a repurposed Lower Montauk Branch, but the Archie Bunkers in that part of Queens killed it. 

I remember reading about that plan in the 90s. It sucks that Archie and pals put the kibosh on that, but then again I get the feeling the (MTA) would have had a bee in their bonnets over running subway trains through the Lower Montauk's grade crossings, even though CTA does it on four of its eight 'L' lines.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

I remember reading about that plan in the 90s. It sucks that Archie and pals put the kibosh on that, but then again I get the feeling the (MTA) would have had a bee in their bonnets over running subway trains through the Lower Montauk's grade crossings, even though CTA does it on four of its eight 'L' lines.

Yeah, I grew up in that area (some years ago).  People tended to be insular and lean Republican; the mentality was basically-

giphy.gif

Not everything about Middle Village was bad, but there are definitely some things I don't miss.

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.