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

How's this plan to streamline Queens service and eliminate the 34th st junction?

(E)(F) - unchanged. 

(N) via the (Q) to 96th, skipping 49th. Via Broadway local weekends and overnight, and via Montague overnight. 11 tph.

(Q) service increased to 11 tph.

(R) runs to Astoria. Runs the same exact service pattern from Astoria - Bay Ridge at all times, including late nights. 12 tph. 

(W) Forest Hills - Whitehall Street. Does not run overnight or on weekends. 6 tph to Whitehall, 2 to Canal. 

(M) Forest Hills - Middle Village all times except late nights, when it operates to Essex Street. 10 tph. Any trains that cannot go over the bridge terminate at 2nd Av. 

Doing this makes the (M) the primary QBL local, meaning that the 34th Street junction is eliminated, and to ensure Astoria gets good service, you reduce Broadway-QBL to a part time line with 6th-QBL running more frequently. Service on QBL local over the weekend is still more or less the same. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 11.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

I like it, except for the (N) running local on weekends. It would have to switch from the express to the local track and back to the express in both directions. We should be able to run the (R) with sufficient tph on weekends to be able to handle the Broadway local stations on its own, same as the (1) and (6) trains.

I’d also like for the (M) to run via 63rd so the merging at Queens Plaza can be cleared up, but if the (M) is seven days a week and the (W) is weekdays-only, then the (M) would likely have to stay wedded to its current route via 53rd.

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

1 hour ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

I like it, except for the (N) running local on weekends. It would have to switch from the express to the local track and back to the express in both directions. We should be able to run the (R) with sufficient tph on weekends to be able to handle the Broadway local stations on its own, same as the (1) and (6) trains.

I’d also like for the (M) to run via 63rd so the merging at Queens Plaza can be cleared up, but if the (M) is seven days a week and the (W) is weekdays-only, then the (M) would likely have to stay wedded to its current route via 53rd.

I'd say that if we're going to move the (M) to 63rd we might as well cut the (W) completely (maybe keep the designation for the few short-turns to Whitehall) , and we should probably just extend the (G) to Forest Hills with 480 ft trains to give QBL local access to both Queens Plaza and the (7) (for stops west of Roosevelt), and given that most people transfer to the express anyways it won't make much of a difference. 

This is unrelated, but I'd also argue for extending the (G) two stops to 18th (and adding new switches just north of 18th) to allow for it to terminate out of the way of the (F) . You can maybe keep some short turns to Church but with fast switches and no fumigation you could make 18th work. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Theli11 said:

I'm assuming this is on 5th Avenue, but there's no way in the world you'd close 5th Av to build a subway there. 
5th Av is right in the middle of Union Square and 6th Av (stations), it'd be a walkway to connect to the (L) and seeing that you don't have transfers to either (N)(Q)(R)(W)(4)(5)(6) or (F)(M)(1)(2)(3) you don't know which one you'd choose either. 

It'd probably do better if you elaborated where your (P) (Y) (X) and (V) trains fit in this equation but you'd also have 3 trains on your 6th Avenue, and there's 5 trains on 5th Avenue so I'm assuming there's going to also be 3 on one track there too. Nuff said with the way this proposal is, it'd be much clear with the other trains in mind as well. (though suggesting a train on 5th Av is a non starter).

I forgot to add some of the transfers and the (P) and (Y) are local and the (O) and (X) are express.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thought about how Weekend and Overnight Service can be reshaped under a partial Deinterlining Plan. Please note that this does not account for G.O.'s as I personally think that the G.O. process should be radically be reshaped to cut down on maintanence costs. 

Weekends:

(B) Service is increased into the Weekends and runs from 168th to Coney Island

(D) Service can be truncated to 145th Street on weekends as the (C) will handle Concourse.

(M) Service will be increased into the weekends and will run full route. 

(N) Brighton Riders will gain an Express Service from the months of March-October in order to promote taking the train to the beach similar to how the Rockaway Park (S) gets extended to Rockaway Blvd every summer.

Late Nights:

(A) and (D) Trains will Swap roles from 145th Street to 59th Street-Columbus Circle in order to keep things consistent. (D) Trains will run to Norwood-205th During Late Nights to cover the lack of (C) Service. Lastly, to make up for the Lack of Express Service,  (4) and (6) Service will increase, and (4) Trains will run Express in Manhattan Overnight.

(B) Trains run either as a Sea Beach Shuttle or up to Atlantic Avenue-Barclays Center

(M) Trains will be extended to Jamaica-179th Street overnight. (E) Trains will continue to run local and (F) Trains will be Express Full Route

(N) Trains will Terminate at Prospect Park and run via Montague.

(R) Service will be extended/truncated to Queens Plaza.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wanna list a proposal for my 2nd Avenue line plan. 
 

Let’s start off with the Bronx



 

So remember how the 3rd ave line was demolished well while it was a reasonable decision it was a terrible mistake to leave 3rd ave without a replacement because it’s the largest population in the Bronx so trust me 3rd ave IS IN DIRE NEED OF A SUBWAY SYSTEM. So I propose having The T train start at White plains rd gun hill rd transfer to the 2 and 5 trains. Then it will go to Williams bridge Gun hill rd

meeting up with the V train. The T train will be the full time local the V train will be the weekday only express.

Local service only stops 

204 st

Bedford park blvd

187th st

180st st

171st st Claremont pkwy

168th st

163rd st

 

Local and Express service stops

Williams bridge Gun hill rd

Fordham plaza

 

Tremont Park 177th st

 

3 ave 149th st

 

3 ave 138th st

 

They both trains will run to Manhattan via the 3rd ave tunnel

 

Maybe we can build express train on the lower level 

 

Both train meet up with the Q train

 

The V train runs express the T train runs local with the Q train

 

Local service only stops

 

116th st

 

106th st

 

86th st

 

Local and Express service stops

 

125th st

 

96th st

 

72nd st



 

A new train line would be built via northern blvd line it would run up to Whitestone expressway then it will be connected to the 63rd st tunnel this train shall be known as the K train the station it will serve



 

​



 

Whitestone Expressway 112 st

104 st

Junction blvd

85 st

74 st

Broadway northern blvd

Sunnyside 39 st

21st st Queensbridge

Roosevelt Island



 

Now back to Manhattan 

The K train meets up with the T and V trains at 57 st 

K V express and T local

Local service only stops

50th st

St Vartan Park 34rd st

23rd st

8th st St Marks Place 

Houston st

 

Local sand Express service stops

 

57th st 

42nd st Tudor City

14th st

Grand st

Chatham Sq

Then the K V will run to Brooklyn via a new tunnel underneath the Brooklyn bridge 

While the T train will run to lower Manhattan making these two stops 

Seaport 

Hanover Sq

It would also build with connections to the montage st tunnel to potentially be extended to Brooklyn via 4th ave


 

Back to Brooklyn the V would meet up with the F at East Broadway lower Bergen st would be rebuilt for express service the V would run express the F G would run local 



 

At church ave the V train would continue off to kings highway or maybe ave x running express while the F train remains local

 

culver el would be converted to 4 tracks


 

finally the K train would run down Williamburg Brooklyn via south 3rd st Scholes st Morgan ave and Wilson Avenue 

 

T train run between White Plains Rd Gun Hill Rd Bronx and Hanover Square Manhattan

 

 3rd Avenue Local 2nd Avenue Local 



 

V train run between Wiallimsbrigde 210th st Bronx and Kings Highway Brooklyn

 

3rd Avenue Express 2nd Avenue Express Culver



 

K train run between Whitestone Expressway 112 st Queens and Wilson Avenue Brooklyn

 

Northern Blvd Local 2nd Avenue Express Williamburg local local

 

thats my plan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/17/2021 at 3:57 PM, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

Thought about how Weekend and Overnight Service can be reshaped under a partial Deinterlining Plan. Please note that this does not account for G.O.'s as I personally think that the G.O. process should be radically be reshaped to cut down on maintanence costs. 

 

What would you propose doing to reshape the G.O. process? Because for so long the MTA have been allergic to running more than three services on any line on weekends due to their G.O. process and it often inconveniences a huge number of riders. It also makes branching off of said lines more difficult, such as incorporating the Rockaway Beach branch or a Horace Harding branch into the Queens Blvd line.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

What would you propose doing to reshape the G.O. process? Because for so long the MTA have been allergic to running more than three services on any line on weekends due to their G.O. process and it often inconveniences a huge number of riders. It also makes branching off of said lines more difficult, such as incorporating the Rockaway Beach branch or a Horace Harding branch into the Queens Blvd line.  

One thing that I'd suggest in order to redo the G.O. Process [and this is more of a draft idea rather than a finalized proposal] is to something similar to what was almost did with the (L) Train shutdown. Have complete shutdowns take place in certain corridors within certain timeframes so that maintenancte crews don't have to worry about setting up and cleaning up every 4 or so weekends so that they can do the work they need to do right away then not have to worry about whatever corridor they did maintenance on for however many years to come. In some places would be easier to do this than others. If possible, FasTrack, CBTC Installations, ADA-Accessibility, and whatever Capital Plans could be incorporated into this new G.O. system so that crew does all of this work can be done at once instead of being spread out on weekends and nights. As a byproduct of this, other procedures such as flagging could be rethought or eliminated entirely so that the work isn't too disruptive. Basically, short term pain for a long term gain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me know if this is not the appropriate place to post this question: how do folks suppose we could rebuild some of the terminal tracks at Coney Island-Stillwell Av to accommodate more trains turning per hour?

I had an idea that could serve as a workaround for the (D) and (N): construct switches just north of 62 St and Bay Pkwy on the West End line. Turn select rush-hour (N)s at 9 Av and select rush-hour (D)s at 62 St and Bay Pkwy.

But I'm wondering if there is a way we could rebuild either yard connections or the switches themselves at Coney Island-Stillwell Av to accommodate more trains turning per hour. Or do people think this is not feasible and we're better off finding places to short-turn certain rush-hour trips as the MTA currently does with the (F)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

One thing that I'd suggest in order to redo the G.O. Process [and this is more of a draft idea rather than a finalized proposal] is to something similar to what was almost did with the (L) Train shutdown. Have complete shutdowns take place in certain corridors within certain timeframes so that maintenancte crews don't have to worry about setting up and cleaning up every 4 or so weekends so that they can do the work they need to do right away then not have to worry about whatever corridor they did maintenance on for however many years to come. In some places would be easier to do this than others. If possible, FasTrack, CBTC Installations, ADA-Accessibility, and whatever Capital Plans could be incorporated into this new G.O. system so that crew does all of this work can be done at once instead of being spread out on weekends and nights. As a byproduct of this, other procedures such as flagging could be rethought or eliminated entirely so that the work isn't too disruptive. Basically, short term pain for a long term gain.

I think something like that would be absolutely brilliant, and perhaps more tenable in the COVID and post-COVID world.  It may not work on every line segment, but perhaps it can work on a lot of them.  

Depending on proximity, passengers on the closed segments could either take other lines or bus shuttles to a significant transfer point.

FasTrack kind of worked in this way, except that what you are proposing isn't just doing the closure over 15 weekends, instead close it for 30 consecutive days while the work can continue unimpeded.  It certainly is a more efficient way of doing things.

I think in the post-COVID world this may be more feasible, because a business that is currenly allowing telework could provide for a temporary telework extension to those who live alonog the closed line, even if other employees are back to work as normal.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So a lot of people have been going on about what to do with phase 3 and phase 4 of 2nd Avenue line 

 

A whole bunch of people believe that the 2nd Avenue line should be connected to the Manhattan Bridge and two services from there take over for the B and D in Brooklyn.  The B and D would then replace the J/Z and M trains over the Williamsburg Bridge.  The J would then be a downtown shuttle from Delancey Street to Broad Street, but operate full length during rush hour.

Vanshnookenraggen himself once propose to split the line at Broadway Junction and build a new underground section from Broadway Junction to Cypress Hills, eliminating the two sharp curves that slow things down.  Of the B and D via Williamsburg Bridge, one would follow the M route and the other go to Broadway Junction and end there.  With a connection to the IND Fulton Street Line, the C could take over J service from Jamaica Center to Broadway Junction, then run express with the A into Manhattan.  To replace the C, it would be possible to connect the Montague Street tunnel into Fulton Street so the W could go there.

Well let me go on a little rant on every wrong with this plan 

For starters rerouting the B and D to Williamburg I don’t think it a good idea because Brooklyn riders would lose access to the 6th ave line and if reroutings are needed on 6th ave service the entire service would be screwed since at least the current lay out for rerouting allow for trains to go to Coney Island either way. Example F train via west end D train via culver No to mention that this plan won’t even allow for the Broadway line to be rerouted to 6th Avenue in case of emergencies. What if another Manhattan Bridge reconstruction project is needed example how that would be impacted see? This is when putting the 2nd Avenue line on the Manhattan Bridge really becomes a problem   Further more many riders would piss because they don’t want to lose 6th Ave service to Coney Island or lose access to lower Manhattan Nassau in Williamsburg. Not to mention that Jamaica line can’t handle 75 foot long train cars If necessary we should extend a 2nd ave line via a new tunnel to Williamburg. That would require multiple shut downs. And you be pissing off a lot of grand Concourse riders trying to get to Coney Island. The L and M are crowded, but are not that overwhelmed therefore do not justify letting riders suffer.

 

spliting the line does not better  Address the needs of Williamburg in fact it worsens things off for starters people would be furious as they would lose one sat ride from Jamaica center to Williamburg. Than you have Fulton street connection which would be too expensive for the conversation to happen. And the J train becoming a shuttle basically destroys service on Williamburg since you are cutting off service from lower Manhattan and dont bring up the “riders want midtown more than lower Manhattan argument” cause demand for lower Manhattan is just as high have y’all even rode the J/Z before lower Manhattan has seen just as much Gentrification as midtown did and yes we need a phase 4. Lower Manhattan is likely to get more job opportunities with the World Trade Center and rapid growth Phase 4 would has provision for a tunnel to Fulton street. Williamburg is a smaller priority for the 2nd Avenue project so just route a 2nd Avenue line to Williamburg via a new tunnel. Routing a 2nd Avenue line to Williamburg should reduce crowding on the L and M trains 

So that plan will not work out at all removing the (B)(D) from the Manhattan bridge would cause Coney Island riders to lose access to the 6th Avenue Central Park West and Grand Concourse and removing the (J)(Z) from Williamsburg Bridge would cause riders to lose access to Nassau st line AKA the only connecting to lower Manhattan. Just leave the B D on Manhattan bridge the way it is just leave the J M Z on Williamburg the way it is the riders demand it stays like that. The ideal is to improve realible on the J/Z trains not remove it.  

Instead of that here is a realistic way of improving the Jamaica line  

Expanding all BMT eastern division to 10 cars

Build a Union Ave station with connections to the G train

Build a flying junction on Myrtle Avenue for the M train

Replace the Broadway junction and Crescent Street stations with a new straight line on Jamaica Avenue 

Build a center track for peak way service

Covert the Z train to peak way express and J train fully local

Extend the J/Z to Hillside

And there that how we can improve Williamburg without doing irreversible damage to the entire mta system

this is my opinion 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure if vanschnookenraggen's plan to extend BD to Williamsburg Bridge is still a current plan of his.  Like many others, we can propose things and then later refine and revise the plans.

To me, it seems like the best approach is still to have (M) going up 6th Avenue with (J)(Z) going down Centre Street.  Since I prefer routing SAS to the Nassau line, that would mean that (J)(Z) would be truncated to Chambers.

I agree that a new stattion should be built to facilitate transfers to (G).  From that point west, (M) riders would have transfers to (B)(D)(F) all along the 6th Ave line and in addition, transfers to (6) at Brodway-Laffayette, (A)(C)(E) at W4th, (L)(1)(2)(3) at 14th, (N)(R)(Q)(W) at 34th, (7) at 42nd.  Basically every existing line except (4)(5) .  No easy transfer to SAS, though, except in upper east midtown at Lex/53rd station.

For (J)(Z) riders, more limited transfer option, but still a decent amount to get where people need to go.  A new transfer to (G) should be built.  (F)(M) transfer at Essex, a new transfer to (B)(D) and SAS at Bowery should be provided, (6)(N)(R)(Q)(W) at Canal, and (4)(5)(6) at Chambers.  To reach the financial district, a transfer would be needed to SAS, 4,5,R,W trains.  So no direct connection to 7th Avenue or 8th Avenue lines, but for anyone going in that direction, a transfer to (M) could be done anywhere west of Myrtle to better reach west midtown.

I don't like the idea of tying one of the SAS services directly to the Williamsburg Bridge.  Such a service would have too few transfers to the other trunk lines.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/20/2021 at 4:22 PM, jammerbot said:

Let me know if this is not the appropriate place to post this question: how do folks suppose we could rebuild some of the terminal tracks at Coney Island-Stillwell Av to accommodate more trains turning per hour?

I had an idea that could serve as a workaround for the (D) and (N): construct switches just north of 62 St and Bay Pkwy on the West End line. Turn select rush-hour (N)s at 9 Av and select rush-hour (D)s at 62 St and Bay Pkwy.

But I'm wondering if there is a way we could rebuild either yard connections or the switches themselves at Coney Island-Stillwell Av to accommodate more trains turning per hour. Or do people think this is not feasible and we're better off finding places to short-turn certain rush-hour trips as the MTA currently does with the (F)?

Some of that for example could be to have at peak hours for example have some (N) trains through-run to Ocean Parkway on the (Q) and terminate there (adding a switch entering Ocean Parkway going north on the express tracks to switch as needed).  Also perhaps have some (F) trains continue on West End to Bay Parkway or 62nd Street and terminate there.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have perfected my 2nd Avenue plan here’s my master plan 

So as we all know when phase 3 and 4 is open the T train will run all the way down to Hanover Square. But the problem with the 2nd Avenue line is the lack of express tracks, the lack of connections to other boroughs, and the fact that doesn’t have anywhere to be rerouted in case of emergencies. I feel when phase 2 opens the MTA will need to redraw the phase 3 and 4 (example connections to The Bronx Queens and Brooklyn and express tracks) 

Here some proposals I list 

The connection to Bronx, so for the Bronx connection build a new 4 track line across 3rd Avenue and Webster Avenue a very hugely populated place in the Bronx. This would be used for the T and V trains. The T train would be local 24/7 and the V train would be express operating weekdays only the express would than lower in 143rd st. The tunnel to Manhattan would be split like this 

The upper local level would go to Manhattan via Lincoln Avenue and the lower express level would go to Manhattan vis a tunnel underneath the 3rd Avenue bridge 

How to build express tracks 

Well with phase 1 build the way it is the express tracks would need to be build underneath but here’s a bonus way we can do this first build the express tracks with connections to 125th street the V train would be the express, Again weekdays only since there won’t really a demand for full time express in East Harlem. 

It would skip 116th 106th 96th and 86th streets and it would then head down to 2nd Avenue at 81st street than 72nd street would be build with connections to the lower level Yes 72nd street would be an express stop. You can said I’m proposing to make 2nd Avenue The east side version of Central Park west. 

For phase 2 the Q train would branch out running down via a 125th street crosstown line where it would continue to Broadway 125th street. And the Q and T could be swap depending on train length and/or demand. 

Now for queens so I propose building a new Northern Blvd line and creating a new 2nd Avenue line the K train.This new queens line would serve northern blvd which would reduce crowding on the 7 train. The northern blvd would be stop at 21st street queensbridge transferring to the F train and than the K train would run down a new tunnel down 62nd street than connecting to the lower level express tracks of 2nd Avenue line. 

Reasons for it connected to 21st street it would allow for the K train to be rerouted in case of emergencies switch places with one of the queens blvd lines if ridership demands it.

Also 60th street tunnel would have connections to the upper local level of 2nd Avenue line reasons it would allow for an emergency reroute of a Broadway line and for the reroute of the W train via 2nd Avenue Local if ridership demands it. 

Now at 57th street the express rise up and 2nd Avenue would look like the traditional 4 track lines. So the K V is Express and the T is Local. 

So the K and V would skip 48th 34th 23rd 8th and Houston streets

Now you may be wondering what to do for Brooklyn

 

instead of reworking all of Chrystie street (cause as I said earlier that does far more harm than good) 

On Grand Street the K train would head down to a new line via a new tunnel in Williamsburg running down grand street Morgan Avenue and Wilson Avenue This new Williamsburg Bushwick would reduce crowding on the L and M trains

The V train would be connected to the Culver line along side the F and G train. The V train would be the Express train while the F and G trains remain local. It would run up to church ave. And if the demand is high enough culver from 18th Avenue and kings Highway would be converted to 4 tracks to allow for a reliable express service on culver line. 

And the phase 4 would be build and it would have provisions for a new tunnel running down to Fulton street where the T train could be extended to Euclid Avenue maybe Hanover Square could have 4 tracks with the center tracks use for terminating trains and the outer tracks used to continuing to Brooklyn. This could allow for rerouted trains to run to Brooklyn without causing major delays 

T train run between White Plains Rd Gun Hill Rd Bronx and Hanover Square Manhattan

 3rd Avenue Local 2nd Avenue Local 

V train run between Wiallimsbrigde 210th st Bronx and Kings Highway Brooklyn

3rd Avenue Express 2nd Avenue Express Culver

K train run between Whitestone Expressway 112 st Queens and Wilson Avenue Brooklyn

 
Northern Blvd Local 2nd Avenue Express Williamburg local local

It not fully known how much people will benefit but I’m sure this will make the 2nd Avenue line more effective for example 3rd Avenue line would have a queens blvd/Central Park West style subway line. Northern Blvd and the Williamburg Bushwick lines would reduce pressure on other subway lines. A 4 track 2nd Avenue line would better address the needs of the east side of Manhattan  
 

Post your opinions on my plan and your own recommendations

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/23/2021 at 4:03 PM, Amiri the subway guy said:

I have perfected my 2nd Avenue plan here’s my master plan 

So as we all know when phase 3 and 4 is open the T train will run all the way down to Hanover Square. But the problem with the 2nd Avenue line is the lack of express tracks, the lack of connections to other boroughs, and the fact that doesn’t have anywhere to be rerouted in case of emergencies. I feel when phase 2 opens the MTA will need to redraw the phase 3 and 4 (example connections to The Bronx Queens and Brooklyn and express tracks) 

Here some proposals I list 

The connection to Bronx, so for the Bronx connection build a new 4 track line across 3rd Avenue and Webster Avenue a very hugely populated place in the Bronx. This would be used for the T and V trains. The T train would be local 24/7 and the V train would be express operating weekdays only the express would than lower in 143rd st. The tunnel to Manhattan would be split like this 

The upper local level would go to Manhattan via Lincoln Avenue and the lower express level would go to Manhattan vis a tunnel underneath the 3rd Avenue bridge 

How to build express tracks 

Well with phase 1 build the way it is the express tracks would need to be build underneath but here’s a bonus way we can do this first build the express tracks with connections to 125th street the V train would be the express, Again weekdays only since there won’t really a demand for full time express in East Harlem. 

It would skip 116th 106th 96th and 86th streets and it would then head down to 2nd Avenue at 81st street than 72nd street would be build with connections to the lower level Yes 72nd street would be an express stop. You can said I’m proposing to make 2nd Avenue The east side version of Central Park west. 

For phase 2 the Q train would branch out running down via a 125th street crosstown line where it would continue to Broadway 125th street. And the Q and T could be swap depending on train length and/or demand. 

Now for queens so I propose building a new Northern Blvd line and creating a new 2nd Avenue line the K train.This new queens line would serve northern blvd which would reduce crowding on the 7 train. The northern blvd would be stop at 21st street queensbridge transferring to the F train and than the K train would run down a new tunnel down 62nd street than connecting to the lower level express tracks of 2nd Avenue line. 

Reasons for it connected to 21st street it would allow for the K train to be rerouted in case of emergencies switch places with one of the queens blvd lines if ridership demands it.

Also 60th street tunnel would have connections to the upper local level of 2nd Avenue line reasons it would allow for an emergency reroute of a Broadway line and for the reroute of the W train via 2nd Avenue Local if ridership demands it. 

Now at 57th street the express rise up and 2nd Avenue would look like the traditional 4 track lines. So the K V is Express and the T is Local. 

So the K and V would skip 48th 34th 23rd 8th and Houston streets

Now you may be wondering what to do for Brooklyn

 

instead of reworking all of Chrystie street (cause as I said earlier that does far more harm than good) 

On Grand Street the K train would head down to a new line via a new tunnel in Williamsburg running down grand street Morgan Avenue and Wilson Avenue This new Williamsburg Bushwick would reduce crowding on the L and M trains

The V train would be connected to the Culver line along side the F and G train. The V train would be the Express train while the F and G trains remain local. It would run up to church ave. And if the demand is high enough culver from 18th Avenue and kings Highway would be converted to 4 tracks to allow for a reliable express service on culver line. 

And the phase 4 would be build and it would have provisions for a new tunnel running down to Fulton street where the T train could be extended to Euclid Avenue maybe Hanover Square could have 4 tracks with the center tracks use for terminating trains and the outer tracks used to continuing to Brooklyn. This could allow for rerouted trains to run to Brooklyn without causing major delays 

T train run between White Plains Rd Gun Hill Rd Bronx and Hanover Square Manhattan

 3rd Avenue Local 2nd Avenue Local 

V train run between Wiallimsbrigde 210th st Bronx and Kings Highway Brooklyn

3rd Avenue Express 2nd Avenue Express Culver

K train run between Whitestone Expressway 112 st Queens and Wilson Avenue Brooklyn

 
Northern Blvd Local 2nd Avenue Express Williamburg local local

It not fully known how much people will benefit but I’m sure this will make the 2nd Avenue line more effective for example 3rd Avenue line would have a queens blvd/Central Park West style subway line. Northern Blvd and the Williamburg Bushwick lines would reduce pressure on other subway lines. A 4 track 2nd Avenue line would better address the needs of the east side of Manhattan  
 

Post your opinions on my plan and your own recommendations

 

I have made my map of my 2nd Avenue line proposal Here’s a link to the map I made https://metrodreamin.com/view/ejJSdkwzOHltdVZjWldyVjBLY05WQ1BJMW9qMXww

Service patterns (T) Local (K)(V) Express 

(K)(T) operates 24/7

(V) operates weekdays only. Weekends and Late Nights use the (F) and (T) instead 

T train run between White Plains Rd Gun Hill Rd Bronx and Hanover Square Manhattan

 3rd Avenue Local 2nd Avenue Local 

V train run between Wiallimsbrigde 210th st Bronx and Kings Highway Brooklyn

3rd Avenue Express 2nd Avenue Express Culver

K train run between Whitestone Expressway 112 st Queens and Wilson Avenue Brooklyn

 
Northern Blvd Local 2nd Avenue Express Williamburg local local

 

what do you think

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The MTA Salvation Program 

I made this program that will improve reliability on service  

The 2nd Avenue line plan 

The connection to Bronx, so for the Bronx connection build a new 4 track line across 3rd Avenue and Webster Avenue a very hugely populated place in the Bronx. This would be used for the T and V trains. The T train would be local 24/7 and the V train would be express operating weekdays only the express would than lower in 143rd st. The tunnel to Manhattan would be split like this 

The upper local level would go to Manhattan via Lincoln Avenue and the lower express level would go to Manhattan vis a tunnel underneath the 3rd Avenue bridge 

How to build express tracks 

Well with phase 1 build the way it is the express tracks would need to be build underneath but here’s a bonus way we can do this first build the express tracks with connections to 125th street the V train would be the express, Again weekdays only since there won’t really a demand for full time express in East Harlem. 

It would skip 116th 106th 96th and 86th streets and it would then head down to 2nd Avenue at 81st street than 72nd street would be build with connections to the lower level Yes 72nd street would be an express stop. You can said I’m proposing to make 2nd Avenue The east side version of Central Park west. 

For phase 2 the Q train would branch out running down via a 125th street crosstown line where it would continue to Broadway 125th street. And the Q and T could be swap depending on train length and/or demand. 

Now for queens so I propose creating a new 2nd Avenue line the K train. This new queens line would serve Queens blvd which would reduce crowding on the Lexington Avenue stations 59th street and 51st street. The K train would then run down a new tunnel down 62nd street than connecting to the lower level express tracks of 2nd Avenue line. 

Reasons for  it would allow for the K train to run at full capacity.

Also 60th street tunnel would have connections to the upper local level of 2nd Avenue line reasons it would allow for an emergency reroute of a Broadway line and for the reroute of the W train via 2nd Avenue Local if ridership demands it. 

Now at 57th street the express rise up and 2nd Avenue would look like the traditional 4 track lines. So the K V is Express and the T is Local. 

So the K and V would skip 48th 34th 23rd 8th and Houston streets

Now you may be wondering what to do for Brooklyn

 

instead of reworking all of Chrystie street (that does I said earlier that does far more harm than good) 

On Grand Street the K train would head down to a new line via a new tunnel in Williamsburg running down grand street Morgan Avenue and Wilson Avenue This new Williamsburg Bushwick would reduce crowding on the L and M trains

Grand Street would converted into a 4 tracks station the outer would be connected to the 2nd Avenue line that way the B D and Q trains could be rerouted to 2nd Avenue line in emergencies or G.O is needed

The V train would be connected to the Culver line along side the F and G train. The V train would be the Express train while the F and G trains remain local. It would run up to church ave. And if the demand is high enough culver from 18th Avenue and kings Highway would be converted to 4 tracks to allow for a reliable express service on culver line. 

And the phase 4 would be build and it would have provisions for a new tunnel running down to Fulton street where the T train could be extended to Euclid Avenue maybe Hanover Square could have 4 tracks with the center tracks use for terminating trains and the outer tracks used to continuing to Brooklyn. This could allow for rerouted trains to run to Brooklyn without causing major delays 

T train run between White Plains Rd Gun Hill Rd Bronx and Hanover Square Manhattan

 3rd Avenue Local 2nd Avenue Local 

V train run between Wiallimsbrigde 210th st Bronx and Kings Highway Brooklyn

3rd Avenue Express 2nd Avenue Express Culver

K train run between Whitestone Expressway 112 st Queens and Wilson Avenue Brooklyn

 
Northern Blvd Local 2nd Avenue Express Williamburg local local

 

The Bronx plan

The D train would be extended to Co op city stopping at Burke Avenue White Plains Road Boston Road Seymour Avenue and Co op City

The 6 train would be extended to Co op City going straight to co op city 

co op City is showed to Ned better transit and 6/D train extension over there would help out a lot of people in the long term


The 3rd Avenue line as I stated earlier would be rebuild with 4 tracks and run up to Gun Hill Road to maximize capacity. But then again 3 tracks and up to Fordham Road might be enough and we could probably sent one of the 2nd Avenue lines elsewhere in the Bronx.

 

Manhattan is fine the way it is. 
But the 3 train should be extended to 168 street Highland Park

The Queens plan

Extend the Astoria line to LaGuardia Airport the LaGuardia Airport is in desperate need of a subway line 

Build a New Northern Blvd Line this line would run up to Whitestone reducing crowding on the 7 train 

Reroute the R train to Astoria reroute the W train to Queens Blvd reroute the M and N trains to the new Northern Blvd line this would increase service in Manhattan 

The Rockway branch would also be reactivated and the G train would be extended there reason? It’s the only line that would have acces to a yard. 
 Rockway Branch would had a system wide benefit Jon transit

the N and M would be rerouted via 63rd street tunnel freeing up the F train to be rerouted back to 53rd street tunnel. 
 

The E train would be extended to Laurelton Springfield Blvd

The F train would be extended to Queens Village Springfield 

The J/Z would be extended to Hollis 190 street 

An F train extension would greatly reduce traffic on hillside 

E and J/Z extension would also serve transit Deserts in queens

The Brooklyn Plan

The Culver would be converted to 4 tracks as stated earlier. 

Deinterlining should be for Dekalb Avenue 

Brighton Line 
N local to Coney Island

Q express to Brighton Beach

4th Avenue line

D express to Bay Ridge ( express Dekalb ave-36th st local south of 36th Street)

B express to Coney Island via Sea Beach

R local to Coney Island via West End

Fulton Street line

Now for phase 4 First connect 2nd Ave phase 4 or connect the 2nd Ave to Nassau broad st line to the montague st tunnel than relocate the transit museum somewhere else with the 2nd ave line build with a connection to the Fulton st line have the T train would than take over local service for the C train and run to Euclid Avenue and this frees up the C train to be moved to the express tracks along side the A train this which would also allow C trains to be extended to Lefferts blvd without creating YET ANOTHER interlocking issue that way all A train would can be diverted to the Rockways.  
 

The 2/5 trains would be extended to Kings Highway 

The 4 train would be extended to run down Utica Avenue Flatlands Avenue 

For BMT Eastern Division 

 

Well here’s how to improve BMT Eastern Division, let’s start with the L train since that route NEEDS THE TRAIN CAR EXPANSION THE MOST. So we should start off with the elevated stations since it would be easier. Then we can move on to underground sections. Now let’s move on to the myrte ave and Jamaica lines. The M train will be lengthen first Since the M train has a higher ridership runs via 6th ave and queens blvd it would be a MUCH HIGHER PRIORITY to lengthen it to 10 cars last but not least we would lengthen the J/Z trains to 10 cars.  We would finish off with the lower Manhattan part. Oh and Marcy ave would be covered into an island station and since Lorimer st and hewes st are way too close to each other I believe we should abandon them entirely and build one new station at Union ave with a connection to the G train. And Norwood ave and Cleveland st should also be close and replace by a new station at Shepherd ave. Next to eliminate the bottleneck problem at myrte ave building a new flying junction between the Flushing Av station and Myrtle Ave station. The current local tracks would be moved outward so that two new tracks can be added between. These two new tracks would connect to both the local and express tracks. As they approach Myrtle Ave the new tracks would rise up and a new upper level station would be built over the existing Myrtle Ave station, though slightly to the west. I propose having myrte ave converted into a duel level station. Oh and another proposal I have in mind is building a third track for peak way express service so the J train would make all stops and the Z train would be converted into a Peak way express service. I was going to eliminate the Z train entirely and replace it with <J> service but I figured Z would be even better since it would reduce confusion the express track would be build between 121 st and crescent st. And we must also expand the Train yards of each BMT eastern division lines. I don’t know how much people would benefit but by looking at vanshnookenraggen Twitter post here the estimate 
L train 8 cars: 46,656
L train 10 cars: 58,320
M train 8 cars: 17,496
M train 10 cars: 24,300
J/Z train 8 cars: 21,384
J/Z train 10 cars: 36,450

 

For the rolling stock Complete the R211 order and start the R262 order. And upgrade the R142s R142As R143s R160s R179s and R188s as well. They will be needed to replace the R44s R46s R62s R62As R68s and R68As (Sorry railfans and formers but it’s a necessary evil in order to improve realible and modernize the subway system). 
 

and that is the MTA Salvation plan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Amiri the subway guy said:

The MTA Salvation Program 

I made this program that will improve reliability on service  

The 2nd Avenue line plan 

The connection to Bronx, so for the Bronx connection build a new 4 track line across 3rd Avenue and Webster Avenue a very hugely populated place in the Bronx. This would be used for the T and V trains. The T train would be local 24/7 and the V train would be express operating weekdays only the express would than lower in 143rd st. The tunnel to Manhattan would be split like this 

The upper local level would go to Manhattan via Lincoln Avenue and the lower express level would go to Manhattan vis a tunnel underneath the 3rd Avenue bridge 

How to build express tracks 

Well with phase 1 build the way it is the express tracks would need to be build underneath but here’s a bonus way we can do this first build the express tracks with connections to 125th street the V train would be the express, Again weekdays only since there won’t really a demand for full time express in East Harlem. 

It would skip 116th 106th 96th and 86th streets and it would then head down to 2nd Avenue at 81st street than 72nd street would be build with connections to the lower level Yes 72nd street would be an express stop. You can said I’m proposing to make 2nd Avenue The east side version of Central Park west. 

For phase 2 the Q train would branch out running down via a 125th street crosstown line where it would continue to Broadway 125th street. And the Q and T could be swap depending on train length and/or demand. 

Now for queens so I propose creating a new 2nd Avenue line the K train. This new queens line would serve Queens blvd which would reduce crowding on the Lexington Avenue stations 59th street and 51st street. The K train would then run down a new tunnel down 62nd street than connecting to the lower level express tracks of 2nd Avenue line. 

Reasons for  it would allow for the K train to run at full capacity.

Also 60th street tunnel would have connections to the upper local level of 2nd Avenue line reasons it would allow for an emergency reroute of a Broadway line and for the reroute of the W train via 2nd Avenue Local if ridership demands it. 

Now at 57th street the express rise up and 2nd Avenue would look like the traditional 4 track lines. So the K V is Express and the T is Local. 

So the K and V would skip 48th 34th 23rd 8th and Houston streets

Now you may be wondering what to do for Brooklyn

 

instead of reworking all of Chrystie street (that does I said earlier that does far more harm than good) 

On Grand Street the K train would head down to a new line via a new tunnel in Williamsburg running down grand street Morgan Avenue and Wilson Avenue This new Williamsburg Bushwick would reduce crowding on the L and M trains

Grand Street would converted into a 4 tracks station the outer would be connected to the 2nd Avenue line that way the B D and Q trains could be rerouted to 2nd Avenue line in emergencies or G.O is needed

The V train would be connected to the Culver line along side the F and G train. The V train would be the Express train while the F and G trains remain local. It would run up to church ave. And if the demand is high enough culver from 18th Avenue and kings Highway would be converted to 4 tracks to allow for a reliable express service on culver line. 

And the phase 4 would be build and it would have provisions for a new tunnel running down to Fulton street where the T train could be extended to Euclid Avenue maybe Hanover Square could have 4 tracks with the center tracks use for terminating trains and the outer tracks used to continuing to Brooklyn. This could allow for rerouted trains to run to Brooklyn without causing major delays 

T train run between White Plains Rd Gun Hill Rd Bronx and Hanover Square Manhattan

 3rd Avenue Local 2nd Avenue Local 

V train run between Wiallimsbrigde 210th st Bronx and Kings Highway Brooklyn

3rd Avenue Express 2nd Avenue Express Culver

K train run between Whitestone Expressway 112 st Queens and Wilson Avenue Brooklyn

 
Northern Blvd Local 2nd Avenue Express Williamburg local local

 

The Bronx plan

The D train would be extended to Co op city stopping at Burke Avenue White Plains Road Boston Road Seymour Avenue and Co op City

The 6 train would be extended to Co op City going straight to co op city 

co op City is showed to Ned better transit and 6/D train extension over there would help out a lot of people in the long term


The 3rd Avenue line as I stated earlier would be rebuild with 4 tracks and run up to Gun Hill Road to maximize capacity. But then again 3 tracks and up to Fordham Road might be enough and we could probably sent one of the 2nd Avenue lines elsewhere in the Bronx.

 

Manhattan is fine the way it is. 
But the 3 train should be extended to 168 street Highland Park

The Queens plan

Extend the Astoria line to LaGuardia Airport the LaGuardia Airport is in desperate need of a subway line 

Build a New Northern Blvd Line this line would run up to Whitestone reducing crowding on the 7 train 

Reroute the R train to Astoria reroute the W train to Queens Blvd reroute the M and N trains to the new Northern Blvd line this would increase service in Manhattan 

The Rockway branch would also be reactivated and the G train would be extended there reason? It’s the only line that would have acces to a yard. 
 Rockway Branch would had a system wide benefit Jon transit

the N and M would be rerouted via 63rd street tunnel freeing up the F train to be rerouted back to 53rd street tunnel. 
 

The E train would be extended to Laurelton Springfield Blvd

The F train would be extended to Queens Village Springfield 

The J/Z would be extended to Hollis 190 street 

An F train extension would greatly reduce traffic on hillside 

E and J/Z extension would also serve transit Deserts in queens

The Brooklyn Plan

The Culver would be converted to 4 tracks as stated earlier. 

Deinterlining should be for Dekalb Avenue 

Brighton Line 
N local to Coney Island

Q express to Brighton Beach

4th Avenue line

D express to Bay Ridge ( express Dekalb ave-36th st local south of 36th Street)

B express to Coney Island via Sea Beach

R local to Coney Island via West End

Fulton Street line

Now for phase 4 First connect 2nd Ave phase 4 or connect the 2nd Ave to Nassau broad st line to the montague st tunnel than relocate the transit museum somewhere else with the 2nd ave line build with a connection to the Fulton st line have the T train would than take over local service for the C train and run to Euclid Avenue and this frees up the C train to be moved to the express tracks along side the A train this which would also allow C trains to be extended to Lefferts blvd without creating YET ANOTHER interlocking issue that way all A train would can be diverted to the Rockways.  
 

The 2/5 trains would be extended to Kings Highway 

The 4 train would be extended to run down Utica Avenue Flatlands Avenue 

For BMT Eastern Division 

 

Well here’s how to improve BMT Eastern Division, let’s start with the L train since that route NEEDS THE TRAIN CAR EXPANSION THE MOST. So we should start off with the elevated stations since it would be easier. Then we can move on to underground sections. Now let’s move on to the myrte ave and Jamaica lines. The M train will be lengthen first Since the M train has a higher ridership runs via 6th ave and queens blvd it would be a MUCH HIGHER PRIORITY to lengthen it to 10 cars last but not least we would lengthen the J/Z trains to 10 cars.  We would finish off with the lower Manhattan part. Oh and Marcy ave would be covered into an island station and since Lorimer st and hewes st are way too close to each other I believe we should abandon them entirely and build one new station at Union ave with a connection to the G train. And Norwood ave and Cleveland st should also be close and replace by a new station at Shepherd ave. Next to eliminate the bottleneck problem at myrte ave building a new flying junction between the Flushing Av station and Myrtle Ave station. The current local tracks would be moved outward so that two new tracks can be added between. These two new tracks would connect to both the local and express tracks. As they approach Myrtle Ave the new tracks would rise up and a new upper level station would be built over the existing Myrtle Ave station, though slightly to the west. I propose having myrte ave converted into a duel level station. Oh and another proposal I have in mind is building a third track for peak way express service so the J train would make all stops and the Z train would be converted into a Peak way express service. I was going to eliminate the Z train entirely and replace it with <J> service but I figured Z would be even better since it would reduce confusion the express track would be build between 121 st and crescent st. And we must also expand the Train yards of each BMT eastern division lines. I don’t know how much people would benefit but by looking at vanshnookenraggen Twitter post here the estimate 
L train 8 cars: 46,656
L train 10 cars: 58,320
M train 8 cars: 17,496
M train 10 cars: 24,300
J/Z train 8 cars: 21,384
J/Z train 10 cars: 36,450

 

For the rolling stock Complete the R211 order and start the R262 order. And upgrade the R142s R142As R143s R160s R179s and R188s as well. They will be needed to replace the R44s R46s R62s R62As R68s and R68As (Sorry railfans and formers but it’s a necessary evil in order to improve realible and modernize the subway system). 
 

and that is the MTA Salvation plan

Why did you create an entirely new thread to also post the same exact thing here? Doesn't matter, I'm not going to respond there since you posted here.

I'm going to start off with the SAS service running along Fulton which while I and probably everyone else probably agree with it, the way your doing this connection might make it worse. For starters you're still running (R) (which should be renamed to (W) since the (R) rarely ever makes any passenger service along West End and I can guarantee people would rather stick with the (W) name rather than the (R) name in both Brooklyn and Queens just like people did with the (M) when the (V) was originally going to take the (brownM)'s place) trains around which is running from Astoria-Ditmars Blvd to Coney Island. The reason I'm bringing this up is because you wanted to have an SAS service running through Nassau St and through Montague St tunnel to then run through the old Court St station. While I wouldn't mind this, there is a big problem, you'll have to completely separate lines running through the same tunnel. One line being the (T) and the other being the (W). Both would have to merge together to then split up to get to their respective lines. That is not a good combo at all. We already got issues with that, the (E) and (M) along 53 St, the (N)(R) and (W) along 60 St, the (A) and (C) along Cranberry St, you see where I'm getting at? This is a very bad mix and would limit how many (T) and (W) trains are trying to get through Montague St. Of course, it might be cheaper doing that, but if you really wanted a connection, it would be better to just leave it as a connection only for redundancy purposes. Like you said, you would be able to have (W) trains rerouted along SAS if something were to happen.

Personally, I'm not against an SAS service running along Culver, although I think the (F) should be the one that runs express along Culver between Jay St and Church Av with (G) and this version of the V running local to Church Av the last stop. Relaying could still be a nightmare, but compare that to other stations like Ditmars Blvd and Whitehall St for the (W), there's barely any kind of room for either of them. You also have stations like Forest Hills that can terminate more trains, but still limited to how many can terminate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Vulturious said:

Why did you create an entirely new thread to also post the same exact thing here? Doesn't matter, I'm not going to respond there since you posted here.

I'm going to start off with the SAS service running along Fulton which while I and probably everyone else probably agree with it, the way your doing this connection might make it worse. For starters you're still running (R) (which should be renamed to (W) since the (R) rarely ever makes any passenger service along West End and I can guarantee people would rather stick with the (W) name rather than the (R) name in both Brooklyn and Queens just like people did with the (M) when the (V) was originally going to take the (brownM)'s place) trains around which is running from Astoria-Ditmars Blvd to Coney Island. The reason I'm bringing this up is because you wanted to have an SAS service running through Nassau St and through Montague St tunnel to then run through the old Court St station. While I wouldn't mind this, there is a big problem, you'll have to completely separate lines running through the same tunnel. One line being the (T) and the other being the (W). Both would have to merge together to then split up to get to their respective lines. That is not a good combo at all. We already got issues with that, the (E) and (M) along 53 St, the (N)(R) and (W) along 60 St, the (A) and (C) along Cranberry St, you see where I'm getting at? This is a very bad mix and would limit how many (T) and (W) trains are trying to get through Montague St. Of course, it might be cheaper doing that, but if you really wanted a connection, it would be better to just leave it as a connection only for redundancy purposes. Like you said, you would be able to have (W) trains rerouted along SAS if something were to happen.

Personally, I'm not against an SAS service running along Culver, although I think the (F) should be the one that runs express along Culver between Jay St and Church Av with (G) and this version of the V running local to Church Av the last stop. Relaying could still be a nightmare, but compare that to other stations like Ditmars Blvd and Whitehall St for the (W), there's barely any kind of room for either of them. You also have stations like Forest Hills that can terminate more trains, but still limited to how many can terminate.

To be honest I didn’t even know what to do with that thread so I decided to just abandon it instead 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Theoretically, the MTA can run 6 car 75-foot trains from Chambers St to Broad St. If that's a success, then the MTA can easily add R46's, R68's, and R68A's from Coney Island Yard onto the Z line for the very first time. The Z line would run from Chambers St via 4th Avenue and West End local to Coney Island at all times in order to help out the R/W line on 4th Avenue. In order for this to happen, the Z line would need to be taken of the Jamaica line completely due to the fact that it's just a copy of the J line. Unfortunately, the J line would need to terminate at Chambers St instead of Broad St because there's only capacity for one train service south of Chambers St.

Edited by ActiveCity
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Vulturious said:

Why did you create an entirely new thread to also post the same exact thing here? Doesn't matter, I'm not going to respond there since you posted here.

I'm going to start off with the SAS service running along Fulton which while I and probably everyone else probably agree with it, the way your doing this connection might make it worse. For starters you're still running (R) (which should be renamed to (W) since the (R) rarely ever makes any passenger service along West End and I can guarantee people would rather stick with the (W) name rather than the (R) name in both Brooklyn and Queens just like people did with the (M) when the (V) was originally going to take the (brownM)'s place) trains around which is running from Astoria-Ditmars Blvd to Coney Island. The reason I'm bringing this up is because you wanted to have an SAS service running through Nassau St and through Montague St tunnel to then run through the old Court St station. While I wouldn't mind this, there is a big problem, you'll have to completely separate lines running through the same tunnel. One line being the (T) and the other being the (W). Both would have to merge together to then split up to get to their respective lines. That is not a good combo at all. We already got issues with that, the (E) and (M) along 53 St, the (N)(R) and (W) along 60 St, the (A) and (C) along Cranberry St, you see where I'm getting at? This is a very bad mix and would limit how many (T) and (W) trains are trying to get through Montague St. Of course, it might be cheaper doing that, but if you really wanted a connection, it would be better to just leave it as a connection only for redundancy purposes. Like you said, you would be able to have (W) trains rerouted along SAS if something were to happen.

Personally, I'm not against an SAS service running along Culver, although I think the (F) should be the one that runs express along Culver between Jay St and Church Av with (G) and this version of the V running local to Church Av the last stop. Relaying could still be a nightmare, but compare that to other stations like Ditmars Blvd and Whitehall St for the (W), there's barely any kind of room for either of them. You also have stations like Forest Hills that can terminate more trains, but still limited to how many can terminate.

But in a way, both of these scenarios (bolded text) are the same situation. You've got two separate lines merging to run through the same tunnel, so in both scenarios you'd have to limit the number of peak tph you can run. I guess the (F) and ( V ) via Rutgers isn't quite as bad because they are both coming from Culver, although one is local and the other express, so they'd have to merge between Bergen and Jay. It's probably more similar to the (A)(C) situation in Cranberry. 

Hopefully in the (W)'s case, the (N) wouldn't also be going through 60th, although the (N) can't go to 2nd Ave alongside the (Q) if the (T) is there. 

18 hours ago, ActiveCity said:

Theoretically, the MTA can run 6 car 75-foot trains from Chambers St to Broad St. If that's a success, then the MTA can easily add R46's, R68's, and R68A's from Coney Island Yard onto the Z line for the very first time. The Z line would run from Chambers St via 4th Avenue and West End local to Coney Island at all times in order to help out the R/W line on 4th Avenue. In order for this to happen, the Z line would need to be taken of the Jamaica line completely due to the fact that it's just a copy of the J line. Unfortunately, the J line would need to terminate at Chambers St instead of Broad St because there's only capacity for one train service south of Chambers St.

The only 75-foot cars capable of running in 6-car trains are the R46 pairs, which only have even numbers starting at 6208, I believe. There are I believe, only 12 such pairs (one pair was made into a 4-car set with two other cars from the R46 (A) train that derailed at 14th St due to some nutcase placing rail parts on the tracks). Twelve 6-car trains is 72 cars. I don't think that would be sufficient to operate your proposed (Z) service, taking into account the need for spare sets. There are also nine single R68s, but those are dedicated to the Franklin Shuttle. They even had their side destination sign boxes removed, so they can't display anything other than (S) and the Franklin Shuttle terminals. It would probably be best to just stick with ENY equipment on this (Z) service. Maybe have it start/end at Broadway Junction with the (J) running express between there and Marcy Ave. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Vulturious said:

Why did you create an entirely new thread to also post the same exact thing here? Doesn't matter, I'm not going to respond there since you posted here.

I'm going to start off with the SAS service running along Fulton which while I and probably everyone else probably agree with it, the way your doing this connection might make it worse. For starters you're still running (R) (which should be renamed to (W) since the (R) rarely ever makes any passenger service along West End and I can guarantee people would rather stick with the (W) name rather than the (R) name in both Brooklyn and Queens just like people did with the (M) when the (V) was originally going to take the (brownM)'s place) trains around which is running from Astoria-Ditmars Blvd to Coney Island. The reason I'm bringing this up is because you wanted to have an SAS service running through Nassau St and through Montague St tunnel to then run through the old Court St station. While I wouldn't mind this, there is a big problem, you'll have to completely separate lines running through the same tunnel. One line being the (T) and the other being the (W). Both would have to merge together to then split up to get to their respective lines. That is not a good combo at all. We already got issues with that, the (E) and (M) along 53 St, the (N)(R) and (W) along 60 St, the (A) and (C) along Cranberry St, you see where I'm getting at? This is a very bad mix and would limit how many (T) and (W) trains are trying to get through Montague St. Of course, it might be cheaper doing that, but if you really wanted a connection, it would be better to just leave it as a connection only for redundancy purposes. Like you said, you would be able to have (W) trains rerouted along SAS if something were to happen.

Personally, I'm not against an SAS service running along Culver, although I think the (F) should be the one that runs express along Culver between Jay St and Church Av with (G) and this version of the V running local to Church Av the last stop. Relaying could still be a nightmare, but compare that to other stations like Ditmars Blvd and Whitehall St for the (W), there's barely any kind of room for either of them. You also have stations like Forest Hills that can terminate more trains, but still limited to how many can terminate.

For culver admittedly converted the entire el to 4 tracks seem a bit overkill you are right the V train could run local while the F train runs express seeing how the F train runs much longer 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the 3rd Avenue line their actually multiple scenarios we could restore it

Proposal A: Adding infill stations on Metro North between Fordham and 149th st. This is possibly the cheapest and arguably the most realistic 138th St, 149th St, 169th St, Claremont Parkway, and 183rd St would be added and the Metro North Fare would be the same as the subway line. But this would slow down metro north service and the metro north doesn’t even stop at all of the stations so maybe not the best pick

Proposal B: The most popular proposal is to build it underground where either the Q or T train would run up to Fordham Plaza. It would be 3 tracks for peak way direction for either. And this could be build elevated to be cheaper but you know the NIMBYs resistance will be strong so underground is less controversial

Proposal 😄 The Fantasy gore edition. The 3rd Avenue would be rebuilt with 4 tracks for local-express service. It would run up to Gun Hill Road. The T train would full time local and the V train would be the weekday express. This would allow for maximum capacity but 4 tracks is overkill so 3 tracks would likely be good enough

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do like your proposal A.  It is defintiely the most cost effective.  There is a lot of commuter rail trackage in many US cities that can be utilized rather cheaply to supplement the subway system if the frequency were increased and if fare/transfer policies in the inner city area.  For NYC, this would mean that the stations would all accept OMNY and MetroCard, the fare within city limits would be equal to the subeay fare, A free (out of system) transfer to buses and subways would also be needed.

A frequent service of local trains (at least every 8 minuts or more frequent) that run on the Harlem Line, that have the above fare/transfer policies within NYC limits, and that stop at every Bronx station on the way to GCT would be transformative.

Other similar rail lines that can be considered for similar treatment include:

Fairmount line in Boston, Metra Electric line in Chicago, CHW,CHE, Fox Chase lines in Philadelphia.

Port Washington line, local stops on main line, Atlantic branch (Brooklyn - Valley Stream) on the LIRR.  Of course, some of the Penn Station access trains of Metro North can als be used to provide better serive for Co-op city area and the far west side along the Hudson line connection to Penn sta.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had an idea for how to use capacity on a full SAS to ease the Williamsburg bridge and solve merge issues on the BMT Jamaica.

A few things need to be said first:

1) obviously the much easier solution to the (M) merge with the (J) is to construct a flyover. That, however, does not fix the Williamsburg bridge congestion.

2) by full SAS, I mean what I envision as the only possible four track SAS: Phases 3 and 4 are built with four tracks and somewhere along the way the express tracks are extended under the current SAS tracks with one or two stations to keep costs low. I would have the (Q) and (T) run local to 125, meaning we can have two full length express services to 125/beyond and one local service that terminates at or before 55 st (to leave room for the (Q)).

 

Okay, now that context is laid, my proposal is to restore a succession to the Myrtle Elevated and route it to SAS. The elevated would follow Myrtle, stopping at Marcy Av for a transfer with the Crosstown, and then curve up Nostrand. This would clip a bit of the building on the NE corner of Myrtle and Nostrand, which is minimal considering the rest of the buildings nearby are mostly housing and this building I believe isn’t. The el will continue up Nostrand to Park Av and curve onto Park Av. The curve would start after the track is already fully over the intersection, using the bus depot at  the NW corner for space so as to avoid clipping the SW building. From there, the el will continue down Park, with a stop at Bedford, and slip under the BQE, portalling into subway, stopping at Washington, Carlton, and Gold. From here, the subway would link up at Metrotech and Boro Hall and continue down a new tunnel that links up to the SAS local to meet the (T). This M would be turqoise, and terminate at 55 St using a small below grade four track layup yard.

 

What do you think?

Edited by jammerbot
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.