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

Department of Subways - Proposals/Ideas


Recommended Posts

On 9/14/2021 at 10:10 PM, ActiveCity said:

What if the MTA built the Worth St line today? Where would it go? Grand Avenue? Utica Avenue? Myrtle Ave-Central Ave to Howard beach?

Based on my comment above, here's a map of what I'd do if I could build new trunk lines:

https://metrodreamin.com/view/ZWUxVVR2d2tYZ2d3NnprYkFybTBoU1k2NWkzM3ww

This combines a four-track 2 Av subway in Manhattan with a four-track 3 Av Bronx trunk and a 4-track Northern Blvd trunk in Queens on the north side, and on the south end provides a four-track Jamaica el replacement trunk. I did a bunch of things here to be able to get 45 tph all the way through, some of which are questionable and expensive. My service patterns are 

(E) Jamaica Center-Kings Plaza via Queens Blvd Express, 8 Av/Worth St/Utica Av local 

(B) Bedford Park Blvd-Coney Island via CPW local, 6 Av express, Williamsburg local, Brighton local 

(D) Bay Plaza-Hook Creek Blvd via CPW/6 Av/Williamsburg/Jamaica express

(F) 179 St-Coney Island via Queens Blvd express, 6 Av local, Prospect Park express, McDonald Av local

(V) Forest Hills/71 Av-Church Av via Queens Blvd/6 Av/Prospect Park local

(N) Norwood/205 St-Coney Island via 3 Av/2 Av local, Broadway/4 Av express, Sea Beach Local

(Q) Bay Plaza-Brighton Beach via Bronx Amtrak ROW/3 Av/2 Av local, Broadway/Brighton express 

(R) Forest Hills/71 Av-Bay Ridge/95 St via Queens Blvd/Broadway/4 Av local

(W) Astoria/Ditmars-Springfield Blvd via Astoria/Broadway/Crosstown/Myrtle Av/HHE local 

(J) Flushing/Main St-Springfield Blvd via Northern Blvd/2 Av/Williamsburg/Jamaica local

(M) Utopia Pkwy-Euclid Ave via Bayside/Northern Blvd/2 Av/Fulton local

(P) Bay Plaza-Coney Island via 3 Av/2 Av/4 Av express, West End local

(T) Springfield Blvd-Cross Island Parkway via Northern Bl/2 Av/Williamsburg/Jamaica express. 

I chose to extend the Middle Village line along HHE because it already makes sense to connect Middle Village to QBL at Woodhaven Blvd, and since Woodhaven Blvd is already aligned with HHE it flows fairly well as a corridor.

The disconnection of Middle Village from the Jamaica trunk line was a move to maximize through TPH into East New York/Richmond Hill/Jamaica; a four-track trunk can handle 60-72tph hard maximum. In order to get the  off DeKalb it needs to run through the new Jamaica tunnel, taking up one of the line slots and 15-18tph absolute max; if I have the  branching off just past Marcy and the  at Myrtle, now we're down to 30 through TPH to Jamaica, of which only 15 can be express. Given how packed the (E) and the (F) are in the mornings I wanted to get 45 through TPH all the way out to Jamaica, of which 30 in this plan are express. Express trains leaving along the new corridor would make only five stops between Jamaica and Delancey-Essex St, and I would expect to see 35-40 minute ride times between Jamaica and downtown on express trains, which is comparable to runtimes via the Queens Blvd express.  

The integration of the Middle Village line with Crosstown and the  is rather clunky, and possibly a thing that could be handled better; I chose to do that because Montague has a significant amount of spare capacity, so tying Myrtle Av directly to Montague makes a fair amount of sense; the Crosstown connection is mostly there to allow the (W) to use the spare (G) track slots rather than building a parallel Myrtle Av line a ~5min walk away.  

The extensions out to SE Queens are intended to dramatically reduce the load on the Q4/Q5/Q85 buses, dollar vans, etc. Merrick and Brewer Blvd combined boast something close to 60 buses per hour, and during rush they're basically all slammed; 60 buses an hour comes out to somewhere in the realm of 6k-12k pax per hour, which is within the range where a subway makes sense and is self-supporting; also, if the ride via the Jamaica trunk into Manhattan is basically one-seat, and you can get a one-seat ride to 2 Av or 6 Av by staying on the Jamaica trunk train that should also help pull SE Queens people off QBL.

The Bronx and Queens trunk lines are both intended to fill decent-sized holes in the subway network that we're all fairly familiar with; the 3 Av corridor replaces the 3 Av El and provides all-day express service from the northern Bronx down into Manhattan; the extension of the (D) and (P) along Gun Hill Rd should also provide decent relief for the northern part of the (2)(5)  (current travel time from Wakefield to Times Sq is an hour, and from Dyre to Grand Central is 45 minutes; travel times with transfers to the (D) and  (P) would likely reduce those numbers to 35-40 minutes, and help dramatically with Lexington Av overcrowding. The (Q) operating under Boston Rd should also pull a fair number of people off the southern end of the (2)(5), reducing crowding further.  

The Queens trunk line under Northern Blvd is mostly intended as a (7)<7> relief line; it provides 45 tph as far as Jackson Heights, 15 to LGA, 30 to Flushing, and 15 out to Springfield Blvd; the line should be time-competitive with Roosevelt, and provides one-seat rides all along the east side of Manhattan (again, lessening the load on the Lex), and connects to the   (V)(R)(W)  in Queens, encouraging local transfers to reach the West Side of Manhattan. The extension to the airport offers a direct subway connection to the airport (taking a load off the M60, and the connection through College Point enables the creation of a massive new yard on Flushing Airport land to support the new services. The extension along Northern Blvd out to Bayside should take a load off the Q12 and is basically a shameless ripoff of the Second System plans for Roosevelt Av (except right now we can't extend the (7)<7>  because it's already packed during rush, and the LIRR is currently taking a whole chunk of Eastern Queens traffic that would otherwise make things worse). 

The (E) to Kings Plaza is just there because I decided to play with the idea of a Worth St line, and I didn't want to turn the (E) into a giant loop, so I just sent it south on Utica Av. I still like the IND on Utica Av as opposed to just sending the (4) south because the turn required to send the (4) south is going to be a massive pain to pull off, and I don't want to route more people onto the Lex. The (E) basically runs mostly empty below 14 St right now, and so it would offer a one-seat ride to 8 Av (with 6 Av, 2 Av, and Broadway accessible at Myrtle Av) which should be enough to get it running with a reasonable load to and from Brooklyn. At that point Williamsburg would go from 38 TPH into Manhattan, only 8 of which offer a one-seat ride into Midtown, up to 100ish TPH, 75 of which go through to Midtown. Jamaica goes from 46 tph (36 express to Midtown and 10 local to downtown) to 81 tph (36 express to Midtown directly, 30 express to Midtown via downtown, 15 local to midtown via downtown), SE Queens goes from 0tph to 45tph, and the IRT gets comprehensive relief in the Bronx and upper Manhattan. Furthermore, the (F) is able to run express from Church Av to Jay St-Metrotech full time, reducing commute times on McDonald Av while the (V) gives Park Slope riders their one-seat ride into Midtown.

Edited by engineerboy6561
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 11.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Did you know that there's bellmouth's on the express tracks on the IND South Brooklyn/Culver line? These bellmouth's were for a proposed line down Fort Hamilton Pkwy-10th Avenue and the Staten Island tunnel, but now it's just the F operating on the express tracks. There seems to be no mention of it and it should really be considered in the future. Its like Worth St 2.0.

Edited by ActiveCity
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, ActiveCity said:

Did you know that there's bellmouth's on the express tracks on the IND South Brooklyn/Culver line? These bellmouth's were for a proposed line down Fort Hamilton Pkwy-10th Avenue and the Staten Island tunnel, but now it's just the F operating on the express tracks. There seems to be no mention of it and it should really be considered in the future. Its like Worth St 2.0.

Yup; the longer-term plan at the time was to run a couple tracks down Ft Hamilton Pkwy and then either along the Verrazano or under the Narrows to connect to Staten Island; if that were to get used then it would probably be good to roll that in with the reactivation of the North Shore Line and bring back the South Beach Branch as an intermediate connection; that would let you run the (G)(V) out to Arlington (or maybe even Matrix Park) and finally tie SI to the mainland. More generally there are little snippets and pieces of provisions for a significantly more complex subway system littered all over the place because most of the system was built pre-Interstate system and pre-Robert Moses, and a lot of the stuff they wanted to build in the 1930s would make decent sense today if everyone in NYC had to use public transit to get around; if you're super interested you should check out VanShnookenRaggen's Second System map where he lays out all the different proposals that have floated around for the subway system: https://www.vanshnookenraggen.com/_index/docs/IND_trackmap.pdf?_t=1613769508

 

Edited by engineerboy6561
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's also not forget the (7) & (11) train extensions towards College Point & Bayside. They can still be built. However, the only issue is that the (7) train has one southbound branch with no indication of a corresponding bellmouth other than the former Queensboro Bridge connection, which should have never been demolished. The Queensboro Bridge connection would have facilitated the College Point or Bayside branch depending on the route length & ridership demand. The Queensboro Bridge connection would have been named the (11) train as seen in an R62/A rollsign.

Edited by ActiveCity
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/18/2021 at 3:43 PM, ActiveCity said:

Did you know that there's bellmouth's on the express tracks on the IND South Brooklyn/Culver line? These bellmouth's were for a proposed line down Fort Hamilton Pkwy-10th Avenue and the Staten Island tunnel, but now it's just the F operating on the express tracks. There seems to be no mention of it and it should really be considered in the future. Its like Worth St 2.0.

This isn't true. There are NO bellmouths on this section. I used to live down this way and I've eyed the tunnels every chance I could. I've even seen schematics of the tunnels which show that there are no provisions. It's a myth. Most likely the IND was just going to reroute the express tunnels, which as you know are on a lower level.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, ActiveCity said:

Let's also not forget the (7) & (11) train extensions towards College Point & Bayside. They can still be built. However, the only issue is that the (7) train has one southbound branch with no indication of a corresponding bellmouth other than the former Queensboro Bridge connection, which should have never been demolished. The Queensboro Bridge connection would have facilitated the College Point or Bayside branch depending on the route length & ridership demand. The Queensboro Bridge connection would have been named the (11) train as seen in an R62/A rollsign.

That's not really an issue. You can still have Bayside and College Point extensions that fork at Main Street-Flushing. You would just have (7) and (11) trains continue together to Hudson Yards. In fact, it's probably better if they do. If the Queensboro Bridge connection was still there, then you'd be forced to run much less service in the Steinway Tubes because the (11) trains would be running over the bridge, which would result in much more crowded (7) trains through the tubes. I'm not 100 percent sure of how Flushing Line train services were split when there were still elevated trains running over the Queensboro Bridge and onto the 2nd Avenue El, but I imagine there was quite a bit more service east of Queensboro Plaza than west of there. I also believe it was a big mistake to demolish the 2nd Ave El and its Queensboro Bridge connection were eliminated in the 1940s (much more so than demolishing the 3rd Ave El in Manhattan in 1955). But that was during the era of Fiorello LaGuardia and Robert Moses, neither of whom liked elevated trains. Not to mention the World War 2 scrap drive, which made the El's metal structures very desirable to the Federal government to build boats and planes for the war. But it's hard to say how they would have fit into today's (7) (and (N)(W)) operations if they were still around. But one thing's for sure, the (7) line would have been reverse-branched into a service pattern with more service on the Queens segment than on the very busy Manhattan segment.

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

3 hours ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

That's not really an issue. You can still have Bayside and College Point extensions that fork at Main Street-Flushing. You would just have (7) and (11) trains continue together to Hudson Yards. In fact, it's probably better if they do. If the Queensboro Bridge connection was still there, then you'd be forced to run much less service in the Steinway Tubes because the (11) trains would be running over the bridge, which would result in much more crowded (7) trains through the tubes. I'm not 100 percent sure of how Flushing Line train services were split when there were still elevated trains running over the Queensboro Bridge and onto the 2nd Avenue El, but I imagine there was quite a bit more service east of Queensboro Plaza than west of there. I also believe it was a big mistake to demolish the 2nd Ave El and its Queensboro Bridge connection were eliminated in the 1940s (much more so than demolishing the 3rd Ave El in Manhattan in 1955). But that was during the era of Fiorello LaGuardia and Robert Moses, neither of whom liked elevated trains. Not to mention the World War 2 scrap drive, which made the El's metal structures very desirable to the Federal government to build boats and planes for the war. But it's hard to say how they would have fit into today's (7) (and (N)(W)) operations if they were still around. But one thing's for sure, the (7) line would have been reverse-branched into a service pattern with more service on the Queens segment than on the very busy Manhattan segment.

That's an interesting idea, but I wouldn't do it with the (7)<7> because Roosevelt is already so crowded; I'd prefer to run the Bayside and College Point extensions via a new Northern Blvd IND trunk to take a load off Roosevelt. More particularly, because of the way Main St-Flushing is constructed, building extensions off the (7)<7> would require closing Main St Station and routing all the buses to Shea Stadium for a while, which would be a mess. If you use a Northern Blvd IND line to cover those areas you take a huge load off Roosevelt and don't have to worry about rerouting all the Flushing buses during construction.

 

16 hours ago, vanshnookenraggen said:

This isn't true. There are NO bellmouths on this section. I used to live down this way and I've eyed the tunnels every chance I could. I've even seen schematics of the tunnels which show that there are no provisions. It's a myth. Most likely the IND was just going to reroute the express tunnels, which as you know are on a lower level.

It would be nice to extend the IND four-track trunk down Ft Hamilton Av under the narrows; send the (V) to Coney Island via 6 Av/Culver local, the (F) to Matrix Park via Culver/Ft Hamilton express in Brooklyn and the Staten Island Expressway median in SI, and the (G) to Mariner's Marsh Park via Culver/Ft Hamilton local in Brooklyn and via the South Beach and North Shore SIR branches in Staten Island.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/19/2021 at 1:19 PM, ActiveCity said:

Let's also not forget the (7) & (11) train extensions towards College Point & Bayside. They can still be built. However, the only issue is that the (7) train has one southbound branch with no indication of a corresponding bellmouth other than the former Queensboro Bridge connection, which should have never been demolished. The Queensboro Bridge connection would have facilitated the College Point or Bayside branch depending on the route length & ridership demand. The Queensboro Bridge connection would have been named the (11) train as seen in an R62/A rollsign.

To me the College Point extensions never made sense, since it was a hook-shape; its indirectness would not be any faster than the existing, more direct bus services.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, bobtehpanda said:

To me the College Point extensions never made sense, since it was a hook-shape; its indirectness would not be any faster than the existing, more direct bus services.

Ideally I'd serve College Point and LGA together on a branch off the Northern Blvd trunk; branch off and swing north under Junction Blvd, stop at Astoria Blvd, swing east under the Grand Central Pkwy, stop at Central Terminal and Terminals C/D, then swing northeast to College Point. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, engineerboy6561 said:

Ideally I'd serve College Point and LGA together on a branch off the Northern Blvd trunk; branch off and swing north under Junction Blvd, stop at Astoria Blvd, swing east under the Grand Central Pkwy, stop at Central Terminal and Terminals C/D, then swing northeast to College Point. 

I just don't think College Point is particularly appropriate for an extension with direct Manhattan service, given its location on a peninsula.

Ideally, I would like the Q44 to be replaced with a rail line cutting across Tremont Av & the Cross Bronx, down to Soundview crossing into College Point, and then going to Jamaica. Possibly as an extension of the AirTrain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/20/2021 at 11:16 AM, T to Dyre Avenue said:

That's not really an issue. You can still have Bayside and College Point extensions that fork at Main Street-Flushing. You would just have (7) and (11) trains continue together to Hudson Yards. In fact, it's probably better if they do. If the Queensboro Bridge connection was still there, then you'd be forced to run much less service in the Steinway Tubes because the (11) trains would be running over the bridge, which would result in much more crowded (7) trains through the tubes. I'm not 100 percent sure of how Flushing Line train services were split when there were still elevated trains running over the Queensboro Bridge and onto the 2nd Avenue El, but I imagine there was quite a bit more service east of Queensboro Plaza than west of there. I also believe it was a big mistake to demolish the 2nd Ave El and its Queensboro Bridge connection were eliminated in the 1940s (much more so than demolishing the 3rd Ave El in Manhattan in 1955). But that was during the era of Fiorello LaGuardia and Robert Moses, neither of whom liked elevated trains. Not to mention the World War 2 scrap drive, which made the El's metal structures very desirable to the Federal government to build boats and planes for the war. But it's hard to say how they would have fit into today's (7) (and (N)(W)) operations if they were still around. But one thing's for sure, the (7) line would have been reverse-branched into a service pattern with more service on the Queens segment than on the very busy Manhattan segment.

That didn't age well lol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I'm for expansion of woodhaven Blvd station on the queens Blvd line 

Main purposes 

Would relieve overcrowding at Roosevelt Ave 

It's a major bus transfer point 

Would help springboard expansion with an lie hhe service in future generations 

In this big project you can make the station fully accessible and give it mall access like herald square (yeah I know the project is planned ada)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(R) Broadway Local, Queens Blvd local, & the Rockaways

Northbound terminal: City Hall lower level (this northbound terminal is actually displayed on an R32 rollsign)

Southbound terminal: Rockaway Park-Beach 116 St

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My other proposals 

Close Lorimer and hewes Street and use union av on the (J) (M)(Z) to build a transfer to the (G) 

Relocate Marcy avenue and build a Y switch so that express service can be utilized

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 9/26/2020 at 11:09 AM, Theli11 said:

Proposal I: Question: is the (M) also running or will it be just the <R> on Metropolitan. You'll still have 12 TPH (can't fix the Williamsburg bridge), and splitting that between 3 routes and peak direction express service would be a mess.

Continuing with my New World New York proposal posted back last year, having just the < R > on Metropolitan would actually screw Williamsburg people who needed a direct access into Midtown. I decided to keep the while the < R > is running.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

My proposal is a (6)/:8: skip stop on the Pelham Line. The skip stop would work as follows: 

(6)/:8: trains make all stops between BB/City Hall and Lex/59th Sts. Then:

68st :8:

77st (6) 

86st (6):8:

96st :8:

103st (6)

110st :8:

116st (6) 

125st (6):8:

3rd Av/138th (6):8:

Brook Av :8:

Cypress Av (6) 

143st :8:

149st (6) 

Longwood Av :8:

Hunts Point Av (6):8:

Whitlock Av (6) 

Elder Av :8:

Morrison Av (6) 

St Lawrence Av :8:

Parkchester (6):8:

Castle Hill Av (6)

Zegera Av :8:

Westchester Sq (6) 

Middletown Rd :8:

Burke Av (6) 

Pelham Bay Park (6):8:

Currently, it's a 26 stop ride on the (6) from Lex/59th to Pelham Bay Park. It's 12 stops on the <6> but that's only capable of peak direction express. Plus, you have to factor in the fact that most people are using local stops which means you're losing time waiting on the transfer and not saving as many stops. Since this is both skip stop in Manhattan and The Bronx, you're saving time across the entirety of the route. Everyone gets a one seat semi-express ride across the entirety of the (6) line at all times**. It's a 15-16 stop ride on the (4) from Woodlawn so this plan will make the (6) competitive with the (4) in terms of time. Also, since the (6) can run up to 2min headways, even with skip stop you're still looking at 4-5 min waits at skipped stations. 

 

 

**(except late nights, which I'd have the (6) make all stops)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, shiznit1987 said:

My proposal is a (6)/:8: skip stop on the Pelham Line. The skip stop would work as follows: 

(6)/:8: trains make all stops between BB/City Hall and Lex/59th Sts. Then:

68st :8:

77st (6) 

86st (6):8:

96st :8:

103st (6)

110st :8:

116st (6) 

125st (6):8:

3rd Av/138th (6):8:

Brook Av :8:

Cypress Av (6) 

143st :8:

149st (6) 

Longwood Av :8:

Hunts Point Av (6):8:

Whitlock Av (6) 

Elder Av :8:

Morrison Av (6) 

St Lawrence Av :8:

Parkchester (6):8:

Castle Hill Av (6)

Zegera Av :8:

Westchester Sq (6) 

Middletown Rd :8:

Burke Av (6) 

Pelham Bay Park (6):8:

Currently, it's a 26 stop ride on the (6) from Lex/59th to Pelham Bay Park. It's 12 stops on the <6> but that's only capable of peak direction express. Plus, you have to factor in the fact that most people are using local stops which means you're losing time waiting on the transfer and not saving as many stops. Since this is both skip stop in Manhattan and The Bronx, you're saving time across the entirety of the route. Everyone gets a one seat semi-express ride across the entirety of the (6) line at all times**. It's a 15-16 stop ride on the (4) from Woodlawn so this plan will make the (6) competitive with the (4) in terms of time. Also, since the (6) can run up to 2min headways, even with skip stop you're still looking at 4-5 min waits at skipped stations. 

 

 

**(except late nights, which I'd have the (6) make all stops)

Why do you need to add a skip-stop on the (6)? The (6) already has an express service. There is no need for a skip-stop service.

Edited by MottAvFarRockaway
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, shiznit1987 said:

My proposal is a (6)/:8: skip stop on the Pelham Line. The skip stop would work as follows: 

(6)/:8: trains make all stops between BB/City Hall and Lex/59th Sts. Then:

68st :8:

77st (6) 

86st (6):8:

96st :8:

103st (6)

110st :8:

116st (6) 

125st (6):8:

3rd Av/138th (6):8:

Brook Av :8:

Cypress Av (6) 

143st :8:

149st (6) 

Longwood Av :8:

Hunts Point Av (6):8:

Whitlock Av (6) 

Elder Av :8:

Morrison Av (6) 

St Lawrence Av :8:

Parkchester (6):8:

Castle Hill Av (6)

Zegera Av :8:

Westchester Sq (6) 

Middletown Rd :8:

Burke Av (6) 

Pelham Bay Park (6):8:

Currently, it's a 26 stop ride on the (6) from Lex/59th to Pelham Bay Park. It's 12 stops on the <6> but that's only capable of peak direction express. Plus, you have to factor in the fact that most people are using local stops which means you're losing time waiting on the transfer and not saving as many stops. Since this is both skip stop in Manhattan and The Bronx, you're saving time across the entirety of the route. Everyone gets a one seat semi-express ride across the entirety of the (6) line at all times**. It's a 15-16 stop ride on the (4) from Woodlawn so this plan will make the (6) competitive with the (4) in terms of time. Also, since the (6) can run up to 2min headways, even with skip stop you're still looking at 4-5 min waits at skipped stations. 

 

 

**(except late nights, which I'd have the (6) make all stops)

I tried to come up with a response to this, but I don't even know where to begin or how I should phrase it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/19/2021 at 4:44 PM, vanshnookenraggen said:

I figure I should jump in and defend some of my choices.

First off, the argument that the E shouldn't be extended to Fulton and Rockaway is moot because from Jamaica to Far Rock is slightly shorter than the current A from 207 to Far Rock. If you want to make the argument that the line would still be too long, I fell you but within the scope of this project (ie no big expansion) there really isn't more you can do.

You argue that there is a correlation between East NY and Harlem but in none of my census research have I found anything to support this. I'm sure there are a few people who do make this commute but not so many that a direct OSR makes all the difference. Just because the demographics are the same doesn't mean the job markets are.

What I do find is that many work close to home or in the major CBDs (downtown Brooklyn, lower Manhattan, midtown Manhattan, and Jamaica). Similarly, West Harlem and Washington Heights riders primarily work close to home (Columbia or New York-Presbyterian) or in midtown with a smaller percentage in lower Manhattan. So for uptown, the (B) (D) express makes the most sense. If you really have to get downtown, switch at W 4th St. It won't add any more time.

One thing that I have come around on is Queens Blvd. In my post I presented the (F)(M) as the local via 63rd St and (E)(K) express via 53rd. Many people have pointed out that this strands some riders. My main concern with swapping the services is that the M runs with shorter trains due to the platforms on the Jamaica and Myrtle Lines. I do propose extending these but as a separate project. Should the Myrtle platforms be extended first then I would be happy with (F)(M) express and I think it would be a better alternative.

Additionally, I've looked at extending the (G) up to Queens Plaza and beyond. The Twitter thread is here:  


The long short of it is that because of the location of the existing 63rd St Tunnel connection, any track extension or station expansion that would host a terminal for the (G) would require complex engineering and most likely expensive land taking (not just the land but we are talking about heavy concrete warehouses). This isn't to say that extending the (G) isn't feasible (all the alternatives I presented are) but that they would all be very expensive and probably not worth the cost simply to have the  (G) terminate north of Queens Plaza. However, if this was part of a larger Northern Blvd Subway extension the costs may be justified. 

My solution was to simply add an infill station on the 63rd St Tunnel at 41st Ave right before the tunnel connects with QBL. Early plans for the super-express had a station here and given the growth of LIC I think an infill station would make sense. This way all riders can change no matter the local or express service.

Please explain to me why the hell did you extend the E train to Far Rockway there’s is no point or reason . Cause I heard that the E train is popular cause it’s route is short and more likely to show up than the F train which is the 2nd longest train behind the A train which both has headways making both unreliable. And you are making the A train a useless one borough route and the C train a useless rush hour only route. Expand the C train to full weekday. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, the Pelham skip-stop went down in flames I see, lol. Anyway, here's one for a Third Ave bypass line:

The new Third Ave line would start with two branches in The Bronx. Branch one would run straight up Third Ave the same way the old Third Ave el did to Gun Hill Rd. The second branch would start at Co-Op City and run down Pelham Parkway with a stop at Jacobi, then turn and follow the (5) line to East 180st where after stopping there it would follow the Sheridan to Hunts Point Av ((6)) and then run along the Bruckner/138th St making a stop at 138th/3av. It's at 138th/3av that the two branches meet to form a two level 4 track subway right down Third Ave making no stops until 60th st (connections to (4)(5)(6)(F)(N)(Q)(R)(W)). Then stopping at 52nd St (connections to (E)(M)(6)) and 42nd St (connection to (7)). After 42nd St, the line continues straight down 3rd Ave with it's next stop being 14th St (connect to (L)) then straight down 3rd-Bowery-Water St to the Seaport District with a stop there then a stop at Wall/Water Sts. 

It's here things get interesting. The line splits into two again with one branch to Brooklyn and another to Staten Island. The Brooklyn line crosses the river at Atlantic Ave and uses the old LIRR tunnel to make a stop at Barclays/Atlantic (connect to (2)(3)(4)(5)(B)(D)(N)(Q)(R)+LIRR), then continues down Atlantic with stops at Nostrand (connection built to Fulton/Nostrand for (A)(C)) and Utica (Connection built to Fulton/Utica for (A)(C) again), then the line runs down Utica to Kings Plaza. 

The Staten Island line runs under the battery then reaches NJ right around the Liberty Science Center. It runs under I-78/I-440 to Constable Hook and then goes under the Van Kill to St Georges Ferry terminal. I would not connect this line to the existing SIR as it would make it too long, but free transfers would be available. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/3/2021 at 2:46 PM, shiznit1987 said:

Well, the Pelham skip-stop went down in flames I see, lol. Anyway, here's one for a Third Ave bypass line:

The new Third Ave line would start with two branches in The Bronx. Branch one would run straight up Third Ave the same way the old Third Ave el did to Gun Hill Rd. The second branch would start at Co-Op City and run down Pelham Parkway with a stop at Jacobi, then turn and follow the (5) line to East 180st where after stopping there it would follow the Sheridan to Hunts Point Av ((6)) and then run along the Bruckner/138th St making a stop at 138th/3av. It's at 138th/3av that the two branches meet to form a two level 4 track subway right down Third Ave making no stops until 60th st (connections to (4)(5)(6)(F)(N)(Q)(R)(W)). Then stopping at 52nd St (connections to (E)(M)(6)) and 42nd St (connection to (7)). After 42nd St, the line continues straight down 3rd Ave with it's next stop being 14th St (connect to (L)) then straight down 3rd-Bowery-Water St to the Seaport District with a stop there then a stop at Wall/Water Sts. 

It's here things get interesting. The line splits into two again with one branch to Brooklyn and another to Staten Island. The Brooklyn line crosses the river at Atlantic Ave and uses the old LIRR tunnel to make a stop at Barclays/Atlantic (connect to (2)(3)(4)(5)(B)(D)(N)(Q)(R)+LIRR), then continues down Atlantic with stops at Nostrand (connection built to Fulton/Nostrand for (A)(C)) and Utica (Connection built to Fulton/Utica for (A)(C) again), then the line runs down Utica to Kings Plaza. 

The Staten Island line runs under the battery then reaches NJ right around the Liberty Science Center. It runs under I-78/I-440 to Constable Hook and then goes under the Van Kill to St Georges Ferry terminal. I would not connect this line to the existing SIR as it would make it too long, but free transfers would be available. 

 

 

TBH, I liked your Pelham (6) / (8) skip-stop proposal better, though I'd consider making Westchester Square and the local stops in Manhattan between 125 and 59 as all stop stations - unless possibly we get SAS Phase 2 operational, and even then, the local stops between 86 and 59 should be all stop stations. That way, you double train service at Pelham Bay Park and Westchester Square, a very busy transfer point. PBP and Westchester Sq only get half the (6) rush hour trains under the current zoned peak express service, not to mention that every local stop in The Bronx between Parkchester and 3rd Ave gets twice as much service in the reverse-peak direction. And fully local because you can't run an express in both directions at the same time with only three tracks.

A line up 3rd Avenue in The Bronx is fine, but I don't think the branch up 138th, the Bruckner, and piggybacking onto the (5) between East 180 and Pelham Parkway is really needed. Plus, it would hamper (5) service and require your entire proposed 3rd Ave line to run with A-Division size trains (not sure if you wanted it to).

 

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

  • 2 weeks later...

NEW-R

Options/proposals for J/L/M/R trains

  1. Remove the Z service (skip-stop), and have the J train run every six minutes.
  2. Rebuild the L line with express tracks, and create a new <L> peak express service.
  3. When possible, run a new service similar to brown M service but between Metropolitan Avenue and 95th Street only, call it the <R> and run that service only during rush hours as an addition to the regular R service to ease crowds.
  4. Have the R terminate at Whitehall by splitting the R into half. Then, run a new Chambers Street to 95th Street service full-time.
  5. Run a new <M> peak express service, but it should not overlap with other express services, to boost travel times.

Any feedback on this, please?

Edited by MottAvFarRockaway
Clarifying
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, MottAvFarRockaway said:

NEW-R

Options/proposals for J/L/M/R trains

  1. Remove the Z service (skip-stop), and have the J train run every six minutes.
  2. Rebuild the L line with express tracks, and create a new <L> peak express service.
  3. When possible, run a new service similar to brown M service but between Metropolitan Avenue and 95th Street only, call it the <R> and run that service only during rush hours as an addition to the regular R service to ease crowds.
  4. Have the R terminate at Whitehall by splitting the R into half. Then, run a new Chambers Street to 95th Street service full-time.
  5. Run a new <M> peak express service, but it should not overlap with other express services, to boost travel times.

Any feedback on this, please?

  1. In order to remove the (Z), you need to make sure the (J) can handle service east of Broadway Junction on its own. There was a proposal somewhere either in this thread or another that would've created an new elevated structure running directly along Jamaica Av as the peak express service running. A lot of stations along Fulton St would've been bypassed, but I don't think building the elevated structure above the current tracks would've been a good idea anyway.
  2. While this would help in the long run, it would be a very, very, very expensive project just to rebuild the whole line, at least just on Brooklyn alone. Even if you somehow get the money to rebuild, it would be a very long time before we even see service running normal again.
  3. This isn't the first time something like this was proposed and personally, it isn't a good idea either. The Brown <R> used to be a thing, but was cut because of how useless it was. It was just unnecessary to run this since you already had the (brownM) running around at the time going into Brooklyn. No one would want this service back, not Bay Ridge, not 4th Av, and neither does anywhere else. Also, what crowds are you talking about? The (R) as is isn't a good line, many people have had issues with that line. Then you got the issue of terminals and merging. The Brown <R> would be starting at Bay Ridge which is only a 2 track, 1 platform terminal only good enough for 1 line. You can't turn trains around quick enough because of how limited the capacity is. The same exact thing would be happening at Metropolitan Av. The merging issue would involve the (J)(M)(R)(Z), all of which already have merging issues as is. The (J) doesn't deal with much, but the (M) does hinder it a bit, the (M) itself already has to deal with the (J), later on with the (F) to the (E) and finally the (R). Same thing with the (R) with the (N) and (W). Because of this, you have to modify scheduling for all of the B division because if one line is affected, everything else is.
  4. Splitting the (R) has also been proposed and just doesn't work. No one, and I mean no one would ever want to take this. Chambers St is also a hard place to terminate trains since the (J) gets in the way and this Brown R needs to turn trains around while the (J) is running through.
  5. Unfortunately, you can't run peak express M service because there is no room. Even if you do, it would be very limited and probably running very similar to the <F> which at that point is only very beneficial to very few people because they caught it while everyone else gets shafted. 

Overall, nothing is being solved or rather none of these proposals help in anyway. All these proposals either need a very long time to implement or just straight up can't work.

 

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.