Jump to content

Department of Subways - Proposals/Ideas


Recommended Posts


  • Replies 12.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

(T) reroute

Two (T) trains, after 116th Street station, the (T) will split into two services

1: (T) to 125th Street-Lexington Avenue (connecting to (4)(5)(6)(Q) and M60 bus and ADA accessible), making a diverging turn after 116th Street

2: (T) to Bay Plaza via Amtrak Northeast Corridor known as the IND or BMT Corridor Line making stops at:

Willow Avenue / 135th Street (ADA accessible)

Leggett Avenue / Bruckner Blvd

Lafayette Avenue / Bruckner Blvd

Tiffany Street / Bruckner Blvd

Hunts Point Avenue / Bruckner Blvd (change to (6) available at Hunts Point Avenue and ADA accessible)

Westchester Avenue / Whitlock Avenue (change to (6) available at Whitlock Avenue)

177th Street / Bronx River Pkwy

East Tremont Avenue / Adams Street (ADA accessible)

White Plains & Unionport Roads / East Tremont Avenue

Eastchester Road / Bassett Avenue

Pelham & Hutchinson Pkwys / Stillwell Avenue/Hutchinson Metro Center

Erskine Place / Boller Avenue

Bay Plaza / The Mall At Bay Plaza (underneath mall, connection to Bx12 Select Bus Service, and ADA accessible)

 

Line runs on Northeast Corridor right-of-way, then goes underground between Erskine Place and Pelham & Hutchinson Pkwys and runs underground from Erskine Place to Bay Plaza and after Willow Avenue

What do you think?

Edited by StevenFrancis
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also said IF the (MTA) doesn't want to have the (B) operate on weekends.

The best, and easiest would be to simply have the (B) operate to Brighton or whatever station is closest to Prospect Park they can turn the (B) on weekends without messing up the (Q).  My combing the (B) and (M) on weekends was strictly an alternate idea if the (MTA) didn't want to do that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also said IF the (MTA) doesn't want to have the (B) operate on weekends.

 

The best, and easiest would be to simply have the (B) operate to Brighton or whatever station is closest to Prospect Park they can turn the (B) on weekends without messing up the (Q).  My combing the (B) and (M) on weekends was strictly an alternate idea if the (MTA) didn't want to do that.

You need to be more clear with suggestions based on scenario.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Smh... Anybody who's really knows why there's NO 24/7 6th Ave service on Brighton is because after the reopening of the 6th Ave side of the Bridge... Brighton customers preferred the Broadway Q over the return of the 6th Ave D... Now they can't cut the D so the only other option was to swap it with the B... So that the D remains 24/7... They scaled the B back to 18/5... The B becomes the NEW part time 6th Ave weekday option for Brighton riders... D goes down 4th Ave Exp and West End to Coney Island

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Smh... Anybody who's really knows why there's NO 24/7 6th Ave service on Brighton is because after the reopening of the 6th Ave side of the Bridge... Brighton customers preferred the Broadway Q over the return of the 6th Ave D... Now they can't cut the D so the only other option was to swap it with the B... So that the D remains 24/7... They scaled the B back to 18/5... The B becomes the NEW part time 6th Ave weekday option for Brighton riders... D goes down 4th Ave Exp and West End to Coney Island

Exactly. The MTA got it right in 2004 when they decided to run the weekday-only (B) down Brighton express and the (D) down the West End Line. Going back to the pre-2001 (B) and (D) service patterns in Brooklyn would have been wasteful because there was and still is a preference for the Broadway Line over the 6th Avenue Line. Had the (B) and (D) resumed their previous service patterns, Broadway would have had only the (N) and the (R) on weekends and probably no express service. Broadway line ridership in Manhattan justified more than just those two lines (and still does). Meanwhile, the less busy 6th Avenue Line would have had two expresses in the B and D trains that it didn't and still doesn't need. And probably overcrowded (F) trains because that probably would have been the only 6th Ave local (as it was from 1989-2001).

 

If the ridership is there on Grand Concourse, I say run the (B) to/from Bedford Park all day on weekdays. If the midday (B) runs too frequently to risk causing delays at Bedford Park Blvd, then perhaps they should consider running the (D) peak direction express if there's demand for midday peak express service. Or switch the (B) and (C) back to their pre-1998 northern terminals (i.e., all-day B to 168th St and all-day C to Bedford Park Blvd). But that would likely require a slight bump in the C's headways.

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

If you're going to split the (T) into two services that terminate so far away from each other, then one of them should have a different letter. Perhaps use U or V for the Co-op City service. I know at one point MTA and/or City planners considered using all or part of the Northeast Corridor r-o-w in the Bronx (then operated by the New York, New Haven and Hartford RR) for 2nd Avenue service to/from Co-op City. The 1968 MTA plan called for 2nd Avenue service to/from Dyre Ave and Pelham Bay Park using the existing (5) and (6) lines up to the points where they got close to the Northeast Corridor and shaving back the platform edges so the existing stations could platform B-Division trains. I thought that was a good plan, but I'm not sure how feasible it would be today, especially considering the MTA tore down the old el structure that would have been used to connect the Dyre Avenue line to the Northeast Corridor r-o-w and built an expanded bus depot in the path of the el's r-o-w (which had been used by New York, Westchester and Boston interurban trains until 1938, then later used for storage after subway service started on the portion of  NYW&B r-o-w from Dyre Ave to East 180th St).

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

Or switch the (B) and (C) back to their pre-1998 northern terminals (i.e., all-day B to 168th St and all-day C to Bedford Park Blvd). But that would likely require a slight bump in the C's headways.

 

Why should they anyway though? The shorten (A) is 480 feet long and the run to/from Bedford Park is longer than the run to/from 168th. Despite the current all-day 10 minute headway, it would require a bit more trains (most likely R68s or R68As instead of the 54% spare ratio via the R32s). And then, waste so much cash on empty local trains in the Bronx? When many GC riders pass it up for the (D) express since many of them are bound to/from Manhattan's CBD (not CPW)? Just no no. Also, I don't agree that the (B) should go to/from 168th. Then, on weekends, the full (A) would have to stop at Amsterdam and 155th, and yes that also requires switching at 168th and 145th respectively. That's kinda like having the (D) switch tracks at 34th and West 4th respectively, and stopping at both 23rd and 14th. It's really unnecessarily if you ask me. The (C) is quite fine the way it is. Same with the (B). During the off-peak, the (D) alone handles the loads on the Grand Cocnourse line pretty well, because of loads. Plain and simple. The Grand Concourse line doesn't need more than 6 trains per hour during the off-peak. Otherwise, all that good amount of money would be nothing but a waste. As always, if there are some people left behind on the platform to due severe overcrowding conditions, more service will indeed be required. Until then of course, if trains are crowded at 50-60% with their current headway, then more service isn't going to be required.

Edited by RollOverMyHead
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Proposal #1: (T) that starts somewhere between Utica/Clarkson Aves and Kings Plaza...

 

...goes up Utica to Fulton St, heads west on Fulton via the IND Fulton local tracks (the merge would be just east of Utica Ave station there; might have to be a jug turn because I want the  (T) to stop on the same tracks as the  (C) at Utica-Fulton)...

 

...branches off the IND Fulton local tracks either b/w Clinton-Washington Aves and LaFayette Ave stations or just west of LaFayette Ave station...

 

...merges with the  (R) and comes into DeKalb Ave station...

 

...then branches off before Whitehall St station and then gets up to 2nd Ave to connect with the Second Ave Subway.

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Proposal #2:(T) that starts somewhere between Utica/Clarkson Aves and Kings Plaza...

 

...goes up Utica to Fulton St, heads west on Fulton via the IND Fulton local tracks (the merge would be just east of Utica Ave station there; might have to be a jug turn because I want the  (T) to stop on the same tracks as the  (C) at Utica-Fulton)...

 

...runs via the IND Fulton local tracks to Hoyt-Schermerhorn and stops on the outermost tracks there (gotta fix up those outer platforms and allow passenger access again)...

 

...branches off the IND Fulton local tracks and runs via a short new tunnel from there to merge with the  (R) and come into Court St station...

 

...and then branches off before Whitehall St station and then gets up to 2nd Ave to connect with the Second Ave Subway.

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

I know some problems were mentioned before, but I wanted to discuss them in a dedicated thread here. I am curious as to how/why any parts of either proposal might be physically impossible to build and whether they would involve disruptions to existing subway service and digging in dense neighborhoods to an extent greater than that of other proposals. I am also curious about the extent to which this line's capacity would be constrained by sharing tracks with the (C) and (R). Which of the two proposals, if any, is better? It seems to me that proposal #2 is better. It seems less expensive and more feasible since it does not involve tunneling under the IND Fulton, IND Crosstown, or BMT Brighton tracks in Downtown Brooklyn, unlike proposal #1.

 

Assuming adequate turnaround facilities at the (T)'s terminals and given the current service levels of the (C) and (R) within Brooklyn (and/r service levels of the (R) within BK prior to the Montague tunnel closure, which I do not think were that different from current service levels), I am sure this (T) could run up to 15 TPH. Should it?

 

One of the reasons I came up with these proposals was that I thought making use of much existing infrastructure (and mostly building the brand new infrastructure just along Utica, where the B46 gets slammed with passengers, and along the far East Side of Manhattan and Second Ave, close to the not-as-far East Side where the Lex subway obviously gets slammed with passengers) would result in lower construction costs overall.

 

I mentioned proposal #1 in another thread, where I was told that it (or parts of it?) would be physically impossible and difficult to build. Again, proposal #1 involves tunneling under IND Fulton, IND Crosstown, and BMT Brighton tracks in Downtown Brooklyn while proposal #2 does not involve tunneling under any of these in Downtown Brooklyn.

 

But alas, I realize that a [rather interesting] problem with proposal #2 is that we would have through trains stopping on all six tracks, which would mean having to figure out which side the doors on the (A)(C) trains should open, unless there is a viable way to quickly open and close the doors on both sides. Or, MTA could just hire assistant conductors for that, I suppose. I hope there is a viable way to quickly open and close the doors on both sides to facilitate transfers from the (A)(C) to the (G) and (T) and vice-versa.

 

I have an idea of what the entire procedure for quickly opening and closing the doors on both sides of the train (ideally, a train making automated announcements) would be like, but do not want to post it now for purposes of post brevity. Also I am thinking about the advantages and disadvantages of having the assistant conductor posted in the cab (they do not have to be there for the entire trip on whatever train they have to operate at Hoyt-Schermerhorn) vs. having the assistant conductor posted on the outer platform at Hoyt-Schermerhorn and will try to talk about this later. Maybe in a new thread.

 

Significant edits in burgundy.

Edited by BrooklynIRT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another reason I think proposal #2 is better than #1 is that, especially if cross-platform transfers between trains on the outer tracks and trains on the (A)(C) tracks at Hoyt-Schermerhorn are made possible, the (T) follows a much more "logical" routing where it enters the Fulton line at an express station (Utica-Fulton on the northbound, Hoyt on the southbound) and leaves the Fulton line immediately after another express station (Hoyt on the northbound, Utica-Fulton on the southbound), unlike proposal #1.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that the (M) train should go on Second Avenue with the  (T). The (M) Starting from Seneca Avenue, then going up onto Queens Blvd Line, onto Second Avenue, then Fulton, and terminating at Lefferts Blvd. This will free up the  (A) so it can go to Far Rockaway 24/7 and the  (C) can go to Rockaway Park.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that the (M) train should go on Second Avenue with the  (T). The (M) Starting from Seneca Avenue, then going up onto Queens Blvd Line, onto Second Avenue, then Fulton, and terminating at Lefferts Blvd. This will free up the  (A) so it can go to Far Rockaway 24/7 and the  (C) can go to Rockaway Park.

The A does that already. Also, the ridership numbers at the Rockaway Branches' stations don't really warrant an increase in service.

http://www.mta.info/nyct/facts/ridership/ridership_sub.htm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The main problem with any proposal involving a line from Utica Avenue connecting with the (A), (C) trains at that station is obvious. That connection would call for a 90 degree turnout at the station. That ain't gonna happen nowadays. Look no further than the Broadway/Myrtle station on the (J), (M) lines and how that connection was set up way back when. That type of construction is history and wouldn't be done today. The closest example I could come up with offhand was the connection with the (B), (D), (F)  6th Avenue lines between Grand Street and Broadway-Lafayette and the Second Avenue stations. It may not seem like much but there is a lot of space used in that connection. A line branching off Utica Avenue to the Fulton Street line would have to connect somewhere in the vicinity of Rochester/ Patchen Avenues, basically 1/2 way to the Ralph Avenue Station. There would be the issue of land aquisition around Rochester Avenue and the underpinning of the housing and the LIRR. Since at-grade connections are frowned upon there would have to be serious underpinning work to connect a flyunder with the northbound Fulton St line. It's my personal opinion that any Utica Avenue service from the south would have to end at the existing Second System station at Fulton St and Utica Avenue. Passengers would have to transfer for trains at the lower level. The only other viable connection is with the IRT at Utica and Eastern Parkway using the existing bellmouths but that restricts the whole line to the smaller equipment which should be avoided if possible. Just my opinion. Carry on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

90-degree turnouts are not going to happen nowadays? I wonder if they have they started working on the 90-degree turn at 2nd Ave-E 63 St so the (Q) can access the SAS after coming across E 63 Stand whether land acquisition is or was involved there?

 

Less difficult and less expensive by a small margin at best.

Love to know how, with such a big difference in tunnel mileage, among other things.

Edited by BrooklynIRT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When dealing with such great amounts of money AS IT is, an extra tunnel and or other things involved will not much a catastrophic change that would be noticeable to the public. Like if something were to cost $2 billion to build and another thing costs $2 billion and let say a couple million, it would most likely still say $2 billion. (Small margin at best.)

 

Same analogy with it being difficult. Both plans prove difficult already with today's infrastructures already. At that magnitude of difficulty, even it it's less difficult, it'll be a small margin to comparing it to building a new road instead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was trying to think of other (T) routes, such as Utica-Fulton-[bedford or Franklin or Classon] and then under the East River to the SAS. This would increase network coverage, but it would also miss a lot of transfers in Downtown BK. I suspect the (T) would need those transfers since I suspect a lot of people currently transfer from other lines to go to the only existing East Side-Brooklyn services, and therefore the (T) would relieve the (4)(5) if it transferred to those other lines.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But the tunneling in proposal #2 would be less difficult and less expensive than, say, building a brand new tunnel for subway service from Utica-Fulton to the SAS without going through an area with as many tunnels as Downtown BK, right?

 

The general plan has always been to utilize existing sets of tracks for Utica service; either the Fulton or Eastern Parkway turnouts, or the future South 4th St station. Fulton certainly has enough capacity, and service could potentially end at a reactivated Court St station. Tunnels could then link Court St and Hanover Sq, and Fulton service would then basically be 2nd Av services on the local and 8th Av services on the express. The main issue is what to do at Utica; either the service just doesn't stop at Utica/Fulton (similar to how the (2) and (5) do not stop at Nostrand/Eastern Pkwy) or you connect to the station, but then curve it back into the Fulton line (which would involve a fair amount of destruction.) In either case, the existing Fulton turnouts would not be used.

 

The main issue with tunnels in downtown Brooklyn is that there are many structures underground that are very old, including subway tunnels, unused subway tunnels supporting active subway tunnels, and utilities. Because it is a very old city that modernized fairly early on, no one is exactly sure where all of this stuff is in relation to the ground; you'll notice that during street reconstruction you'll see markings noting where things are, simply because they didn't know that information before. Just digging around and under all of this (much of which dates back a century or more, considering that Brooklyn was a big city even before unification in the late 1890s) would be hard; doing it without disrupting services or utilities in the area would be difficult, to say nothing of underpinning the various skyscrapers and such around the area. In addition, this type of construction is no longer done using cut-and-cover for various reasons, including safety and disruption minimization. However, you'd need to then find a launch box to lower a giant tunnel boring machine into, which in Downtown Brooklyn would be difficult in and of itself.

I was trying to think of other (T) routes, such as Utica-Fulton-[bedford or Franklin or Classon] and then under the East River to the SAS. This would increase network coverage, but it would also miss a lot of transfers in Downtown BK. I suspect the (T) would need those transfers since I suspect a lot of people currently transfer from other lines to go to the only existing East Side-Brooklyn services, and therefore the (T) would relieve the (4)(5) if it transferred to those other lines.

 

Keep in mind that Utica was not meant to connect to the southern end of the SAS in the first place. Utica as built was meant to connect to the Second System's South 4th St subway, which is not going to be built in this day and age.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Court/Schermerhorn Streets..converting the Transit Museum back to a regular passenger station would be a bit of a problem.
 
I myself am not sure whether I would want that; I do not currently favor keeping the Museum or converting it back to revenue service. I am on the fence, I suppose.
 
It is the pits when somebody has to make a decision like that. (Either a transit buff trying to decide whether s/he prefers one or the other, or competent elected officials [and, hopefully, competent constituents] trying to decide whether to ask MTA to keep the Museum or convert it back to revenue service.) I would probably say convert it back to revenue service at least temporarily; maybe there could be a way to eventually send service elsewhere and convert Court-Schermerhorn back to a museum if most people thought it were a good idea. Or find another abandoned station or abandoned part of a station to put the museum and leave Court-Schermerhorn in passenger service.
 
Are you sure about Utica though? I thought the (A)(C) platforms ended either right on the western edge of Utica/Malcolm X or a few feet west of the western of Utica/Malcolm X. When you said existing turnouts, did you mean bellmouths? Where in relation to the existing, active Utica-Fulton station exactly are the existing turnouts and/r bellmouths of which you speak?
 
Also, is rebuilding Nostrand JCT easier than tunneling under the (3)(4) at Utica-E Pkwy or doing whatever work would be done around Utica-Fulton to implement either of my proposals from post #1? Or is it pretty much the same in terms of difficulty?

 

Utica as built was meant to connect to the Second System's South 4th St subway, which is not going to be built in this day and age.

Yes, I thought about connecting a Utica/Malcolm X subway to a S 4 St subway but would not propose it because it would involve underpinning the BMT Jamaica el.

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.