Jump to content

Department of Subways - Proposals/Ideas


Recommended Posts

The platforms at Utica end about 100 or so feet before actually reaching Utica/Malcolm X itself. If you notice, there isn't an exit that sits exactly on Utica (one is on the north side of Fulton past the B25 bus stop heading downtown, and the other is at the corner of Boys & Girls High School next to the old tennis courts). The upper level platform sits closer to Stuyvesant Av at somewhat of an angle (probably to make the transition from Utica Av to Stuyvesant Av).

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 12.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

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?

 

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.

 

I retract any previous statements involving bellmouths at Utica (A)(C), since I was mixing them up with the Eastern Parkway station.

 

City Hall has always been thrown about as a Transit Museum Annex, and alternative sites for a transit museum can certainly be found.

 

Rebuilding Nostrand Junction might be easier, but it would certainly be much cheaper; it would be about as disruptive as Fulton St work was (reconfiguring things that already exist, some property acquisition). It would definitely involve less underpinning.

 

The problem with your proposals is that, well, there really isn't enough room for another train line through DeKalb, and there isn't enough space for another turnout to the north on the Montague tunnel (you've already got the connection to Nassau, and the turn would essentially be a 315-degree turn very close to the water). Downtown Brooklyn is also much more crowded than the area around Nostrand/Eastern Pkwy and has significantly more infrastructure and buildings to work around. Not to mention, by linking Fulton and Montague you create another vector for delays to ripple throughout the system; interlining is fine and all, but you're doing it for the sake of hitting one or two stations (DeKalb and Court), and "keep it simple, stupid" is never wrong.

 

The main problem with the South 4th St line is that there really isn't a reason to duplicate the Jamaica Line's crossing... most congestion in that area is on the (L), not the (J) and (M).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The (T) should connect to the Fulton Street Line. Use it to back up the (C) to Lefferts. Afterwards reactivate the Rockaway Beach Branch, and extend the (G) down there. That would be my plan however it was originally proposed like this back in the Second System Plan. Of course this would only make sense after you construct the Queens Boulevard Super Express. It did make the system more efficient!

Edited by Roadcruiser1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

which everyone knows about, rather than sending a line that usually runs to Queens, up to Harlem.

 

I totally agree with you, but just for the facts: this particular thing you just said is actually not fantasy of him. In fact, more than a century ago (around 1908 IIRC) they made room in DeKalb Ave for a future connection to the IRT. The only reason it didn't happen was because the RTB didn't want to give the line to the IRT (which would've happened if the connection was really made).

 

"At De Kalb Ave, options were left open for a connection to the first subway run by the IRT, even though the Rapid Transit Board had decided against it because building it would force giving the new subway to the IRT. The IRT main track level is near the surface, at the level of the mezzanine of De Kalb Ave station."

 

The room for a future connection is still there today (of course, it runs up to a wall just outside of the station) beyond the abandoned platforms.

 

So yes, it's fantasy from Wallyhorse and yes it's unfeasible so, again: I totally agree with you. But just for the record, this one's actually based on a real idea (if the connection was really made, trains could run up to Harlem via the IRT).

Edited by Vistausss
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?

 

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

A 90 degree turnout to a new connection is much different than one to an existing line like Utica/Fulton. In the SAS case the (Q) is leaving Lexington Ave at 63rd St to join a line on Second Ave. Take a moment and judge the distance involved to make that connection. That was the point I was trying to make. Land acquisition and underpinning costs are a magnitude higher when you are dealing with already built up land. Basically you are trying to retrofit a piece to the (A), (C). Big difference than connecting the (Q) to the SAS. Even the Grand St /6th Avenue was easier. The work was done between the north side of the Manhattan Bridge and the 6th Avenue line with as little disruption to existing service as possible. IIRC I don't think the (D) service, which ran on the 6th Ave/Rutgers line at the time had as great a frequency as the present (A), (C) service does on Fulton St. That's why I threw the option to connect at Utica/Eastern Parkway out there. The bellmouths for north and south bound service already exist at that location. In the real world (2014-25) I doubt if the (MTA) would go for the more expensive option although the better option, IMO, is at Fulton St. Heck, in the real world of today the (MTA) wouldn't even consider either option as realistic. Just my opinion. Carry on

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some of this sounds familiar, like the option of giving the new Fourth Avenue line to the IRT in the Dual Contracts plans. But an IRT level in DeKalb? Where would it have come from, since the IRT doesn't turn onto Flatbush until Fulton. Would this have been part of giving the Manhattan Bridge to the IRT (I think that was once a plan)? Is that "the line" you're referencing (rather than Fourth)? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some of this sounds familiar, like the option of giving the new Fourth Avenue line to the IRT in the Dual Contracts plans. But an IRT level in DeKalb? Where would it have come from, since the IRT doesn't turn onto Flatbush until Fulton. Would this have been part of giving the Manhattan Bridge to the IRT (I think that was once a plan)? Is that "the line" you're referencing (rather than Fourth)? 

 

This was way back when, when the IRT and BMT were battling it out over the Dual Contracts in the 1910s. But I'm pretty sure that the IRT option to connect 4th Av was at Nevins St, and not DeKalb.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


This was way back when, when the IRT and BMT were battling it out over the Dual Contracts in the 1910s. But I'm pretty sure that the IRT option to connect 4th Av was at Nevins St, and not DeKalb.

 

Nevins was supposedly for a Lafayette Ave. line.

The connection to 4th Ave. was supposed to be around Atlantic.

Edited by Eric B
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trackways exist just north of Atlantic for a connection to Fourth Avenue. Both end immediately before the BMT line. The one leading to Manhattan tunnels under the IRT line and rose to merge into the local track just before Nevins. North of Nevins were provisions for a connection to the Manny B. Nevins Lower has a trackway that merges into the SB local south of the station. This was supposed to be the southbound bridge track. The NB local has no trackway, but a columnless wall that could be removed to add a track. All of these are confirmed. Supposedly, the upper level of DeKalb is at the same level as the IRT tracks at Nevins. This is stated in Wikipedia and a few outside sources. Bellmouths for Lafayette also exist, but are not nearly as prominent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trackways exist just north of Atlantic for a connection to Fourth Avenue. Both end immediately before the BMT line. The one leading to Manhattan tunnels under the IRT line and rose to merge into the local track just before Nevins. North of Nevins were provisions for a connection to the Manny B. Nevins Lower has a trackway that merges into the SB local south of the station. This was supposed to be the southbound bridge track. The NB local has no trackway, but a columnless wall that could be removed to add a track. All of these are confirmed. Supposedly, the upper level of DeKalb is at the same level as the IRT tracks at Nevins. This is stated in Wikipedia and a few outside sources. Bellmouths for Lafayette also exist, but are not nearly as prominent.

 

Exactly. The upper level of DeKalb *is* at the same level as the IRT tracks at Nevins, at least that s what I know based on famous (at least on this forums) website of subway historicus Brennan: http://www.columbia.edu/~brennan/abandoned/myrtle.html (the part about the IRT connection is in the Contruction and Operation section of the page)

 

Given the fact that his info is usually correct and outside sources also state it, I'm calling it the truth. But maybe someone even more experienced could tell us if it's true? (at least that they're on the same level)

Edited by Vistausss
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly. The upper level of DeKalb *is* at the same level as the IRT tracks at Nevins, at least that s what I know based on famous (at least on this forums) website of subway historicus Brennan: http://www.columbia.edu/~brennan/abandoned/myrtle.html (the part about the IRT connection is in the Contruction and Operation section of the page)

 

Where I got my info from. Brennan also has a couple maps I found on http://nycsubway.org/wiki/IRT_Brooklyn_Line which show every trackway and proposed connection.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Only changes I would make:

 

Kill J/Z skip stop. Don't see the point after riding this line frequently for last year or so. What's the time difference? Not much when you factor in the time it take you to wait for your train. During rush hours, create (Jamaica to Broad) that goes express from Broadway Junction to Marcy Av peak direction only. I would also have the (J) run to Broad St all times. Why? For the connections at Fulton Street.

 

(M) train to Essex st during the weekends and late nights (but I heard this will be done??).

 

I have read a million threads on why this SHOULDN'T happen and won't happen, but I don't care. M and R trains to 179th street during the day.

 

R train runs local from 179th st to Whitehall St ALL TIMES. It also runs from Court st to 95th st all times.

 

(C) train runs until midnight.

(D) gets increased service during weekends.

(W) gets restored during the weekdays (5 or 6 TPH). (Q) to 57th street express track, ALL TIMES. None of that merging business after 34th st.

 

(5) train runs from Nereid Av to Brooklyn College during weekends (5 TPH) to assist the (2) train. Shuttle from to Dyre from 180st.

 

Didn't realize how bad (2) Bronx riders had it during the weekends.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And its more expensive to run the (M) and (R) to/from 179th Street than with just only the (F). I highly doubt that any corridors, tubes and/or relays in the entire subway system can physically handle more than at least 30 trains per hour and below. As far as I am aware of, each subway train can only come within 2 minutes apart or so. But it can never be any more than just at least 30 trains per hour and below.

Edited by RollOverMyHead
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And its more expensive to run the (M) and (R) to/from 179th Street than with just only the (F). I highly doubt that any corridors, tubes and/or relays in the entire subway system can physically handle more than at least 30 trains per hour and below. As far as I am aware of, each subway train can only come within 2 minutes apart or so. But it can never be any more than just at least 30 trains per hour and below.

 

Well, the headway can be a little bit lower than 2 minutes once CBTC is set up but that s gonna take years. And even then, the <2 minutes headway is only under perfect conditions. One train with a delay and everything gets delayed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll take these one by one:

1) eliminate Jamaica skip-stop - The purpose of the J/Z skip-stop is not just about saving a few minutes. It's primarily about crowd control. Running all local service on the Jamaica elevated during the rush hours will lead to very crowded trains and platforms. Unlike the Broadway skip-stop on the 1 and 9 lines which bypassed several important stops, most riders are heading to Manhattan, so it doesn't matter which trains stops at a particular station

2) J to Broad St all times - Unnecessary since the 4 and 5 easily pick up the slack.

3) M to Essex St during off-hours - That's already in the works (at least during the daytime/evening hours of the weekend), starting this June if I'm not mistaken

4) M/R to 179 St - It's not necessarily a bad idea since it would potentially eliminate a transfer at Forest Hills or Roosevelt Av. The question is however, how many people will benefit from one or both lines serving Jamaica.

6) split R at all times - I'm going to assume you're only talking about the duration of the Montague closure. That would force riders along the R-line to make what's usually a one-seat ride into a three-seat one. The only reason it's done this way on weekdays is because the B runs during those times. Other times, DeKalb junction isn't as congested to require the split R line.

6, 7) extended hours for the C, expanded service on the D - Those aren't bad ideas and probably should be implemented.

8) return of the W, restoration of the pre-2010 Broadway line service patterns - Again, those aren't bad ideas. However, it won't eliminate the merging problems since the N would merge over to the local tracks to hit the 60th Street curve.

9) run the 5 from Nereid to Flatbush on weekends, Dyre Avenue service relegated to shuttle - I'm not liking how you shafted the Dyre Avenue riders to a two-seat ride for any service south of E 180 St. With that said, weekend service to Flatbush Av should be looked into and service along White Plains Rd should be boosted as needed, though I'm not sure sending the 5 up to 238 St is the answer.

 

I think that's it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

True. The (N) is most likely going to continue to serve that one local stop - 49th Street - by doing what the current weekday (Q) does now. I wouldn't even mind if they decide to run the weekday (N) express the entire way between 57th and Canal (instead of just between 34th and Canal) since the (Q) is free to go up via 63rd and SAS 24/7 without originating/terminating at 57th like it currently does at night and on weekends. The (R) and (W) can handle those five local stops north of Canal Street on their own anyway.

Edited by RollOverMyHead
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. Select Rush Hour Runs Exp 242-96 Street

 

2. Select Rush Hour Runs Exp Gun Hill Rd- 3 Ave/149 St And 24/7 Exp 96-Chambers

 

3. 24 Hour service 148 St -Chambers St Via LCL or Maybe Nevins St BK

 

4. Select Runs Exp Burnside-125 Rush Hours And 24 Hour Exp 125-Bklyn Br

 

5. All day service to 238/Wpr Via existing loop in the yard at 239 st

 

A. Increased Frequencies to evry 10 minutes on both branches For service evry 5 mins Rockaway-200 St..

 

B. Extended Rush hour service to Bedford pk (ends to early)

 

C. Increase frequencies to evry 8 mins at least...

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll take these one by one:

1) eliminate Jamaica skip-stop - The purpose of the J/Z skip-stop is not just about saving a few minutes. It's primarily about crowd control. Running all local service on the Jamaica elevated during the rush hours will lead to very crowded trains and platforms. Unlike the Broadway skip-stop on the 1 and 9 lines which bypassed several important stops, most riders are heading to Manhattan, so it doesn't matter which trains stops at a particular station

2) J to Broad St all times - Unnecessary since the 4 and 5 easily pick up the slack.

3) M to Essex St during off-hours - That's already in the works (at least during the daytime/evening hours of the weekend), starting this June if I'm not mistaken

4) M/R to 179 St - It's not necessarily a bad idea since it would potentially eliminate a transfer at Forest Hills or Roosevelt Av. The question is however, how many people will benefit from one or both lines serving Jamaica.

6) split R at all times - I'm going to assume you're only talking about the duration of the Montague closure. That would force riders along the R-line to make what's usually a one-seat ride into a three-seat one. The only reason it's done this way on weekdays is because the B runs during those times. Other times, DeKalb junction isn't as congested to require the split R line.

6, 7) extended hours for the C, expanded service on the D - Those aren't bad ideas and probably should be implemented.

8) return of the W, restoration of the pre-2010 Broadway line service patterns - Again, those aren't bad ideas. However, it won't eliminate the merging problems since the N would merge over to the local tracks to hit the 60th Street curve.

9) run the 5 from Nereid to Flatbush on weekends, Dyre Avenue service relegated to shuttle - I'm not liking how you shafted the Dyre Avenue riders to a two-seat ride for any service south of E 180 St. With that said, weekend service to Flatbush Av should be looked into and service along White Plains Rd should be boosted as needed, though I'm not sure sending the 5 up to 238 St is the answer.

 

I think that's it.

Thanks for the constructive criticism.

 

About the skip stop service, I understand distribution of passengers. However, if the J simply ran all local with MORE frequency, that would kill two birds with one stone. Point taken, though.

 

The J to Broad street really would have helped last weekend when the A was cut in Brooklyn--passengers could have transferred at Fulton st and continued their ride at Broadway Junction.

 

My larger point is about transfer options--a weekend connection the WESTSIDE train lines would be nice. 

 

As for the R train split, it's about maintaining consistent service in Brooklyn as well as providing relief when there are weekend diversions. And yes, the R train does find a way to delay the (N) and (Q) ANYWAY. 

 

I miss that Jay st-Metrotech connection for the A and F trains. 

 

I want the (W) back for one main reason: to keep the N and Q on the express track and the Q from going to Queens! I want more consistent service for Brighton riders. This will also take pressure off the (N).  Only 5 or 6 TPH would be needed IMO. 

 

Some (N) trains can terminate at 57th st if there is a (W) train close to merging. 

 

As for the (2), I think the service is absolutely DISGUSTING. I didn't realize how bad it was up there. The (5) would be extremely helpful. Again, we would only be talking 5 TPH. 

 

For the shuttle, once at 180th st, they can wait for two train lines. Sucks, but a compromise--I would rather Pelham Parkway and Gun Hill Road get the extra service. 

Edited by Brooklyn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honestly, once SAS opens, Broadway should be UES Express (Q), Astoria Local (N), and Queens Blvd Local (R). The move from express to local just for Astoria screws everything else up, and (N) and (Q) service can be increased to appropriate levels.

If there were a (W), it should be a rush-hour supplement to the (N), running local to Whitehall (the (N) would still be running local))

Edited by bobtehpanda
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. Select Rush Hour Runs Exp 242-96 Street 2. Select Rush Hour Runs Exp Gun Hill Rd- 3 Ave/149 St And 24/7 Exp 96-Chambers 3. 24 Hour service 148 St -Chambers St Via LCL or Maybe Nevins St BK 4. Select Runs Exp Burnside-125 Rush Hours And 24 Hour Exp 125-Bklyn Br 5. All day service to 238/Wpr Via existing loop in the yard at 239 st A. Increased Frequencies to evry 10 minutes on both branches For service evry 5 mins Rockaway-200 St.. B. Extended Rush hour service to Bedford pk (ends to early) C. Increase frequencies to evry 8 mins at least... Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

(A) doesn t need increased frequencies, esp. the Lefferts branch but Rockaway would also be overserved with increased frequencies. Rockaway stations (except for two) are among the lowest used stations in the whole system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I want the (W) back for one main reason: to keep the N and Q on the express track and the Q from going to Queens! I want more consistent service for Brighton riders. This will also take pressure off the (N).  Only 5 or 6 TPH would be needed IMO. 

 

The (C) and (W) are pretty much alike. They are basically the shorten version of the (A) and (N) respectively. And there's no time of the day when they run any more than 5-6 tph. And its not like there's any reasons to beef up service on either of the two when the most important thing about them is their basics. Everything else they both do is just secondary, because there are other lines they share tracks with and/or counter along their runs.

 

However, I think the 60th Street tube will continue running 24 tph during the 8:00 hour in the AM peak southbound (and also the 6:00 hour in the PM peak northbound) like it does currently, due to heavier loads. I also like the idea of having the weekday (N) run express the entire way between 57th and Canal (instead of just 34th and Canal) since the (Q) is going up via 63rd and SAS 24/7.

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.