Department of Subways - Proposals/Ideas

[Union Tpke]

The and are pretty much alike. They are basically the shorten version of the and 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 run express the entire way between 57th and Canal (instead of just 34th and Canal) since the is going up via 63rd and SAS 24/7.

Or have the as <N>s that go to Whitehall like they used to have except they run to/from Astoria not via QBL 

[Vistausss]

Or have the as <N>s that go to Whitehall like they used to have except they run to/from Astoria not via QBL 

 

Except for the current in use diamonds, the doesn t want to use diamonds anymore so its gonna be the anyway.

 

^{(and secretly, I like the letter W better)}

[Union Tpke]

 

Or have the as s that go to Whitehall like they used to have except they run to/from Astoria not via QBL

 

 

 

Except for the current in use diamonds, the doesn t want to use diamonds anymore so its gonna be the anyway.

 

(and secretly, I like the letter W better)

I agree, just in case they want to use the W designation for another route.

 

 

 

Using Tapatalk

 

 

[engineerboy6561]

The problem I see with both of these plans is that connecting Hanover Sq to the or lines directly is going to be very difficult and expensive, if not altogether impossible for two main reasons:

 

1) A lot of the B Division tunnels from downtown Manhattan to Downtown Brooklyn are basically at capacity; Cranberry's already full with and trains coming every 3-5 minutes during rush, and Rutgers is at or near maximum TPH because the just runs that frequently. You're not going to be able to use any of the bridge connections, because Hanover Sq is south of all that, so you're stuck finding one of the morass of subway tunnels already down there and attaching to it.

 

2) Any kind of wholesale new tunnel construction between either of those places is going to be incredibly expensive and problematic. First of all, property values in both of those places are insane (which means tunneling rights will most likely also be extremely expensive). Second of all (at least in Manhattan) you have an enormous volume of subway tunnels, utility tunnels, and the like all crammed together in a very cramped space; adding new subway tunnels down there (especially if you're going to try to go into the heart of the existing network, which you'd have to do to connect to the in Manhattan) is going to be incredibly difficult because of everything you're going to need to work around or underpin or relocate altogether.

 

If you want to hook up the Second Avenue Line to Utica Avenue, then you really have two viable options as far as I can see:

 

1) It might be possible to connect to the Montague tubes and run trains through to Court St, then (assuming Michael Calcagno's track maps are spatially accurate) split off before the curve leading into Lawrence St and connect to the tracks between Court St and Hoyt-Schermerhorn, but now you're going to have to sync up the and schedules to create slots for the . That could be done, although it might wind up making the even less reliable than it currently is. On the Utica Avenue end, you'd need to add bellmouths right around Marcus Garvey Blvd, allowing the to rise over the Fulton St mainline so that it can swing north and connect to the upper level platforms at the existing Utica Av station.

 

2) The other option would be to forgo a downtown Brooklyn connection altogether and break the into two services. The first one would run from 125 St to Hanover Sq as planned; the second (let's call it the ) would branch off just south of Grand St and go east. The would stop at the current East Broadway station under the tracks before tunneling under the river north of the Manhattan bridge. On the Brooklyn side, the would follow Division Av to Broadway, and then track Broadway to Malcolm X Blvd; it would then follow Malcolm X Blvd/Utica Av to Flatbush Av,then take Flatbush a bit farther to Kings Plaza.

Edited February 19, 2014 by engineerboy6561

[bobtehpanda]

The problem I see with both of these plans is that connecting Hanover Sq to the or lines directly is going to be very difficult and expensive, if not altogether impossible for two main reasons:

 

1) A lot of the B Division tunnels from downtown Manhattan to Downtown Brooklyn are basically at capacity; Cranberry's already full with and trains coming every 3-5 minutes during rush, and Rutgers is at or near maximum TPH because the just runs that frequently. You're not going to be able to use any of the bridge connections, because Hanover Sq is south of all that, so you're stuck finding one of the morass of subway tunnels already down there and attaching to it.

 

2) Any kind of wholesale new tunnel construction between either of those places is going to be incredibly expensive and problematic. First of all, property values in both of those places are insane (which means tunneling rights will most likely also be extremely expensive). Second of all (at least in Manhattan) you have an enormous volume of subway tunnels, utility tunnels, and the like all crammed together in a very cramped space; adding new subway tunnels down there (especially if you're going to try to go into the heart of the existing network, which you'd have to do to connect to the in Manhattan) is going to be incredibly difficult because of everything you're going to need to work around or underpin or relocate altogether.

 

If you want to hook up the Second Avenue Line to Utica Avenue, then you really have two viable options as far as I can see:

 

1) It might be possible to connect to the Montague tubes and run trains through to Court St, then (assuming Michael Calcagno's track maps are spatially accurate) split off before the curve leading into Lawrence St and connect to the tracks between Court St and Hoyt-Schermerhorn, but now you're going to have to sync up the and schedules to create slots for the . That could be done, although it might wind up making the even less reliable than it currently is. On the Utica Avenue end, you'd need to add bellmouths right around Marcus Garvey Blvd, allowing the to rise over the Fulton St mainline so that it can swing north and connect to the upper level platforms at the existing Utica Av station.

 

2) The other option would be to forgo a downtown Brooklyn connection altogether and break the into two services. The first one would run from 125 St to Hanover Sq as planned; the second (let's call it the ) would branch off just south of Grand St and go east. The would stop at the current East Broadway station under the tracks before tunneling under the river north of the Manhattan bridge. On the Brooklyn side, the would follow Division Av to Broadway, and then track Broadway to Malcolm X Blvd; it would then follow Malcolm X Blvd/Utica Av to Flatbush Av,then take Flatbush a bit farther to Kings Plaza.

 

"Tunneling rights" are not a thing. This isn't Malaysia, where property rights legally extend to the center of the earth, and a Court St-Hanover Sq connection wouldn't be very difficult, since Phase IV would extend south of the and tunnels; from there, the only tunnels you'd need to cross would be the Joralemon and Montague tunnels, neither of which are hard to go under or over from there (and since bedrock is extremely shallow in Lower Manhattan, there wouldn't be a need to underpin foundations resting on bedrock)

[Wallyhorse]

The best way to do this, assuming Phase 4 is built as planned:

along the planned SAS route, then via a new tunnel that connects to the current Transit Museum station (Court Street, the Transit Museum is moved to the unused portion of the Bowery Station), then coming into Hoyt-Schermerhorn on the currently inactive track, then becomes the Fulton Local to Euclid Avenue (extended to Lefferts late nights, eliminating the current late-night shuttle).

becomes the full-time Rockaway Express ONLY, with a 4/3 split between Far Rockaway and Rockaway Park (eight out of every 14 trains would go to Far Rockaway, six of every 14 to Rockaway Park, this eliminates the Rockaway Park Shuttle). 

also becomes a Fulton Express and runs to Lefferts at all times, except overnights when the replaces it to Lefferts.

As for Queens Boulevard and the Rockaway Line re-activation, my plan there would remain the same, a new version of the train running from Whitehall Street to Far Rockaway or Rockaway Park (probably on the same split as the train, again eliminating the Rockaway Park Shuttle).

[RollOver]

The best way to do this, assuming Phase 4 is built as planned:

 

along the planned SAS route, then via a new tunnel that connects to the current Transit Museum station (Court Street, the Transit Museum is moved to the unused portion of the Bowery Station), then coming into Hoyt-Schermerhorn on the currently inactive track, then becomes the Fulton Local to Euclid Avenue (extended to Lefferts late nights, eliminating the current late-night shuttle).

 

becomes the full-time Rockaway Express ONLY, with a 4/3 split between Far Rockaway and Rockaway Park (eight out of every 14 trains would go to Far Rockaway, six of every 14 to Rockaway Park, this eliminates the Rockaway Park Shuttle). 

 

also becomes a Fulton Express and runs to Lefferts at all times, except overnights when the replaces it to Lefferts.

 

As for Queens Boulevard and the Rockaway Line re-activation, my plan there would remain the same, a new version of the train running from Whitehall Street to Far Rockaway or Rockaway Park (probably on the same split as the train, again eliminating the Rockaway Park Shuttle).

 

Yeah, no. You've just increased Fulton Street, Lefferts and Rockaway corridors by about 40-50% when the ridership requirements clearly don't support that, for pretty obvious reasons. And also, the isn't enough to handle the daytime express on its own? Do you realize how many people at night use the Lefferts and Rockaway shuttles respectively? Almost nobody. Again and again, you're just providing a supreme massive misallocation of resources. All of these proposals just to get your fantasies accomplished, meanwhile wasting millions of cash on more service and empty trains for nothing.

[bobtehpanda]

Yeah, no. You've just increased Fulton Street, Lefferts and Rockaway corridors by about 40-50% when the ridership requirements clearly don't support that, for pretty obvious reasons. And also, the isn't enough to handle the daytime express on its own? Do you realize how many people at night use the Lefferts and Rockaway shuttles respectively? Almost nobody. Again and again, you're just providing a supreme massive misallocation of resources. All of these proposals just to get your fantasies accomplished, meanwhile wasting millions of cash on more service and empty trains for nothing.

 

But how much of the lack of Fulton St demand is due to the lack of East Side options? Right now, if you want the East Side, only the Brooklyn IRT can get you there; however, if you've got a East Side transfer at Hoyt Schermerhorn, you can avoid the Lex crush by using the Fulton Line, particularly if you need to get somewhere on Water St or east of Second.

 

That being said, a far more likely service pattern if a Hanover Sq-Court St tunnel is built would be as follows:

 

Weekdays: and on the Fulton local to Euclid. pattern is unchanged.

Weekends: on the Fulton local to Euclid. terminates at WTC. pattern is unchanged.

Nights: on the Fulton local to Euclid. makes express stops to Euclid. Lefferts and Rockaway shuttles continue.

[Vistausss]

Wallyhorse, do you wanna get this thread locked or what? Previous threads where the '© to Lefferts' got discussed got locked too, you know...

But how much of the lack of Fulton St demand is due to the lack of East Side options? Right now, if you want the East Side, only the Brooklyn IRT can get you there; however, if you've got a East Side transfer at Hoyt Schermerhorn, you can avoid the Lex crush by using the Fulton Line, particularly if you need to get somewhere on Water St or east of Second.

 

That being said, a far more likely service pattern if a Hanover Sq-Court St tunnel is built would be as follows:

Weekdays: and on the Fulton local to Euclid. pattern is unchanged.
Weekends: on the Fulton local to Euclid. terminates at WTC. pattern is unchanged.
Nights: on the Fulton local to Euclid. makes express stops to Euclid. Lefferts and Rockaway shuttles continue.

 

What also could work is rebuilding the Fulton St line. That way the Franklin Ave shuttle can be exterminated and the line would continue like it used to in the past. It would help Fulton St passengers with an extra connection.

[T to Dyre Avenue]

Wallyhorse, do you wanna get this thread locked or what? Previous threads where the '© to Lefferts' got discussed got locked too, you know...

 

What also could work is rebuilding the Fulton St line. That way the Franklin Ave shuttle can be exterminated and the line would continue like it used to in the past. It would help Fulton St passengers with an extra connection.

That's because previous threads about extending the to Lefferts were about extending the LOCAL there. No one wants that; they want an express. In this case, Lefferts riders would still have express service, only under a different letter. I don't see why that would be a reason to lock this thread and we shouldn't presume that will happen here.

 

The Franklin Shuttle cannot continue onto Fulton St because the shuttle platform is elevated and the platform is underground. It's not feasible to build a track connection between them.

 

But how much of the lack of Fulton St demand is due to the lack of East Side options? Right now, if you want the East Side, only the Brooklyn IRT can get you there; however, if you've got a East Side transfer at Hoyt Schermerhorn, you can avoid the Lex crush by using the Fulton Line, particularly if you need to get somewhere on Water St or east of Second.

 

That being said, a far more likely service pattern if a Hanover Sq-Court St tunnel is built would be as follows:

 

Weekdays: and on the Fulton local to Euclid. pattern is unchanged.

Weekends: on the Fulton local to Euclid. terminates at WTC. pattern is unchanged.

Nights: on the Fulton local to Euclid. makes express stops to Euclid. Lefferts and Rockaway shuttles continue.

Right. Maybe with a more direct connection to the East Side, the Fulton Street IND (which parallels the very busy Brooklyn IRT) might see a real increase in ridership that would justify three services. It's also a good answer to the question of "Where do we run the in Brooklyn?" Part of the problem with most T in Brooklyn proposals on these message boards is that much of Brooklyn isn't too far from a subway station and extending the T onto any of the existing routes would require duplicating, shuffling around or outright elimination of an existing service, which all of the "T via Montague Tunnel" proposals would do.

 

Although this proposal does that too (either the duplicates the or shifts it onto the Fulton St express tracks), and it does require a new tunnel to connect Hanover Sq to Court St, it would relieve the crowding on the and trains between Brooklyn and Manhattan, which there surely is. The Fulton St IND line mostly runs parallel to the Brooklyn IRT line and many bus routes serve connect with both lines. If Fulton St had more subway options, we might see some riders shift from IRT to IND.

 

But there is one part of Wallyhorse's proposal that I like. That's putting the on the Fulton Express tracks to/from Lefferts and running the alone as the Fulton Local. The reason for this is that the unused outside tracks at Hoyt-Schermerhorn are the Fulton Local tracks and the currently has to switch from the local to the express tracks between Lafayette and H-S in order to continue to Manhattan. That merge on between the and slows trains down and limits the number of trains each line can run. But if the T were to become the new Fulton St local, that merge between the A and C can be eliminated, minimizing delays at Lafayette. Fulton express service would go to Jay St, the Cranberry St Tunnel and 8th Ave and Fulton Express service would go to Court St, the new East River tunnel and 2nd Ave.

Edited February 20, 2014 by T to Dyre Avenue

[Vistausss]

Huh? But the connection once existed and there's still room for it on Franklin Ave. So I don't see why it's impossible...

Edited February 20, 2014 by Vistausss

[Fresh Pond]

Huh? But the connection once existed and there's still room for it on Franklin Ave. So I don't see why it's impossible...

The connection was for the Fulton St elevated. In order for the shuttle to connect to the Fulton subway, that's new flying junctions you have to build, build a new portal to connect to the subway, utility relocation, destroying buildings for land acquisition, etc.

 

Too much money and completely not worth it at all

[Wallyhorse]

But there is one part of Wallyhorse's proposal that I like. That's putting the on the Fulton Express tracks to/from Lefferts and running the alone as the Fulton Local. The reason for this is that the unused outside tracks at Hoyt-Schermerhorn are the Fulton Local tracks and the currently has to switch from the local to the express tracks between Lafayette and H-S in order to continue to Manhattan. That merge on between the and slows trains down and limits the number of trains each line can run. But if the T were to become the new Fulton St local, that merge between the A and C can be eliminated, minimizing delays at Lafayette. Fulton express service would go to Jay St, the Cranberry St Tunnel and 8th Ave and Fulton Express service would go to Court St, the new East River tunnel and 2nd Ave.

Exactly!!

 

The being the sole Fulton local ELIMINATES the having to cross over to the local track before/after Hoyt-Schermerhorn because the would be coming in on the as-current unused track/platform (likely cutting down on delays since that switch would only be used in G.O.'s or other emergencies).  This way, the can be a full-time express to Lefferts (again except overnights, when the would replace the between Euclid and Lefferts) and the would run to both Far Rockaway and Rockaway Park (on most likely a 4/3 or 5/3 split between Far Rockaway and Rockaway Park (majority to Far Rockaway) with MAYBE keeping the Rock Park and having all trains to Far Rockaway during overnights only). 

 

And yes, having an East Side option on the Fulton Street line likely helps cut down on overcrowding on the IRT, especially between Atlantic Avenue and 59th Street.  That probably is the best way to have the go to Brooklyn.

Edited February 21, 2014 by Wallyhorse

[Union Tpke]

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 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 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.

They can use the City Hall Lower Level and convert the non electrified track used or work trains. Also use the City Hall Loop as a branch with trains stopping there every 15 minutes.

[Wallyhorse]

As I previously noted, I would look at using the unused portion of The Bowery Station for the purpose of relocating the Transit Museum if necessary in order to re-activate Court Street as part of a extension into Brooklyn via the Fulton Street line.

[Vistausss]

As I previously noted, I would look at using the unused portion of The Bowery Station for the purpose of relocating the Transit Museum if necessary in order to re-activate Court Street as part of a extension into Brooklyn via the Fulton Street line.

 

That's actually one of your less crazy ideas, probably because that was the original 1929 plan for the

 

But I don't think Bowery will cut it for the TM, it'd be too small. If anything, they could finish one track connection to Roosevelt Ave and house the TM in there. It's a pretty big space given that it was supposed to be a terminal. The extra space also allows for future train sets to be stored (I mean: the current fleet won't run forever...).

Edited February 21, 2014 by Vistausss

[Juelz4309]

I lIke the support for 5 service On the weekends 238-Flatbush....And whas wit the hate of the Diamonds??? I think its a good look to differentiate bet exp and lcl!!! #BringbacktheDiamond 

[Fresh Pond]

As I previously noted, I would look at using the unused portion of The Bowery Station for the purpose of relocating the Transit Museum if necessary in order to re-activate Court Street as part of a extension into Brooklyn via the Fulton Street line.

We been through this already in another thread in the before era...they won't use that side for multiple reasons

[Vistausss]

I lIke the support for 5 service On the weekends 238-Flatbush....And whas wit the hate of the Diamonds??? I think its a good look to differentiate bet exp and lcl!!! #BringbacktheDiamond 

 

What hate? We re not hating, the doesnt want to use diamonds for new services anymore. But they will probably find something new in the future. I mean, they also dropped the double letter signage (AA, HH, etc.) in the past and found something new...

Edited February 21, 2014 by Vistausss

[lupojohn]

Extend the to 71st Avenue when the goes to 179th Street.

[RollOver]

Extend the to 71st Avenue when the goes to 179th Street.

 

No. And then what? The gets held to wait for a sitting at 71st Avenue?

[FlushingExpress]

: implement peak-direction express service on the entire Woodlawn Line on weekdays.

: 7-day service to/from Brooklyn College-Faltbush Avenue, have Nereid Avenue trains run express north of East 180th Street, late night extension to Grand Central-42nd Street via Lexington Avenue express and Bronx local.

: bring it back and have it run express in peak direction from 96th to 145th Street and Dyckman to 242nd Streets while the stays local.

: all service to Far Rockaway-Mott Avenue and have Rockaway Park trains run express in Queens.

: operates on weekends with its usual weekday route.

: extended to Lefferts Boulevard-Ozone Park whenever it operates. The late night shuttle can stay the same.

: implement a new West End peak direction express service, does not have to use the same letter.

: during rush hours, have Coney Island trains run express in Brooklyn in either peak direction or both ways depending on section.

: expand skip-stop service to the full rush hour frame and in both directions, or have reverse-peak direction trains that originate/terminate at Broadway Junction run express between there and Myrtle Avenue.

: rush hour skip-stop service with a new letter, peak or both direction.

: have it run express on Broadway on weekdays again.

 

All other services can stay the same.

[lupojohn]

No. And then what? The gets held to wait for a sitting at 71st Avenue?

Well, how'd it work when the used to go to 71st Avenue?

[RollOver]

Well, how'd it work when the used to go to 71st Avenue?

 

When the ran to 71st Avenue on evenings, it had to be cut by 50% (20 minute waits between trains) because of track capacity east of 71st Avenue, as well as the sharing with the and former . Now that it no longer runs on the QBL, service became more frequent and more reliable, believe it or not. And don't forget how it almost never ran on QBL on nights and weekends because of the GO's. There's seriously and strictly no point in paying for a service that hardly operates.

Edited February 21, 2014 by RollOverMyHead

[N4 Via Merrick Rd]

I'd bring back mostly everything from before the 2010 service cuts except for the

- SELECT should run Express on Brighton on weekends( (Q)will stay the same.) B should run 4th Ave(Express) to Coney Island on weekends from 145th Street. SELECT trains will continue to operate on 4th/West End Line

How about that?

 

Edited February 21, 2014 by N4 Via Merrick Rd