Department of Subways - Proposals/Ideas

[Union Tpke]

Not ALL of Chambers, the platform ONLY.

 

The platform would have been unaffected or minimally effected by this.

I would do this in my fantasy proposal actually, and the E would stop at Cortlandt.

[Armandito]

If it remained IRT, then you would have likely have been looking at the SAS as also being IRT in large part so any extension of the SAS to The Bronx would be on that portion of the 3rd Avenue El.

 

More likely scenario would have been since the 3rd Avenue El would have likely had to be completely rebuilt during the 1960's and '70s anyway, with plans to make the SAS BMT/IND, you would have been looking at consolidations of many stations with many moved to where they could be combined (and built as 600' platforms) and those stations that did survive would likely have seen their platforms shaved back to handle the larger (and heavier) cars of the BMT/IND. This would likely also have applied to the Bronx portion since that would likely have been configured to handle BOTH the 3rd Avenue El and SAS (with a new platform at Gun Hill Road, most likely above the current platform to handle BMT/IND trains).

If the 3rd Av Elevated still existed today, a connection to the Lexington Av line would have been a lot cheaper than building a parallel subway along 2nd Av in Manhattan. Here's what I propose: an (8) train running between the Gun Hill Rd and Brooklyn Bridge stations via Lexington Av Local. It would run between these stations at all times except late nights, when it would run as a shuttle between Gun Hill Rd and 3 Av-138 St. The stops would be as follows:

 

Gun Hill Rd

Webster Av

204 St

Bedford Park Blvd-NY Botanical Garden

Fordham Plaza

183 St

180 St

Tremont Av

174 St

Claremont Pkwy

169 St

166 St

161 St

156 St

3 Av-149 St

3 Av-138 St

then all train stops in Manhattan to Brooklyn Bridge

[bobtehpanda]

If the 3rd Av Elevated still existed today, a connection to the Lexington Av line would have been a lot cheaper than building a parallel subway along 2nd Av in Manhattan. Here's what I propose: an (8) train running between the Gun Hill Rd and Brooklyn Bridge stations via Lexington Av Local. It would run between these stations at all times except late nights, when it would run as a shuttle between Gun Hill Rd and 3 Av-138 St. The stops would be as follows:

 

Gun Hill Rd

Webster Av

204 St

Bedford Park Blvd-NY Botanical Garden

Fordham Plaza

183 St

180 St

Tremont Av

174 St

Claremont Pkwy

169 St

166 St

161 St

156 St

3 Av-149 St

3 Av-138 St

then all train stops in Manhattan to Brooklyn Bridge

 

That would make crowding on the Lex worse, not better. The only reason the runs the amount of TPH it can now is because the shares no tracks with service. In fact, doing this would probably aggravate the crowding on the Pelham Line and Lex local, since adding another line would reduce frequency on Pelham and also introduce another vector for delay onto the Lex.

 

This also really doesn't help out Second Av at all, since the SAS is not currently planned to extend to the Bronx (although there is provisioning). There were valid reasons to remove the Third Av El when it was torn down, and quite frankly the UES would not be as developed or wealthy today if it still existed.

Not ALL of Chambers, the platform ONLY.

 

The platform would have been unaffected or minimally effected by this.

 

I'm just asking for clarification - the terminal has, for the majority of its life, been referred to using a separate station name from the at Chambers, whether as Hudson Terminal or World Trade Center.

[Wallyhorse]

I'm just asking for clarification - the terminal has, for the majority of its life, been referred to using a separate station name from the at Chambers, whether as Hudson Terminal or World Trade Center.

Sorry.  Myself and most others have always referred to the entire station as Chambers-WTC even though the platform is obviously much closer to the WTC than Chambers.

[realizm]

The IND Grand Concourse Line was originally intended to be a four-track corridor. But that plan, unfortunately, dropped.

 

If it hadn't, Bedford Park Boulevard would have been the northern terminus for the instead of 145th Street, and the would operate on the middle tracks in both directions while the serves all the local stops.

 

This would also reduce delays at the bottleneck north of 135th Street and the 145th Street lower level section, where the short turns on the center track during middays/evenings. Also, this will make riders at all the local stops between Tremont Avenue and 145th Street to remain on the and let them get off at 125th Street for the expresses.

 

The weekend setup, however, is overall fine as is.

 

Sorry for necroposting but woah what! I Had no idea I thought the IND intended from the start for the GC to be three tracks with a provision at 205th Street for an extension.

Edited September 8, 2014 by realizm

[T to Dyre Avenue]

Actually, yes. Unless the MTA plans to send an absurd number of Q trains to 96 St/2 Av, there should be plenty of room for a 6th Avenue/Culver line from 96 St to Church Av. Of course, it still has the issue of having three locals on the line, so it would be a tight squeeze with the F, M and the new service. I'm assuming this service will be local because running it express on 6th Avenue would require switching between the local and express tracks at W 4 St, thus delaying all the trains on the line.

I had suggested doing this in a previous thread about restoring Culver Express service, only for someone to respond that the switches connecting the Broadway "side" of Lex-63rd to the 6th Ave "side" weren't meant to be used in regular service. I'm not sure why that would be, so I still think that running a 6th Ave/Culver service to/from 96th & 2nd is something that ought to be looked into. I don't see them running the extended  on 4-minute headways like the  or  .  I'm fully aware there would be a tight squeeze between the , and ( P ) services, and this ( P ) service would probably not be able to run more than once every 10 minutes during the rush. But given that it will be a long time before we see the SAS go below 63rd St, we could have a service, in the meantime, that would provide direct service from the Upper East Side (and East Harlem in Phase 2) to the center of Midtown along with the East Village and the Lower East Side. It might even peel off some riders from the lines who work in Midtown closer to Madison and 5th Avenues. And, as the express, it can serve the Culver Line without requiring the reduction of train service at the local stations between Church Ave and Jay St.

[T to Dyre Avenue]

If the 3rd Av Elevated still existed today, a connection to the Lexington Av line would have been a lot cheaper than building a parallel subway along 2nd Av in Manhattan. Here's what I propose: an (8) train running between the Gun Hill Rd and Brooklyn Bridge stations via Lexington Av Local. It would run between these stations at all times except late nights, when it would run as a shuttle between Gun Hill Rd and 3 Av-138 St. The stops would be as follows:

 

Gun Hill Rd

Webster Av

204 St

Bedford Park Blvd-NY Botanical Garden

Fordham Plaza

183 St

180 St

Tremont Av

174 St

Claremont Pkwy

169 St

166 St

161 St

156 St

3 Av-149 St

3 Av-138 St

then all train stops in Manhattan to Brooklyn Bridge

Connecting the 3rd Ave el into the Lex would have been very difficult to do and would cause the Lexington Ave line to be more crowded, not less. The crowding is mostly in Manhattan, so that's where the relief is needed most. While much of that ridership is coming from the individual , and branches, it's when they come together in Manhattan and pick up riders in East Harlem and the Upper East Side that you see the crowding. The will partially help to relieve that crowding, and perhaps a supplemental ( P ) service (that continues onto the 6th Ave Local and the Culver Line express) may help a little more.

Edited September 8, 2014 by T to Dyre Avenue

[Wallyhorse]

The idea of an Culver Express via 2nd Avenue might be something more for nights and weekends to supplement the on the Upper East Side as that part of Manhattan could then retain heavier service in the evening and overnight hours in one of the most densely populated areas of the country.  The question would be, where would you run such on weekdays, especially if you don't want 6th Avenue trains crossing over to the SAS at 63rd/Lex? 

One thing that could be done would be this:

Re-route the after West 4th to the Culver Line and have it be the Culver Express to Coney Island (the would be cut back to Church Avenue except overnights when it would run its normal route).

Evenings (after PM rush hour) and weekends, this new version of the would be a second local on 6th Avenue, running with the to 63rd before running with the to 96th and later 125th/Lex.

The remains as it would be otherwise in Brooklyn.

The (and in rush hours) would be extended at least weekdays to Brighton Beach and replace the as the Brighton Beach Express (if warranted, this could also run to Brighton Beach on weekends).  Late nights, the would continue to terminate at Broad Street.  This would have the side benefit of giving Brighton riders looking for lower Manhattan and/or Metrotech and Brooklyn Heights those options like the used to. 

[Armandito]

Connecting the 3rd Ave el into the Lex would have been very difficult to do and would cause the Lexington Ave line to be more crowded, not less. The crowding is mostly in Manhattan, so that's where the relief is needed most. While much of that ridership is coming from the individual , and branches, it's when they come together in Manhattan and pick up riders in East Harlem and the Upper East Side that you see the crowding. The will partially help to relieve that crowding, and perhaps a supplemental ( P ) service (that continues onto the 6th Ave Local and the Culver Line express) may help a little more.

Would my proposal work with phase 2 of the SAS completed? Edited September 8, 2014 by lara8710

[Armandito]

The idea of an Culver Express via 2nd Avenue might be something more for nights and weekends to supplement the on the Upper East Side as that part of Manhattan could then retain heavier service in the evening and overnight hours in one of the most densely populated areas of the country. The question would be, where would you run such on weekdays, especially if you don't want 6th Avenue trains crossing over to the SAS at 63rd/Lex?

 

One thing that could be done would be this:

 

Re-route the after West 4th to the Culver Line and have it be the Culver Express to Coney Island (the would be cut back to Church Avenue except overnights when it would run its normal route).

 

Evenings (after PM rush hour) and weekends, this new version of the would be a second local on 6th Avenue, running with the to 63rd before running with the to 96th and later 125th/Lex.

 

The remains as it would be otherwise in Brooklyn.

 

The (and in rush hours) would be extended at least weekdays to Brighton Beach and replace the as the Brighton Beach Express (if warranted, this could also run to Brighton Beach on weekends). Late nights, the would continue to terminate at Broad Street. This would have the side benefit of giving Brighton riders looking for lower Manhattan and/or Metrotech and Brooklyn Heights those options like the used to.

I think this proposal would work better. The (P) proposal may be a tight squeeze along 6th Av. This might mean reducing frequency on the , leading to more overcrowding on trains, and worse if each train only has 8 cars. Edited September 8, 2014 by lara8710

[T to Dyre Avenue]

Would my proposal work with phase 2 of the SAS completed?

Wait, so now you're proposing to build a new 3rd Ave el in The Bronx and connect it to the at 138th & 3rd? With phases 1 & 2 of the SAS complete, there is no point in connecting a new 3rd Ave line to the Lex. Better to build a new 3rd Ave line as an extension of the SAS (not that we will see any such line be built any time soon).

[bobtehpanda]

Would my proposal work with phase 2 of the SAS completed?

 

Not really; the Lexington local is fairly crowded starting from the Pelham Line. (Also, the El was torn down partially because of structural reasons; the 3rd Av and Myrtle Els were some of the oldest in the system, and were actually supposed to get specially designed cars because of weight restrictions.)

[bobtehpanda]

I had suggested doing this in a previous thread about restoring Culver Express service, only for someone to respond that the switches connecting the Broadway "side" of Lex-63rd to the 6th Ave "side" weren't meant to be used in regular service. I'm not sure why that would be, so I still think that running a 6th Ave/Culver service to/from 96th & 2nd is something that ought to be looked into. I don't see them running the extended  on 4-minute headways like the  or  .  I'm fully aware there would be a tight squeeze between the , and ( P ) services, and this ( P ) service would probably not be able to run more than once every 10 minutes during the rush. But given that it will be a long time before we see the SAS go below 63rd St, we could have a service, in the meantime, that would provide direct service from the Upper East Side (and East Harlem in Phase 2) to the center of Midtown along with the East Village and the Lower East Side. It might even peel off some riders from the lines who work in Midtown closer to Madison and 5th Avenues. And, as the express, it can serve the Culver Line without requiring the reduction of train service at the local stations between Church Ave and Jay St.

 

I personally don't see much benefit in this; the already has an extremely convenient transfer (well, as convenient as transfers get in this city) to the Sixth Av Line at Herald Sq, and will Second Avenue need the additional service upon opening if it's a stubway that doesn't go downtown?

[Lance]

There is no perfect solution to the calls for a Culver express. In the realistic, no-build approach the MTA would likely take, there are few options that don't either over-serve another line or push a line to its capacity limits.

 

Queens Blvd is pretty much out for both reasons. Forest Hills cannot turn three lines, so the local is out. As I mentioned previously, while 179 St is an option for a north terminal, getting there is the problem. Unless there is a significant reduction of express service, any Culver express service would have to take away from Culver local service. Running such a service local to 179 St will likely be as successful as the R via Hillside was in the late '80s.

 

Culver express service to Harlem is not ideal for the aforementioned reason of over-serving Central Park West. While the same can be applied for a 2nd Ave/6th Ave/Culver service, there is the added benefit of providing both Broadway/Brighton and 6th Avenue/Culver service from the Upper East Side.

 

Personally, I doubt we'll ever see regular express service on the Culver line any time soon, mainly for the reasons mentioned above and in previous posts.

[Lance]

The idea of an Culver Express via 2nd Avenue might be something more for nights and weekends to supplement the on the Upper East Side as that part of Manhattan could then retain heavier service in the evening and overnight hours in one of the most densely populated areas of the country.  The question would be, where would you run such on weekdays, especially if you don't want 6th Avenue trains crossing over to the SAS at 63rd/Lex? 

 

One thing that could be done would be this:

 

Re-route the after West 4th to the Culver Line and have it be the Culver Express to Coney Island (the would be cut back to Church Avenue except overnights when it would run its normal route).

 

Evenings (after PM rush hour) and weekends, this new version of the would be a second local on 6th Avenue, running with the to 63rd before running with the to 96th and later 125th/Lex.

 

The remains as it would be otherwise in Brooklyn.

 

The (and in rush hours) would be extended at least weekdays to Brighton Beach and replace the as the Brighton Beach Express (if warranted, this could also run to Brighton Beach on weekends).  Late nights, the would continue to terminate at Broad Street.  This would have the side benefit of giving Brighton riders looking for lower Manhattan and/or Metrotech and Brooklyn Heights those options like the used to. 

Since I'm in a bit of a good mood, I'll actually chime in on this one, instead of just letting the Wallyhorse train fly by. First off, what? The biggest push for an express service on the Culver would be during the normal hours (6am-8pm, Mon-Fri), not during the off-hours. For starters, late-night express service has been slowly fazed out over the years. I highly doubt the MTA will start adding overnight express service, since starting in December, there will only be three lines that run express during the overnight hours: the 3 between 96 St and Times Sq; D along Central Park West and 6th Ave; and the F from 71 Av to 21 St-Queensbridge. Weekends are out of the question since that's when most construction work is done.

 

Secondly, what's with the crazy reroutes? Let me get this straight: you want to move the B from the Brighton to the Culver and have the J run down the Brighton instead? This seems eerily similar to the QJ from 1967, which was a bad idea. What makes you think it'll fly now? Brighton/Nassau service has never been that popular. The Brighton M of the '70s and '80s was useful only because it was either that or the D since the QB only ran five trains in the peak direction during the rush hours. You will note that after the Brighton rehabs of the late '80s and after the many, many years of Manhattan Bridge work, there has never been a push for Brighton/Nassau service to return. Brighton riders like the 6th Ave and Broadway options they have. Losing one of them in favor of an inferior Nassau Street line would never work.

 

And even if you could float this crazy idea, you still have this crazy notion that lines must have all these different terminals depending on the time of day or day of the week. That stuff is very confusing for riders, which is why the MTA has gotten away from that unless absolutely necessary.

[MTA Dude]

Proposal: Whenever Flushing-bound service delay into Flushing and a demand for a no-delay zone between 111th and Flushing, I'd say that about half (or however many local trains are delayed when coming into Flushing) should terminate at 111th Street. Activated whenever people want a delay-free zone between 111th and Flushing and limited service is fine (Which I don't know when). What do you think?

[TheKorean]

Feel free to explain why its ridiculous, but wouldnt it be a reasonable idea to build light rails from Flushing to areas like Bayside and Little Neck? Areas east of Flushing to LI border pretty much. I mean LIRR is there but it can be pricey and limited in service.

 

Have it run on street and then go underground at Flushing. And maybe have it then run as express a la B and Q alk the way to Manhattan.

[Union Tpke]

Feel free to explain why its ridiculous, but wouldnt it be a reasonable idea to build light rails from Flushing to areas like Bayside and Little Neck? Areas east of Flushing to LI border pretty much. I mean LIRR is there but it can be pricey and limited in service.

 

Have it run on street and then go underground at Flushing. And maybe have it then run as express a la B and Q alk the way to Manhattan.

or have it run via the LIRR tracks, like the plan was in the '20s.

[TheKorean]

So turn the Pt Washington trains in to 7 train extension?

 

I suppose the trains coming from Pt Washington can run express, with locals terminating at Flushing

[Union Tpke]

So turn the Pt Washington trains in to 7 train extension?

 

I suppose the trains coming from Pt Washington can run express, with locals terminating at Flushing

its only one track from Great Neck to Pt Washington, so you can only have limited service there. I would have 7 trains operate to Great Neck with select trains to Pt Washington, I would also have the rest of the PT wash branch as a sort of 7 bypass connecting back with the 7 in LIC

[bobtehpanda]

or have it run via the LIRR tracks, like the plan was in the '20s.

 

I mean, it's illegal now for good reasons... It'd also be problematic, since we're almost certainly not running trains all the way to PW (and they would probably not want subway service), but we can't have both LIRR and NYCT on the same tracks at the same time.

 

I would personally prefer the run via Northern if it were to ever be extended, since i feel like you'd get more ridership from the south that way and it's easier to make bus connections on Northern, rather than have buses loop around in residential neighborhoods.

[Wallyhorse]

Since I'm in a bit of a good mood, I'll actually chime in on this one, instead of just letting the Wallyhorse train fly by. First off, what? The biggest push for an express service on the Culver would be during the normal hours (6am-8pm, Mon-Fri), not during the off-hours. For starters, late-night express service has been slowly fazed out over the years. I highly doubt the MTA will start adding overnight express service, since starting in December, there will only be three lines that run express during the overnight hours: the 3 between 96 St and Times Sq; D along Central Park West and 6th Ave; and the F from 71 Av to 21 St-Queensbridge. Weekends are out of the question since that's when most construction work is done.

 

Secondly, what's with the crazy reroutes? Let me get this straight: you want to move the B from the Brighton to the Culver and have the J run down the Brighton instead? This seems eerily similar to the QJ from 1967, which was a bad idea. What makes you think it'll fly now? Brighton/Nassau service has never been that popular. The Brighton M of the '70s and '80s was useful only because it was either that or the D since the QB only ran five trains in the peak direction during the rush hours. You will note that after the Brighton rehabs of the late '80s and after the many, many years of Manhattan Bridge work, there has never been a push for Brighton/Nassau service to return. Brighton riders like the 6th Ave and Broadway options they have. Losing one of them in favor of an inferior Nassau Street line would never work.

 

And even if you could float this crazy idea, you still have this crazy notion that lines must have all these different terminals depending on the time of day or day of the week. That stuff is very confusing for riders, which is why the MTA has gotten away from that unless absolutely necessary.

My point was, that was the best option to have a Culver Express: Split with the becoming a 19/7 line, to 145th (Bedford Park Boulevard rush hours) 5:30 AM-8:00 PM weekdays and via the SAS to 96th/2nd 8:00 PM-End of Service weekdays and 7:00 AM-Midnight weekends and holidays.  That to me was the best of a bunch of bad options for this, which is what I was trying to illustrate.

[T to Dyre Avenue]

Between the confusion over where in Upper Manhattan the is going (East weekends vs. West weekdays), rerouting the to from the Brighton to the Culver Line and the unpopularity of Brighton/Nassau service, this plan simply will not fly. It's not the best of a bunch of bad options. It just isn't. It would be much better to have a new and separate lettered service (like ) to minimize the confusion and leave the and lines as they are. Not to mention your plan to reroute the to Culver would require it to switch from the express to the local tracks either between 42nd and 34th Streets or just north of West 4th St, holding up and limiting tph on the ,  and lines. That's definitely not the best of a bunch of bad options. It's certainly worse than a 2nd Ave/6th Ave service running on 10-minute headways crossing from one "side" of Lex/63rd to the other.

Edited September 10, 2014 by T to Dyre Avenue

[Quill Depot]

Rush hour trains run via Culver Express, peak direction express past Culver Ave, reverse commute trains run Culver Local until Church.

Or the other way around, express, local. If anything it gives riders another trunk to get to without a transfer.

[bobtehpanda]

Rush hour trains run via Culver Express, peak direction express past Culver Ave, reverse commute trains run Culver Local until Church.

Or the other way around, express, local. If anything it gives riders another trunk to get to without a transfer.

 

This is, of course, assuming that the switch at West 4th can be used in regular service like that along with the and on the local. Considering they can't even do this during GOs, this sounds risky. Not to mention, the West 4th transfer is one of the easiest transfers to use in the system considering it's one elevator ride or two flights of stairs away, and there isn't exactly a shortage of steps between the two levels.

 

I never understood what this whole business of wanting a Culver Express was about, anyways. Is there heavy demand for it?