Department of Subways - Proposals/Ideas

[realizm]

The Dual Contract engineers built that station as a provision in itself for IRT future expansion which the IND and then the MTA had plans to take advantage of decades later either way. All the MTA needed to do is continue where the Dual Contracts engineers with the City Of New York left off according to 1969 Plan For Action proposals that were made along with the SAS, QBL Bypass etc..

 

A vital clue was also plans the IND laid out for expansion of that line to meet with the proposed Utica Avenue Line as a two tiered line served by IRT and IND cars (two level subway) in the 1930s.

Edited September 11, 2014 by realizm

[CenSin]

The Dual Contract engineers built that station as a provision in itself for IRT future expansion which the IND and then the MTA had plans to take advantage of decades later either way. All the MTA needed to do is continue where the Dual Contracts engineers with the City Of New York left off according to 1969 Plan For Action proposals that were made along with the SAS, QBL Bypass etc..

 

A vital clue is also plans the IND laid out for expansion of that line to meet with the proposed Utica Avenue Line as a two tiered line served by IRT and IND cars (two level subway) in the 1930s.

Keep in mind that the IRT structures east of Atlantic Avenue are all capable of accommodating B Division cars. Taking over an entire branch for B Division use is also a possibility.

[realizm]

Keep in mind that the IRT structures east of Atlantic Avenue are all capable of accommodating B Division cars. Taking over an entire branch for B Division use is also a possibility.

 

Yes I know, same goes with say the Pelham Bay Park Line and a portion of the WPR in the Bronx. But the lower half of the IRT 7th Avenue Line will be the exeption as the Dual Contract engineers there decided not to build that or the underwater tubes that goes with it to Wall Street to current B division specs, anticipating that the BRT/BMT will not aquire the line. (The BMT 4th Avenue Line with the Manhattan Bridge/Canal Street layout as we see it today were finalized for the BMT by then when lower 7th Avenue Line construction began. Besides, the upper half of the 7th Ave Line past Times Square was built by August Belmont so through BRT/BMT service was not possible)

Edited September 11, 2014 by realizm

[MTA Dude]

A properly-configured three-track terminal can also turn more trains than a properly-configured two-track terminal. Consider this layout:

Out of all cases, the only time when a train has to be held outside the terminal is when all three tracks are occupied, and this case is minimized because there is one additional track. In all other cases, trains will glide in and out of the terminal free of interference.

 

For Second Avenue, cut-and-cover construction appears to be one of the planned options for 121 Street all the way to 125 Street. If so, the third track could be added by digging the center portion of the tunnel one level deeper.

 

Wow, that is a really good track layout. 

[bobtehpanda]

A properly-configured three-track terminal can also turn more trains than a properly-configured two-track terminal. Consider this layout:

Out of all cases, the only time when a train has to be held outside the terminal is when all three tracks are occupied, and this case is minimized because there is one additional track. In all other cases, trains will glide in and out of the terminal free of interference.

 

For Second Avenue, cut-and-cover construction appears to be one of the planned options for 121 Street all the way to 125 Street. If so, the third track could be added by digging the center portion of the tunnel one level deeper.

 

121-125 was projected to be bored and mined from the documents I saw because of the diving under Park; only station locations are projected to be cut and cover north of 63rd. If there was to be cut and cover, it would probably be the tail tracks north of 125.

 

The main reason stuff like a diverging three track terminal doesn't get built is because of money; the IND went way overbudget due to all the flying junctions, which cost oodles of money. Also, how big would that setup have to be to allow for an at-speed crossing? The subway doesn't have particularly high grade tolerance, and if you want to approach at something higher than crawl speeds something like that would require a good amount of space.

[realizm]

Wow, that is a really good track layout.

Yeah CenSin did an excellent job on that.

[Wallyhorse]

121-125 was projected to be bored and mined from the documents I saw because of the diving under Park; only station locations are projected to be cut and cover north of 63rd. If there was to be cut and cover, it would probably be the tail tracks north of 125.

 

The main reason stuff like a diverging three track terminal doesn't get built is because of money; the IND went way overbudget due to all the flying junctions, which cost oodles of money. Also, how big would that setup have to be to allow for an at-speed crossing? The subway doesn't have particularly high grade tolerance, and if you want to approach at something higher than crawl speeds something like that would require a good amount of space.

Yes, but what they should do is make at least a provision to go all the way across 125 to Broadway or AT LEAST to St. Nicholas Avenue, where they could build a connection to the 8th Avenue line there that would allow for future lines to the Bronx and at the very least being able to re-route the via the SAS and 63rd and 6th Avenue when needed as well as provide Yankee Stadium specials from the SAS for special events..

[CenSin]

I guess the main reason why the MTA didnt consider 3 track terminals after all is because they dont want to pay for it. Thats been on the MTA menu nowadays from the 7 extansion forward, save dollars if it even means knocking entire proposed stations out of the blueprints for the sake of construction costs. Which I do not understand with the case of the SAS, isnt the project federally funded?

 

Otherwise yes I agree this would be a good proposal but the MTA decided not to adopt this approach. Its all about the money I suppose.

It really is all about the money. I mean, I can understand cutting small corners like an extra track at 72 Street, but to screw over a terminal that will be serving two lines to pick up slack from the Lexington Avenue line and additional ridership not served by it. I suppose one could compare a future two-track Harlem–125 Street terminal with Astoria–Ditmars Boulevard. If the and were not able to terminate trains at 57 Street–7 Avenue, would Astoria–Ditmars Boulevard be able to cope with the load? How well does the fare with only one track to terminate trains in Manhattan/The Bronx?

 

 

121-125 was projected to be bored and mined from the documents I saw because of the diving under Park; only station locations are projected to be cut and cover north of 63rd. If there was to be cut and cover, it would probably be the tail tracks north of 125.

 

The main reason stuff like a diverging three track terminal doesn't get built is because of money; the IND went way overbudget due to all the flying junctions, which cost oodles of money.

Depending on how the area is done, it could be made to work in a number of ways. The number one thing is cost, however. Once it becomes necessary to bore the third tunnel, the whole layout would have to be reworked to something akin to Flushing–Main Street, if not scrapping the three-track terminal altogether. The MTA scrapped a third track just to save a bit of money at 72 Street. If the MTA reduced the terminal to just one track, it wouldn't even surprise me.

Today, MTA Chairman Prendergast announced that to save $1 billion, the MTA has decided to scrap the extra track at the 125 Street terminal station. "The station will be a single-track with a side platform," said Prendergast. The only needs one track to turn around trains, and it's expected that the can manage as well. The Franklin Avenue Shuttle, in fact, has only 1 track for most of its length. On a more positive note, Prendergast pointed out that "it's only going to be a short-turn station like what 72 Street was supposed to have, and I'm hoping that the limitations of this terminal will implore us to extend into the Bronx and build a real terminal."

 

Also, how big would that setup have to be to allow for an at-speed crossing? The subway doesn't have particularly high grade tolerance, and if you want to approach at something higher than crawl speeds something like that would require a good amount of space.

It would probably be a somewhat bigger than the junction west of DeKalb Avenue due to the mandated wider clearances (and, thus, longer distance of the switch tracks) underground. The third track approaching the station would have to be a bit longer than a 10-car R160 train to allow it to submerge under the switches above it. A switch to cross from one track to an adjacent track would be about three car-lengths long (again, using an R160 car as a yardstick); the switch over the adjacent track would be 5~6 car-lengths long. I reckon it would require about two train-lengths for the whole setup.

 

Yeah CenSin did an excellent job on that.

 

 

Yes, but what they should do is make at least a provision to go all the way across 125 to Broadway or AT LEAST to St. Nicholas Avenue, where they could build a connection to the 8th Avenue line there that would allow for future lines to the Bronx and at the very least being able to re-route the via the SAS and 63rd and 6th Avenue when needed as well as provide Yankee Stadium specials from the SAS for special events..

The rerouting option is nice, but again, you entertain an unlikely fantasy. You do realize what kind of path a Yankee Stadium special would have to take to get from 161 Street–Yankee Stadium to Harlem–125 Street, right? The would take a relatively straight three hops down the line, while a (or whatever it's going to be) will take a detour and possibly 6~7 hops to get to the same station. From there, it's obvious which train is going to be faster.

[bobtehpanda]

Yes, but what they should do is make at least a provision to go all the way across 125 to Broadway or AT LEAST to St. Nicholas Avenue, where they could build a connection to the 8th Avenue line there that would allow for future lines to the Bronx and at the very least being able to re-route the via the SAS and 63rd and 6th Avenue when needed as well as provide Yankee Stadium specials from the SAS for special events..

 

The IND is already the most overengineered of the three former divisions. If SAS were to be extended west (and the tail tracks do extend west of Park), it would almost certainly not include an IND connection, simply due to the lack of utility. Building junctions like that is expensive, and the routing is too curvy and unfit for regular use.

[Wallyhorse]

 

The rerouting option is nice, but again, you entertain an unlikely fantasy. You do realize what kind of path a Yankee Stadium special would have to take to get from 161 Street–Yankee Stadium to Harlem–125 Street, right? The would take a relatively straight three hops down the line, while a (or whatever it's going to be) will take a detour and possibly 6~7 hops to get to the same station. From there, it's obvious which train is going to be faster.

I do realize that, but I'm talking about mainly residents from the UES who probably would NOT want to transfer to the , especially in the future.  These specials would be mainly for people who actually live on 2nd Avenue and points east and are too lazy to walk to the Lexington Avenue Line and/or transfer to the at 125..

 

The main purpose of connecting to the 8th Avenue line at 125 would be for re-routes and/or yard moves, but it does give the option for such a line to The Bronx if warranted in the future. 

 

Of course, the real purpose of doing such is to have the line go all the way across 125th Street to a terminal at 12th Avenue-Broadway with transfers to every other line that operates there.

[realizm]

8th Avenue Line at 125th Street? What? No way... I mean, why!?

 

The CPW DOES serve 125th Street...

[Quill Depot]

If the MTA took over PATH what would you do?

[CenSin]

If the MTA took over PATH what would you do?

The biggest pain for PATH riders now is that it connects to neither Grand Central nor Pennsylvania Station. Pennsylvania Station is an avenue and a half away, and Grand Central requires two transfers. PATH is sort of marooned in the most inconvenient places.

 

The PATH accommodates A Division-sized cars, so that's a immediate limitation on what can be done right there. Plans have been drawn before to connect to the Lexington Avenue Line's local tracks, giving the somewhere to go south instead of turning back in Manhattan. It may or may not be a good idea given that PATH is currently under FRA regulation (with exceptions), but PATH definitely needs to expand to be useful, and get rid of the awful segregation from the rest of New York City's subways.

[Quill Depot]

The A-div is a handicap most definitely, same with the godamn FRA regulations. This article really shows it as well: http://secondavenuesagas.com/2014/08/27/how-much-is-that-path-train-in-window/

[bobtehpanda]

I personally don't think the MTA has any business running PATH; PATH and NYCT should really coordinate fares and maybe enter fare-sharing, but do we need New Jersey trying to stir the pot here too, when we've already got CONNDOT, the State, and the various counties breathing down its neck?
 

PATH doesn't need a connection at Penn or GCT so much as it needs a way to get to Midtown East. Extending PATH via a third cross-Hudson tunnel to Columbus Circle and Lex-59 would be a very good solution, particularly since PATH is already at capacity under the river (and extending PATH north wouldn't hurt; I personally think that the HBLR should've been a PATH subway line, or integrated into the PATH fare system; it goes north enough to make such a link possible).

Edited September 12, 2014 by bobtehpanda

[Union Tpke]

The biggest pain for PATH riders now is that it connects to neither Grand Central nor Pennsylvania Station. Pennsylvania Station is an avenue and a half away, and Grand Central requires two transfers. PATH is sort of marooned in the most inconvenient places.

 

The PATH accommodates A Division-sized cars, so that's a immediate limitation on what can be done right there. Plans have been drawn before to connect to the Lexington Avenue Line's local tracks, giving the somewhere to go south instead of turning back in Manhattan. It may or may not be a good idea given that PATH is currently under FRA regulation (with exceptions), but PATH definitely needs to expand to be useful, and get rid of the awful segregation from the rest of New York City's subways.

http://www.hudsoncity.net/tubes/pathtubeslexingtonproposal.html

 

I torally agree

[CenSin]

http://www.hudsoncity.net/tubes/pathtubeslexingtonproposal.html

 

I torally agree

I travel between 7 Avenue/28 Street, Chinatown, and the Chambers Street area a lot. I find crosstown options quite lacking down there when I want to get back to Chinatown from Chambers Street. This seems like it would provide an additional benefit besides connecting the east side of Manhattan to New Jersey.

[TheKorean]

The weekend Q service cancellation had me thinking it would be far more efficient if MTA just ran shuttle buses from Q train stations to F train stations which is usually just 10 minutes away from Q.

[Quill Depot]

The weekend Q service cancellation had me thinking it would be far more efficient if MTA just ran shuttle buses from Q train stations to F train stations which is usually just 10 minutes away from Q.

I'd say a bus route at only the big express stops, otherwise just a bus running up and down the line.

[Armandito]

The only way the F express could have worked is if we go back to conditions before the 2010 budget cuts with the V. The MTA in its study on how they can improve F service before they went ahead with the Culver Viaduct rehab assessed the problem of the V terminating at 2nd Avenue as it held up the F needing to access the Rutgers Street tunnel causing a chokepoint. So they concluded that it may be necessary to extend the V to Church Avenue.

 

Well now we have the M to Forest Hills but thats another story.

It's likely the will stay like that forever... Edited September 20, 2014 by lara8710

[Union Tpke]

It's likely the will stay like that forever...

sure... forever

[MTA Dude]

sure... forever

 

Nice sarcasm...

[Quill Depot]

And when the sun goes out the will still be going on the route. Even when humans are long gone. Wow!

[MTA Dude]

And when the sun goes out the will still be going on the route. Even when humans are long gone. Wow!

 

Totes.

[Javier]

Im not sure if this has been asked before , but is it possible to create a <1> express that goes from 96 St to South Ferry Loop skipping every 3 stops, excluding Chambers St, while the Terminates at the Brand New South Ferry Station?