Jump to content
Attention: In order to reply to messages, create topics, have access to other features of the community you must sign up for an account.
Sign in to follow this  
the7train

MTA Next Gen 2.0

Recommended Posts

Hey guys, I'm a new member to this forum but I'm really avid about the current subway transit system of New York.

If you all had the chance to completely rebuild the system, how would it look like? What would be the certain areas of the city you'd want to serve more? What about areas right now that are overserved and need less service? Would you like the system to be based more off a London or Hong Kong system, with spread out but bigger stations? I'm curious to see what you guys think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I were to completely rebuild the (MTA) I'd have the Second Avenue subway be a full Trunk line with a branch at 125 Street, 3rd Avenue, and half of Dyre Av.

Next, I would've built QBL as a Six track subway wi the the 53Rd Street tube having 4 Tracks. 

Flushing would've been a Trunk line with a Branch to connect with the PATH. The 63rd tube in my (MTA) would have 4 Tracks. One set of tracks to Queens Blvd and the other to Northern Blvd.  

The IRT would've been built to integrate with the IND and BMT (secifically the (7)

But that's not everything though. 

Also, for proposing plans for the Subway, there's the Department of Subways - Proposals/Idea's thread. Anyways, welcome aboard!!! Enjoy your stay

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As LGA said, this thread is similar to another thread on this forum called the Subway Proposals Thread, and that should be used mainly, but your thread is almost different enough and you're new anyways.

If I were to build a new MTA, I would expand the subway close to the borders of Nassau County (Not counting the (A)) and make better use of Metropolitan NYC. Expanding out is practical and has been successful, examples include the (7) which worked amazingly even if the stations were built in the middle of nowhere at the time. Cluttering a population near Manhattan does have numerous problems so expansion is an option. I would also modernize signals and tunnels, so people would be more comfy traveling these long distances reliably. I would also obtain trains and subway stations and/or expansions more efficiently, as NY changes quickly and we should be able to adapt respectively. 

Those are just a few, super general points, obviously the (MTA) cant make dreams pop to life instantly, but it's still interesting to think about. Welcome btw! Hope you find the forums useful!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’d actually have crosstown lines - east/west in the Bronx and Brooklyn, north/south in Queens to Brooklyn and the Bronx, east/west crosstown uptown, and I’d get rid of 42nd St/Bryant Park or Rockefeller Center on (B)(D) so there’s actually a 6 Av express instead of express trains that make local stops on the express tracks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, LGA Link N train said:

If I were to completely rebuild the (MTA) I'd have the Second Avenue subway be a full Trunk line with a branch at 125 Street, 3rd Avenue, and half of Dyre Av.

Next, I would've built QBL as a Six track subway wi the the 53Rd Street tube having 4 Tracks. 

Flushing would've been a Trunk line with a Branch to connect with the PATH. The 63rd tube in my (MTA) would have 4 Tracks. One set of tracks to Queens Blvd and the other to Northern Blvd.  

The IRT would've been built to integrate with the IND and BMT (secifically the (7)

But that's not everything though. 

Also, for proposing plans for the Subway, there's the Department of Subways - Proposals/Idea's thread. Anyways, welcome aboard!!! Enjoy your stay

That's a lot of branching! Wouldn't each branch only get a max of 10tph?

Would the extra tracks accommodate an extra service, or do you want a track for each route so each route can run more trains?


Interesting you mentioned Northern Blvd. What line would you route up Northern? 

And thanks! Will check out.

5 hours ago, NoHacksJustKhaks said:

As LGA said, this thread is similar to another thread on this forum called the Subway Proposals Thread, and that should be used mainly, but your thread is almost different enough and you're new anyways.

If I were to build a new MTA, I would expand the subway close to the borders of Nassau County (Not counting the (A)) and make better use of Metropolitan NYC. Expanding out is practical and has been successful, examples include the (7) which worked amazingly even if the stations were built in the middle of nowhere at the time. Cluttering a population near Manhattan does have numerous problems so expansion is an option. I would also modernize signals and tunnels, so people would be more comfy traveling these long distances reliably. I would also obtain trains and subway stations and/or expansions more efficiently, as NY changes quickly and we should be able to adapt respectively. 

Those are just a few, super general points, obviously the (MTA) cant make dreams pop to life instantly, but it's still interesting to think about. Welcome btw! Hope you find the forums useful!

Do you think Manhattan lines run too close to one another, and these lines can be used for expanding elsewhere to transit deserts in the city?

Do you also think the reason the MTA is so slow on upgrading their infrastructure is due to the sheer amount they have to currently repair? Would it be better to close smaller stations and build bigger ones, like how Hong Kong does, to make it easier?

3 hours ago, Deucey said:

I’d actually have crosstown lines - east/west in the Bronx and Brooklyn, north/south in Queens to Brooklyn and the Bronx, east/west crosstown uptown, and I’d get rid of 42nd St/Bryant Park or Rockefeller Center on (B)(D) so there’s actually a 6 Av express instead of express trains that make local stops on the express tracks.

What crosstown lines do you have in mind?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, the7train said:

What crosstown lines do you have in mind?

125th from Riverside to LGA or somewhere in Northern Queens 

Another paralleling the Cross-Manhattan following 167th, 174th or Tremont Av to the shore

Fordham Rd/Pelham Pkwy

23rd or 34th St from 10th Av to Eastern Queens

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Deucey said:

125th from Riverside to LGA or somewhere in Northern Queens 

Another paralleling the Cross-Manhattan following 167th, 174th or Tremont Av to the shore

Fordham Rd/Pelham Pkwy

23rd or 34th St from 10th Av to Eastern Queens

I was thinking 125th could be covered by SAS. Do you think we have too many stations in the city, and it's the reason why we're so broke since we have to upkeep so many? Would it be better to spread them apart?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, the7train said:

I was thinking 125th could be covered by SAS. Do you think we have too many stations in the city, and it's the reason why we're so broke since we have to upkeep so many? Would it be better to spread them apart?

Don't think that - just think:

1) Certain lines could have too many stations in proximity to provide effective and meaningful service. I only cite 6th Av from the times I lived on 148th St and worked in W'burg how if I couldn't get on a crowded (A) I'd be screwed because the (D) made too many stops for me to get the (F) or (M) that got me to the (L) .  (Ucwudididthar?) and

2) Manhattan/Midtown-centric thinking prevented creating a truly efficient system since there's enough traffic between Bx/Q and MAN/Q to warrant another line that could relieve some crowding on Lex and possibly 8th Av.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Deucey said:

Don't think that - just think:

1) Certain lines could have too many stations in proximity to provide effective and meaningful service. I only cite 6th Av from the times I lived on 148th St and worked in W'burg how if I couldn't get on a crowded (A) I'd be screwed because the (D) made too many stops for me to get the (F) or (M) that got me to the (L) .  (Ucwudididthar?) and

2) Manhattan/Midtown-centric thinking prevented creating a truly efficient system since there's enough traffic between Bx/Q and MAN/Q to warrant another line that could relieve some crowding on Lex and possibly 8th Av.

I've believed point 1 extremely. Stations that are one avenue apart from each other, eg. the 50th st 1 train station and the 49th st nrw station. Stations that are 4 blocks apart from each other, are they really necessary? Can passengers just walk the extra distance, as opposed to forcing a train to stop at more stations, meaning longer journeys, meaning more trains (which we don't have). By closing some redundant stations, it limits journey time, meaning more trains can run due to the current capacity we have, and we can better upkeep stations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, the7train said:

I've believed point 1 extremely. Stations that are one avenue apart from each other, eg. the 50th st 1 train station and the 49th st nrw station. Stations that are 4 blocks apart from each other, are they really necessary? Can passengers just walk the extra distance, as opposed to forcing a train to stop at more stations, meaning longer journeys, meaning more trains (which we don't have). By closing some redundant stations, it limits journey time, meaning more trains can run due to the current capacity we have, and we can better upkeep stations.

So what happens to abandoned stations in your plan?

Do they become........ exhibits

Edited by LGA Link N train

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, the7train said:

I've believed point 1 extremely. Stations that are one avenue apart from each other, eg. the 50th st 1 train station and the 49th st nrw station. Stations that are 4 blocks apart from each other, are they really necessary? Can passengers just walk the extra distance, as opposed to forcing a train to stop at more stations, meaning longer journeys, meaning more trains (which we don't have). By closing some redundant stations, it limits journey time, meaning more trains can run due to the current capacity we have, and we can better upkeep stations.

(MTA) would still claim broke if there were fewer stations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, LGA Link N train said:

So what happens to abandoned stations in your plan?

Do they become........ exhibits

I have no idea what would happen, all I'm saying is there are too many stations over serving certain areas, and that saves money by closing the unnecessary stations. PEople can walk the extra 5-6 blocks. That 3 extra minutes of walking means millions saved on station upkeeping, allowing us to use that money on other necessary areas (improving other important stations, signalling, maintenance, etc.)

25 minutes ago, Deucey said:

(MTA) would still claim broke if there were fewer stations.

That's something for the politics debate. International systems have spread out stations, and look how much nicer and more accessible they are. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, the7train said:

That's something for the politics debate. International systems have spread out stations, and look how much nicer and more accessible they are. 

But how many have express/local track systems?

Part of (MTA)’s cost issue is that it’s actually maintaining two railroad trackage systems from three separate corporations, and that ain’t cheap.

BART covers 4 counties and has only two sections with three or more tracks (and uses a custom gauge) but costs less because those multi-track sections aren’t used as extensively and frequently as the third track on the Grand Concourse - and that track isn’t used outside rush hours.

So it’s not really fair to compare the subway to other systems on station count because other systems the world over connect disparate communities (like NYC’s Express tracks) while our locals function as a cross-neighborhood connector.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Deucey said:

But how many have express/local track systems?

Part of (MTA)’s cost issue is that it’s actually maintaining two railroad trackage systems from three separate corporations, and that ain’t cheap.

BART covers 4 counties and has only two sections with three or more tracks (and uses a custom gauge) but costs less because those multi-track sections aren’t used as extensively and frequently as the third track on the Grand Concourse - and that track isn’t used outside rush hours.

So it’s not really fair to compare the subway to other systems on station count because other systems the world over connect disparate communities (like NYC’s Express tracks) while our locals function as a cross-neighborhood connector.

Fair point, but as a local train, is it really worth the money to have stations 3-4 blocks apart?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, the7train said:

Fair point, but as a local train, is it really worth the money to have stations 3-4 blocks apart?

The average is 7-10 blocks apart on locals in Manhattan; less so in Brooklyn and on the Bronx, but I believe blocks and buildings are wider in the latter two boroughs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would have zero actual branching. It's the cause of so many problems that other systems simply don't have. You go to other major world cities and it's just such a delight to go to ANY station and know that a train will arrive in five minutes or less. It changes everything. We can't have that now because of the bottlenecks that branching / interlining creates. It's maddening. 

I would have lines consolidate to 4-track in and near Manhattan, with one line being express. The narrowness of Manhattan sort of demands some physical consolidation of lines. But in regular service, each line would have its own dedicated tracks. Switches would be for terminals and temporary diversions only. For example, I might have the A be express and the C local, in Manhattan. They would still go to different places at each end. But I would never allow the E to share tracks with the C. 

This would also allow express service that's always full-time and two-way. None of this three-track nonsense. 

 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, rbrome said:

This would also allow express service that's always full-time and two-way. None of this three-track nonsense. 

All the lines which run a three-track express service do so because they only have three tracks. If anything, adding a fourth track to Concourse, for example, would actually make branching worse, unless another pair of tracks were built along the west side.

6 minutes ago, rbrome said:

I would have zero actual branching.

Branching isn't the killer. In London, the Central line runs 30+ tph during rush hour with two western branches and two or three eastern branches. It's reverse-branching - lines combining in the outer boroughs and branching in Midtown - that is the killer of frequency of reliability on the subway. This is what allows delays to propagate across various trunk lines in a short period of time.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, officiallyliam said:

If anything, adding a fourth track to Concourse, for example, would actually make branching worse, unless another pair of tracks were built along the west side.

Would it though? A full-time (D) express on Concourse and 8th Av, and a full-time (B) local seems like it'd make it simpler at 145th south since neither would need to wait for (C) to clear and wait for the switch to change.

59th St is the problem since there's no holding track for (B) to wait in for (C) to clear, thus holding up (A) and (D) uptown.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, officiallyliam said:

All the lines which run a three-track express service do so because they only have three tracks. If anything, adding a fourth track to Concourse, for example, would actually make branching worse, unless another pair of tracks were built along the west side.

Branching isn't the killer. In London, the Central line runs 30+ tph during rush hour with two western branches and two or three eastern branches. It's reverse-branching - lines combining in the outer boroughs and branching in Midtown - that is the killer of frequency of reliability on the subway. This is what allows delays to propagate across various trunk lines in a short period of time.

Wouldn't it be better for each line to get its own designated track? D gets the express, B gets the local.

How would you fix this problem then?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, LGA Link N train said:

Why? I don't agree with everything proposed here, but the idea is correct - we should reduce, as much as possible, the conflicts between trains. Especially so in the B Division, which is a much wider network for delays to spread in.

For instance, we could eliminate the potential confusion of the (B)<B> and the (C)<C> by shuffling some of the lines around; for instance:

  • The (E) runs WTC to 179th, 8th Avenue and Queens Blvd local via 53rd.
  • Keep the (M) the (M) instead of an orange E - Metropolitan to Jamaica Center via 63rd and Queens Blvd express.
  • (F) runs Coney Island to 179th, also via 63rd and QB express.
  • The (A)(C) take Concourse, running on CPW and 8th Avenue express; (C) local on Fulton with the (A) express.
  • The (B)(D) then take Washington Heights running via CPW local.
  • Get rid of the rush-hour (W) to Queens Blvd - keep 60th Street running to Astoria only.
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Deucey said:

Would it though? A full-time (D) express on Concourse and 8th Av, and a full-time (B) local seems like it'd make it simpler at 145th south since neither would need to wait for (C) to clear and wait for the switch to change.

I mean, look at how well that setup works on Fulton today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, bobtehpanda said:

I mean, look at how well that setup works on Fulton today.

If 8th Av went back to the original plan of Expresses being the only interborough service, and you have (C) end at WTC, and (H) originate at Court St, the only thing to figure out is what to do with (E) in Manhattan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/5/2018 at 5:42 PM, the7train said:

Hey guys, I'm a new member to this forum but I'm really avid about the current subway transit system of New York.

If you all had the chance to completely rebuild the system, how would it look like? What would be the certain areas of the city you'd want to serve more? What about areas right now that are overserved and need less service? Would you like the system to be based more off a London or Hong Kong system, with spread out but bigger stations? I'm curious to see what you guys think.

Among the things I would do:

1. I would build the 8th Avenue line as is, EXCEPT, I would have the portion where the local trains terminate in Manhattan continue past the Chambers-WTC terminal on Church Street to where it does a STRAIGHT connection with the current Broadway line that comes in on a sharp curve at Cortlandt Street.  Whitehall Street would be a four-track station with the "express" tracks actually being terminal tracks with full crossovers both north and south of Whitehall so trains could terminate on the "express" tracks in either direction.  Trains to and from Brooklyn would be on the "local" tracks there.

1a.  The local tracks on the Fulton Street end would continue past Court Street (current Transit Museum) via a new Schermerhorn Street tunnel to Hanover Square in Manhattan and then run via the Second Avenue Subway.

2. Build the (7) as a four-track line throughout, but to BMT standards.  The express trains would continue to Times Square as they do now (via a new tunnel to replace the Steinway Tunnel that also allows for a new stop at 42nd Street-1st Avenue with a transfer to the SAS at 42nd), but with the Times Square AND Hudson Yards stations both built to three tracks.  

3. Build the (L) to have connections to the 8th Avenue line as well as continue the line to Secaucus as the line would be a straight line.  ALL stations would be at least 600 feet and possibly 670 feet with the idea of using 10 67-foot cars on such a rebuilt line.  

4. Build the SAS as others have suggested as a four-track line with the what is already in place and supposed to be built,  Such would be a four-track line throughout with an additional lower level at 72nd Street that would divert to a line that would run to a rebuilt Rockaway Beach Branch that would include a stop at 79th Street-1st Avenue (three tracks there to allow for short-turn trains there), Broadway in Queens, 61st-Woodside and a couple of other stops before running via a reactivated Rockaway Beach Branch.

5. Rebuild the Broadway line to its original intent of City Hall Station on the upper level being a terminal and the lower level being the through line, with trains on the lower level joined by 8th Avenue local trains in Manhattan,  The Manhattan Bridge south tracks would be set up to go as they do now and also would be connected to the Nassau line as they were before.

6. The Nassau Line would also have connections to the SAS after Canal Street, continuing to Houston and Chrystie Street.

7. The Broadway-Brooklyn line would also have a connection to the SAS coming off the Williamsburg Bridge after Essex Street. 

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.