The Broadway Line Thread

[darkstar8983]

Welcome to the Broadway Line thread, where apparently a lot of talk about R211 subway car assignments has been diverging towards. so now here's a new thread for everyone to vent about the Broadway Line, configurations, proposed service patterns, ideas to optimize service in one of the most-interlined trunks in the entire system.

[ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ]

Thank you for making this thread.

I said this in the other thread but the main issue with the Broadway line is that there is far more demand for the local tracks coming from Queens rather than from Brooklyn, while there is for more demand for the expresses from Brooklyn than from the Upper East Side. This means any service configuration will have one of these 2 problems:

-A train crossing over from the express to local tracks (currently the  does this).

-An abundance of service up SAS and through Montague. SAS is actually decently busy sometimes, but Montague mostly carries air even in the peak hours from my experience.

Another challenge seems to be Broadway local trains generally have poor access to yard space

If we had the budget and fleet to run more trains than needed, the best plan for a de-interlined Broadway imo would be:

: Same except goes to 96th St, not Astoria

: Same

: Same, except to Astoria rather than QBLVD. Significantly increased headways.

: Whitehall St - Forest Hills, Broadway and QBLVD local. Runs all days.

[Calvin]

Since this is BROADWAY, back in 2010-2020, the  has a majority of R160s and a few R68/As. The  has R46s. In the start of 2020, things changed as the techs are passed on to the  and  gets the R46s from the said line. Difference is the performance of the R46s as they are used all times but not much trains used during midnights. Currently, it's a bit more for that because they are used on two, not only one. 

[U-BahnNYC]

1 hour ago, Calvin said:

Since this is BROADWAY, back in 2010-2020, the  has a majority of R160s and a few R68/As. The  has R46s. In the start of 2020, things changed as the techs are passed on to the  and  gets the R46s from the said line. Difference is the performance of the R46s as they are used all times but not much trains used during midnights. Currently, it's a bit more for that because they are used on two, not only one. 

The will be the destination of choice for all R46/R68 trains until the very last one is retired. So Broadway will have to make do with using older equipment - which is fine for Broadway in all honesty, it is nowhere near as busy as Queens Blvd or 8th Avenue at rush hour, partly because Broadway runs such a redundant route throughout Manhattan AND because it isn't really much of an 'express' if it only skips like 2 closely spaced stations at a time. 

[TDL]

In an ideal world, not to be Wallyhorse, but the 4th Avenue local/Montague should really connect to Nassau Street. If people at Court Street or Jay-Metrotech really need Broadway, they can transfer at WTC/Cortlandt complex. Here's my plan:

-Coney Is-96th St via. Sea Beach

-Coney Is-96th St via. Brighton

-Forest Hills-Whitehall Street

-Same as , but to Astoria. Internally, the would be an variant. With deinterlining, even though Astoria loses a service, the can have higher frequency. And for yard access, Whitehall Street can have the same terminal switching ops as Ditmars where a would return northbound as an  for yard access.

For Brooklyn: -Jamaica Center-Broad Street. Peak direction express between Broadway Junction and Marcy Ave, skip-stop with  rush hours.

-Bay Ridge-Broadway Junction, All local. Rush hours extended to Jamaica Center for skip-stop. 

-More trains short turn at 2nd Avenue or via the to World Trade Center.

 

[ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ]

53 minutes ago, TDL said:

In an ideal world, not to be Wallyhorse, but the 4th Avenue local/Montague should really connect to Nassau Street. If people at Court Street or Jay-Metrotech really need Broadway, they can transfer at WTC/Cortlandt complex. Here's my plan:

-Coney Is-96th St via. Sea Beach

-Coney Is-96th St via. Brighton

-Forest Hills-Whitehall Street

-Same as , but to Astoria. Internally, the would be an variant. With deinterlining, even though Astoria loses a service, the can have higher frequency. And for yard access, Whitehall Street can have the same terminal switching ops as Ditmars where a would return northbound as an  for yard access.

For Brooklyn: -Jamaica Center-Broad Street. Peak direction express between Broadway Junction and Marcy Ave, skip-stop with  rush hours.

-Bay Ridge-Broadway Junction, All local. Rush hours extended to Jamaica Center for skip-stop. 

-More trains short turn at 2nd Avenue or via the to World Trade Center.

 

This, but in an ideal world Nassau takes over 4th Avenue and a new tunnel is built connecting Bway to Hoyt so and/or can serve as Fulton local. This would also give Bway locals better yard access. Given provisions already exist on both ends of the River, really wish MTA would consider this more; you literally wouldn’t need to build a new station or anything and it’d solve several problems.

Even with MTA cost inflation could prolly be done for a billion

[Vulturious]

4 hours ago, TDL said:

In an ideal world, not to be Wallyhorse, but the 4th Avenue local/Montague should really connect to Nassau Street. If people at Court Street or Jay-Metrotech really need Broadway, they can transfer at WTC/Cortlandt complex. Here's my plan:

-Same as , but to Astoria. Internally, the would be an variant. With deinterlining, even though Astoria loses a service, the can have higher frequency. And for yard access, Whitehall Street can have the same terminal switching ops as Ditmars where a would return northbound as an  for yard access.

One of the issues with both the  and  terminating at Whitehall is that it is complicating to terminate at. While the station is three tracks, the track configuration mostly allows for the southbound track and middle track to be in use while the northbound tracks is mostly unused. Only way for trains to get to the northbound track is for them to already be on the middle track, continue down out of service onto the uptown track south of the station to relay back up onto the uptown track. 

[Calvin]

I wonder if 7th Av considers the part being Broadway? I noticed when the  ends at South Ferry for a g/o, the program has a display either Broadway Express or Local even though the main part is for the  different from the   .   

Edited April 24, 2023 by Calvin

[TDL]

22 hours ago, ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ said:

This, but in an ideal world Nassau takes over 4th Avenue and a new tunnel is built connecting Bway to Hoyt so and/or can serve as Fulton local. This would also give Bway locals better yard access. Given provisions already exist on both ends of the River, really wish MTA would consider this more; you literally wouldn’t need to build a new station or anything and it’d solve several problems.

Even with MTA cost inflation could prolly be done for a billion

Even cheaper option for that, do it 11th Street cut style and have a connection branch off after Court Street under Boerum Place and turning on Schermerhorn. But in the interests of no new construction, the previous proposal works if no construction is to be done

[TDL]

18 hours ago, Vulturious said:

One of the issues with both the  and  terminating at Whitehall is that it is complicating to terminate at. While the station is three tracks, the track configuration mostly allows for the southbound track and middle track to be in use while the northbound tracks is mostly unused. Only way for trains to get to the northbound track is for them to already be on the middle track, continue down out of service onto the uptown track south of the station to relay back up onto the uptown track. 

Or to terminate/fumigate on the southbound track, relay and then return onto the middle track (does the signaling allow for that movement)? If not, it could be relatively cheap to insall one section of reverse signaling.

[LGA Link N Train]

I'm calling the shots. Canal Street Flip. It will never happen but at least it'll balance out Demands.... sort of

[ABOGbrooklyn]

On 4/23/2023 at 10:23 PM, U-BahnNYC said:

it isn't really much of an 'express' if it only skips like 2 closely spaced stations at a time. 

Neither are any IND south of 59th street.. IRT has the best express in Central Manhattan then BMT Broadway.

[Lawrence St]

I say we cancel 8th Ave CBTC after the mess that CBTC has shown on QBL and give all the NTT’s back to Broadway. /s

[ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ]

10 hours ago, TDL said:

Even cheaper option for that, do it 11th Street cut style and have a connection branch off after Court Street under Boerum Place and turning on Schermerhorn. But in the interests of no new construction, the previous proposal works if no construction is to be done

I think branching Montague long term would be a bad idea, but yes that's def an option.

[ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ]

1 hour ago, Lawrence St said:

I say we cancel 8th Ave CBTC after the mess that CBTC has shown on QBL and give all the NTT’s back to Broadway. /s

IND in midtown always annoys me because they came up with excuses to make as many stations as possible express in midtown. I think in the outer boroughs though, they generally got it right with expresses skipping the vast majority of stops until you start getting further out, and then taking over as the main service (QBLVD is a good example of this). 

[T to Dyre Avenue]

12 hours ago, TDL said:

Even cheaper option for that, do it 11th Street cut style and have a connection branch off after Court Street under Boerum Place and turning on Schermerhorn. But in the interests of no new construction, the previous proposal works if no construction is to be done

 

2 hours ago, ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ said:

I think branching Montague long term would be a bad idea, but yes that's def an option.

Personally I like branching off from Montague because by having a third Fulton St service in the  or  would eliminate the need for the  and  to merge at Hoyt. This in turn could make it possible to have Utica Ave line branch off Fulton. Under the current  plan, it’s not possible to do this because that would leave only the  or  serving Fulton east of Utica. But with the  or  running local in place of the , it can be moved to the express tracks and branch off Fulton at Utica, leaving two services on Fulton east of there - the  and the  or .

[ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ]

19 minutes ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

 

Personally I like branching off from Montague because by having a third Fulton St service in the  or  would eliminate the need for the  and  to merge at Hoyt. This in turn could make it possible to have Utica Ave line branch off Fulton. Under the current  plan, it’s not possible to do this because that would leave only the  or  serving Fulton east of Utica. But with the  or  running local in place of the , it can be moved to the express tracks and branch off Fulton at Utica, leaving two services on Fulton east of there - the  and the  or .

I agree, but since 4th Av local still needs to be served by something, that means Montague could become a bottleneck if 4th Av local or Fulton St local ever gain higher demand. That’s why I’d just build a whole new tunnel off the the existing provisions south of Whitehall St. Think of the current 60th St tunnel for instance; the branch built later to connect to Queens Blvd has made the tunnel a huge bottleneck today, and in the end they still had to construct 63rd St tunnel to allow QBLVD to run at full capacity into the city; I wouldn’t want a repeat with Montague.

Utica Av Subway off of Fulton St would be interesting. Would they use the shell above the existing station, and how would the line curve to merge with Fulton? Would a separate Utica Av station need to be constructed, creating a simillar complex to Canal on the ? I worry about somehow creating a 149th st style junction with a sharp turn, or the Utica Avenue Subway not actually stopping at Utica Av on the Fulton St line.

At the very least,  could become dedicated lefferts while all  go to Rockaway. In this scenario, the  would run on weekends instead of the .

 

 

[T to Dyre Avenue]

13 hours ago, ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ said:

I agree, but since 4th Av local still needs to be served by something, that means Montague could become a bottleneck if 4th Av local or Fulton St local ever gain higher demand. That’s why I’d just build a whole new tunnel off the the existing provisions south of Whitehall St. Think of the current 60th St tunnel for instance; the branch built later to connect to Queens Blvd has made the tunnel a huge bottleneck today, and in the end they still had to construct 63rd St tunnel to allow QBLVD to run at full capacity into the city; I wouldn’t want a repeat with Montague.

Utica Av Subway off of Fulton St would be interesting. Would they use the shell above the existing station, and how would the line curve to merge with Fulton? Would a separate Utica Av station need to be constructed, creating a simillar complex to Canal on the ? I worry about somehow creating a 149th st style junction with a sharp turn, or the Utica Avenue Subway not actually stopping at Utica Av on the Fulton St line.

At the very least,  could become dedicated lefferts while all  go to Rockaway. In this scenario, the  would run on weekends instead of the .

 

 

The 63rd Street tunnel was not constructed to relieve congestion in the 60th St Tunnel. It was constructed to relieve overcrowding on the  and  lines, both of which were using the 53rd St Tunnel prior to 2002, by providing a super-express service through Queens on dedicated tracks located in the LIRR Main Line r-o-w, which largely runs parallel to the QB line. They started construction on the tunnel prior to the 1975 fiscal crisis, which put the kibosh on all but two of the MTA's Plan For Action projects (the 63rd St Tunnel and the Archer Ave extension). In the 1980s, the MTA made the decision to connect 63rd to the QBL, rather than leave a "Subway to Nowhere" dead-ending in Queensbridge.

The  could still serve 4th Ave, while the  is diverted into the new connection. I'm not so sure Montague would become a bottleneck if this were to be done. I presume the , which would become a full-time service in this scenario, would run more frequently than the 6-7 tph currently provided by the , so there's your extra service if Fulton Local ever gains higher demand. Without the  cutting onto the local tracks at 34th, the  and  can run more frequently, so there would be a more frequent  for increased 4th Ave local service too.

I'm not sure if using the existing upper-level station shell at Utica is feasible because that may require a sharp curve for northbound  trains to join the Fulton Line. I'm no civil engineer, but you don't want to have tight curves because you want to avoid derailments in the tunnel. It's probably more likely they'd have to go under the existing subway to branch off to Utica.

[ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ]

6 hours ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

The 63rd Street tunnel was not constructed to relieve congestion in the 60th St Tunnel. It was constructed to relieve overcrowding on the  and  lines, both of which were using the 53rd St Tunnel prior to 2002, by providing a super-express service through Queens on dedicated tracks located in the LIRR Main Line r-o-w, which largely runs parallel to the QB line. They started construction on the tunnel prior to the 1975 fiscal crisis, which put the kibosh on all but two of the MTA's Plan For Action projects (the 63rd St Tunnel and the Archer Ave extension). In the 1980s, the MTA made the decision to connect 63rd to the QBL, rather than leave a "Subway to Nowhere" dead-ending in Queensbridge.

The  could still serve 4th Ave, while the  is diverted into the new connection. I'm not so sure Montague would become a bottleneck if this were to be done. I presume the , which would become a full-time service in this scenario, would run more frequently than the 6-7 tph currently provided by the , so there's your extra service if Fulton Local ever gains higher demand. Without the  cutting onto the local tracks at 34th, the  and  can run more frequently, so there would be a more frequent  for increased 4th Ave local service too.

I'm not sure if using the existing upper-level station shell at Utica is feasible because that may require a sharp curve for northbound  trains to join the Fulton Line. I'm no civil engineer, but you don't want to have tight curves because you want to avoid derailments in the tunnel. It's probably more likely they'd have to go under the existing subway to branch off to Utica.

Ye that is fair; 63rd wasn't originally meant to connect to QBLVD but was meant to increase capacity along that general corridor. Ig my point is the 60th St connection was a band-aid on a larger problem that I think 63rd finally settled once and for all whether intentional or not. Had the 63rd St tunnel been built in it's current form originally, the 60th St connection would've never needed to be built.

I think your point is fair though; neither 4th Av or Fulton Av local are high demand lines; 10tph for each would be more than sufficient and an increase from current service, and Montague could prolly handle 30tph under ideal circumstances (though B-way local can only handle about 22tph max cause of the City Hall S-curve, the remaining trains would have to come from Nassau). I was more worried for far far in the future (50+ years) if one of those becomes significantly higher demand but service is constrained by Montague. The thing is you don't know what things will be like, and you want to plan for the future, but also can't overbuild to make everything as robust as possible. IND overbuilt a lot and much of that infrastructure still isn't utilized today, but there were still a few places where they actually underbuilt because they just couldn't predict the ridership patterns of today, specifically just how used QBLVD would become.

Utica Av likely wouldn't be able to use the shell for the reasons you state. I think the best thing to do would be to do a Canal-St like set up on the  where the trains turn South onto Utica Avenue before actually arriving at the platform, which would be connected to the current Utica Av but quite an annoying transfer. What's also annoying is the next express stop at Nostrand Av is bi-level, so you wouldn't actually get a cross-platform transfer to all services until Hoyt-Schermerhorn. Not the biggest issue, but still annoying.

[T to Dyre Avenue]

20 hours ago, ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ said:

Ye that is fair; 63rd wasn't originally meant to connect to QBLVD but was meant to increase capacity along that general corridor. Ig my point is the 60th St connection was a band-aid on a larger problem that I think 63rd finally settled once and for all whether intentional or not. Had the 63rd St tunnel been built in it's current form originally, the 60th St connection would've never needed to be built.

I think your point is fair though; neither 4th Av or Fulton Av local are high demand lines; 10tph for each would be more than sufficient and an increase from current service, and Montague could prolly handle 30tph under ideal circumstances (though B-way local can only handle about 22tph max cause of the City Hall S-curve, the remaining trains would have to come from Nassau). I was more worried for far far in the future (50+ years) if one of those becomes significantly higher demand but service is constrained by Montague. The thing is you don't know what things will be like, and you want to plan for the future, but also can't overbuild to make everything as robust as possible. IND overbuilt a lot and much of that infrastructure still isn't utilized today, but there were still a few places where they actually underbuilt because they just couldn't predict the ridership patterns of today, specifically just how used QBLVD would become.

Utica Av likely wouldn't be able to use the shell for the reasons you state. I think the best thing to do would be to do a Canal-St like set up on the  where the trains turn South onto Utica Avenue before actually arriving at the platform, which would be connected to the current Utica Av but quite an annoying transfer. What's also annoying is the next express stop at Nostrand Av is bi-level, so you wouldn't actually get a cross-platform transfer to all services until Hoyt-Schermerhorn. Not the biggest issue, but still annoying.

Well, not exactly. Serious planning for the new tunnel started in 1963. (first at 61st, then 64th and finally 63rd - after objections from Rockefeller University over 64th). This would have been well after the Queens Blvd line was connected into the 60th St Tunnel in 1955. Supposedly, it was the 60th St connection that was meant to relieve the  and  (the NYCTA had also been experimenting with 11-car trains on both lines back then, which wasn’t hard to do with all single units). So I think they had planned for a 60th St connection all along and were finally able to do it in the 50s after they had simplified the service patterns into and out of nearby Queensboro Plaza in 1949. That was when the current pattern of through subway service between Astoria and the 60th St Tunnel. So there was excess capacity for another service in 60th.

I was thinking the same thing about having a separate connecting platform on Utica for the  while the  and  would stop on the existing Fulton St platform. This would also facilitate turning trains back if they were to run the as a shuttle during overnight hours.

Edited April 28, 2023 by T to Dyre Avenue

[ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ]

1 hour ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

Well, not exactly. Serious planning for the new tunnel started in 1963. (first at 61st, then 64th and finally 63rd - after objections from Rockefeller University over 64th). This would have been well after the Queens Blvd line was connected into the 60th St Tunnel in 1955. Supposedly, it was the 60th St connection that was meant to relieve the  and  (the NYCTA had also been experimenting with 11-car trains on both lines back then, which wasn’t hard to do with all single units). So I think they had planned for a 60th St connection all along and were finally able to do it in the 50s after they had simplified the service patterns into and out of nearby Queensboro Plaza in 1949. That was when the current pattern of through subway service between Astoria and the 60th St Tunnel. So there was excess capacity for another service in 60th.

I was thinking the same thing about having a separate connecting platform on Utica for the  while the  and  would stop on the existing Fulton St platform. This would also facilitate turning trains back if they were to run the as a shuttle during overnight hours.

I'm not disagreeing the purpose of the 60th St connection was to relieve overcrowding on Queens Blvd Express or that 63rd was originally built to be part of a larger plan (which still would've indirectly alleviated QBLVD), all I'm saying is that if the 63rd St tunnel had just been built in it's current config first, that 60th St connection would've never needed to be built (though ig extra connections are always nice to have).

Fulton St is in a simillar situation to QBLVD in that it only had one tunnel into the city and hence has to run at half capacity. A split Montague would be like the 60th St tunnel connection; increasing capacity but not to the maximum possible (it would be sufficient for now). Perhaps it'd be ok in this case since both 4th Av and Fulton St local run way under capacity, but if for whatever reason development booms along either line, you might end up needing to build the full East River Tunnel anyways.

I think it'd be worth it for the MTA to investigate both options. This relatively small link could solve quite a lot of issues at once, and there's already provisions on both sides of the river for the connection to be made and it wouldn't be hard to branch off Montague on the Brooklyn side either, even if there's not a clear provision.

[TDL]

44 minutes ago, ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ said:

I'm not disagreeing the purpose of the 60th St connection was to relieve overcrowding on Queens Blvd Express or that 63rd was originally built to be part of a larger plan (which still would've indirectly alleviated QBLVD), all I'm saying is that if the 63rd St tunnel had just been built in it's current config first, that 60th St connection would've never needed to be built (though ig extra connections are always nice to have).

Fulton St is in a simillar situation to QBLVD in that it only had one tunnel into the city and hence has to run at half capacity. A split Montague would be like the 60th St tunnel connection; increasing capacity but not to the maximum possible (it would be sufficient for now). Perhaps it'd be ok in this case since both 4th Av and Fulton St local run way under capacity, but if for whatever reason development booms along either line, you might end up needing to build the full East River Tunnel anyways.

I think it'd be worth it for the MTA to investigate both options. This relatively small link could solve quite a lot of issues at once, and there's already provisions on both sides of the river for the connection to be made and it wouldn't be hard to branch off Montague on the Brooklyn side either, even if there's not a clear provision.

I wouldn’t have a Fulton Line branch to Utica under this proposal, as you Already have three branches of service in Fulton-Far Rockaway, Lefferts, and local. With the addition of one more service, now you have three service, one for each branch. None would have to split. You’d inherit the same problem if one service went to Utica. 
 

Perhaps the Utica line could use the existing shell and terminate there or at Myrtle Ave . 

[ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ]

1 hour ago, TDL said:

I wouldn’t have a Fulton Line branch to Utica under this proposal, as you Already have three branches of service in Fulton-Far Rockaway, Lefferts, and local. With the addition of one more service, now you have three service, one for each branch. None would have to split. You’d inherit the same problem if one service went to Utica. 
 

Perhaps the Utica line could use the existing shell and terminate there or at Myrtle Ave . 

Ye, I tend to agree Utica Av subway should either be a branch of IRT Eastern Parkway if the MTA wants to do cheap, or just a whole new B-division line that could have provisions to continue into Williamsburg and then Manhattan. Trying to connect to Fulton St or Broadway (Brooklyn) for revenue service might create too many problems, though there would obv need to be some sort of connection to the rest of the system for transporting trains and stuff.

[CenSin]

Doesn’t look like a Broadway line thread no more now, eh?