In-Fill stations and stations that would be closed if there were budgetary concerns

[MysteriousBtrain]

I personally would like to see the run back on QB. I hate to see the R as the lone train on QB local during the weekends as well as G riders missing the Queens Plaza connection.

 

For those who are aware of the Continental terminal, is there a feasible way of increasing terminal capacity?

 

if this hasn't been said, I think the 219th st and 225th st stations on the are too close together. Why not one station on east 222nd st?

It's not just the Continental terminal, the problem is how to have the extend to Queens at all times when there is not really space on QB. I think tampering with frequencies might work, but would also cause problems.

For the stations, many IRT line stations are within walking distance. For instance, the and between Intervale Avenue and Simpson Street, the between 3 Avenue and Brook Avenue, the between 167 Street and 170 Street, and so on.

Also remember many stations are made to connect to a bus route running on the same or nearby street.

[Brooklyn]

It's not just the Continental terminal, the problem is how to have the extend to Queens at all times when there is not really space on QB. I think tampering with frequencies might work, but would also cause problems.

For the stations, many IRT line stations are within walking distance. For instance, the and between Intervale Avenue and Simpson Street, the between 3 Avenue and Brook Avenue, the between 167 Street and 170 Street, and so on.

Also remember many stations are made to connect to a bus route running on the same or nearby street.

I hear you, but again, as a minimum, I think the G should be extended during the weekends--hate to see the R as the lone train.

 

During other times, it might cause "problems" but I seriously don't think it would be major. We are talking about 6 maybe 7 TPH max.  During rush hours, there might be a slight crunch, but I can't imagine anything major. Off peak, I don't think there would be enough TPH to cause problems.

 

But this is what I what i would like to know: is the terminal limited because of something STRUCTURAL or otherwise?

 

What if crews were put on simply with the responsibility of turning trains at the terminal?Would this solve the terminal issue or not?

[MysteriousBtrain]

I hear you, but again, as a minimum, I think the G should be extended during the weekends--hate to see the R as the lone train.

 

During other times, it might cause "problems" but I seriously don't think it would be major. We are talking about 6 maybe 7 TPH max.  During rush hours, there might be a slight crunch, but I can't imagine anything major. Off peak, I don't think there would be enough TPH to cause problems.

 

But this is what I what i would like to know: is the terminal limited because of something STRUCTURAL or otherwise?

 

What if crews were put on simply with the responsibility of turning trains at the terminal?Would this solve the terminal issue or not?

The terminal can fit two lines anytime and nothing more, but also something I forgot to mention is that weekend GOs on QB caused the to be cut back to Court Sq full time. It actually was cut back in April at all times before being an official budget cut in June. There isn't as much GOs on QB, but this it the reason night and weekend service got cut.

[Wallyhorse]

The terminal can fit two lines anytime and nothing more, but also something I forgot to mention is that weekend GOs on QB caused the to be cut back to Court Sq full time. It actually was cut back in April at all times before being an official budget cut in June. There isn't as much GOs on QB, but this it the reason night and weekend service got cut.

Yes, but having all three (the and ) all go to 179 would eliminate that problem since:

 

1. 179 was designed to terminate trains that way.

 

2. If necessary, any of the locals after Parsons can when needed go express and skip just one stop at 169 (and anyone skipped can get one of three locals going back).

 

While it is true Jamaica riders are generally coming from the outer boroughs and want to get there quicker, those looking for Brooklyn or the Broadway Line and not caring about whether its the express or local and would rather deal with a more comfortable ride would take such.  Not everyone is in the big rush and with ridership WAY ABOVE where it was 22 years ago when the to 179 was discontinued, doing this now may prove to be worthwhile.

[bobtehpanda]

I hear you, but again, as a minimum, I think the G should be extended during the weekends--hate to see the R as the lone train.

 

During other times, it might cause "problems" but I seriously don't think it would be major. We are talking about 6 maybe 7 TPH max.  During rush hours, there might be a slight crunch, but I can't imagine anything major. Off peak, I don't think there would be enough TPH to cause problems.

 

But this is what I what i would like to know: is the terminal limited because of something STRUCTURAL or otherwise?

 

What if crews were put on simply with the responsibility of turning trains at the terminal?Would this solve the terminal issue or not?

 

The terminal is limited because current policy is to walk the length of the train and clear all passengers off of it, since it could both be a liability risk for the MTA and a security risk for T/Os and conductors to have someone unexpectedly still on the train.

 

Adding any service on weekends is not going to happen for the same reason the was cut back completely; there are too many Queens Blvd GOs to run any additional service that could be operated reliably. That's not going to change for at least the next five to ten years, since Queens Blvd is slated to have the CBTC signalling that the and got, and those were shut down fairly often.

[Javier]

If it were up to me, I would demolish 34 Street Penn Station and renew it to 2 platforms with express service on the IRT line becuase the cant handle loads of people from Times Square and 34 Street.

[Brooklyn]

The terminal is limited because current policy is to walk the length of the train and clear all passengers off of it, since it could both be a liability risk for the MTA and a security risk for T/Os and conductors to have someone unexpectedly still on the train.

 

Adding any service on weekends is not going to happen for the same reason the was cut back completely; there are too many Queens Blvd GOs to run any additional service that could be operated reliably. That's not going to change for at least the next five to ten years, since Queens Blvd is slated to have the CBTC signalling that the and got, and those were shut down fairly often.

 

That's why I suggested an additional two workers on the platform that can check the trains and help turn them around.

 

I see this being done at Church Av for the G train.

[Lance]

If it were up to me, I would demolish 34 Street Penn Station and renew it to 2 platforms with express service on the IRT line becuase the   cant handle loads of people from Times Square and 34 Street.

 

I'm not sure what you mean. Do you want to turn 34 St into the typical express island platform station? If so, it's not necessary. That station wasn't designed to be a transfer point between local and express trains. Times Square, one stop north, is close enough.

 

Regarding the idea of having the G return to Queens Blvd during the off-hours, I'm afraid we probably won't see that any time soon. With the Queens Blvd signal modernization underway, we're not likely to see much in the way of service increases there, especially on weekends. When that project wraps up, along with CBTC installation, then I can see the MTA adding more service to Queens Blvd. However, I don't see it being the G. In fact, I can see them adding expanded M train service so there is Manhattan service from both local lines.

 

On the subject of Jamaica-179 St and the idea of extending the local lines from Continental Av, the point has still been missed. While ridership demographics may have changed since the early '90s, I'm almost positive it hasn't changed enough to warrant four lines running to 179 St. 179 St is an optimal terminal for several lines and can easily turn multiple lines concurrently, but it is also a perfect example of typical IND overbuilds, even post-IND. 179 St would be an ideal terminal for the Queens Blvd locals if the line itself was extended past 179 St and the express lines ran further out into Eastern Queens. Since that hasn't happened, the only thing gained by having the locals run to Jamaica is having direct Hillside-QB Local service, and really, how many people would utilize that service?

[CenSin]

If it were up to me, I would demolish 34 Street Penn Station and renew it to 2 platforms with express service on the IRT line becuase the cant handle loads of people from Times Square and 34 Street.

You might want to explore why it's designed this way in the first place before you propose such a change. The 34 Street station as it is now handles crowd much better, because people aren't running across the platform to switch trains while contending with crowd from the railroad station.

[MysteriousBtrain]

If it were up to me, I would demolish 34 Street Penn Station and renew it to 2 platforms with express service on the IRT line becuase the cant handle loads of people from Times Square and 34 Street.

What does 34 Street on the and Atlantic Avenue on the have in common? They are connecting to a major railroad terminal. They had it in this style because it is VERY EASY for those stations to get busy with the other railroads, so they have a separate platform for both the local and express.

[justhafacts]

What does 34 Street on the and Atlantic Avenue on the have in common? They are connecting to a major railroad terminal. They had it in this style because it is VERY EASY for those stations to get busy with the other railroads, so they have a separate platform for both the local and express.

Also the next station [northbound] is also a cross platform express station.

Make 51st Street [Lexington] an express station, make Grand Central like Penn and Atlantic.

[MysteriousBtrain]

Also the next station [northbound] is also a cross platform express station.

Make 51st Street [Lexington] an express station, make Grand Central like Penn and Atlantic.

Forgot about the nearby express stations. But I don't really think you need 3 express stations in a row. 6th Avenue is already disappointing with express service.

[bobtehpanda]

Also the next station [northbound] is also a cross platform express station.

Make 51st Street [Lexington] an express station, make Grand Central like Penn and Atlantic.

 

Lex is actually set up in a similar way to reduce crowding. Those who want Queens Blvd are forced to take a local train. Those who want Astoria and Flushing have to take an express. If we had both of those groups taking the express, the Lex would be even more of a s***show than it is today.

[CenSin]

Lex is actually set up in a similar way to reduce crowding. Those who want Queens Blvd are forced to take a local train. Those who want Astoria and Flushing have to take an express. If we had both of those groups taking the express, the Lex would be even more of a s***show than it is today.

Well, we don't actually know this to be a deliberate design. The goes to Queens as well. And I believe the Lexington Avenue line was built well before the 53 Street corridor. Circumstances made it the way it is, and I believe that's also why the transfer passage is so horribly long.

[bobtehpanda]

Well, we don't actually know this to be a deliberate design. The goes to Queens as well. And I believe the Lexington Avenue line was built well before the 53 Street corridor. Circumstances made it the way it is, and I believe that's also why the transfer passage is so horribly long.

 

But that's the effect it has now. It's very similar to what occurs at Jackson Heights; Main St riders looking for Manhattan get separated from people wishing to head to Queens Blvd. Was it intentional on the IRT's part? Probably not. But it works.

 

The Lexington Avenue Line actually didn't have an express connection at 59th St on opening - that was added in much later, so at least that was intentional.

[CenSin]

The Lexington Avenue Line actually didn't have an express connection at 59th St on opening - that was added in much later, so at least that was intentional.

That much, I know. The BMT and IRT actually cooperated on a few projects. The IND, however, seemed to have disregarded many existing lines as evidenced by:

• 4 Avenue–9 Street A transfer station where only the locals can transfer to the locals
• 53 Street The line was built in a way that it missed all of the stations along perpendicular lines. Transfers that were built became long passageways, such as at Lexington Avenue/53 Street.
• 63 Street The line was originally proposed to be built across 76 Street instead, which would have given it a convenient connection to the at 77 Street. Today, it is relatively isolated from other lines crossing it, having a very deep station at Lexington Avenue that sits (more or less) equidistant from both stations along the Lexington Avenue line running above it.
• Fulton Street and Crosstown Both provide stations around the Atlantic Avenue station complex, but neither have stations close enough to it nor any physical passageways connecting to it.
• Crosstown There is no connection to the Jamaica line running above it, but of course, we know that the IND planned to replace it with a parallel line anyway with a transfer to it at Broadway.

It would appear that the IND intended to replace much of the existing infrastructure with its own (even if plans has not yet been drafted), and hence, the disregard for competing stations and lines.

[Kamen Rider]

The IND was Mayor Hylan's vendetta againts the privately operated transit companies given form. Why on God's green Earth, in all logic, would a man who hated the BRT/BMT with a passion and didn't give a crap what happened to the IRT, encourage his passengers on his baby, his dream, to transfer to the other systems?

 

What are you expecting next? Bill Gates to endorse the iPad?

 

While the subway operates in a mindset of the public good, this is a relatively recentl development. The subway was built as a for profit service. It was designed to discourage people changing lines. Why else did they have to spend eight years before they could start allowing inter divisional transfers after the city took over the private lines? To clean up the mess.

[CenSin]

What are you expecting next? Bill Gates to endorse the iPad?

It wouldn't be an endorsement to provide some level of support. His company, Microsoft, provides a pretty darn good Office app on iPad, and even before Windows tablets got their own touch-friendly version of Office. It's also on Android now. And recently, Microsoft announced that its development software would support Linux (Microsoft's former nemesis) and Android development (one of Microsoft's current nemeses in the smartphone market). Microsoft certainly doesn't endorse the use of platforms other than its own, but it doesn't completely disregard competing platforms. In fact, everything Microsoft has done recently are smart moves as Microsoft doesn't have what it takes to control the whole stack anymore; it remains relevant by doing what it does best and I don't see any better Office apps on mobile devices.

[bobtehpanda]

That much, I know. The BMT and IRT actually cooperated on a few projects. The IND, however, seemed to have disregarded many existing lines as evidenced by:

• 4 Avenue–9 Street A transfer station where only the locals can transfer to the locals
• 53 Street The line was built in a way that it missed all of the stations along perpendicular lines. Transfers that were built became long passageways, such as at Lexington Avenue/53 Street.
• 63 Street The line was originally proposed to be built across 76 Street instead, which would have given it a convenient connection to the at 77 Street. Today, it is relatively isolated from other lines crossing it, having a very deep station at Lexington Avenue that sits (more or less) equidistant from both stations along the Lexington Avenue line running above it.
• Fulton Street and Crosstown Both provide stations around the Atlantic Avenue station complex, but neither have stations close enough to it nor any physical passageways connecting to it.
• Crosstown There is no connection to the Jamaica line running above it, but of course, we know that the IND planned to replace it with a parallel line anyway with a transfer to it at Broadway.

It would appear that the IND intended to replace much of the existing infrastructure with its own (even if plans has not yet been drafted), and hence, the disregard for competing stations and lines.

 

It wasn't a product of BMT/IRT cooperation; 59th was converted in 1962, very well into the times of City management, and just a few years before the creation of the MTA.

 

As for the Crosstown line, part of the MTA's plans in the '60s was to destroy the Hewes and Lorimer stations on the Jamaica Line and replace them with a Union St station that would connect to the Broadway Line.

 

I don't know if I disagree with a connection at 53rd, since it basically only misses one trunk line (Broadway) which goes crosstown anyways, and it intersects the 8th Av and 6th Av lines at 42nd and 34th.

 

That might've made 63rd harder due to the later intention to put it on the LIRR line, which would've been much easier with a 63rd St than a 77th St line. The main issue with 63rd is not that it doesn't connect to the (since it will also connect to SAS in the future), but that it doesn't connect to Queensboro Plaza or Queens Plaza.

[Q43LTD]

Wouldn't Columbus Circle count more or less?

[bobtehpanda]

Wouldn't Columbus Circle count more or less?

 

Columbus Circle was actually planned to be converted to express as well, but the project was scrapped due to the cost and the very negative impact it would have on the 7th Av Express, which is crowded enough as it is. In the case of the Lex-59th conversion it made a lot more sense because even without the conversion it was the busiest station on the line, so local service only clearly was not enough.

[CenSin]

It wasn't a product of BMT/IRT cooperation; 59th was converted in 1962, very well into the times of City management, and just a few years before the creation of the MTA.

The IRT had the line built in such a way that it allowed for the BMT to pass through (between the local and express tunnels) and with the explicit knowledge that the BMT would do so soon. It left provisions for an express station at a later date. That's cooperation.

 

 

As for the Crosstown line, part of the MTA's plans in the '60s was to destroy the Hewes and Lorimer stations on the Jamaica Line and replace them with a Union St station that would connect to the Broadway Line.

• but of course, we know that the IND planned to replace it with a parallel line anyway with a transfer to it at Broadway.

I don't know if I disagree with a connection at 53rd, since it basically only misses one trunk line (Broadway) which goes crosstown anyways

It also misses the Lexington Avenue line. I didn't think 51 Street and 53 Street were too far apart until I actually tried to use the transfer. It was quite a walk. If connected to the Broadway line at 7 Avenue, the transfer would be the same length.

 

 

and it intersects the 8th Av and 6th Av lines at 42nd and 34th.

The part involving 8 Avenue and 6 Avenue is moot since those are the IND's own lines anyway. The 53 Street corridor winds up at 8 Avenue/50 Street anyway, with a transfer to 6 Avenue routes at 7 Avenue.

 

How the 2 Avenue line would have tied in to this arrangement is anyone's guess, however, being inconveniently distant from any perpendicular station (even those belonging to the IND).

 

 

That might've made 63rd harder due to the later intention to put it on the LIRR line, which would've been much easier with a 63rd St than a 77th St line.

A June, 1950, report to the Board of Transportation recommended that two of the six tracks of the Second Avenue line be turned eastward to Queens so that 34 additional trains an hour could serve the borough. These tracks were to split off from the trunk line, proceed under the East River from 76th Street, Manhattan, to 34th Avenue in Queens, and along 34th Avenue to Northern Boulevard, and then to Long Island Rail Road tracks on to Rockaway over a Jamaica Bay trestle which had been hit by a fire a short time before. This particular plan was estimated to cost $118,300,000, of which $63.3 million would be derived by deferring construction of other portions of the trunk line. Further, the Second Avenue would become a four-track system north of the Queens connection at 76th Street, and other rapid transit programs would be delayed to help provide the money.

If "harder" means tunnelling a longer distance, then the current incarnation of the tunnel is indeed the easier of the two options requiring less tunnelling under Central Park, and a shorter distance to the LIRR after hitting Queens.

 

 

The main issue with 63rd is not that it doesn't connect to the (since it will also connect to SAS in the future)

Not connecting to the is an issue. The 2 Avenue line, being as far from the Lexington Avenue line as the 6 Avenue line is from the 8 Avenue line would be a line serving a purpose more than just shadowing the Lexington Avenue line. The 2 Avenue and Lexington Avenue lines are close enough to supplement each other in between, but with 2 Avenue being double the distance from 5 Avenue (which borders Central Park to the east), I can imagine some use cases (like travelling west of Lexington Avenue) where not having access to the Lexington Avenue line becomes burdensome.

 

Draw an imaginary fixed-radius circle around each station. The MTA seems to consider 1500 feet walkable distance for alternative stations. You'll see where the deficiencies are.

 

 

it doesn't connect to Queensboro Plaza or Queens Plaza.

That's what 34 Street ( ), 42 Street ( ), and 47‒50 Streets ( ) are for.

[Javier]

I would close 225 Street - Marble Hill.

[Q43LTD]

Why? That's an important station

[CenSin]

I would close 225 Street - Marble Hill.

Any explanation why?