Department of Subways - Proposals/Ideas

[FamousNYLover]

My replied on red.

This is a revised proposal that is based on all the informative feedback that the members of this forum provided in reply to: A proposed subway network for New York City

 

L, J and Z in this updated proposal would operate as they do now without any alteration.

 

 

Proposal for A/E/F/M (and H):

 

F and M in this updated proposal would run only slightly different to their current routes. F would simply serve 5 additional stops on the Queens Blvd Line, and M would use the 63 St tunnels instead of the 53 St tunnels.

These is bad idea. F needs to stay full Queens Blvd Express.

 

 

C would no longer operate on Fulton Street (proposal for C included further down).

 

C trains are needed on Fulton Av line.

 

H would operate every 10 minutes at rush hour (while A would no longer run any trips to Rockaway Park).

Another bad idea. H are meant for Rockaway Park Shuttle at all times between Broad Channel and Rockaway Park while A rush hours are still needed at Rockaway Park, because you're being fair to other Rockaways community.

 

R would no longer operate on Queens Blvd.

Elimating R trains on Queens Blvd will not work out. F/M cannot relief the crowds. R is needed on Queens Blvd because most people on R going to Broadway or Lower Manhattan.

 

J and Z would operate as they do now.

 

Included below are more details and analysis to explain my reasoning for the proposed switching operations at Jackson Heights. Currently the express tracks on the Queens Blvd Line operate at capacity (30 tph), while local tracks are underutilized (only 17 tph). This proposal runs 24 tph on both local and express tracks. This is accomplished by combining express and local services to redistribute the demand more evenly on both local and express corridors.

 

The following infographic shows how I predict the demand on the Queens Blvd Line would be altered with this proposal. Considered here are all trips that use the Queens Blvd corridor to travel to Queens Plaza (or 21 St) and beyond. I predict E trains would be about 20% less crowded, while F and M trains would be more crowded (11% and 29%). A trains would be the least crowded, having about half its passengers seated.

 

 

While some trip times would be longer, others would be shorter. The net average for all trips would be about the same. However, with 20% less trains per hour on the express line, there would likely be fewer occurrences of delays, which in turn would lead to improved schedule adherence.

 

 

All four lines on the Queens Blvd Line would be operate every 5 minutes. A and E would operate at a headway of 2½ minutes, and so would F and M. Interlocking at Jackson Heights would pass a train every 75 seconds. Since it takes about 60 seconds for a train to clear the interlocking, this operation would be feasible.

 

 

East of Broadway Junction station, E trains would terminate on the center tracks, while A trains would switch to (or from) the outer local tracks. Both lines would operate every 5 minutes at rush hour.  A trains would be given the right-of-way, so that only E trains would experience interlocking delays.

Broadway Junction is not terminal station. It is bad idea. A needs to stay express because it is needed from Ozone Park residents and Rockaways resident for faster trip.

 

 

Proposal for  G:

 

This proposal allows for G trains to terminate at Queens Plaza instead of Court Square, so that the G would operate between Queens Plaza and Church Avenue at all times. While interlocking operations would be required at Queens Plaza, A and E trains would be given the right-of-way, so that only G trains would experience interlocking delays. The proposed G service would operate every 5 minutes at rush hour.

It might be great idea, but your prosal. Charging the color from light green to purple will confuse riders.

Queens Plaza isn't build for terminal. Every time when vintage train runs and it goes to layover tracks, properly causing delays on and train, so need to stay at Court Sq.

 

 

 

(I'm sorry if my choice of using purple for  upsets anyone )

 

 

Proposal for B/C:

 

Both lines would operate on dedicated corridors. No interlocking operations would be required on route for either B or C, which would lead to fewer delays and improved schedule adherence.

 

 

A would no longer terminate at Inwood (see above for proposed A service).

D would no longer operate on the Concourse Line or on the 6th Avenue Line (see below for proposed D service).

E would operate express instead of local on the 8th Avenue Line, and would no longer terminate at the World Trade Center (see above for proposed E service).

Q would no longer operate on the Brighton Line.

You cannot elimate A in Inwood because A is heavily use in Harlem and Inwood.

D line is heavily used on Grand Concourse corridor at Fordham, 205th, Bedford Park Blvd, and you need to keep D as it is and same goes for B..

 

 

 

Proposal for D/N:

 

The proposed N service would offer 50% more trips at rush hour than offered by R currently between Canal St and Brooklyn 59 St. However south of 59 St, the proposed N service would provide 25% less trips than currently offered by R .

 

D would use the Broadway Line instead of the 6th Avenue Line (thus making it a yellow line). The proposed  D service would offer 50% more trips at rush hour than currently. Yellow D could eventually be extended to serve the Second Avenue Line.

 

Both D and N would operate every 4 minutes at rush hour, and both lines would operate on its own dedicated corridor. No interlocking operations would be required on either route, with the exception of the branch service to Bay Ridge that would merge with the N service to Coney Island at 59th Street (both N  branches would operate every 8 minutes at rush hour).

 

 

N would use the Montague tunnels instead of the Manhattan Bridge at all times.

Q would no longer operate on the Astoria Line or the Broadway Line.

R would continue to operate as a late night shuttle service only between Bay Ridge and 36 St.

Two much trains in Lower Manhattan. Even thought is slow in Lower Manhattan, sending another trains will cause much more delays on both lines.

D need to stay on 6th Av because of majority of Brooklyinite needs 6th Av and Harlem service.

Q is still needed in Astoria, Queens currently..

 

 

That's it for now. I look forward to feedback.

 

I don't agree with these proposals.

 

A simpler solution would just be to have the and/or skip Roosevelt Ave. The overcrowding problem happens from Roosevelt Ave on west, from riders who refuse to stay upstairs on the or utilize the which serves the same Lexington & Fifth ave stations the does and the same 6th ave stations the does. The also provides a more direct transfer to the Lex lines than the . The Roosevelt Ave mobs won't listen so you have to force them onto the emptier trains.

There's no way to skip Jackson Heights-Roosevelt Av. Over crowding also happens at Kew Garden and Forest Hills as well.

When there is no express, faster way to check on horse carriage driver will be or when I'm heading to 42nd St Library or Science Busienss Library.

also has overcrowded issue since elimination of train, most trains are overcrowded between Jackson Heights-Roosevelt Av and 34th St.

 

 

[PinePower]

It doesn't have to be any worse than the suggestion of this fantasy map creator....

 

I'm all about choices too, but all that you're explaining doesn't mean you have E's and or F's skipping Roosevelt (as if the connection to the 7 be ignored on one or both of those lines or some shit)..... Who's saying you HAVE to buy into the "expressaholicism" anyway - You want to avert the crowds on the E's & the F's, the R &/or the M is certainly available for you to take......

 

I may start doing exactly that and catch the .

 

If people need 6th av service, then that is what the M is for. the point is to discourage unnecessary transfering on an already crowded platform.

I don't think that was the intent of Woodhaven. That was built with the possible inclusion of the Queens super express in mind to then merge onto or have a connection to the QBL. The regular QBL express would still skip that station.

 

On the subject of skipping stops, I was wondering if they should have non peak direction E and M trains skip the lexington av stop so the platform is freed up for only the peak direction train? Basically am, only the Queens to manhattan trains would stop there and pm, only the Manhattan to Queens trains stop there. It's that or they build an extra 2 side platforms for off loading only.

 

 

That's probably just as crazy as my Roosevelt Ave idea. The root of the problem is Queens is underserved by the subway, and any solution isn't gonna be cheap or easy. 

[FamousNYLover]

I may start doing exactly that and catch the .

 

 

 

 

That's probably just as crazy as my Roosevelt Ave idea. The root of the problem is Queens is underserved by the subway, and any solution isn't gonna be cheap or easy. 

Even majority of riders take or . If comes first, take to Times Sq, exit station immediately because 41st passegeway is crazy. Use 40th St exit to avoid crowds at 42nd St.

[realizm]

The ultimate solution would have been the Queens Bvld Bypass option proposed by the MTA decades ago (As we all know, the connection from the 63rd St line upper level, thru Sunnyside Yard, via LIRR trackage, to reconnect at a point after Union Tpke Station on the IND QBL etc etc etc.., original designation letter for the new route believe it or not) But of course no one could prevent the fiscal crisis during that time from killing forever the project. 

 

So now we enter the world of CBTC.

[bobtehpanda]

Ah, CBTC - the solution that increases train capacity on the tracks to 40 TPH. That is, assuming that there are terminals that can handle the extra 10 TPH, and the definitely can't.

[realizm]

Well one thing is for sure: 179th Street will never ever be able to handle 63 TPH even with the absolute latest in CBTC technology as the wikipedia article claims without a source, that's for sure. 

[Grand Concourse]

bob: fair enough. but either way that platform at 53rd can only carry so many people though. I dunno, I still think if the QSE was built, it would be the whole length of QB starting under the 7 and meeting up before Woodhaven. Woodhaven would be more ideal as a sort of Dekalb type station where the super express is on the outermost tracks (or they rebuild the station to have to locals on the outer part and the middle set for the merging point (like what they did when they connected 63rd to the QBL). But it's all fantasy anyway.

I may start doing exactly that and catch the .

 

 

That's probably just as crazy as my Roosevelt Ave idea. The root of the problem is Queens is underserved by the subway, and any solution isn't gonna be cheap or easy. 

Of course, but either way the platforms can only hold so many people. They can build all the mezzanines they want, but it's not going to keep people off the platforms. They need another platform to help take off the load and discourage the direct across the platform transferring.

[realizm]

bob: fair enough. but either way that platform at 53rd can only carry so many people though.

 

Now that i think about it, that was exactly one of the major reasons that the MTA is indeed very interested in carrying out CBTC work out on Queens Blvd. -- the 53rd street viaduct. This was one of the very reasons the 63rd street line was built, aside from BMT access to the SAS or as a bypass not just of the QBL to the proposed lines extending beyond the reaches of the Archer Ave line's current terminus (The reason the stations were designed that way in such it was to be extended into the LIRR branches and not have Jamaica Center serve as a terminus),

 

... but to bypass the congested 53rd street corridor, which historically may be forced to handle 30TPH in change or more originally when the and lines both accessed the tunnel to their respective IND trunk lines, pre 63rd St connector. The fact that 53rd/Lex is a major hub to the IRT Lex for access to critical areas of Manhattan from Queens such as Midtown Manhattan, GCT, PABT and Penn Station.

 

Of course things changed and the MTA civil engineers and capital construction planners went for the direct 63rd St line to IND QBL connection, which did not help much in terms of the ongoing overcrowding issues. CBTC will do wonders on the 53rd Street corridor.

 

Once the East Side Access project under ongoing construction for the LIRR to be able to turn trains into GCT via 63rd Street lower level is completed, it will even further relieving the IND QBL from heavy congestion that brings the outerboro line to it's breaking point during the weekday rush. That's what the MTA is aiming for now that it is not feasible to construct a Queens Super Express option unfortunately because of budget constraints and conflicts of interest regarding FRA regulations and the LIRR sub-agency of the MTA corporation.

 

Essentially I guess we will have to conclude at least on the Queens end of the transit spectrum, there is no way by simply reroutes of lines, that the congestion problem on the nations second busiest subway line can ever be solved. The only feasible solution to crack the QBL paradox is by new construction. If railfanners include such options in their fantasy maps then it would make plenty of sense, at least to me.

 

 

*whew, I wrote that much? yeah I always get carried away with Queens transit issues. Shame on me.

[Vistausss]

They could also just re-open Woodhaven on the LIRR and include it in the CTZ for the package deal so that it's quite inexpensive. It might relieve some of the congestion that way. Plus the abandoned platform of Woodhaven LIRR is in quite good shape so it wouldn't require much work to re-open it.

 

Wow. Apperantly no one considers the LIRR a possibility given the fact that no one responded to my idea

[CenSin]

Wow. Apperantly no one considers the LIRR a possibility given the fact that no one responded to my idea

What were the comments on the Elmhurst station opening that the politicians pushed for recently?

[Vistausss]

What were the comments on the Elmhurst station opening that the politicians pushed for recently?

 

I dunno but Elmhurst =! Woodhaven.

[Eric B]

You cannot elimate A in Inwood because A is heavily use in Harlem and Inwood.

 

In addition to the whole tradition of the original route. When they considered replacing it with the Q, they had to change that to an orange A (via Brighton, which appeared on the R110 rollsign); so A to 179 would never fly; you would have to make that or , and then it looks like you eliminate any uptown 8th Av express at all, and as someone else said, that would never pass either. 

[CastleHillAvenue]

This is a revised proposal that is based on all the informative feedback that the members of this forum provided in reply to: A proposed subway network for New York City

 

,  and  in this updated proposal would operate as they do now without any alteration.

 

 

Proposal for        (and  ):

 

F and M in this updated proposal would run only slightly different to their current routes. F would simply serve 5 additional stops on the Queens Blvd Line, and M would use the 63 St tunnels instead of the 53 St tunnels.

 

 

C would no longer operate on Fulton Street (proposal for C included further down).

H would operate every 10 minutes at rush hour (while A would no longer run any trips to Rockaway Park).

R would no longer operate on Queens Blvd.

J and Z would operate as they do now.

 

Included below are more details and analysis to explain my reasoning for the proposed switching operations at Jackson Heights. Currently the express tracks on the Queens Blvd Line operate at capacity (30 tph), while local tracks are underutilized (only 17 tph). This proposal runs 24 tph on both local and express tracks. This is accomplished by combining express and local services to redistribute the demand more evenly on both local and express corridors.

 

The following infographic shows how I predict the demand on the Queens Blvd Line would be altered with this proposal. Considered here are all trips that use the Queens Blvd corridor to travel to Queens Plaza (or 21 St) and beyond. I predict E trains would be about 20% less crowded, while F and M trains would be more crowded (11% and 29%). A trains would be the least crowded, having about half its passengers seated.

 

 

While some trip times would be longer, others would be shorter. The net average for all trips would be about the same. However, with 20% less trains per hour on the express line, there would likely be fewer occurrences of delays, which in turn would lead to improved schedule adherence.

 

 

All four lines on the Queens Blvd Line would be operate every 5 minutes. A and E would operate at a headway of 2½ minutes, and so would F and M. Interlocking at Jackson Heights would pass a train every 75 seconds. Since it takes about 60 seconds for a train to clear the interlocking, this operation would be feasible.

 

 

East of Broadway Junction station, E trains would terminate on the center tracks, while A trains would switch to (or from) the outer local tracks. Both lines would operate every 5 minutes at rush hour.  A trains would be given the right-of-way, so that only E trains would experience interlocking delays.

 

 

Proposal for  :

 

This proposal allows for G trains to terminate at Queens Plaza instead of Court Square, so that the G would operate between Queens Plaza and Church Avenue at all times. While interlocking operations would be required at Queens Plaza, A and E trains would be given the right-of-way, so that only G trains would experience interlocking delays. The proposed G service would operate every 5 minutes at rush hour.

 

 

(I'm sorry if my choice of using purple for  upsets anyone )

 

 

Proposal for  and :

 

Both lines would operate on dedicated corridors. No interlocking operations would be required on route for either B or C, which would lead to fewer delays and improved schedule adherence.

 

 

A would no longer terminate at Inwood (see above for proposed A service).

D would no longer operate on the Concourse Line or on the 6th Avenue Line (see below for proposed D service).

E would operate express instead of local on the 8th Avenue Line, and would no longer terminate at the World Trade Center (see above for proposed E service).

Q would no longer operate on the Brighton Line.

 

 

Proposal for  and :

 

The proposed N service would offer 50% more trips at rush hour than offered by R currently between Canal St and Brooklyn 59 St. However south of 59 St, the proposed N service would provide 25% less trips than currently offered by R .

 

D would use the Broadway Line instead of the 6th Avenue Line (thus making it a yellow line). The proposed  D service would offer 50% more trips at rush hour than currently. Yellow D could eventually be extended to serve the Second Avenue Line.

 

Both D and N would operate every 4 minutes at rush hour, and both lines would operate on its own dedicated corridor. No interlocking operations would be required on either route, with the exception of the branch service to Bay Ridge that would merge with the N service to Coney Island at 59th Street (both N  branches would operate every 8 minutes at rush hour).

 

 

N would use the Montague tunnels instead of the Manhattan Bridge at all times.

Q would no longer operate on the Astoria Line or the Broadway Line.

R would continue to operate as a late night shuttle service only between Bay Ridge and 36 St.

 

 

That's it for now. I look forward to feedback.

 

Great graphics, diagrams, and overall presentation. However, I do not think your proposal will solve the issue with the Queens Blvd line. Your proposal suggests sending the A to Jamaica and having the C run local to Inwood. The A is vital to the Harlem, Washington Hts, and Inwood community as it is the only express service into the lower parts of Manhattan. In addition, sending the E train to Broadway Junction would essentially require more trains, which I am not sure the MTA can accommodate right now. Moreover, the configuration of the and trains in Queens and the and trains in Brooklyn may be very confusing to straphangers. 

[realizm]

In addition to the whole tradition of the original route. When they considered replacing it with the Q, they had to change that to an orange A (via Brighton, which appeared on the R110 rollsign); so A to 179 would never fly; you would have to make that or , and then it looks like you eliminate any uptown 8th Av express at all, and as someone else said, that would never pass either.

Yep, I remember this from the history books. I could never understand why the MTA even considered such route changes to begin with. That would throw off the entire IND system from the Manhattan trunk lines to the outer boroughs.

[FamousNYLover]

What I do know is in the morning my already packed or pulls into Roosevelt and sits there for a few minutes as the mobs try and shove their way in. And trust me they SHOVE their way in. Meanwhile there's usually a much emptier train nearby they could take but choose not to. If I was using one of those stations west of Forest Hills it would be the or for me.It's about choices, some people pack onto a train bursting at the gills because it may get them their a few mins earlier. But when you cant get the doors closed it delays EVERYONE. It ties up the line, often trains back up at Roosevelt because of the mobs. All I'm saying is maybe they need to be FORCED to use the emptier trains. These people act like only the or stops at Jackson Heights-Roosevelt and that its the last train on earth. All I'm saying is it may not be a bad idea to have the have the or skip Roosevelt, rush hours only. I'm thinking the should be the one to skip since its usually more crowded. Certainly my idea isn't any worse than the OP's. Adding switching trains to Roosevelt would be a complete disaster.

I know how you feel. It's not just gets overcrowded, even and local or local can be crowded.

Having skips Jackson Heights-Roosevelt Av, airport employees who might travel between LGA and JFK will loose direct connection. Jackson Heights-Roosevelt Av is major hub, where people connects to Q33/Q47.

If eliminating Jackson Heights-Roosevelt Av, people who comes from JFK Airport wishing to go to LGA might have to change at Forest Hill, then take to 63rd Dr for Q72 LGA.

 

 

Wow. Apperantly no one considers the LIRR a possibility given the fact that no one responded to my idea

I also heard from Mocker's Report, LIRR is doing survey along Elmhurst thinking of re opening the Elmhurst Station.

Edited July 21, 2013 by FamousNYLover

[bobtehpanda]

Wow. Apperantly no one considers the LIRR a possibility given the fact that no one responded to my idea

 

A new station on the Main Line wouldn't get very much service, if existing patterns on the Main Line are maintained. As of right now, the LIRR does not run a NYCT style local-express setup. For some reason, the Main Line local trains during the peak usually only serve Kew Gardens, Forest Hills, or Woodside. Off-peak, a train may serve two out of the three, but rarely do you ever see a train serve all three. Because of this, all "local" stations on the Main Line get crappy frequency.

 

At least with Elmhurst, the Port Washington Line runs more like a subway service and less like a LIRR train.

[Vistausss]

@bobtehpanda: New? Woodhaven on the LIRR is already there. It just needs re-opening. It was open for barely 40 years and the station is well-preserved.

Edited July 21, 2013 by Vistausss

[ttcsubwayfan]

I should not like to be a conductor on your version of the A train!

[Kamen Rider]

What would Woodhaven do to help Queens Blvd?

 

That's on the Atlantic Branch.

[realizm]

What would Woodhaven do to help Queens Blvd?

 

That's on the Atlantic Branch.

 

 

What were the comments on the Elmhurst station opening that the politicians pushed for recently?

 

Beats me, I missed that thread actually, but from my knowledge as of this post, it would be useless because 1) Noone's going to pay $7.50 for a LIRR ride to Manhattan with 2) The IND QBL and MTA Express bus stop in the same location for the reason that 3) A base fare of $2.50 or an express bus fare of $6.00 will be a heck of alot cheaper when 4) either way it would only save a few minutes to Manhattan during rush hour anyway, respectively.

 

I would assume it is just yet another political push for recognition.

[CenSin]

 

 

Beats me, I missed that thread actually, but from my knowledge as of this post, it would be useless because 1) Noone's going to pay $7.50 for a LIRR ride to Manhattan with 2) The IND QBL and MTA Express bus stop in the same location for the reason that 3) A base fare of $2.50 or an express bus fare of $6.00 will be a heck of alot cheaper when 4) either way it would only save a few minutes to Manhattan during rush hour anyway, respectively.

 

I would assume it is just yet another political push for recognition.

 

I remembered seeing "station maintenence costs" while glossing over an article on it a while back, but since I'm not sure what was really contained in the article, I replied with a question instead.

 

What is already a nail in the coffin to the Elmhurt reactivation is probably the existence of 2 subway lines with 3 routes serving the area, bus services, and the fact that the distance is so short. Any other disadvantages would be secondary…

[bobtehpanda]

What would Woodhaven do to help Queens Blvd?

 

That's on the Atlantic Branch.

 

I was under the assumption that by "Woodhaven" he meant a stop on the Main Line by Woodhaven Blvd in Rego Park.

 

I remembered seeing "station maintenence costs" while glossing over an article on it a while back, but since I'm not sure what was really contained in the article, I replied with a question instead.

 

What is already a nail in the coffin to the Elmhurt reactivation is probably the existence of 2 subway lines with 3 routes serving the area, bus services, and the fact that the distance is so short. Any other disadvantages would be secondary…

 

It's not a terrible idea given the fact that all the subway lines in the area are crowded. The capital cost of the station pencils in at about $30 million ish, which makes it around the same price as the Smith-9th Sts rehab.

 

Helena Williams gave a cost estimate of $20M without an elevator (illegal due to ADA) and $30M with an elevator to the Daily News. On the one hand, I'm not surprised by the MTA not appropriately costing anything, but on the other hand, I don't know how much credibility I can give to an offhand comment by Helena Williams.

[FamousNYLover]

@bobtehpanda: New? Woodhaven on the LIRR is already there. It just needs re-opening. It was open for barely 40 years and the station is well-preserved.

It's actually Elmhurst Station, not Woodhaven.

[Vistausss]

It's actually Elmhurst Station, not Woodhaven.

 

No, Woodhaven was the one *I* was referring to. Maybe you should look it up some time, let me give you a hand:

http://www.columbia.edu/~brennan/abandoned/woodhaven.html

 

But guess I was wrong because I didn't know that wasn't the same Woodhaven as on the subway.

 

@realizm: With the CTZ package deal it isn't gonna cost you $7.50

[Eric B]

Yep, I remember this from the history books. I could never understand why the MTA even considered such route changes to begin with. That would throw off the entire IND system from the Manhattan trunk lines to the outer boroughs.

That was the severe cutback they were looking into. so the could run to 21st St. all times, and they were going to eliminate Concourse express service. It was modeled off of the asbestos flood service in '89 where the orange Q picked up the 207th St. branch.