Department of Subways - Proposals/Ideas

[officiallyliam]

3 hours ago, RR503 said:

-Add this together, and you get (12+8+10+31) = 1:01, or 18 mins less than the bus.   

And even that is probably a somewhat conservative estimate. Newer trains with faster acceleration could shave off some of the SI travel time; plus, trains won't have to enter St. George station slowly (as they do now), since it'll be a through station. You could probably get the time from SI to Hanover Square down slightly, too, since trains should be able to hit 60+ in the tube (unless we build it with timers lol).

Another important thing that should be factored in (but can't in just a simple travel time comparison) is the consistency of the service. Barring significant incident, trains are far more consistent in their travel time than buses are since they're not subject to the whims of traffic congestion. It doesn't take much for buses to run over their scheduled runtime, which they do frequently but unpredictably. Anything grade-separated largely eliminates the problem of "flexible" travel time, especially when we're talking about some very congestion-prone areas.

[Union Tpke]

2 hours ago, officiallyliam said:

And even that is probably a somewhat conservative estimate. Newer trains with faster acceleration could shave off some of the SI travel time; plus, trains won't have to enter St. George station slowly (as they do now), since it'll be a through station. You could probably get the time from SI to Hanover Square down slightly, too, since trains should be able to hit 60+ in the tube (unless we build it with timers lol).

Another important thing that should be factored in (but can't in just a simple travel time comparison) is the consistency of the service. Barring significant incident, trains are far more consistent in their travel time than buses are since they're not subject to the whims of traffic congestion. It doesn't take much for buses to run over their scheduled runtime, which they do frequently but unpredictably. Anything grade-separated largely eliminates the problem of "flexible" travel time, especially when we're talking about some very congestion-prone areas.

Even faster if you have it be a regional rail line. St. George --> Fulton --> Union Square--->Grand Central-->125

[R68OnBroadway]

Currently we have been discussing much about deinterlining Broadway and Queens, but we have the problem of losing CPW service to 50th Street. This might not work, but what if we built a new lower level for the  at 42nd below the  tracks so we can have the  switch off the express tracks south of 50th instead of north of it? If this is infeasible however, it's not much of a problem as the  stops a block away and connects to the both the  and  at 59th and 42nd. 

[RR503]

37 minutes ago, R68OnBroadway said:

Currently we have been discussing much about deinterlining Broadway and Queens, but we have the problem of losing CPW service to 50th Street. This might not work, but what if we built a new lower level for the  at 42nd below the  tracks so we can have the  switch off the express tracks south of 50th instead of north of it? If this is infeasible however, it's not much of a problem as the  stops a block away and connects to the both the  and  at 59th and 42nd. 

Who ever said we had to send 8th local to Queens? In my opinion, the more defensible plan (given terminal capacities and ridership) would be 8th local to CPW local/BPK/168, 8th Exp to QB, 6th Exp to 207/205. 8th Exp, of course, would take over Fulton. 

[KK 6 Ave Local]

5 minutes ago, RR503 said:

Who ever said we had to send 8th local to Queens? In my opinion, the more defensible plan (given terminal capacities and ridership) would be 8th local to CPW local/BPK/168, 8th Exp to QB, 6th Exp to 207/205. 8th Exp, of course, would take over Fulton. 

The  to QBL? 

[bobtehpanda]

5 hours ago, RR503 said:

Who ever said we had to send 8th local to Queens? In my opinion, the more defensible plan (given terminal capacities and ridership) would be 8th local to CPW local/BPK/168, 8th Exp to QB, 6th Exp to 207/205. 8th Exp, of course, would take over Fulton. 

IIRC, didn't the to Euclid suffer in part because it was too long? The express run on 8th is not that much quicker than the local run, because you skip a grand total of three stops (50 St, 23 St, Spring St), so I would be a bit concerned.

[RR503]

15 minutes ago, bobtehpanda said:

IIRC, didn't the to Euclid suffer in part because it was too long? The express run on 8th is not that much quicker than the local run, because you skip a grand total of three stops (50 St, 23 St, Spring St), so I would be a bit concerned.

It did, but I’ve heard that such unreliability was more a factor of the RPK runs than it was the Euclid ones.

Also keep in mind that that was the “merge mania” era of the system (even the  itself had simultaneously scheduled runs to WTC, Euclid, and RPK) whereas this iteration would have — at most — 2 merges ( and ). That reduction would in all likelihood reduce gapping and allow a service of that length to operate with some modicum of regularity. 

[LGA Link N Train]

6 hours ago, RR503 said:

Who ever said we had to send 8th local to Queens? In my opinion, the more defensible plan (given terminal capacities and ridership) would be 8th local to CPW local/BPK/168, 8th Exp to QB, 6th Exp to 207/205. 8th Exp, of course, would take over Fulton. 

So are you saying something like this?:

 - 168 to WTC (basically the old )

 - Inwood or 205 to Brighton 

 - (Whatever you have in mind)

 - 205 to Coney Island via Brighton

 and  - Unaltered

 - Forest Hills - Euclid/Lefferts/Rockaway's (QBLocal-8th Exp)

 or - Essex to Bay Ridge

- Jamaica Center - Metropolitain (via 63rd)

125 - Coney Island via sea beach and west end

 - Astoria/LGA to Euclid

- Hanover to 72/Northern Blvd Extension

 

[Caelestor]

On 7/15/2018 at 8:43 AM, RR503 said:

Who ever said we had to send 8th local to Queens? In my opinion, the more defensible plan (given terminal capacities and ridership) would be 8th local to CPW local/BPK/168, 8th Exp to QB, 6th Exp to 207/205. 8th Exp, of course, would take over Fulton. 

My original proposal was to extend the 8 Ave local platforms to the express tracks over the now disused local tracks but this is a pretty interesting idea given that 53 St / QBL has more ridership than CPW / Upper 8 Ave.

With no new construction except SAS Phase 2, the plan appears to be

•  168 St - WTC local (late nights runs to 207 St)
•  Inwood - Brighton Beach (all times except late nights, so service increase!)
•  Bedford Park Blvd - WTC local (weekdays only)
•  Norwood - Coney Island (unchanged)
•  QBL express - 53 St - Lower 8 Ave express - Fulton express (all local late nights)
• Jamaica - Coney Island (unchanged)
• QBL local - 53 St - Lower 8 Ave express - Fulton local (doesn't run late nights)
• Forest Hills - Middle Village local via 63 St (short turns at Essex St on weekends)
•  SAS - Coney Island via Sea Beach
•  SAS - Coney Island via Brighton (unchanged)
•  Astoria - Whitehall St (short turns) OR Bay Ridge (regular terminal) OR 86 St Sea Beach (CI yard access)
  •  consolidated with the
  •  fleet moved to R160 due to multiple southern terminals

Edited July 16, 2018 by Caelestor

[Wallyhorse]

I can see where this plan can work, doing the de-interlining as much as realistically possible.  

Only real negative is no 6th Avenue service at all on 53rd Street (of course, that is already the case on weekends) as well as no Broadway Line service to/from Manhattan (you would need to add an OOS transfer between Queens and Queensboro Plaza to accommodate such riders).

The one change I would make is to have the also run to 71st-Continental at all times, including late nights.  This would allow the to be a QB express at ALL times and maybe you add back the  train to 71st-Continental late nights to mainly accommodate riders looking for the  at Queens Plaza.

[RR503]

13 hours ago, Caelestor said:

My original proposal was to extend the 8 Ave local platforms to the express tracks over the now disused local tracks but this is a pretty interesting idea given that 53 St / QBL has more ridership than CPW / Upper 8 Ave.

With no new construction except SAS Phase 2, the plan appears to be

•  168 St - WTC local (late nights runs to 207 St)
•  Inwood - Brighton Beach (all times except late nights, so service increase!)
•  Bedford Park Blvd - WTC local (weekdays only)
•  Norwood - Coney Island (unchanged)
•  QBL express - 53 St - Lower 8 Ave express - Fulton express (all local late nights)
• Jamaica - Coney Island (unchanged)
• QBL local - 53 St - Lower 8 Ave express - Fulton local (doesn't run late nights)
• Forest Hills - Middle Village local via 63 St (short turns at Essex St on weekends)
•  SAS - Coney Island via Sea Beach
•  SAS - Coney Island via Brighton (unchanged)
•  Astoria - Whitehall St (short turns) OR Bay Ridge (regular terminal) OR 86 St Sea Beach (CI yard access)
  •  consolidated with the
  •  fleet moved to R160 due to multiple southern terminals

Either this plan or LGA’s could work. The only changes I would make are:

-  to Inwood, so that the sole service line on West End matches with the northern terminus requiring 24/7.

-  to Euclid, so it’s route length doesn’t become an issue. 

[Union Tpke]

1 hour ago, RR503 said:

Either this plan or LGA’s could work. The only changes I would make are:

-  to Inwood, so that the sole service line on West End matches with the northern terminus requiring 24/7.

-  to Euclid, so it’s route length doesn’t become an issue. 

What do you have running to Norwood during late nights?

[RR503]

16 minutes ago, Union Tpke said:

What do you have running to Norwood during late nights?

Whichever 8th Local service runs during those times. 

[LGA Link N Train]

My personal proposal would include this (pre-SAS)

(A) - unaltered

(B) - unaltered

(C) -  Inwood/205 to Euclid (8 Avenue/CPW Express)

(D) - 168 Street - ConeyIsland via CPW and Brighton Local

(E)  - Forest Hills to WTC

(F) - unaltered

(G) - unaltered

(J) - gets a third track extension (skip stop discontinued)

(M) - Jamaica Center - Metropolitan via 63rd

(N) (Q) same route until 36th Street; (Q) via West End and (N) via Sea Beach

(R) LGA - Bay Ridge, Some trains (which some people can consider as (W) 's) short turn at WhiteHall

(W) - ALL (W) Trains are signed up as (R)

 

[Wallyhorse]

17 hours ago, Caelestor said:

My original proposal was to extend the 8 Ave local platforms to the express tracks over the now disused local tracks but this is a pretty interesting idea given that 53 St / QBL has more ridership than CPW / Upper 8 Ave.

With no new construction except SAS Phase 2, the plan appears to be

•  168 St - WTC local (late nights runs to 207 St)
•  Inwood - Brighton Beach (all times except late nights, so service increase!)
•  Bedford Park Blvd - WTC local (weekdays only)
•  Norwood - Coney Island (unchanged)
•  QBL express - 53 St - Lower 8 Ave express - Fulton express (all local late nights)
• Jamaica - Coney Island (unchanged)
• QBL local - 53 St - Lower 8 Ave express - Fulton local (doesn't run late nights)
• Forest Hills - Middle Village local via 63 St (short turns at Essex St on weekends)
•  SAS - Coney Island via Sea Beach
•  SAS - Coney Island via Brighton (unchanged)
•  Astoria - Whitehall St (short turns) OR Bay Ridge (regular terminal) OR 86 St Sea Beach (CI yard access)
  •  consolidated with the
  •  fleet moved to R160 due to multiple southern terminals

This is how I would modify it:

•  168 St - WTC local (all times except late nights to 207)
•  207 St - Brighton Beach (all times except late nights, so service increase!)
•  Bedford Park Blvd - WTC local (all times except late nights)
•  205-Norwood - Coney Island (unchanged)
•  QBL express - 53 St - Lower 8 Ave express - Fulton express, Jamaica Center to Lefferts Boulevard (all times, local on Fulton late nights)
•  179th-Jamaica - Coney Island (unchanged)
•  Church Avenue-Court Square (weekdays, unchanged), Church Avenue to 71st-Continental via QBL Local (late nights and weekends)
• QBL local - 53 St - Lower 8 Ave express - Fulton local, 71st-Continental to Far Rockaway (all times)
• Forest Hills - Middle Village local via 63 St (all times)
•  SAS - Coney Island via Sea Beach
•  SAS - Coney Island via Brighton (unchanged)
•  Astoria - Bay Ridge (regular terminal) OR 9th Avenue (Short Turns) OR 86 St Sea Beach (CI yard access)
  •  consolidated with the
  •  fleet moved to R160 due to multiple southern terminals
  • New OOS transfer between Queens Plaza and Queensboro Plaza

The big adjustments here are having the  and  become full-time 24/7 trains and on weekends and late nights having THREE locals on QB when fewer trains are running overall.  The additional service improves the overall running of the line, especially for those who have two-seat or more rides, especially late nights. 

[biGC323232]

13 minutes ago, Wallyhorse said:

This is how I would modify it:

•  168 St - WTC local (all times except late nights to 207)
•  207 St - Brighton Beach (all times except late nights, so service increase!)
•  Bedford Park Blvd - WTC local (all times except late nights)
•  205-Norwood - Coney Island (unchanged)
•  QBL express - 53 St - Lower 8 Ave express - Fulton express, Jamaica Center to Lefferts Boulevard (all times, local on Fulton late nights)
•  179th-Jamaica - Coney Island (unchanged)
•  Church Avenue-Court Square (weekdays, unchanged), Church Avenue to 71st-Continental via QBL Local (late nights and weekends)
• QBL local - 53 St - Lower 8 Ave express - Fulton local, 71st-Continental to Far Rockaway (all times)
• Forest Hills - Middle Village local via 63 St (all times)
•  SAS - Coney Island via Sea Beach
•  SAS - Coney Island via Brighton (unchanged)
•  Astoria - Bay Ridge (regular terminal) OR 9th Avenue (Short Turns) OR 86 St Sea Beach (CI yard access)
  •  consolidated with the
  •  fleet moved to R160 due to multiple southern terminals
  • New OOS transfer between Queens Plaza and Queensboro Plaza

The big adjustments here are having the  and  become full-time 24/7 trains and on weekends and late nights having THREE locals on QB when fewer trains are running overall.  The additional service improves the overall running of the line, especially for those who have two-seat or more rides, especially late nights. 

Theres 5 on here i can agree with........ via 53st....Other's are head scratchers... ending at the Wtc  trains to 207 st....

[W4ST]

35 minutes ago, LGA Link N train said:

My personal proposal would include this (pre-SAS)

- unaltered

- unaltered

-  Inwood/205 to Euclid (8 Avenue/CPW Express)

- 168 Street - ConeyIsland via CPW and Brighton Local

- Forest Hills to WTC

- unaltered

- unaltered

- gets a third track extension (skip stop discontinued)

- Jamaica Center - Metropolitan via 63rd

same route until 36th Street; via West End and via Sea Beach

LGA - Bay Ridge, Some trains (which some people can consider as 's) short turn at WhiteHall

- ALL Trains are signed up as

 

I agree with this except I think the  should go to Jamaica Center and the  should go to Jamaica / 179 because Jamaica Center is busier and needs all the train cars it can get. I also didn’t include  to LGA or a third track on the  in my plans but those could work.

[Wallyhorse]

2 hours ago, W4ST said:

I agree with this except I think the  should go to Jamaica Center and the  should go to Jamaica / 179 because Jamaica Center is busier and needs all the train cars it can get. I also didn’t include  to LGA or a third track on the  in my plans but those could work.

Jamaica Center is limited by train capacity (12 TPH).  That's why some trains in rush hours end/begin at 179.

[Lawrence St]

So I was thinking, why not add 2 new tracks south of the Atlantic Avenue station (where the original tracks were-pre aligning) and have some rush hour trains start from there?

[W4ST]

5 hours ago, Wallyhorse said:

Jamaica Center is limited by train capacity (12 TPH).  That's why some trains in rush hours end/begin at 179.

That’s why I would send the  there. Due to the limit 10-car trains are needed. The  could run 15 tph with 3 tph terminating at 179. The  could run 12 tph the whole way or run 15 tph with 3 tph terminating at 2nd Avenue due to the Williamsburg Bridge Bottleneck (this would be after the L train shutdown.)

[Trainmaster5]

On 7/12/2018 at 11:53 AM, officiallyliam said:

A subway to Staten Island has been on the cards since the first subway routes were being planned; like the Second Avenue line, a series of misfortunes and mistimings prevented it from every happening. Staten Island is really the only borough where space for development remains on any kind of large scale, and relying on road transportation (and a ferry) to serve inevitable growth is unwise and not practical. A direct tunnel from lower Manhattan to Saint George is exactly what should be considered as part of the SAS project. Yes, the cost for such a tunnel will be high (although, really, longer underwater tunnels aren't such a crazy suggestion anymore) but a project like this would be worth it when you consider how much of the city you've just opened up to people and to business.

Your proposed tunnel , as an extension of the southern end of the SAS is something that a few in my circle have discussed. In our opinion any extension of the SAS into Brooklyn that doesn't use the Montague tunnel,  for example,  is a non-starter both politically and possibly legally .  In other words does anyone believe a new tunnel will make landfall in the Brooklyn Heights neighborhood?  NIMBYS, NYC, and Federally landmarked Historic district?  The reality is that no politicians running for or currently holding office in the area, city or state, would ever support it. Maybe further south along the Red Hook waterfront but if you are going that far south Staten island doesn't look that farfetched,  does it ? It's a major undertaking when the wants to do work on the Willow Place ventilation shaft. RailRunRob has done some fine back of the envelope figuring on the topography in the area but in our opinion anything between Atlantic Avenue and the Rutgers tunnel is problematic. That is beside the fact that most of my circle believe that Phase 2 should be modified to direct any construction northward to the Bronx and not westward along 125th Street at this time.  Comments pro or con are welcome.  We're adults and can take criticism 😃. Carry on. 

[Wallyhorse]

2 hours ago, Trainmaster5 said:

Your proposed tunnel , as an extension of the southern end of the SAS is something that a few in my circle have discussed. In our opinion any extension of the SAS into Brooklyn that doesn't use the Montague tunnel,  for example,  is a non-starter both politically and possibly legally .  In other words does anyone believe a new tunnel will make landfall in the Brooklyn Heights neighborhood?  NIMBYS, NYC, and Federally landmarked Historic district?  The reality is that no politicians running for or currently holding office in the area, city or state, would ever support it. Maybe further south along the Red Hook waterfront but if you are going that far south Staten island doesn't look that farfetched,  does it ? It's a major undertaking when the wants to do work on the Willow Place ventilation shaft. RailRunRob has done some fine back of the envelope figuring on the topography in the area but in our opinion anything between Atlantic Avenue and the Rutgers tunnel is problematic. That is beside the fact that most of my circle believe that Phase 2 should be modified to direct any construction northward to the Bronx and not westward along 125th Street at this time.  Comments pro or con are welcome.  We're adults and can take criticism 😃. Carry on. 

This is why I originally had it where the SAS would go through Nassau, with any such SAS running through Broad (with the abandoned platforms at Bowery and Canal Street re-opened as "express" tracks the would run on while the went on the "local" tracks at Canal and Chambers, entering the Nassau Line somewhere between The Bowery and Canal Street).

If what you say is true, then the Nassau connection to the SAS may have to be re-thought. 

[bobtehpanda]

A modest proposal to boost capacity at train terminals and run CBTC to its fullest potential. After all, CBTC is used in other cities to run as much as 40TPH.

[RR503]

2 hours ago, Trainmaster5 said:

Your proposed tunnel , as an extension of the southern end of the SAS is something that a few in my circle have discussed. In our opinion any extension of the SAS into Brooklyn that doesn't use the Montague tunnel,  for example,  is a non-starter both politically and possibly legally .  In other words does anyone believe a new tunnel will make landfall in the Brooklyn Heights neighborhood?  NIMBYS, NYC, and Federally landmarked Historic district?  The reality is that no politicians running for or currently holding office in the area, city or state, would ever support it. Maybe further south along the Red Hook waterfront but if you are going that far south Staten island doesn't look that farfetched,  does it ? It's a major undertaking when the wants to do work on the Willow Place ventilation shaft. RailRunRob has done some fine back of the envelope figuring on the topography in the area but in our opinion anything between Atlantic Avenue and the Rutgers tunnel is problematic. That is beside the fact that most of my circle believe that Phase 2 should be modified to direct any construction northward to the Bronx and not westward along 125th Street at this time.  Comments pro or con are welcome.  We're adults and can take criticism 😃. Carry on. 

I absolutely see where you’re coming from, but I disagree. 

First, the technical stuff. Brooklyn Heights is on a tall, relatively steep-sided bluff overlooking New York Harbor. Thus, I think it’s a fair assumption to make that any new tunnel through the neighborhood would be A) tunneled and B) quite deep. Tunnels of that nature usually see little surface disruption except for at stations and spoil/vent shafts. As it so happens, Brooklyn Heights is not only a narrow neighborhood, but also is surrounded by areas that lend themselves to low impact disruption, allowing those areas to be placed in areas likely to create less disruption/engender less resistance. For example, a State Street tunnel could have its ancillaries be placed in one of those easements along 278 where it curves over to Furman, and/or in an easement inside one of the buildings in State/Adams St. intersection area (assuming this continues to Hoyt Scherm for Fulton connection). Given all of this, surface disruptions in the neighborhood would in all likelihood be minimal, potentially allowing for eased politics. 

But yes, politics. Brooklyn Heights has historically been quite adept at resisting/delaying small changes and disruptions to their community. Think, as you say, of the Willow St vent repairs, of the parole office on Montague, etc etc etc. Their track record with larger projects (though admittedly limited) has not been strong. Despite their best efforts to the contrary, BBP got built, as did all that housing at the ends of the park. I think that while they may be effective with the small stuff, the visibility and importance of a new subway tunnel (along with the easiness of playing to class if they oppose it “Rich Brooklyn Heights Residents Determined to Prevent New Subway Tunnel for Brooklyn, Citing Vibration”) may make efforts to stop it politically untenable and, frankly, unwise. 

[Trainmaster5]

1 hour ago, RR503 said:

I absolutely see where you’re coming from, but I disagree. 

First, the technical stuff. Brooklyn Heights is on a tall, relatively steep-sided bluff overlooking New York Harbor. Thus, I think it’s a fair assumption to make that any new tunnel through the neighborhood would be A) tunneled and B) quite deep. Tunnels of that nature usually see little surface disruption except for at stations and spoil/vent shafts. As it so happens, Brooklyn Heights is not only a narrow neighborhood, but also is surrounded by areas that lend themselves to low impact disruption, allowing those areas to be placed in areas likely to create less disruption/engender less resistance. For example, a State Street tunnel could have its ancillaries be placed in one of those easements along 278 where it curves over to Furman, and/or in an easement inside one of the buildings in State/Adams St. intersection area (assuming this continues to Hoyt Scherm for Fulton connection). Given all of this, surface disruptions in the neighborhood would in all likelihood be minimal, potentially allowing for eased politics. 

But yes, politics. Brooklyn Heights has historically been quite adept at resisting/delaying small changes and disruptions to their community. Think, as you say, of the Willow St vent repairs, of the parole office on Montague, etc etc etc. Their track record with larger projects (though admittedly limited) has not been strong. Despite their best efforts to the contrary, BBP got built, as did all that housing at the ends of the park. I think that while they may be effective with the small stuff, the visibility and importance of a new subway tunnel (along with the easiness of playing to class if they oppose it “Rich Brooklyn Heights Residents Determined to Prevent New Subway Tunnel for Brooklyn, Citing Vibration”) may make efforts to stop it politically untenable and, frankly, unwise. 

The problem,  as we see it, isn't the politics first and foremost but the legalities surrounding a national landmarked Historic district. NYC landmarks and Federal landmarks are two different things as far as we can determine. Look no further than the Farley Post Office building and how plans for the area around it tiptoe around the building itself.  Brooklyn Heights is a federal landmarked Historic district as well as a NYC historic landmark.  The Atlantic Avenue tunnel and a portion of State Street also have some level of landmark status too IIRC. Forget whatever merits any plans might have for a minute.  What politician is going to carry water for such a plan ? Every plan conceived since the was established has been sponsored or the water carried by the local politicians. SAS station at 116th St ? Local initiative. LIRR Third Track or  Ronkonkoma Second Track projects only move forward with the support of the affected local pols.  We doubt that the Prince,  the , nor the Mayor or County Executives will ramrod any idea without local support. You may be correct in your assessment but we can see this being decided in Federal court not locally. Carry on