#426356 - 06/13/08 01:55 PM
shadyelstation's fantasy map - 2009 edition
|
shadyelstation
Bus Driver
Registered: 01/12/05
Posts: 336
Loc: The Bronx
|
First things first!
...remember that this is a fantasy map; a pictoral representation of ideas. I am NOT proposing that MTA spill their coffers to make this happen. That said, I have incorporated actual IRT/BMT/IND/MTA ideas - both past and present - into the map along with my own fantasy ideas to give you this latest incarnation.
So without further ado, here's my latest map - the 2009 edition!
New in this edition:
-(2/5) extension to Kings Plaza (this replaces the Utica Ave Subway)
-(3) extension to West Bronx and Parkchester (this provides Cross-Bronx service).
-(7) extension to Whitestone (spinoff of proposals I read on nycsubway.org). This will be done as such:
(7) local b/w Flushing-Main St and 34 St - Javits Ctr, and
<7> express b/w Whitestone and Chelsea - 14 St.
-(J/Z) skip-stop service pattern maintained; hours of operation extended
-New rush-only (V) "super-express" service (spinoff of the Qns Blvd Super Exp proposal; it runs via LIRR ROW and reconnects at 21 - Queensbridge). Nonrevenue connection to (G) line enables extension of (G) to Queens Plaza.
-SAS: Two lines, (T) and (U). SAS alignment exactly as officially planned, except for Bx/Bklyn extensions and T/U skip-stop service b/w Co-op City and 86 St.
NOTE: this is a streamlined version of my old map. I did ponder other ideas (Utica Ave and Northern Blvd lines, etc), but did not incorporate them in this version.
I'll leave out service patterns to keep this as short as possible, but if you want to know, feel free to ask.
Well, what do you think? Discuss away! 
_________________________
Proud Concourse (D) **express** rider
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#426370 - 06/13/08 03:52 PM
Re: shadyelstation's fantasy map - 2009 edition
[Re: FamousNYLover]
|
shadyelstation
Bus Driver
Registered: 01/12/05
Posts: 336
Loc: The Bronx
|
Sure.
(T) stops: Bay Plaza, Boston Rd, Gun Hill Rd, Bedford Park Blvd, Fordham Plaza, Tremont Ave, Claremont Pkwy, 163 St, 149 St, 138 St, 116 St, 96 St, 86 St, then all other stops.
(U) stops: Bay Plaza, Eastchester Rd, Gun Hill Rd, 204 St, Fordham Plaza, 182-183 Sts, Tremont Ave, 169 St, 156 St, 149 St, 138 St, 106 St, 86 St, then all other stops.
Edited by shadyelstation (06/13/08 03:52 PM)
_________________________
Proud Concourse (D) **express** rider
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#426418 - 06/14/08 12:47 AM
Re: shadyelstation's fantasy map - 2009 edition
[Re: Lex Express]
|
shadyelstation
Bus Driver
Registered: 01/12/05
Posts: 336
Loc: The Bronx
|
Nice ideas, but:
A 3 extension along Fordham Road would've made more sense
The F,V, and G can't run simultaneously
Why are both the F and V running express in Queens?
Fordham Rd might make more sense, but the grade b/w Valentine Ave and Webster Ave is too steep for subway (unless it was very deep, but then you'd have quite a trek transferring to the (B)/(D) on Concourse and especially the (4) at Jerome.
From riding the Bx40/42 it seemed Tremont's grades are somewhat manageable (moreso than Fordham IIRC), so the line was routed through there.
As for the (F), (V), and (G): In Queens the (V) is the Super-Express; it is intended to relieve crowding on Qns Blvd somewhat. (E)/(F) each run 15 TPH, while (V) is a supplemental express service running 6 TPH. The (G) terminal at Queens Plaza is at a new lower level station, not the existing station (it doesn't cross the (E)/(M)/(R) at any time). In Brooklyn the (V) is express, so there should be little conflicts with (F)/(G), especially since the (G) connects only to Culver Lcl.
Edited by shadyelstation (06/14/08 12:48 AM)
_________________________
Proud Concourse (D) **express** rider
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#426435 - 06/14/08 01:24 AM
Re: shadyelstation's fantasy map - 2009 edition
[Re: shadyelstation]
|
guypak
Author on Strapping
Registered: 04/28/07
Posts: 7492
Loc: queens
|
Once again great map.
Here are my comments:
1)I am ok with the 2/5 extension in Bk, even though i liked your Utica line before.
2) Although the LGA Airtain idea seems right, i would like to know your opinion on where it will specifically travel. If it runs along the Grand Central, eventually it would need to go underground as it approaches LGA, due to height restrictions.
3) I am fine with the D extension. I liked the previous one too. That would have been interesting.
4) Since I personally am not a fan of skip-stop, I liked your previous proposal where the Z was Express. Also, this would mean that with the T/U, one would need to be local the other express.
5) I also think the 7 should go down Northern not 150th st (where I think you have it running up now.)
6) While I like the idea of an M/V combo, the super-express V doesn't seem appropriate.
7) I am not sure how I feel about the 3 extension.
I think that is about it.
Once again great job. If you are going to do another map, I have some more additions and changes you can put.
_________________________
Using the MTA could be the best and worst part of your day.
Frequent user of the Q46, E/F and QM1A.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#426445 - 06/14/08 08:14 AM
Re: shadyelstation's fantasy map - 2009 edition
[Re: B35 via Church]
|
shawnito15
Straphanger
Registered: 11/01/07
Posts: 77
Loc: Jackson Heights, Queens
|
That's great stuff. I particularly like the SAS stuff you've proposed. Especially the 125th Crosstown (Q) and the (T) and (U) along 3rd Ave. And a (7) line extension to Chelsea would be awesome for that booming area. Great stuff, I'm not gonna bother with criticism since it is all in good fun. Though is there a link to see the whole map? On my browser I can't see Brooklyn or Queens much.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#426461 - 06/14/08 12:09 PM
Re: shadyelstation's fantasy map - 2009 edition
[Re: R32_3348]
|
shadyelstation
Bus Driver
Registered: 01/12/05
Posts: 336
Loc: The Bronx
|
Looks like it was a very busy night/morning!
guypak: The LGA Airtrain is indeed via Grand Central Pkwy. Possible stops along the way are Steinway St and 78 St OR 82 St. As for the underground bit, don't know exactly where such should start.
FYI, the (7) Whitestone extension runs under Union St to Willets Point and then under Parsons Blvd to reach its destination.
B35 via Church: You may not be the only one who prefers to leave the (M) via Nassau. I felt that (M) via Midtown would provide one-seat Midtown access and lessen the need to pile onto the (L) at Wyckoff.
I ended the (3) at Parkchester to keep the route straightforward; interestingly, however, continuing via Tremont would lead to Westchester Sq. Do you believe this would be a better alternative?
Also, F/G/V in Brooklyn: With the (V) running express, there should be little conflict b/w the three lines. (V) diverges to the express before the (G) meets the (F), so capacity-wise there should be little problem. I did this to enable Bklyn express service while still maintaining direct 6 Ave service at the local stops. (Or do you think (F) should be exp and (V) local?)
Finally, service patterns on Queens Blvd:
(E): rush/middays exp Van Wyck - Qns Plz, local in Manhattan
eves/weekends exp 71 Ave - Qns Plz, local in Manhattan
nights all local stops
(F): Qns Village to Coney; exp 71 Ave - 21 St, local Manhattan and Bklyn, all times
(M): Metropolitan Ave - Forest Hills, via Myrtle, B'way Bklyn, Chrystie/6 Ave connection, 53 St, and Qns Blvd. All local
nights service b/w Metropolitan Ave and W 4 St only
(R): All local from 71 Ave to Bay Ridge, all times
(V): Rush-only "super express"; runs from Qns Village to Kings Hwy. Exp from Francis Lewis to 21 St via Super Express, then via 63 St and 6 Ave Local, express in Bklyn Bergen St to Church Ave, and again in (reverse) peak from Church Ave to Kings Hwy.
The (V) is a supplemental exp service and will run 6 TPH, to minimize congestion on 6 Ave Local.
shawnito15: The link to the map is here.
R32_3348: Further westward extension of (Q) to Broadway/125 is not entirely out of the question. I ended at St Nicholas solely to provide Broadway service to where it wasn't currently provided.
_________________________
Proud Concourse (D) **express** rider
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#426601 - 06/15/08 08:10 PM
Re: shadyelstation's fantasy map - 2009 edition
[Re: shadyelstation]
|
Alon
Subway Engineer
Registered: 08/25/07
Posts: 2798
Loc: Morningside Heights
|
A few off-hand comments:
1. What about Triboro Line?
2. I'm increasingly convinced there has to be a 125th Street subway going all the way till Broadway. This is because Columbia is a net job drawer, and also because the 1 gets more traffic and reaches more areas than the A and C. This is especially true considering that there's no way Triboro Line can connect to the 1, while it's likely to connect to the B, D, and 4 if built.
3. It's problematic to have the same track host the Q, T, and U, or the F, V, and M. Skip-stop on SAS is even more awkward, since the Q doesn't participate; therefore, you have a faster train and a slower train sharing tracks, hardly the best use of capacity.
4. I like your 9... it's probably the best way of servicing 116th and 137th adequately.
5. The alignment of the 3 along Tremont is awkward. If you want subway in that area, put something in the median of the XBE, with connection to the 1 and A at 181st.
6. Your preference for the College Point alignment over the Bayside alignment is interesting...
7. Do you think the 148th Street stop on the 3 is that unnecessary? I know I demoted it to a stop for a shuttle that stops only at 145th, rather than 96th or even 135th... so it might just be lack of heart on my part.
8. You're not doing much to relieve capacity in Queens. Currently, Queens connects to Manhattan in 3.5 tracks in each direction: the F is only half a track since the F shares a track with the E further east, and enters Manhattan too far north to be of much use. Your plan upgrades the 3.5 to at best 4. The connection to the G at Queens Plaza won't do much to relieve traffic, because it'll necessitate too many transfers.
9. I'm not sure what the one-stop extension of the D is for.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#426603 - 06/15/08 09:02 PM
Re: shadyelstation's fantasy map - 2009 edition
[Re: Alon]
|
shadyelstation
Bus Driver
Registered: 01/12/05
Posts: 336
Loc: The Bronx
|
A few off-hand comments:
1. What about Triboro Line?
2. I'm increasingly convinced there has to be a 125th Street subway going all the way till Broadway. This is because Columbia is a net job drawer, and also because the 1 gets more traffic and reaches more areas than the A and C. This is especially true considering that there's no way Triboro Line can connect to the 1, while it's likely to connect to the B, D, and 4 if built.
3. It's problematic to have the same track host the Q, T, and U, or the F, V, and M. Skip-stop on SAS is even more awkward, since the Q doesn't participate; therefore, you have a faster train and a slower train sharing tracks, hardly the best use of capacity.
4. I like your 9... it's probably the best way of servicing 116th and 137th adequately.
5. The alignment of the 3 along Tremont is awkward. If you want subway in that area, put something in the median of the XBE, with connection to the 1 and A at 181st.
6. Your preference for the College Point alignment over the Bayside alignment is interesting...
7. Do you think the 148th Street stop on the 3 is that unnecessary? I know I demoted it to a stop for a shuttle that stops only at 145th, rather than 96th or even 135th... so it might just be lack of heart on my part.
8. You're not doing much to relieve capacity in Queens. Currently, Queens connects to Manhattan in 3.5 tracks in each direction: the F is only half a track since the F shares a track with the E further east, and enters Manhattan too far north to be of much use. Your plan upgrades the 3.5 to at best 4. The connection to the G at Queens Plaza won't do much to relieve traffic, because it'll necessitate too many transfers.
9. I'm not sure what the one-stop extension of the D is for.
My response to your points:
(1) Triboro Line? Which line would this be? (Forgive me if it's something obvious I'm not picking up at the moment.)
(2) Mayhap I revise the map to bring the (Q) to Broadway-125. Given my other "roundabout" routes depicted it probably won't hurt.
(3) While skip-stop SAS may be awkward, I figured it was the only way (short of running express on the local, which I didn't want to do) to speed up SAS service given the two-track alignment. Alternately I could end skip-stop at 149 St in the Bronx to avoid the possible crunch on 2 Ave and run 8-9 TPH on each of the (Q), (T), and (U) lines.
(F)/(V)/(M) being squeezed on 6 Ave was a problem even as I designed the fantasy map. I tried to combine the M/V combo with Culver express service while still providing direct 6 Ave service at local stops in Brooklyn. Admittedly the (V) Super Exp was a "cheap" way of providing relief on Qns Blvd Exp. The alternatives I considered were having no Super Exp and leaving the (F) to Qns Village, or increasing (F) service but splitting it such that some trains (maybe <F>) would run exp in Brooklyn, Bergen St - Church Ave. Either alternative avoids a crunch on 6 Ave. I'll consider making changes (especially w/Queens service) in the next edition.
(4) Thanks...because of heavy ridership I felt the (1) needed a supplement.
(5) So you'd send the (3) via West Bronx, then westward into 181/Manhattan (or is it an extension from 148)?
(6) I went with College Point/Whitestone only because Bayside has a rail link in LIRR, while College Point has no rail link. (If I reconsider the Northern Blvd line the Bayside problem might be solved IMO.)
(7) It wasn't that 148 - Lenox was unnecessary, but to run to the Bronx the (3) needs to dive under the Harlem River. The current alignment may present a problem in this case because the (3) rises to street level at 148. The 145 St station that will be used will not be the current one, but a new full-length station (possibly below the existing one) that will extend to 147 St, providing coverage for 148 St.
(8) Should I reconsider the Northern Blvd - SAS subway to address the Queens issue, or does it pertain directly to the Queens Blvd services? What would you suggest?
(9) IIRC the original plan for the (D) was to extend it along the Dyre, before it became part of the IRT. I extended the (D) to Burke just as it would've been under original plans, but stopped short of Dyre.
Edited by shadyelstation (06/15/08 09:06 PM)
_________________________
Proud Concourse (D) **express** rider
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#426609 - 06/15/08 10:07 PM
Re: shadyelstation's fantasy map - 2009 edition
[Re: shadyelstation]
|
B35 via Church
MTA Executive
Registered: 08/18/05
Posts: 4374
Loc: East Flatbush
|
I like how dude is so professional sounding w/ the explanations of his proposal/map:
my latest response is as follows:
* Sending it to Parkchester may be straightforward, but believe me, it'd be far more beneficial to send a cross bronx line via tremont, to Westchester Sq.... The Bronx needs another hub/major xfer point... that would a damn good candidate for it... and lets face it.. it's shear hell tryna get to the 7th av line (namely the 2 train) from the SE Bronx....
a bus ride from westchester sq to west farms sq. is quite the ride on the Bx40/42... imagine ppl coming from the throgs neck houses, etc....
long story short, you'd make a lot more riders happy w/ a 7th av line extension to Westchester Sq.
btw, I'm not saying that sending the 3 to Parkchester is a bad idea... what I am saying is, the 3 line (in this fantasy scenario/case) should be utilized more...
* the F/G/V in Brooklyn... nah, I don't think the F should be exp. & V via local (that's robbing peter to pay paul; forcing more riders onto the V along the culver)...
I dunno... I just don't like the fact that you get the V stopping dead @ kings hwy, the G stopping dead @ church... almost feel like that's too much service along the corridor... I think an increase in service on the F would suffice (on the brooklyn, and on the Queens side of things as well), moreso than having the V run down to kings hwy... I know there were a lot of ppl. on that bandwagon (sending the V to kings hwy... even stillwell av {which is just foolish})... me, I always had my doubts about it.... if the V were to come to brooklyn, I'd just terminate it w/ the G @ church av & be done w/ it...
that 3 track (center express track alignment) I was never fond of in the first place... it only allows for peak express service, instead of all day express service in both directions... guess it's just a personal gripe, I guess....
* extending the 7 up Parsons Blvd around, and north of Flushing would be a waste (far too residential)...
IMO, it's (a 7 extension) either along Northern Blvd or bust...
* ...and do you really have FIVE lines along 6th av (B, D, F, M, V) ? That was one of the reasons I wasn't in favor of what you did w/ the M... Manhattan is the last borough you'd want to increase (chances of) congestion on....
your F is local in brooklyn & manhattan, exp in queens
your B is exp in brooklyn, {express along 6th av, lcl along CPW}, express in the bronx
your V is express along the culver (brooklyn), lcl in manhattan, "super" express in queens
your D is exp in brooklyn, express in manhattan, lcl in the bronx
your M is exp along broadway (brooklyn), lcl in manhattan, lcl in queens...
sure, the V will run @ 6TPH... but what about the F & the M along 6th av? that is still quite a bit of trains running on that lcl track... or am I overanalyzing what you're trying to accomplish in your scenario....
await your intelligible reply, bro.
_________________________
Labor Day is coming.
That means someone will lose their life @ the Parade.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#426613 - 06/15/08 10:27 PM
Re: shadyelstation's fantasy map - 2009 edition
[Re: shadyelstation]
|
Alon
Subway Engineer
Registered: 08/25/07
Posts: 2798
Loc: Morningside Heights
|
1. That's the line Sander talked about in his The Sky is the Limit speech. Details can be found on the blog of the intern who fleshed the idea out.
3. Yeah, ending skip-stop in the South Bronx would solve the problem. Though it creates a new problem.
As for Queens Super-Express, you could go with the original idea: the F runs via 53rd, and the super-express line, in this case the M/V, gets to hog 63rd Street. Here is where the SAS-Queens connection could do the most good: if the U runs via 63rd along Northern, it will increase the effective number of tracks connecting Queens with Manhattan from 3.5 to 4.
5. No, I'd send it north along University. The cross-Bronx line should be separate. In one fantasy map I drew it as a third circumferential line (the first being the G and the second being Triboro), running all the way to JFK; then sanity prevailed and I scaled it back.
8. My fantasy maps for western Queens all involve the following elements:
a) A U line using SAS south of 63rd, then running with the F west of the F's junction with the E, and then running alone under Northern. This will bring the 63rd Street Tunnel to full use.
b) An extension of the N/W along Ditmars and then Astoria, terminating at 108th and meeting Northern Avenue Subway. This will move riders from the IND lines to the Astoria Line, which is currently underutilized.
c) A LaGuardia shuttle running under Junction, with stops at the airport (connecting with a fantasy airtrain), Astoria, Northern, and Roosevelt. It might even be extended south to Corona and curve west to meet QB at Grand Avenue.
d) The Western Queens portion of Triboro Line, which provides additional north-south service.
9. I still don't see the use in a one-station extension. It'll be far more useful to spend the money on a transfer between the D and Third Avenue Line, which in your fantasy map stops one block away.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#426618 - 06/15/08 10:37 PM
Re: shadyelstation's fantasy map - 2009 edition
[Re: B35 via Church]
|
shadyelstation
Bus Driver
Registered: 01/12/05
Posts: 336
Loc: The Bronx
|
I like how dude is so professional sounding w/ the explanations of his proposal/map:
my latest response is as follows:
* Sending it to Parkchester may be straightforward, but believe me, it'd be far more beneficial to send a cross bronx line via tremont, to Westchester Sq.... The Bronx needs another hub/major xfer point... that would a damn good candidate for it... and lets face it.. it's shear hell tryna get to the 7th av line (namely the 2 train) from the SE Bronx....
a bus ride from westchester sq to west farms sq. is quite the ride on the Bx40/42... imagine ppl coming from the throgs neck houses, etc....
long story short, you'd make a lot more riders happy w/ a 7th av line extension to Westchester Sq.
btw, I'm not saying that sending the 3 to Parkchester is a bad idea... what I am saying is, the 3 line (in this fantasy scenario/case) should be utilized more...
* the F/G/V in Brooklyn... nah, I don't think the F should be exp. & V via local (that's robbing peter to pay paul; forcing more riders onto the V along the culver)...
I dunno... I just don't like the fact that you get the V stopping dead @ kings hwy, the G stopping dead @ church... almost feel like that's too much service along the corridor... I think an increase in service on the F would suffice (on the brooklyn, and on the Queens side of things as well), moreso than having the V run down to kings hwy... I know there were a lot of ppl. on that bandwagon (sending the V to kings hwy... even stillwell av {which is just foolish})... me, I always had my doubts about it.... if the V were to come to brooklyn, I'd just terminate it w/ the G @ church av & be done w/ it...
that 3 track (center express track alignment) I was never fond of in the first place... it only allows for peak express service, instead of all day express service in both directions... guess it's just a personal gripe, I guess....
* extending the 7 up Parsons Blvd around, and north of Flushing would be a waste (far too residential)...
IMO, it's (a 7 extension) either along Northern Blvd or bust...
* ...and do you really have FIVE lines along 6th av (B, D, F, M, V) ? That was one of the reasons I wasn't in favor of what you did w/ the M... Manhattan is the last borough you'd want to increase (chances of) congestion on....
your F is local in brooklyn & manhattan, exp in queens
your B is exp in brooklyn, {express along 6th av, lcl along CPW}, express in the bronx
your V is express along the culver (brooklyn), lcl in manhattan, "super" express in queens
your D is exp in brooklyn, express in manhattan, lcl in the bronx
your M is exp along broadway (brooklyn), lcl in manhattan, lcl in queens...
sure, the V will run @ 6TPH... but what about the F & the M along 6th av? that is still quite a bit of trains running on that lcl track... or am I overanalyzing what you're trying to accomplish in your scenario....
await your intelligible reply, bro.
I guess I did try to pull too many "squeeze plays" in the map, especially on 6 Ave. Looking at it more closely, I see the (V) Super Exp is indeed a bad idea. (I'm much more in favor of the M/V combo so I'd probably pull the Super Exp.)
For Culver, the (G) to Church is definitely a go (especially since it's something that may actually be implemented).
If (V) Super Exp is eradicated, then any express service in Bklyn would be provided by splitting the (F); otherwise the service pattern for the (F) there would remain as is.
As for Bayside, I could retain the SAS skip-stop and send the (7) to Bayside if need be, OR implement the Northern Blvd - SAS route I had thought of earlier. It seems this may be a more practical solution to the Queens issue (I wonder if I should reintroduce the (Z) Peak Express?).
BTW I appreciate all the feedback; though these are merely fantasy ideas I've enjoyed the discussions here thus far.
_________________________
Proud Concourse (D) **express** rider
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
Moderator: Chemmy
|
3369 Members
20 Forums
23147 Topics
439601 Posts
Max Online: 464 @ 04/24/08 01:14 PM
|
|
|
