RR503

No service patterns are changed. It *may* be nice to have that relief valve, however, if/when Coney Island's tracks run out of terminal capacity and we want to add more service.

Nah, just this. You'd be able to cross a train over to the express tracks, turn it, and then run back out without ever merging w/ service. Optimally we'd have some better, grade separated config, but this is what we've got to work with for now.

This would be my first line of attack -- moving crossovers. I'd also look carefully at the placement of tracks and crossovers at the other end of the platforms. The reason that we have AKs there is that, while there are no bumpers there except for the , a train that overruns the platform in any direction will end up in the middle of an interlocking, which is, ya know, not great. So to ensure trains will always stop before fouling switches, they have to enter quite slowly. If you can move the parts of the interlocking where the tail end of the terminal tracks merge with others, that'd be another good savings albeit one likely more difficult to achieve. With current NYCT relay ops, you're probably better off as is with the qualification that Brighton Beach's crossover is a bit far from the platform. Relay terminals in this system are, thanks to long terminal dwells and the common coexistence of relays and DGTs, generally capable of only about 20tph, while our best turnbacks can do 30+. The issue with Flatbush, btw, isn't the platform config -- it's the fact that the tracks stub end, so trains have to enter slowly (as enforced by GTs) to ensure safety. Long term, even if we fix relay ops, I'd keep the as is for two reasons: turnbacks are cheaper to operate than relays, and I would like to (given a reconfig) turn service at Brighton Beach off of the local tracks using the express tracks beyond the station).

Depends on where we see demand growing/on just how bad each of the Stillwell terminals are/how bad we project relay ops to be in the future. First priority for me would be reconfiguring Brighton Beach so you can run a relay terminal off the local tracks w/o interfering w/ service, but you could also convert Bay Parkway/West End into a low-interference relay-friendly terminal by adding a switch between the s/b local and the middle just north of the station, or KHN to the same by adding a platform over one of the trackways, or.... Point being, there are options. LOL indeed you could. Though from 96 to 96 would rely on Dekalb not being deinterlined.

That likely creates more operations problems than it solves -- the and added together would make for one _long_ route! I would just move some switches around, resignal the terminal and perhaps upgrade/reconfigure some short turn locations to support higher capacity and less disruptive terminal operations.

Coney Island definitely ranks high among the worst laid out terminals in the system. Switches are far from the terminal platforms (on the and especially), and the terminal is -- get this -- the last place automatic key by signals are in mainline revenue service use in the entire system. Automatic key-by, for those of you who don't do signals, is a function whereby you can, in the simplest of terms, pass red signals by stopping *just* in front of the stop arm. Keying by was the villain in many a subway fender bender back in the day so was disabled on all mainline signals, but the layout of Coney Island's terminal platforms is such that signal engineers decided the most expedient way to ensure low speeds entering certain platforms was to install them. I'm frankly not sure of what the exact capacity of any given CI platform is, but I don't imagine it's high. 15tph or less, probably. Luckily there are _plenty_ of short turn locations available across BMT south.

Thought y'all would enjoy this map: https://drive.google.com/open?id=1Y-5FFDDOcrCR1YRK8wI3HEFK7bsc06_K

Not really -- track geometry isn't the biggest constraint in the area/the geometry constraints that do exist are mostly south of Dekalb Ave station (the curvy bits heading into the various Barclays platforms).

A few quick points - Spending money to build a complex and visually disruptive connection between the Brighton and Broadway-Brooklyn lines is an objectively poor allocation of funds. If you want to build out a funky grade separated interlocking along the latter line, fix Myrtle! Brighton riders would be just fine if we made the shuttle 600' compliant and thus provided riders with a route into Manhattan when the Flatbush tunnel goes down. - Moreover, connecting Brighton to Myrtle creates a route which boomerangs around really all of the primary activity centers. You're on Brighton, heading north, towards downtown Brooklyn...just kidding, you're going up the shuttle ROW towards Williamsburg and LIC...but just kidding about that too, we'll cut east south of Williamsburg to serve the vaunted Sheepshead Bay-Ridgewood market. If you want to extend something up the ROW, make a connection to get Brighton riders (and, by extension, IRT and Fulton riders) easier access to LIC for comparatively little $$$. Otherwise...nah.

Alas, I believe "seemingly" is doing a lotta work in that sentence. In all seriousness, though, I think what you propose makes much sense. Piecemeal work leads to disorganization which leads to inefficiency which leads to cost/schedule overruns. Pursuing a more concerted approach to GOs would do a lotta good.

You could _concievably_ cram onto one track if you did 6+5+5+5+5 with zero flagging on 6th, but that would require a level of operational competence at West 4th and 34th that simply does not exist today. Whether or not we can expect many of those 8th-via-6th GOs in the coming years boils down to how NYCT plans to phase 8th CBTC -- ie whether or not they want to go the full shutdown route or the express/local GO route -- but given budgetary issues, I think a more realistic alternative to to 96 or to Queens Plaza is just extending it to Chambers. Its Essex terminal is garbage for connectivity, and Chambers really shouldn't be that much of a cost.

I made them with a code a friend sent me that uses R and files downloaded from the MTA's public data feeds. If you're interested in me sending you a copy, dm me.

Old signals will likely be reactivated/CBTC placed in bypass for those sorts of disruptions

Godspeed.

I'm old enough to remember the when it ran 8 minute headways on weekends. Those were the days. Trains...actually came. Worth noting that the express/local split of a route + the length of a route has little predictive ability: # of merges, dwell times, signalling, and on weekends GO volume are the metrics that matter.

So we should link one line through residential neighborhoods (Brighton) with another (Myrtle). Got it. What is a ridership draw, anyway, right?

1. This is not just about the B44. This branch would have every local stop on the Brighton line north of Brighton Beach as catchment, a catchment expanded by all the buses that connect to said stops. 2. "People have differing experiences with walking"...okay, and? We have long transfers, short transfers, complex transfers, and crowded transfers all across this system -- and for each type, there are countless examples that get overwhelming daily use. We of course should be sensitive to the needs of the mobility impaired, but Franklin Ave is hardly the most difficult transfer to rationalize. And people don't generally opt for convenience -- that's the assumption that made the IRT the dwell time shitshow it is today. New Yorkers will transfer to an express at the drop of a hat, even if it means they give up their seat for standing in a 2.5 sq feet/person subway car. 3. I discussed how uneven frequencies can impact operations, yes. But that has very little relevance here. These trains are stopping on different tracks and serving different markets, and the 10tph service level on the is hardly some hardship that will discourage transfers! Some examples of heavily used transfers from lines with throughputs >=19tph (combined ) to lines with service levels =< 10tph: - 125 to or - Bway Jct to or - [Fulton express stop] to - Jay St to - Hoyt-Schermerhorn to Would I like to run this imagined branch at 15tph all day long? Sure, but that likely will not happen. 4. I agree, we should build only in areas that are likely to have real impacts. I think this is one such area. Can't say I follow what you mean here, though I somewhat contest that Brooklyn's streets are good -- ever been to Flatbush Junction during a rush hour? Yeah, of course we should focus on improving Bronx and Queens' connectivity to the other outer boroughs. But that misses the point: the Franklin- connection is attractive largely because how easy it is: we're talking less than a mile of new tunnel. I'm hard pressed to name a similarly simple rail investment that could be made in the Bronx or Queens that would have a comparable connectivity impact.

Scuttlebutt has the first section cut over 12/23 (no that isn't a typo)

Not to let facts get in the way of a good story or anything, but the median wait for the B44SBS is, outside of weekends, almost always greater than that of the subways under Nostrand. Taking the AM rush hour, you're waiting an average of 2.5 mins for the SBS vs 1.6 for the and 3 for the (assuming 10tph service level). So you're down 2.1 mins in wait time, but you make that up in (a conservative, given the variability inherent in bus service) +8 in travel time, minus a 2 min transfer time. It's also worth noting that Foster Avenue to Lafayette Avenue is far from the only market that would be unlocked by this change, which brings me to my next point. And why, pray, is that? Is LIC not one of the fastest growing outer borough CBDs? Is economic access not important or something?

1) Crosstown buses do indeed exist -- and I would hope that any plan which added a branch to the Brighton line would invest further in their frequencies to help fully reap the benefits of the line. 2) Let's say I live at Nostrand and Foster. Today, to get to Nostrand and Lafayette, I walk over to Rogers and get on the SBS -- that's a half hour trip. With this branch, you take the to Franklin (15ish minutes), transfer to the branch, and take that to Bedford-Nostrand (5ish minutes). That's twenty minutes, and let's throw in 2 minutes for the transfer time. 22 vs 30, take your pick.

This + Fordham + 167 Spur are not provisions. 145 was built the way it was because it would have been ridiculously costly and of questionable value to rearrange the structural members coming from the 4 track upper level so that the middle track on the 3 track lower level could be perfectly centered. Fordham has its strange shape because of the Grand Concourse underpass that dips down at that point, and 167 Spur just sort of...exists in a convenient location to store Yankees trains, which is, I assume, why it was built where it is. When they went for 3 tracks on Concourse, they _went for three tracks_ -- look at how the trackage around Bedford Park is designed -- and that's what were stuck with, for better or for worse.

There's a good bit of B44 ridership that goes from [points within subway service area along Nostrand] to [points north of EPW]. I'd expect a good bit of that traffic would opt for IRT to this new branch rather than bus, especially if transfer is added.

I think the move when it comes to the shuttle is attaching it to the itself. Branch Crosstown south of Bedford Nostrand, tunnel down to somewhere between Fulton and Eastern Parkway, and then just reclaim the ROW. Voila, you’ve got yourself a good approximation of the BMT’s crosstown line and in doing so have provided a decent north-south substitute to buses like the 44.

Yes. A4 track -- the northbound express -- has GT40s from 86th St to 116 St, and then GT35 around the bend to 125. Those indeed do exist for capacity reasons -- under fixed block control, allowing trains to get very fast (especially as they approach high dwell station areas) tends to reduce capacity as your control lines get extremely long, thus requiring slower speeds/ST earlier, etc. CBTC would fix this issue without any capacity penalty and could potentially allow speeds well in excess of 50mph really all the way from 59 to 116 on CPW, but for that we must wait. The same is true on Concourse. The R68s are certainly underpowered, and have chronic issues when it comes to hill climbing, but that whole line is slathered in GTs -- two shots and one shots alike. What's interesting from a historical perspective is that many portions of Concourse express actually once had slower time speeds than they do today; a lot of the speed issues there (on a relative level, not an absolute level) are thanks to operator variability, signal positioning -- north of 145, there are some nasty GTs that hide behind curves -- car equipment power and signal reliability.

There's nothing about three track lines that forces you to run rush hours only express service...look at the ! If they MTA wanted to (and I believe they should), they could easily extend the to BPB 19/5.