Jump to content

Attention: In order to reply to messages, create topics, have access to other features of the community you must sign up for an account.


Veteran Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Caelestor

  1. Sea Beach has two top 150 ridership stations at 59 St and 8 Ave compared to none on West End. Past that the lines are comparable in ridership, though Sea Beach is the faster train to / from Coney Island. That said, 59 St - Bay Ridge has more ridership per station than either West End or Sea Beach, and all 4 Ave local trains should stay on the local tracks.
  2. These ideas are great and all, but here's a proposal that's probably really pressing - stop running trains every 12 minutes because no one is willing to wait around that long. The solution is a bit harder to pinpoint but probably involves overhauling the existing work and flagging rules.
  3. No Manhattan trunk line should be running at half capacity afaic, even poorly routed Nassau St. Induced demand will bring in the ridership, and for lower Manhattan a combination of 6 Ave local - Rutgers St - Culver local / express 6 Ave express tracks - Jamaica Line 2 Ave local tracks - Manhattan Bridge 2 Ave express tracks - Nassau St - 4 Ave local Broadway local - Fulton local (via new tunnel) would maximize service on all lines in Brooklyn for generations to come. Also not running the past City Hall or connecting it with PATH is very poor planning.
  4. Honestly, no service is better than poor service. At least with no service, there's some expectation that normal (relatively good) service will return. An eternal state of poor service just forces people onto the rideshares permanently. Also, a 4-track line with 15 tph has 25% the capacity of a normal line. That's almost as bad as the weekend (3 tph = 20% of normal 15 tph service) and everyone is calling for that to be shut down. As for outer lines such as QBL, LIRR + MNR have a lot of capacity and riders should be allowed to ride on them at much more discounted rates.
  5. Minor clarification, 6 Ave can support 28 tph. Ideally 2 services with 14 tph each but possibly 3 services running 9 tph each, though I never recommend running more than 2 services on a single pair of tracks. We're all in agreement that the eventually has to be taken off 6 Ave in order to increase service on Culver to its max potential. However, I'm not entirely convinced about the Broome St connection - that would permanently halve capacity on Nassau St and 8 Ave south of Spring St. The MTA should be building tunnels that can support 24+ tph. Not recommended because this turns Culver into a reverse branch, plus the 2 Ave stop transfer exists already. A reconfiguration of the Chrystie St bridge services is probably the better option; there's a few proposals to send the Manhattan Bridge trains up 2 Ave. Then presumably the 6 Ave express tracks would be through-routed over the Williamsburg Bridge.
  6. Based on my understanding, local service as measured in tph during the specified time periods isn't being cut. Trains only run every 5 minutes (12 tph) at those times, so it's likely that the MTA can make a timetable to add the 2 express trains. Conversely this makes train service in the other peak direction more robust, because an equal number of trains will then be running on the in both directions.
  7. One issue with the is that the and the LIRR Atlantic branch do a much better job at getting riders to Lower Manhattan and especially Downtown Brooklyn. However, what the can do is capture the latent ridership between Broadway Jct and Marcy Ave, which is relatively high given the low frequencies the non-transfer stops receive. But back to the point, a (brownR) train is a pretty good solution for Bay Ridge riders, given the spare capacity along the Bay Ridge + Nassau St lines. I don't have much else to say. According to the L train shutdown, the Bridge can handle 24 tph. Hence why I suggested 7.5 tph on the each.
  8. The real purpose of skip-stop is to run fewer train sets at the peak, but short-turning trains and providing more service, especially west of Broadway Junction, is a much better solution. The should all run on synchronized 8 minute headways at the peak. I'm not certain if any of these trains should be running express - lowering headways, especially west of Broadway Junction, is a bigger priority in my opinion.
  9. line extension. However, the new South Ferry terminal wasn't build deep enough so the East River tunnel would have to branch off the main line south of Rector St. The has an upper limit of 26 tph, which isn't currently achieved because of the lack of electrical power. The could be ramped up to 30 - 36 tph if it got a terminal like Hudson Yards, and the consensus here is that the should be extended up 10 Ave to 72 St, stopping at 23 St, 34 St, 41 St, 50 St, and 57/60 St. The go to 96 St, the would run to Astoria and the would run take its place along QBL.
  10. IIRC the plan isn't to combine the and just yet, but have one full-time local service between Astoria and Bay Ridge and have the other part-time service truncated to Forest Hills - Whitehall. The remaining question is what should the weekend service plan be, assuming that Broadway will only run three services like every other trunk line. Agreed that the to QBL via 63 St is a non-starter. SAS needs more service and an option to route the via 63 St should be preserved for the future. You nailed QBL's fundamental design problem - the Queens Plaza - Roosevelt Ave stretch has practically no ridership and takes a longer physical route than the track, causing local-express transfers to and severe overcrowding on the . If trains could run local east of Roosevelt Ave but express west of that stop, the crowding would be significantly less. For ridership balance purposes, the ideal QBL service plan is to keep the the same as usual, reroute the via 63 St, and introduce a Forest Hills - Euclid Ave train (QBL local via 53 St, 8 Ave express, Fulton Local). This gives each tunnel a minimum of 2 express trains + 1 local train every 8 minutes. To offer a middle ground, convenient transfers should always be prioritized over one seat rides. Here are the places where deinterlining should be implemented with few to no questions asked: Rogers Junction IRT - Franklin Ave can easily accommodate local-express cross-platform transfers 8 Ave Canal St merge - Canal St is another cross-platform transfer Broadway 34 St merge - 57 St, 42 St, 34 St, and 14 St are all good transfer points and all 4-track local-express segments in general and here are the places where it's more questionable: DeKalb Ave: Neither DeKalb Ave nor Atlantic Ave have cross-platform transfers. QBL: There is a severe imbalance in ridership along QBL (see above) Columbus Circle: Interlining actually should be implemented, but it requires the to run local along CPW / 8 Ave, the to run express on CPW, and the to run express into Brooklyn. Some special cases where deinterlining results in so much extra capacity that it's probably worth it to bite the bullet: Retire 53 St / 6 Ave connection and 11th St cuts - the new train is basically half a line's worth of capacity Grand Concourse - 149 St: The should be running to Woodlawn and the would take over White Plains if Harlem-148 St didn't exist. The real question is how much does full deinterlining help QBL? QBL express can gain maybe 6 more tph with CBTC, but QBL local barely justifies 15-20 tph, let alone 30. QBL probably will need another capital project (beyond CBTC) to fix the fundamental design flaws of the line. Even the bypass line connecting to 63 St wouldn't actually increase Queens capacity since the 11 St cut wouldn't be retired, so another East River tunnel has to be in the works somewhere.
  11. Honestly I'm fine with service cuts after the evenings if it will save money in overtime costs and the savings could be redirected to capacity increases at other times.
  12. The real issue is that the MTA can run 50+ tph on weekdays on the busiest trunk lines but there's a hard cap of 20 on weekends. If 30 was the upper limit, every service could run on the weekends and the subway wouldn't be losing as much ridership to the rideshare companies. Fortunately, this will be a moot point once the is permanently taken off QBL.
  13. Assuming Broadway is still connected to the QBL, the line has three northern branches in SAS, Astoria, and QBL and three southern branches in Brighton, Sea Beach, and Bay Ridge. So the current weekend service plan is the optimal one. If I was in charge of the real-life Department of Subways, the would still run to 96 St. Instead, reroute the to Astoria due to QBL CBTC and give the reasonable 8-minute headways. The could terminate at 57 St if 96 St can't handle 3 services, then send it back to Forest Hills once capacity becomes available. I am uncertain but I would definitely keep the designation on Sea Beach where it's run for over 50 years. Astoria and Bay Ridge both have the letter and the is going to be retired once the runs 15 tph along the entire local corridor.
  14. Assuming the BMT trains are sent to Flushing instead, it's not a terrible idea because most Flushing riders transfer at Queensboro Plaza today. The major downside is that the wouldn't have a yard. At 3 blocks, 60 St to 63 St is closer than PABT to Times Sq and thus the transfer really should be built. Then Lex Ave express / QBL express riders can transfer to each other and SAS riders can access the until lower SAS is built.
  15. First proposal should be implemented because in practice Broadway gains ~7 tph plus reduced train delays along the entire corridor. Plus it's a prerequisite to the other plans here. Second proposal is not a great long-term solution because I'm not convinced that the can handle SAS by itself at its current frequencies. Third proposal gives 8 Ave the Broadway treatment and fully maxes out system capacity, but given that the can only run 8 car trains at the moment, a CPW-style interlining with express and local might be more feasible. Yep, the idea is that the Canal St merge kills capacity just like the 34 St merge on Broadway and both need to be retired. In order to preserve 8 Ave local service, especially at 50 St, the Fulton local should become a QBL train. However, the MTA has to not only add an additional service, but both the 53 St / 6 Ave and 59 St / Queens Plaza connections have to be retired so that might be more challenging to get public approval.
  16. No one advocates a along West End; the preference is for trains to be extended to Bay Ridge. Seeing as the conversation has shifted over to capacity on the B Division. I'm just going to say that the most realistic steps the MTA can take is to deinterline all express trains and local trains along the 4 track trunks in Manhattan. In practice this means Send the to 96 St and allow for more trains to run to Whitehall St / Bay Ridge Run the express to add more capacity through Cranberry and allow for a future local train to Queens With just these two changes, B Division can be broken up into "sectors" that can further increase reliability without any additional construction: Manhattan Bridge sector: Concourse / CPW local / 6 Ave express + SAS / Broadway express feeding into Brighton, West End, and Sea Beach. Further deinterlining can't be implemented because neither DeKalb nor Atlantic Ave have cross-platform transfers. Each service can run on today's 6 minute headways or possibly 5 minutes, 4 minutes after CBTC is installed. Cranberry tunnel sector: 8 Ave express / Fulton. With no upgrades, 24 tph with a 2:1 express:local split in Brooklyn should be doable. Queens sector: Astoria - QBL local / Broadway local / Bay Ridge + QBL express / 8 ave local + QBL / 6 Ave local + Nassau St / Jamaica + Crosstown / Culver. Every service here should be running on 4/8 minute headways so that they sync up. More aggressive deinterlining can further split this into Astoria + QBL sectors. Increasing frequency across all lines should be prioritized over local service reductions on outer branches.
  17. Adding on to my earlier point, the and already run express, just along 4 Ave. When viewed as the two branches of the 4 Ave express, West End and Sea Beach can only accommodate one service, and in general for any line there should always be robust local service in place before adding express trains. Adding additional 4 Ave local trains like the old is a bad idea for operational and ridership purposes unless they go to Bay Ridge. The runs every 4 minutes and the runs every 8 minutes. The current motivation for the express train, besides redeveloping the neighborhoods served by lower Culver, is so that trains terminating at Church Ave don't delay the . None of this is worth halving service to the stops along upper Culver. That said, if Bergen St lower level is reopened, then the could be reintroduced as the weekday local to Church Ave. The would be sent down Nassau St and Montague St to Bay Ridge. Then all trains run express between Bergen and Church.
  18. When it comes to rapid transit, frequency is valued more than travel time because waiting time is perceived more negatively than a slightly slower train. So basically none of the BMT south Brooklyn lines should be running express unless a second service is added like on Brighton. Similarly, the express can't happen unless another service through Rutgers is added.
  19. It's not necessarily about being anti-car, it's about expanding capacity and increasing mobility. Right now, getting into and around NYC by car, bus, taxi, train, ferry, etc. are all slow and if everyone's QOL is to improve, more modes of transportation are needed. Typically rail is preferred because it's the most cost-effective and there's existing pre-war infrastructure that can be used, but in NYC costs are so outrageous that everyone will be stuck in gridlock for the foreseeable future. The map that Alon drew is a fantasy map, but it represents what could be possible if costs were about the same as other developed countries. Existing rail infrastructure is leveraged and modernized to create a set of efficient through-running lines that offer subway-like service in the regional rail's core system. He based this system on two cities he's lived in, Paris and Berlin, with some inspiration from Tokyo. Also Alon grew up and lives internationally so he's not fixated as much on the NJ / NY state divide, which geographically doesn't exist. Not all of it is logical like the Staten Island tunnel that should just be an extension, but the gist of his proposal is fundamentally sound and 4 regional rail lines can and should be built in Manhattan. Unfortunately, the politics are the biggest obstacle to actually implementing any of this. Ideally, a central agency such as in DC, Philly, or Boston administers the transportation network of the entire area. If NJT and LIRR can't ever be merged to form Regional Rail line 1, then none of this is actually worth talking about.
  20. Seems about right, based on schedules a skipped stop saves about 45 seconds. Express service only really makes a big difference on the IRT due to its really closely-spaced stops, the BMT Brighton line, and the long express stretches on the IND (CPW, QBL, Fulton). Otherwise, treat it as another subway line with fewer stops to save construction costs and riders' time.
  21. Perhaps the discussion should be about why the MTA can't run more than 20 tph on a 4-track line on weekends. Is there an actual logistical reason or are they just cheap?
  22. At this point, it might be worthwhile cutting back the to a shuttle on weekends and running the and at 6 minute headways. I'd consider the same thing with 7 Ave, but the doesn't have a suitable terminal.
  23. There's a lot of ways to improve service not just for Bay Ridge but systemwide. One obvious issue that needs to be addressed is the dispatching, as trains can't run on time if they don't leave the first stop on time. For whatever reason, trains don't depart the terminal on time except on the single-service lines. Luckily operations issues are much easier to resolve compared to building new tunnels. Deinterlining can improve service too. Right now the has to deal with the twice (btwn 36 St and 59 St in Brooklyn due to construction, then btwn Times Sq and 59 St - Lex Ave), the in Manhattan, and then the in Queens. In any reasonable service plan, the should stay on the express tracks to 96 St and then the Bay Ridge trains have fewer merges that impede them. Also, headways should be standardized. Assuming the Astoria line is limited to one train every 4 minutes, the needs to have similar headways so that there won't be conflicts. In practice that means the has to run every 8 minutes, and it follows that the has to run every 8 minutes as well. Fortunately the QB local trains aren't crowded and the run on 4 minute headways so everything syncs up nicely. Since the will be the more frequent route, it should replace the in Brooklyn. In the end, the ideal plan is something in the lines of Sea Beach / Bway express / 2 Ave, shuttle between CI and Whitehall St at night Brighton / Bway express / 2 Ave, local at night Forest Hills - Whitehall St local, no service at night Astoria - Bay Ridge local, all times
  24. Just shut down the on weekends west of Bedford Ave and run the rest of the line on 6 minute headways. Almost no one is going to wait around for a 3 tph service. While not ideal the + + M14 SBS should be able to handle the weekend traffic.

  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.