Caelestor

1 minute ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

I saw that on the Bay Ridge and South Brooklyn Facebook Group.

https://www.change.org/p/mta-express-d-train-for-brooklyn-residents?recruiter=929454202&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=share_petition&utm_term=psf_combo_share_abi&recruited_by_id=6f84d460-18c9-11e9-abf9-cb1d6fa89538&utm_content=starter_fb_share_content_en-us%3Av7

I say nah. It would result in a service cut to every  line station below 36th St not named 9th Ave, 62nd St and Bay Parkway. And the first two of those stations have relatively low ridership compared to the other stops.

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.

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.

On 5/29/2019 at 9:29 AM, RR503 said:

Yeah, express travel and any non perfect commute trip is where the model breaks down. 

Also, FWIW, median B/D runtime is about 1-1:30 less than FM in both directions...not enough to tip the scales, sure, but worth noting nonetheless. 

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.

1 hour ago, Italianstallion said:

These are not capacity improvements, they are access improvements. Capacity improvements create more TPH.

FYI

On 5/9/2019 at 2:58 PM, RR503 said:

The GCT enhancements are excellent news. Dwell times are what limit capacity on the  now that CBTC is in; the more people you can get off the platform the better.

6 hours ago, Lance said:

We really have to get out of this belief that we must spread the pain around to everyone. Cutting back lines or needlessly expanding their intervals between trains is extremely detrimental to getting people to actually use these service outside of peak periods.

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?

5 hours ago, RR503 said:

The reason that the gets reduced so much is because the and generally are not cut. and are 15tph alone; 18tph once you add in the is really pushing it if there's flagging. 

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.

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

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.

We need to adopt an "organization before electronics before concrete" approach to running the subway system. More service begets more ridership and fewer budget deficits, which increases the likelihood of funding for future expansion. There's a lot of unused capacity in the existing infrastructure today, namely Broadway, 8 Ave, and Broadway. Deinterlining + fixing terminals to increase capacity is an order of magnitude cheaper than new tunnels + East River tubes.

Now back to Chrystie St Connection II... 

8 hours ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

I like it. At least two SAS services will be needed to provide comparable service to lower 2nd Ave versus upper. We don’t have to split the  back into separate  and  services. Houston St-2nd Ave will get significantly more service by having the  and  stopping there, plus a transfer to the  and ( V ).

I’m not sure how that is. The  and  combined would certainly have higher frequency than the  alone (I think they already do now). Remember, the  runs as frequently as it does now is to accommodate the heavy ridership in Queens. Replacing the  in Brooklyn with the  and  would be significantly more service on the two-track section of the line north of Bergen St (as well as a handy reroute via the  at Jay St). And it becomes much easier to provide a Culver express service without the local stations between Jay and Church taking a huge hit in service frequency. 

The biggest expenses would be reconfiguring Chrystie, so the  and  can continue into Houston-2nd Ave on the express tracks, then continue past 2nd towards the Rutgers St Tunnel. Of course, there’s also the matter of reconfiguring Grand, so the  and ( V ) can go straight into the existing station (no “Deep Chrystie” needed!). The  dead-ending at Hanover Square waiting for a new East River tunnel that may never come definitely won’t provide any relief to the  to/from Brooklyn. And the  via Montague and the  would probably provide just a little relief, given that’s an all-local route with a lot of stops along the way. It certainly wouldn’t be much faster to Midtown Manhattan than the .

As for turning the  at 2nd, reconfigure the local tracks there to continue straight down Houston to a point (perhaps Pitt St/Avenue C) where they can be close enough for  trains to relay. Maybe even put a new station at Avenue C.

The problem with completely severing the 6 Ave express tracks from the Chrystie St connection is that one of the 6 Ave track pairs will dead end in the LES, which really doesn't have to be the case. The IND Second System planned for an extension of the express tracks into Williamsburg via a new East River tunnel, but clearly that's not on the table. Connecting the express tracks with the Williamsburg Bridge effectively achieves this at considerably less cost by utilizing existing, underused infrastructure.

On 4/13/2019 at 8:40 PM, RR503 said:

The pairings should be as per Vanshnook's version of this plan -- 6th local to Rutgers, 6th express to Williamsburg -- for ease of construction, but otherwise this is completely sound. BMT South has access to Broadway here; that corridor is essentially 6th save for at W4 (which would be accessible to riders via transfer off of SAS trains at 2nd/Houston). 

Ignoring the inevitable cost overruns and the massive service disruption, this is also one of my favorite proposals for SAS Phase 3. Sending the over the Williamsburg bridge fulfills the IND Second System plan to extend the 6 Ave express tracks through North Brooklyn. The 6 Ave express tracks are probably the only track pair that can handle 8-car trains, given current ridership along the Concourse line. The initial phase would simply build SAS Phase 3 + realign Chrystie St to achieve

•  to Metropolitan Ave, displacing the  
•  to Jamaica Center, displacing the  
• Culver express
•  Culver local
•  72 St - Coney Island via lower SAS + West End (full time)
• SAS local / Brighton Beach express (part time), probably should be a recolored  or  train
•  Bay Ridge - Essex St shuttle via Nassau St. At lower ridership hours, this could replace the  to Middle Village

Then in a future phase, build the Whitehall - Court St tunnel to send the to Fulton St. The independent Bay Ridge - Nassau St line can become the basis for the SAS express tracks, with the Nassau St stations rehabilitated with extended platforms as appropriate.

The maximum capacity solution is the  taking over the Fulton St local to Euclid,  to Rockaways, and  express to Lefferts. Then the  takes over the Bay Ridge branch and the  takes over the Culver local, allowing the  to run express.

Then build the QB bypass / 50 St crosstown, stopping at Woodhaven Blvd, Woodside, Sunnyside Yards, Court Sq, 2/3 Aves, Rockefeller Center, Broadway/8 Ave, and 10 Ave.

SAS from 72 St to Hanover Sq would have the biggest investment, but presumably it would link up with a new Northern Blvd line in Queens.

On 4/6/2019 at 3:05 PM, engineerboy6561 said:

The larger question then becomes how we tie the Second Ave Subway into the system. It still runs through a huge chunk of Manhattan and needs feeder services to avoid becoming an orphan, so if we avoid tying into there now we're going to have to do it later.

Phases 1 + 2 are well-integrated, as they are effectively the extension of the Broadway express tracks. However the new  service would cause a reverse branching situation, and so lower SAS (72 St - Hanover Sq) needs to be reevaluated.

Given the latent capacity on the  south of Essex and the  south of LES - 2 Ave, a Chrystie St II Connection could provide an additional pair of tracks up Midtown East while solving the yard access issue that the  will have.

39 minutes ago, Harlem Crosstown said:

Wait would it be even possible to run trains on the Queens Bypass because of how it would affect LIRR service like ESA?

The Bypass would be built in currently unoccupied space along the LIRR row, formerly used by the Rockaway branch. In the initial proposal, the line had no stations, but nowadays there'd probably be stops at Woodside, Woodhaven Blvd, and possibly Sunnyside Yards.

ESA is just going to use the existing 4 main line + 2 PW tracks, which will split into 4 tracks to NYPenn + 2 tracks to GCT. Traffic is planned to be split 50/50, which opens up a lot of capacity into Penn, even after Amtrak is accounted for. Hence the reason for MNR Penn Station Access, though logistically it probably makes more sense to extend NJT NEC trains to Stamford instead.

14 hours ago, RR503 said:

QB local absolutely needs 30. It’s the only way of getting any sort of capacity into LIC that won’t be packed to the gills with riders from further east. It’s also the only way of making a dent in QB express crowding without new construction. If you go for full deinterlining (53 via local, 63 via express) QB local all of the sudden becomes capacitally relevant further out, which basically forces a more equitable load distribution. 

Are the stations between Court Sq and Roosevelt Ave receiving that much development? I'd imagine the  have plenty of space during rush hour, though the  definitely has no more capacity by the time it reaches Queens Plaza. Unfortunately the 63 St line misses LIC entirely, otherwise the deinterlining would have been implemented from Day 1 and service would be better throughout the system. 

There's a couple of reasonably inexpensive ways to better reduce QB express crowding. The easiest one would have the  skip Roosevelt Ave in the peak direction, forcing riders to take the  instead and better balance the crowding along QBL. I also agree that full deinterlining would do the trick, and in that case 30 tph would be achievable by having local trains run to 179 St or via a new line under Jewel Ave.

The  should not be extended to College Point or Whitestone, which represent dead ends, as there is no justification to build an expensive subway tunnel to Throgs Neck. A northern extension would also permanently limit capacity on the eastward Northern Blvd extension to Broadway / Bayside, which is the denser corridor that needs to be served.

2 hours ago, RR503 said:

The way I see it, PW provides capacity for the now/short term, regional rail solutions in the medium term,  reliever line and  extension in the long term.

CityTicket should be extended to weekdays, and PW service should be increased off-peak, as well as during the peak after ESA opens. Queens needs every bit of capacity it can get.

Regional rail through NJT / LIRR consolidation would be nice, but it would only really open up trips to NJ. The real game changer would be an ESA extension to Union Square and Jersey City / Fulton St, which is even more long term than new SAS + Northern Blvd subway lines.

On 3/9/2019 at 4:42 PM, RR503 said:

Also, it’d force you to reduce  and  service to 10tph to fit the 20 of  service through 53 and 6th local. This is essentially why you can’t move the  without reorganizing the rest of the B division. 

This might be controversial, but I don't think QBL local needs 20 tph, especially since most riders east of Roosevelt Ave transfer over to the . The running at 15 tph should be more than enough to accommodate riders at the ten local stops between Queens Plaza and Forest Hills. In fact, it may very well be possible that running the  at 15 tph each could work very well in practice. Keep the  and  the same, and run the  between Forest Hills and Middle Village at all times except late nights, replacing the . Some peak  trains would have 10 cars, terminating at Houston St / 2 Ave. The only impediment would be the signaling, which IIRC currently limits tph to 28 along 6 Ave, and a potential chokepoint in moving all QBL / Lex Ave transfers to 53 St.

As for the , consolidating it with the  and moving the  to 96 St would also improve the current congestion at Times Sq. The ideal service pattern would be 15 tph between Astoria and Bay Ridge, plus additional short turns between Queensboro Plaza and Whitehall St.

4 hours ago, Lance said:

All of that essentially makes the argument for streamlining Broadway. While there isn't much that can presently done to remove the aging rolling stock, more so if the was ever removed from Queens Blvd, the bulk of the issues you mentioned can be addressed by implementing the oft-proposed idea of shifting the back to Astoria and sending the to the East Side. The would go the way of the dinosaur as it's only needed to provide additional Broadway service to Astoria without running to Coney Island via Sea Beach. Those runs can be absorbed into the proposed route and provide desperately needed additional service along 4th Avenue as well.

Of course, the difficulty lies in what serves Queens Blvd as the primary local. A seemingly no-brainer would be to make the service the main one there, but it becomes a capacity cut as those trains must be eight-cars to run on Jamaica and Myrtle Ave. There's also the issue of whether the amount of service along Queens Blvd is also needed on Myrtle Ave, which is partly the reason behind the current operations of the and today.

I'll do QBL first since that's actually the easier problem to solve. If the  is ever taken off QBL, then the only feasible service pattern is running the  via 63 St (it stays local in Queens). This frees up capacity for the  along the QBL local tracks and 53 St. Deinterline the   and the  along 8 Ave and every pair of tracks through Midtown is running at full capacity.

Broadway is the trickiest trunk to schedule, assuming all trains run to the same northern terminals at all times. All Broadway local trains should be running via 60 St and Montague, while all Broadway express trains should be running via 63 St / SAS and the Bridge. This scheduling works on weekdays and weekdays, the latter assuming the  or  runs on QBL during weekends. Late nights Broadway only has a SAS train via the Bridge and an Astoria - Coney Island train via Montague, the latter of which won't exist if the  goes to 96 St. Honestly, the best solution is to run the  to 96 St +  to Astoria at all times, which will increase costs but will dramatically improve service along SAS + Broadway.

3 hours ago, ibroketheprinter said:

On the official OMNY page it references integrating commuter rail. Does anyone have any idea how this would be implemented and how it would tie in/replace eTix?

 

My thoughts are that they going to go with what Go Transit (Toronto) has where you tap a reader before you board to pay, and then a conductor comes round and checks your card to see if you tapped. Just a theory, I have no idea what the MTA will ultimately go with

This is what a lot of mainline rail systems do, and frankly the MTA should do so as well. It will relieve a lot of congestion at the ticket counters and ticket machines at NY Penn, and save a reasonable amount of paper. The mainline rail systems can even consider moving to POP, though I'm not certain if it's feasible because NYC actually has significant rail ridership unlike the rest of the country.

1 hour ago, RR503 said:

The Lex platforms IINM fit entirely within the Lexington Avenue ROW. I'd imagine this would be a matter of digging up a sidewalk, and functionally extending the platforms to 63. 

I think you can just go for a Bleecker St style transfer - 3 blocks instead of 1 but same principle. Then move the  to 63 St and then traffic flow through the complex should be much more balanced. Even though the  transfer will be less convenient than the , Lex express / QB express riders get an actual transfer between the .

Hudson Yards, a two-track terminal with tail tracks, works fine. There's two potential improvements for the eastern end of the . The cheaper solution is to build tail tracks at Flushing Main St with crossovers so that trains can enter the terminal at higher speed. The more practical solution is to extend the  further out to a modern two-track terminal with tail tracks and relieve the bus transfers at Main St.

There is no need to adjust the Dekalb services. Brighton is the busiest of the BMT branches, and so all Brighton service should run via the Bridge. The  and  also run express via the Bridge given their longer routes + greater catchment area. This leaves the  to serve Montague.

QBL local doesn't need more local service, and the express tracks are maxed out. So send the  to 96 St, separate the  from the  and merge the  into the  timetables. The  can serve Astoria / Forest Hills - Whitehall St - Bay Ridge in whatever way makes sense.

Actually, CBTC is one of the most cost-effective ways to improve capacity, the other being articulated subway cars. The expensive infrastructure, i.e. tunnels + stations, are already there, and the signals have to be replaced anyways. That said, the 63 St line should be extended to Woodside and later Forest Hills to relieve the current QBL chokepoint at Jackson Heights - Roosevelt Ave.

As for the , the only split it needs is from the , especially along 60 St. Neither the  nor  are frequent enough to impose serious merging delays, so the problem lies in poor operations.

30 minutes ago, BreeddekalbL said:

At current numbers would it be possible to split the  service as run a letter  service to lefferts and A to Rockaway? 

In general branches of existing services shouldn't have different names. For example the  have two different northern terminals during rush hour.

I think the MTA should just suspend  trains in Manhattan and run the  to 96 St on weekends. With 20-minute service not only will trains be dangerously overcrowded, but it'll also be faster to walk along 14 St.

Deinterlining should be done where trains currently switch between local and express tracks, because having a train occupy two tracks at once is always a loss of capacity. To me these are

• The  going from express to local btwn Times Sq and Herald Sq
  • Keep the  on the express tracks
• The  going from the Eastern Parkway express tracks to the Nostrand Ave line via the EP local tracks
  • During peak hours, all  trains should run to Flatbush Ave as today.  trains should also go down Nostrand as much as possible, with the excess continuing to New Lots Ave. All  and  trains continue on the express trains to Utica, with the  terminating at Utica and the  continuing to New Lots Ave.
  • Off-peak, the  run to Flatbush Ave, the  goes local after Franklin Ave to New Lots Ave, and the  continues to Utica. 
• The  running via 53 St
  • A special case, but in practice 63 St is only running at half capacity. The  going via 53 St also results in loss of capacity at 7 Ave / 53 St and the 8 Ave line
  • Send the  via 63 St, it can stay local on QB
    • Frees up a slot for the  train
• The  going from the express tracks to the local tracks north of WTC
  • Keep all Cranberry Tube trains express in 8 Ave
  • This is minor because 8 Ave doesn't currently have 4 services, but it's absolutely necessary if the  comes to 8 Ave

4 hours ago, RR503 said:

This is where I’m getting lost. You need 3 services on QB and 3 on CPW. With deinterlining, and 6th being express on both corridors, that means 4 on 6th, unless you’re willing to send a local service to Concourse, Inwood, 179 or Parsons.

I’d be fine sending a local to 179, especially if the expectation is that there’ll be constant trackwork, but all the same... 

On weekends, 6 Ave, Broadway, and 8 Ave ideally should have 3 services each. I think the  is going to be shut down every weekend for the foreseeable future because one-track service will be a disaster, so the  will be effectively the third off-peak service along 6 Ave. At the south end of these trunks, one 8 Ave local train terminates at WTC, and the other 8 services continue into Brooklyn along Bay Ridge, Sea Beach, West End, Culver, Brighton, Fulton x2, and Myrtle Ave like they do today.

The northern end is trickier, but it seems that the optimal service is 3 CPW, 2 SAS, 1 Astoria, and 3 QB - note that the MTA does this today by sending the  to 96 St. To implement the deinterlining, both Broadway expresses should be running to SAS and the Broadway local should be running to Astoria. Then this leaves

•  CPW Express, 8 Ave Express, Fulton Express
•  CPW Local, 8 Ave Local, Fulton Local
•  QB Express, 53 St, 8 Ave Local (terminates at WTC)
•  CPW Express, 6 Ave Express, West End
•  QB Express, 63 St, 6 Ave Local, Culver
•  QB Local, 53 St, 6 Ave Local, Myrtle Ave
•  SAS / Bway Express, Sea Beach
•  SAS / Bway Express, Brighton
•  Astoria, Bway Local, Bay Ridge

So not perfect deinterlining, but better than what we come before. The biggest issue right now is that the  doesn't have a yard servicing it and so its base of operations has to be moved to CI. However, CI yard should be big enough to accommodate the  as necessary.

On weekdays, you keep these lines, and add in the  (unchanged from today) and a  train between Whitehall St and Forest Hills. If the  goes to 63 St, replace the  train with more  trains on Broadway and the new  QB local / 53 St / 8 Ave service.

Late to the conversation, but I posit that a Jewel Ave line should always be built before a LIE line.

• As a QB local branch, Jewel would divert half the trains away from the congested and sup-optimal Forest Hills terminal, increasing capacity on the local tracks. LIE would presumably be a 63 St line extension which is still far off.
• The Jewel Ave and LIE lines would stop at the same major roads and both offer good access to QC, but the catchment area of the Jewel Ave stations is much greater. LIE does have the 99 St / 108 St stop in its favor.
• Building an LIE line necessitates a Union Turnpike line to improve access to that area, while the eastern end of Jewel / 73rd serves UT reasonably and thus the Jewel Ave line is probably more cost-effective in the long run.

On 2/3/2019 at 8:39 PM, RR503 said:

The annoying thing about new Midtown crosstown routes is just this. The median midtown job is a whole lot closer to 50 than it is 57, but if you’re going somewhere that isn’t Midtown, you get screwed transfer-wise...so you have to balance having transfers and having to use said transfers. I think you’re right that 57>50, but still... 

 

It’s really a shame lower SAS isn't 4 tracks. Having them even from 57-34 with relays south would allow you to run a good, high frequency Queens-East Side service in its own tunnel without having to deviate up to 86th St or thereabouts... 

I actually think a Midtown crosstown route should be prioritized as a relief line for 53 St, and thus 50 St is the better option because it's in the middle of everything. Not to say 57 St is bad because of all the transfers, but here's a comparison between the two lines with potential stops:

• 2 Ave / 3 Ave (double-ended station): Both 50 St and 57 St are going to require a tunnel to connect to the 52-55 St SAS station.
• 3 Ave / Lex Ave: Both have good access to the . Slight advantage to 59 St because of the  but I don't know if we want to overload the Lex Ave express services even more.
• 5 Ave / 6 Ave: 50 St has a definite advantage over 57 St because of Rockefeller Center and its express stations.
• 7 Ave / 8 Ave: While the 3 north/south lines all stop along 50 St and 57 St, the latter is better because of the Columbus Circle and 57 St / 7 Ave express stops.

So overall, I don't think 50 St is much worse than 57 St transfer-wise. Then again, I think transfers to the  are adequate enough because of how busy every stop in Manhattan is, so YMMV. 

As for lower SAS, it needs to be reevaluated. If we're going to build such a long new tunnel, we should be getting 24+ tph out of it. Current SAS Phase 1 and Phase 2 offers that if / when the Bway express trains are permanently routed to SAS, but there will be nothing left for the 2-track tunnel south of 72 St. Honestly, the proposal of building lower SAS up from the Grand St / Delancey St area has a lot of merit because it punts the issue of how to link up lower SAS with the Queens and UES lines, while adding direct Brooklyn service to SAS which isn't currently available under any SAS plan.