Department of Subways - Proposals/Ideas

[RR503]

@LaGuardia Link N Tra I think this is a generally good plan. My only major critiques would be around frequency and around Dekalb.

Why are we running 15tph of  when P/A can only turn 12 and you're short turning 5? I would either run 12 and send them all through (conveniently creating a matched merge with ), or run 8 with 4 s going to P/A (this would allow 8  8  8 , increasing service on the Jamaica line and allowing for full  exp service). On the  end, I too am a big fan of Concourse (esp. in the context of Lex relief), but I think sending only 12tph of  to Washington Heights is a recipe for crowding. It should be an even split, or even the inverse (12  18 ). 

Then, Dekalb. I'm not the biggest fan of deinterlining, but if we are gonna do it, don't you think its best to do  to 4th/ to Brighton? I'm pretty sure that Broadway lean among Brighton riders still holds, while South Brooklyn gets to keep its connection to Grand. This also simplifies weekend service;  to Brighton forces you to keep all four Manhattan bridge routes going all weekend. 

[Union Tpke]

4 minutes ago, RR503 said:

@LaGuardia Link N Tra I think this is a generally good plan. My only major critiques would be around frequency and around Dekalb.

Why are we running 15tph of  when P/A can only turn 12 and you're short turning 5? I would either run 12 and send them all through (conveniently creating a matched merge with ), or run 8 with 4 s going to P/A (this would allow 8  8  8 , increasing service on the Jamaica line and allowing for full  exp service). On the  end, I too am a big fan of Concourse (esp. in the context of Lex relief), but I think sending only 12tph of  to Washington Heights is a recipe for crowding. It should be an even split, or even the inverse (12  18 ). 

Then, Dekalb. I'm not the biggest fan of deinterlining, but if we are gonna do it, don't you think its best to do  to 4th/ to Brighton? I'm pretty sure that Broadway lean among Brighton riders still holds, while South Brooklyn gets to keep its connection to Grand. This also simplifies weekend service;  to Brighton forces you to keep all four Manhattan bridge routes going all weekend. 

Deinterlining DeKalb would be a mess. There is no easy transfer, and people might be inclined to further overcrowd the IRT at Atlantic.

[RR503]

1 minute ago, Union Tpke said:

Deinterlining DeKalb would be a mess. There is no easy transfer, and people might be inclined to further overcrowd the IRT at Atlantic.

As you know, I agree. You fix operational issues with better operations, not rider punishment. LGA seems to agree too -- see the equivocation about operations in his first post. 

The argument at Dekalb, I think, is that Broadway and 6th are approximately the same corridor; people won't transfer, instead choosing to walk. I don't fully agree with this assessment (it ignores transfer options from each corridor, Union Square, etc), but I do see the point in Midtown. 

In regards to the IRT, I'd actually expect the opposite effect. The biggest reason I hear cited for not transferring to the  for Midtown at Atlantic is that no one knows where the next Manhattan-bound on those corridors will show, and checking subwaytime in a hurry is a hassle. Combine that with those routes' six to eight minute scheduled headways (and that's at best), and the temporal case for transferring all but disappears. Creating a predictable pattern at that stop (for 6th, go to the 4th plats; for Broadway go to Brighton) would probably attract riders. But again, I don't think its worth it -- the primary concern of those lines is to serve their on-line riders. 

[LGA Link N Train]

2 hours ago, RR503 said:

@LaGuardia Link N Tra I think this is a generally good plan. My only major critiques would be around frequency and around Dekalb.

Why are we running 15tph of  when P/A can only turn 12 and you're short turning 5? I would either run 12 and send them all through (conveniently creating a matched merge with ), or run 8 with 4 s going to P/A (this would allow 8  8  8 , increasing service on the Jamaica line and allowing for full  exp service). On the  end, I too am a big fan of Concourse (esp. in the context of Lex relief), but I think sending only 12tph of  to Washington Heights is a recipe for crowding. It should be an even split, or even the inverse (12  18 ). 

Then, Dekalb. I'm not the biggest fan of deinterlining, but if we are gonna do it, don't you think its best to do  to 4th/ to Brighton? I'm pretty sure that Broadway lean among Brighton riders still holds, while South Brooklyn gets to keep its connection to Grand. This also simplifies weekend service;  to Brighton forces you to keep all four Manhattan bridge routes going all weekend. 

Well I’m aware that Jamaica Center can only turn 12 trains but I must ask, what is P/A? I fail to understand what you mean by that. I’m not sure if you read the description for each line in my map or not but the reason I’m running 15 ’s instead of 8 is to keep the QB express at max capacity. Also, since WillyB can handle 24 TPH, I decided to short turn 5  trains so that there’s still room for the  and . What I did (and didn’t have the time to explain cause i had to run out of my house when making my initial post, was that WillyB will have an Uneven split with the 9 8 7 during the rush hour to allow the  to do a full peak Express between Broadway Junction and Marcy Avenue. Now, I’m beginning to think twice about that. As for your point about the  in my proposal, I see what you mean by how 12  trains per hour would create a recipe for crowding, but my main goal was to have Concourse  service increased to shift riders off the  with a special rush hour  local service. However, 15 15  (10 to 168 and 16 to BPK during rush) works too. In regards to your last statement about Dekalb, I did establish in my initial post that 6th Avenue and Broadway are at walking distance from one another. (Also, I kinda predicted the mixed reviews) 

One last thing I want to point out is that I considered brining back the , but rerouted to Bay Ridge. This would’ve been done in favor of making the  the Culver Express while the  would take over the Culver Local. This  would still follow my proposed  route past Rockefeller Center. However, I dropped this option because it makes no sense to benefit one community at the expense of hurting another. 

[Around the Horn]

2 hours ago, Union Tpke said:

Deinterlining DeKalb would be a mess. There is no easy transfer, and people might be inclined to further overcrowd the IRT at Atlantic.

No one in their right mind is going to take the IRT just because their train doesn't go on 6th or Broadway anymore. They'll just transfer at Herald Square or just walk from the other trunk.

[RR503]

34 minutes ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

Well I’m aware that Jamaica Center can only turn 12 trains but I must ask, what is P/A? I fail to understand what you mean by that. I’m not sure if you read the description for each line in my map or not but the reason I’m running 15 ’s instead of 8 is to keep the QB express at max capacity. Also, since WillyB can handle 24 TPH, I decided to short turn 5  trains so that there’s still room for the  and . What I did (and didn’t have the time to explain cause i had to run out of my house when making my initial post, was that WillyB will have an Uneven split with the 9 8 7 during the rush hour to allow the  to do a full peak Express between Broadway Junction and Marcy Avenue. Now, I’m beginning to think twice about that.

My bad for the misunderstanding. P/A is Jamaica Center--it's shorthand for Parsons/Archer. The implication with the  at 12 or 8 was to be that the  would go at 18 or 22, again, my bad for not making that clearer. 

You're right that WillyB is the bottleneck on the . Right now, the  is limited by the , but under this service plan, we can harness the WillyB situation to make the , well, better. At 18tph, Culver express becomes a viable proposition -- 9tph is 6.7 min headways, or a sell-able service frequency (of course, 22 makes this even more attractive). 

On the BMT end, you can do a variety of things. If the  is at 12, you do 12  with the current service pattern. If it goes to 8, then you can bump the combined  total to 16, meaning 8  express Marcy-Bway Jct and then local to Jamaica, and 8  local from Crescent or Bway Jct to Marcy. The stats that will be determinate of the chosen service pattern are stair capacity at Essex and projected demand for  service with increased  frequencies post-Canarsie; I don't think a decision either way can be made without knowing those. (And, of course, there's the elephant in the room which is the Marcy/Essex capacity crunch -- an equal effort should be made to bring those areas up to 30tph operation). 

[Union Tpke]

12 hours ago, RR503 said:

As you know, I agree. You fix operational issues with better operations, not rider punishment. LGA seems to agree too -- see the equivocation about operations in his first post. 

The argument at Dekalb, I think, is that Broadway and 6th are approximately the same corridor; people won't transfer, instead choosing to walk. I don't fully agree with this assessment (it ignores transfer options from each corridor, Union Square, etc), but I do see the point in Midtown. 

In regards to the IRT, I'd actually expect the opposite effect. The biggest reason I hear cited for not transferring to the  for Midtown at Atlantic is that no one knows where the next Manhattan-bound on those corridors will show, and checking subwaytime in a hurry is a hassle. Combine that with those routes' six to eight minute scheduled headways (and that's at best), and the temporal case for transferring all but disappears. Creating a predictable pattern at that stop (for 6th, go to the 4th plats; for Broadway go to Brighton) would probably attract riders. But again, I don't think its worth it -- the primary concern of those lines is to serve their on-line riders. 

Ridership modeling has shown that there could be unintended consequences–more people to the IRT at Atlantic from Southern Brooklyn.

[Union Tpke]

10 hours ago, Around the Horn said:

No one in their right mind is going to take the IRT just because their train doesn't go on 6th or Broadway anymore. They'll just transfer at Herald Square or just walk from the other trunk.

See my response above. Ridership modeling has found this.

[RR503]

17 minutes ago, Union Tpke said:

Ridership modeling has shown that there could be unintended consequences–more people to the IRT at Atlantic from Southern Brooklyn.

I’m a little skeptical of that conclusion. Bleecker St, Herald Square and Union Square still exist, and the Manhattan Bridge easily is 5-7 mins faster than IRT Lower Manhattan. What are the parameters used here/who was running this analysis/when was this? 

Edited December 25, 2018 by RR503

[Around the Horn]

1 hour ago, Union Tpke said:

Ridership modeling has shown that there could be unintended consequences–more people to the IRT at Atlantic from Southern Brooklyn.

As someone who lives in Southern Brooklyn and uses both 6th and Broadway and who knows a bunch of people who also make said commute, that makes no sense whatsoever. I'll take actual people's travel habits over ridership modeling...

The IRT is out of the way for everyone in Southern Brooklyn not already going to Lower Manhattan

58 minutes ago, RR503 said:

I’m a little skeptical of that conclusion. Bleecker St, Herald Square and Union Square still exist, and the Manhattan Bridge easily is 5-7 mins faster than IRT Lower Manhattan. What are the parameters used here/who was running this analysis/when was this? 

I'd like to know this too...

[LGA Link N Train]

Viewing the discussion that has happened here,I've decided to create an alteration to my map to match ridership modeling as @Around the Horn and @Union Tpke state. 

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1sFmfngfbPZwreRk7wNGXe4Fl-3XhNM2r&usp=sharing

All I did was swap the alignment of Broadway and 6th Avenue in Brooklyn. 

- 4th Avenue Express

- Brighton Line 

The now operates Full time and the has been reduced into a Weekday route. To be honest, I don't agree with this setup. What are your guys thoughts?

[T to Dyre Avenue]

2 hours ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

Viewing the discussion that has happened here,I've decided to create an alteration to my map to match ridership modeling as @Around the Horn and @Union Tpke state. 

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1sFmfngfbPZwreRk7wNGXe4Fl-3XhNM2r&usp=sharing

All I did was swap the alignment of Broadway and 6th Avenue in Brooklyn. 

- 4th Avenue Express

- Brighton Line 

The now operates Full time and the has been reduced into a Weekday route. To be honest, I don't agree with this setup. What are your guys thoughts?

Personally, I like it better, even though there is the potential that Broadway will be left with only two weekend services - the  and the , which (after looking back at some of my early posts) goes against my previous stances on having only two weekend Broadway services and three weekend 6th Avenue services, given that the Broadway Line tends to be more popular. You probably can get away with running the  as a late night shuttle between Stillwell and Atlantic, since the Sea Beach Line has lower ridership than the West End (I presume the  is staying there), and the weekend/overnight  in fact ran this way in 2002-03 (Atlantic during weekends, 36th during overnights) when it was cut out of Stillwell due to the extensive rehab at that station.

On 12/24/2018 at 9:05 PM, RR503 said:

Then, Dekalb. I'm not the biggest fan of deinterlining, but if we are gonna do it, don't you think its best to do  to 4th/ to Brighton? I'm pretty sure that Broadway lean among Brighton riders still holds, while South Brooklyn gets to keep its connection to Grand. This also simplifies weekend service;  to Brighton forces you to keep all four Manhattan bridge routes going all weekend. 

I don’t doubt it, but I still wonder if Transit ever did any sort of survey to confirm the Brighton lean towards Broadway and the South Brooklyn lean towards Grand/6th Ave. I definitely recall seeing posts about Brighton Line riders preferring Broadway on the Forums in the past, as well as on SubChat, on the late SubTalk, and on Second Avenue Sagas. So I’m guessing there must’ve been some kind of surveying done in the year or two before the Manhattan Bridge North tracks reopened, and the current South Brooklyn Bridge service patterns were implemented.

On 12/25/2018 at 11:50 AM, Around the Horn said:

As someone who lives in Southern Brooklyn and uses both 6th and Broadway and who knows a bunch of people who also make said commute, that makes no sense whatsoever. I'll take actual people's travel habits over ridership modeling...

The IRT is out of the way for everyone in Southern Brooklyn not already going to Lower Manhattan

I'd like to know this too...

I would like to know too, because unless South Brooklyn riders are headed to Union Square or the 5th or Madison Avenue corridors, I can’t really see how deinterlining DeKalb Junction would push more riders to the IRT at Atlantic.

Edited December 28, 2018 by T to Dyre Avenue

[P3F]

3 hours ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

I don’t doubt it, but I still wonder if Transit ever did any sort of survey to confirm the Brighton lean towards Broadway and the South Brooklyn lean towards Grand/6th Ave. I definitely recall seeing posts about Brighton Line riders preferring Broadway on the Forums in the past, as well as on SubChat, on the late SubTalk, and on Second Avenue Sagas. So I’m guessing there must’ve been some kind of surveying done in the year or two before the Manhattan Bridge North tracks reopened, and the current South Brooklyn Bridge service patterns were implemented.

Even better than guessing where people "lean towards", why not keep service patterns the same as they are and focus on fixing the operational issues at DeKalb? This whole guessing game of what to kick out of Brighton and what to amplify is ridiculous, as either way you're going to inconvenience thousands of people. If the agency ever gets to implementing this kind of thing, they'll simply do whichever is cheaper to run.

[Eric B]

11 hours ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

I don’t doubt it, but I still wonder if Transit ever did any sort of survey to confirm the Brighton lean towards Broadway and the South Brooklyn lean towards Grand/6th Ave. I definitely recall seeing posts about Brighton Line riders preferring Broadway on the Forums in the past, as well as on SubChat, on the late SubTalk, and on Second Avenue Sagas. So I’m guessing there must’ve been some kind of surveying done in the year or two before the Manhattan Bridge North tracks reopened, and the current South Brooklyn Bridge service patterns were implemented.

Yes, they did do extensive surveying, in those years leading up to the final pattern, when the 6th Av. side was closed.

[T to Dyre Avenue]

9 hours ago, P3F said:

Even better than guessing where people "lean towards", why not keep service patterns the same as they are and focus on fixing the operational issues at DeKalb? 

I think we can all agree that’s the best course of action for DeKalb. I’m pretty sure the general consensus on here is that deinterlining DeKalb is the “when all else fails” option. 

2 hours ago, Eric B said:

Yes, they did do extensive surveying, in those years leading up to the final pattern, when the 6th Av. side was closed.

Thank you. I figured they must have, because there was much discussion on the message boards over whether or not the  and  would resume their pre-2001 Brooklyn routes (and plenty of pointing out the pros and cons of doing so). Thankfully, they came up with the novel solution of extending the weekdays-only  to take over the weekdays-only  Brighton Express and to keep 24/7 Manhattan service on West End by extending the  there.

[Wallyhorse]

13 hours ago, Eric B said:

Yes, they did do extensive surveying, in those years leading up to the final pattern, when the 6th Av. side was closed.

And could it be since then ridership patterns have changed? 

[Around the Horn]

How feasible would it be to build a new 3-track, two island platform Marcy Avenue station over the Bridge Plaza, while making the curves less sharp?

[Union Tpke]

44 minutes ago, Around the Horn said:

How feasible would it be to build a new 3-track, two island platform Marcy Avenue station over the Bridge Plaza, while making the curves less sharp?

Something like this was proposed in the 40s. This would allow for a truly intermodal station, would increase ridership–the station would not be right up against the BQE, and would speed service up. This is feasible.

[RR503]

1 hour ago, Around the Horn said:

How feasible would it be to build a new 3-track, two island platform Marcy Avenue station over the Bridge Plaza, while making the curves less sharp?

This is the sort of investment I think we should actually be pursuing in this city. If you can fix Marcy and Essex, there's really no reason you can't do 30tph over the WillyB. And Essex is basically already done... 

[Around the Horn]

1 hour ago, RR503 said:

This is the sort of investment I think we should actually be pursuing in this city. If you can fix Marcy and Essex, there's really no reason you can't do 30tph over the WillyB. And Essex is basically already done... 

Re: Essex 

I'd love for the MTA to use the trolley terminal space to abandon that one side platform and also create a 3 track-2 island platform station that's wide enough for elevators and an ideal terminal for a service coming from the south (hello ). So we're both on the same wavelength in that regard.

Now only it were possible to three track the bridge...

[Wallyhorse]

6 hours ago, Around the Horn said:

Re: Essex 

I'd love for the MTA to use the trolley terminal space to abandon that one side platform and also create a 3 track-2 island platform station that's wide enough for elevators and an ideal terminal for a service coming from the south (hello ). So we're both on the same wavelength in that regard.

Now only it were possible to three track the bridge...

I would do that IF it allowed for the station to become a 600' station as part of a bigger project that would lengthen ALL the Nassau line stations in Manhattan to 600 feet. 

[LGA Link N Train]

17 hours ago, Wallyhorse said:

I would do that IF it allowed for the station to become a 600' station as part of a bigger project that would lengthen ALL the Nassau line stations in Manhattan to 600 feet. 

No need. It's not like the 4th Avenue Local Stations have that high of ridership to begin with

 

23 hours ago, Around the Horn said:

Re: Essex 

I'd love for the MTA to use the trolley terminal space to abandon that one side platform and also create a 3 track-2 island platform station that's wide enough for elevators and an ideal terminal for a service coming from the south (hello ). So we're both on the same wavelength in that regard.

Now only it were possible to three track the bridge...

Under this scenario, I feel like that Essex would need to have a ground up rebuild (without altering the  platforms and that side platform (which would be extended under this proposal) in order to allow for the installation of Elevators. 

[Lawrence St]

Just something that's been in the back of my mind,

Would it be hard to create new stations and tunnels underneath the existing train structure from Bedford Avenue to Broadway Junction?

[LGA Link N Train]

46 minutes ago, Lawrence St said:

Just something that's been in the back of my mind,

Would it be hard to create new stations and tunnels underneath the existing train structure from Bedford Avenue to Broadway Junction?

Yes. Yes it would. 

[T to Dyre Avenue]

On 1/17/2019 at 4:55 PM, Union Tpke said:

Something like this was proposed in the 40s. This would allow for a truly intermodal station, would increase ridership–the station would not be right up against the BQE, and would speed service up. This is feasible.

It would be quite a bit closer to the waterfront areas of South Williamsburg and be further away from Hewes Street, which may allow ridership to increase at that station. And by making it a three-track, dual-island station,  and  (or just  or just , depending whether or not some kind of peak express service can be implemented east of Myrtle) would be able to run faster, because Manhattan-bound express trains would be able to merge in with the locals after the new Marcy Avenue at faster speeds.   

On 1/17/2019 at 5:19 PM, RR503 said:

This is the sort of investment I think we should actually be pursuing in this city. If you can fix Marcy and Essex, there's really no reason you can't do 30tph over the WillyB. And Essex is basically already done... 

What about Essex is basically already done?