Department of Subways - Proposals/Ideas

[Jova42R]

23 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

The main issues with this:

• capacity on QBL and the Manhattan IND lines are completely spoken for today in terms of capacity.
• while this might allow direct routes and the subway is more frequent, in general subway trains are shorter and smaller, so you're not quite getting the bang for the buck.

Better to create a new C-Division with LIRR-sized subway trains that are FRA compliant (or alternative compliant) by digging a tunnel under 3rd from ESA to Atlantic.

Here's my proposal for a ESA/Penn to Atlantic Terminal line:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/11-DXwhlE_d-ouYARvX8P-yKntsrx_BjdQsnq2-g0QiM/edit?usp=sharing

Thoughts @LaGuardia Link N Tra @KK 6 Ave Local @RR503 @Union Tpke @WillF40PH @Mnrr6131?

[JeremiahC99]

4 hours ago, Wallyhorse said:

Right,  Before the idea of connecting it to the , I would look to rebuild the line to 600' stations and two tracks, have it go north of Franklin with the idea of having it connect to the Myrtle Avenue line as previously suggested.   As said before, this would be a "Black " that would run from Metropolitan Avenue-Coney Island via the Myrtle line, a short stretch of a rebuilt Myrtle El (including the old Sumner Avenue station), then Bedford-Nostrand with a transfer to the and then Franklin and from there running as a 24/7 Brighton Local with the 24/7 Brighton Express to Brighton Beach (extended overnights to Coney Island).  The would in this scenario become the second Brighton Local between Prospect Park and Coney Island since that would be part-time.   Such would include a connection from the South to the Broadway-Brooklyn line, allowing in an emergency or a G.O. for the and to use that to access 6th Avenue via the new line.. 

I don't think a connection to the Myrtle Avenue Line is really a good idea, when an extension up the  route is more effective, especially since travel between Southern Brooklyn and Northern Brooklyn is difficult. A connection to the  would enable many more easier public transit trips between the two areas. Obviously you'll have to find a new place to terminate the extra trains, but still.

As an alternative to connecting the Franklin Avenue Shuttle to the Myrtle Avenue Line, in conjunction to the connection it is also recommended to consolidate the Hewes Street and Lorimer Street stations on the and  into a single stop at Union Avenue. The station will have a free transfer to the Broadway  station, so that way if someone on the Crosstown and Franklin Lines want to go to the Myrtle Avenue Line, they can get off at Broadway and transfer upstairs for the  and . This is all for a fraction of a cost of building a new subway along Myrtle Avenue, and honestly, it's something they should've done a long time ago.

[Collin]

It's quite a complicated plan, but I think could be very effective.  I'm not sure I would not include NJ Transit because most of their trains are tall bilevel cars and they use a different electrification system.  NJ Transit would be able to through run with Metro North doing the same basic thing as here. 

This would also allow for it to be scaled down from 6 tracks to 4 tracks.  The way I see it, some LIRR trains would through run between different branches via ESA and Atlantic, while other trains would run via Atlantic to Penn.  I'm not sure how customers would respond to this.  The trip to Penn via Atlantic or the trip to Atlantic via ESA would take longer.  But there would be a one seat ride to more destinations, and direct service to Penn via the main line would still be available with a cross platform transfer at Jamaica.  It would certainly be better than relegating Atlantic to a shuttle service only.

[B35 via Church]

16 hours ago, Jova42R said:

I live by the , and frankly, having a <1> or  is not worth it. It'd only go express from Dyckman to 242, and its just not worth the ridership losses.

 

If we want to improve west side transit (it doesn't really need improving, but I'll humor you), just make the M5 or M4 artics. That's it. You REALLY don't need a new line. If anything, just boost  service.

Just my two cents

Speaking of humor, that part in bold (& the emphasis behind it) is funny - coming from someone that proposed a bunch of unwarranted bus routes in the bus section....

I'm not sure where within my post I was somehow supporting any creation of a 1 (diamond) or a revival of the ...

Yeah, the up there by itself is good enough & there's no need to articulate M4's & M5's (well, period... but especially) to have it be some sort of compromise for not adding another subway line (or adding an express variant) either - because, for starters, an increase in bus capacity per bus is a terrible substitute for a] increased subway service and/or b] faster subway service....

[Late Clear]

15 hours ago, Trainmaster5 said:

Although I was a PM guy from your numbers I see the problem. For my interval, the 1500 Dyre,  it was 27 minutes (local) to Mott, 5 minutes to 125th St and 12 minutes from 125 to Grand Central. That's one heck of a ridership increase from 2007-8 or so.

Yup and no remedy to easing congestion on the Lexington Line such as CBTC.  Even southbound gap fillers @ USQ are responsible for a tremendous amount of congestion. 

[bobtehpanda]

8 hours ago, Late Clear said:

Yup and no remedy to easing congestion on the Lexington Line such as CBTC.  Even southbound gap fillers @ USQ are responsible for a tremendous amount of congestion. 

The MTA probably needs to do a long-term study on what it would take to move the platforms to be straight.

In London they are building a completely new platform at their busiest station to improve capacity and dwell times: 

[engineerboy6561]

2 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

The MTA probably needs to do a long-term study on what it would take to move the platforms to be straight.

In London they are building a completely new platform at their busiest station to improve capacity and dwell times: 

I wonder what it would take to move the downtown platform past the curve down to be even with the uptown platform (which should let you nix the gap fillers, but doesn't meaningfully address the line curvature), or even to realign the lower Lex to run mid-block between Broadway and Lafayette Sts from Bleecker St to Union Square to get rid of the curve there. The latter case would basically kill all the curves on the Lex between 23rd and Spring (which would be awesome) and permit for a transfer passage between Astor and 8 St-NYU (which would likely not see that much use but would be cool), but would likely require directly underpinning a ton of people's foundations in ways that are likely difficult and expensive to pull off. On the plus side, straightening that out would likely let you eliminate most speed restrictions between 23rd and Bleecker during regular operating hours.

Here's a map showing the layout I'm proposing: https://drive.google.com/open?id=12Lw7sgef7IZvA6vZZT5iCBWmv6Q1ixIY&usp=sharing 

The existing Lex layout is in dark green, the new route with curve relaxation is in lime green, blue marks are unmodified stations, red marks are new platforms, and black marks are old/discontinued platforms.

The other option I can think of would be (shown in blue on that map) would be to continue the Lex running at an angle under Union Sq Park and then swing it back around to run under Park Av between 17 and 23 Sts; that would likely add curvature to the line, but you'd be moving the curve north above 17 St so the platforms would be straight. Also, if any of that comes to pass the platforms ought to be widened to 25 ft across along their entire length to better manage crowding.

Edited April 19, 2020 by engineerboy6561

[Jova42R]

22 hours ago, Collin said:

It's quite a complicated plan, but I think could be very effective.  I'm not sure I would not include NJ Transit because most of their trains are tall bilevel cars and they use a different electrification system.  NJ Transit would be able to through run with Metro North doing the same basic thing as here. 

This would also allow for it to be scaled down from 6 tracks to 4 tracks.  The way I see it, some LIRR trains would through run between different branches via ESA and Atlantic, while other trains would run via Atlantic to Penn.  I'm not sure how customers would respond to this.  The trip to Penn via Atlantic or the trip to Atlantic via ESA would take longer.  But there would be a one seat ride to more destinations, and direct service to Penn via the main line would still be available with a cross platform transfer at Jamaica.  It would certainly be better than relegating Atlantic to a shuttle service only.

 trains would have tracks 4 and 6 to themselves.

@LaGuardia Link N Tra You have proposed a RBB line, would this be a good alternative? (RBB-Main Line-ESA-Atlantic-ENY-RBB

[Deucey]

3 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

The MTA probably needs to do a long-term study on what it would take to move the platforms to be straight.

In London they are building a completely new platform at their busiest station to improve capacity and dwell times: 

Wish I could find the tweet or article I saw it in months ago, but I remember the Customer Service VP Andy Byford hired said something about a law relating to building transit and parks made it difficult to straighten the platform.

[engineerboy6561]

1 minute ago, Deucey said:

Wish I could find the tweet or article I saw it in months ago, but I remember the Customer Service VP Andy Byford hired said something about a law relating to building transit and parks made it difficult to straighten the platform.

That would make a lot of sense if they tried to run straight platforms aligned with 4 Av below 14 St because that would send the tracks under the park

[Deucey]

1 hour ago, engineerboy6561 said:

The latter case would basically kill all the curves on the Lex between 23rd and Spring (which would be awesome) and permit for a transfer passage between Astor and 8 St-NYU (which would likely not see that much use but would be cool), but would likely require directly underpinning a ton of people's foundations in ways that are likely difficult and expensive to pull off.

For that to happen, you’d have to remove the easement in every building on that corridor’s deed requiring no basements or subterranean structures that would block the option for the PATH to extend to the Lexington Line.

[engineerboy6561]

1 minute ago, Deucey said:

For that to happen, you’d have to remove the easement in every building on that corridor’s deed requiring no basements or subterranean structures that would block the option for the PATH to extend to the Lexington Line.

Wait, are there enough buildings with that in their deed that you could actually branch off the PATH at 9th St and run to Union Sq? If so that would be really cool for cross-system integration, and that would merit an interesting convo with the Port Authority. What I'd be tempted to do would be to do that mid-block corridor shift, and then between 14th and 10th Sts on that corridor add a lower level track pair that curves around to face east on 10th St at 5 Av (500' radius curve should be wide enough for PATH) and add a PATH lower level at Union Sq. There's currently only 15 tph through the upper Hudson tube, and 22tph between Grove St and Journal Sq; you have enough room for an additional 8ish tph that could run Union Sq-Newark if you wanted.

It might be worth building that in the future, but at the very least talking to PANYNJ about building the new structure with provisions for a lower level PATH track pair that would terminate at Union Sq would be a start.

[Deucey]

21 minutes ago, engineerboy6561 said:

Wait, are there enough buildings with that in their deed that you could actually branch off the PATH at 9th St and run to Union Sq?

https://www.nytimes.com/1904/12/16/archives/madoo-subway-wins-fight-for-franchise-crosstown-line-perpetual-25.html
 

There’s a bell mouth after 9th St PATH that would’ve connected to that tunnel to 2 Av after Astor Place.

[Around the Horn]

5 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

The MTA probably needs to do a long-term study on what it would take to move the platforms to be straight.

In London they are building a completely new platform at their busiest station to improve capacity and dwell times: 

My idea would be to relocate those equipment rooms north of the existing southbound platform and extend it northward so that the back is just after the crossover near 17th Street. There would be some curvature at the front but most of it would be straight.

1 hour ago, Deucey said:

Wish I could find the tweet or article I saw it in months ago, but I remember the Customer Service VP Andy Byford hired said something about a law relating to building transit and parks made it difficult to straighten the platform.

I saw those tweets too as it happened and was able to dig them up:

 

[engineerboy6561]

12 minutes ago, Around the Horn said:

My idea would be to relocate those equipment rooms north of the existing southbound platform and extend it northward so that the back is just after the crossover near 17th Street. There would be some curvature at the front but most of it would be straight.

I saw those tweets too as it happened and was able to dig them up:

 

So essentially the northern option is the thing that she seems to be talking about (straightening the platforms by running them under the park and then swinging the line back around from mid-block to under Park Av by 23 St). The southern option I mentioned would fix a ton of curvature and wouldn't impinge on park land, but would require cooperation from PANYNJ and a lot more construction work.

[bobtehpanda]

1 hour ago, Deucey said:

Wish I could find the tweet or article I saw it in months ago, but I remember the Customer Service VP Andy Byford hired said something about a law relating to building transit and parks made it difficult to straighten the platform.

Honestly, there's lots of weird gotchas in state law about parks.

The main one, and I'm not sure how temporary takings for USQ realignment would affect this, is that parkland has to be replaced in-kind.

[Deucey]

13 minutes ago, bobtehpanda said:

Honestly, there's lots of weird gotchas in state law about parks.

The main one, and I'm not sure how temporary takings for USQ realignment would affect this, is that parkland has to be replaced in-kind.

I’m guessing that based on the curve, it’s just that triangle that’s the problem - all the new regs on station construction would probably require that triangle to completely disappear with no way to replace it in equal measure in the neighborhood.

[engineerboy6561]

8 minutes ago, Deucey said:

I’m guessing that based on the curve, it’s just that triangle that’s the problem - all the new regs on station construction would probably require that triangle to completely disappear with no way to replace it in equal measure in the neighborhood.

The legal handbook at https://parks.ny.gov/publications/documents/AlienationHandbook2017.pdf says that in rare cases where replacing parkland isn't possible there are provisions for the land to be sold and then the net proceeds sunk into acquiring or improving parkland (assuming the parkland wasn't acquired under the Clean Water or Clean Air Acts, or the Environmental Quality Bond Act); if it was it may require federal law changes as well as a state bill.

[RR503]

On 4/18/2020 at 10:07 AM, Late Clear said:

Yup and no remedy to easing congestion on the Lexington Line such as CBTC.  Even southbound gap fillers @ USQ are responsible for a tremendous amount of congestion. 

Most of Lex's current day issues are related to overlong dwell times, long control lines and issues closing train spacing via ST. Eminently fixable with CBTC, especially if NYCT fixes CBTC's interlocking compatibility issues.

FWIW, dwell times southbound at USQ aren't as bad as northbound. The GFs suck -- if for no other reason than ADA -- but they're not the biggest ops impediment to improved service on the corridor.

[Collin]

I think what causes the long dwell times is people trying to cram onto the train rather than waiting for the next one, and not letting people off the train first.  If the trains are running less than 2 minutes apart, people won't feel the need to hold doors since the next train will be there so soon.  The Victoria Line in London has CBTC rated for 40 tph that actually runs 36.  While I don't think that's possible with interlined services, 32-33 each on local and express might be doable.  That would still take the wait time between trains under 2 minutes.

[Around the Horn]

So I've got a bit of a wacky idea (I'll admit that right off the bat) that came about because of a discussion elsewhere about bringing back the els...

Bring back the Myrtle Avenue el, with a portal underground somewhere where feasible and then after stops in Downtown Brooklyn and DUMBO, cross into Manhattan at Catherine Street, turning onto Worth Street at Chatham Square and then using the bellmouths south of Canal Street to merge with the . This line would allow for the merge at Myrtle-Broadway to be completely eliminated (but kept for non-revenue moves/disruptions).

After Central Avenue, the would stop at:

-Myrtle Avenue-Broadway (upper level)

-Throop Avenue

-Nostrand Avenue B44 SBS potential connection to

-Vanderbilt Avenue

-Jay St-MetroTech

-High Street-Brooklyn Bridge

-Chatham Square

-Foley Square

-Canal Street

You're probably thinking what on earth is it connecting to that line for? Well, this line would also allow for @RR503's QBL deinterlining proposal. I'll explain:

Instead of just the , the and would be the 8th Avenue/53rd Street/Queens Blvd Locals (with the shifting to 8th Av Express and the removed from QBL entirely).

As a result, we can bring back the as a full ten car train to Jamaica Center and on the south end as Culver Express (eliminating the ) to pair with the as 6th Avenue/63rd Street/Queens Blvd Expresses. Now both Jamaica branches retain full ten car trains, as opposed to trying to fit in 8 car trains somewhere.

With the removed from the Jamaica Line, the can also be beefed up to take advantage of the 24 TPH capacity of the Williamsburg Bridge.

 

 

[B35 via Church]

2 hours ago, Collin said:

I think what causes the long dwell times is people trying to cram onto the train rather than waiting for the next one, and not letting people off the train first.  If the trains are running less than 2 minutes apart, people won't feel the need to hold doors since the next train will be there so soon.  The Victoria Line in London has CBTC rated for 40 tph that actually runs 36.  While I don't think that's possible with interlined services, 32-33 each on local and express might be doable.  That would still take the wait time between trains under 2 minutes.

Logic would dictate that, but in actuality, here in NYC they still would... The train at the station is the last train to ever arrive in existence, and riders, by hook or by crook, will attempt to board it like their lives depended on it - from holding doors, to shimmying in-between any nook & cranny to get on, to nudging & inching their way on, etc.... Then there's the cycling of the doors because of it, that only exacerbates dwell times..... The mindset is that the first train to arrive will get them to their destination first & "oh, anything can happen to that next train behind"..... I'll take it one step further & say it's an unconscious FOMO (fear of missing out) - NYC commuters may claim to not give a damn about the next man, but they don't want to feel like the next man got to their destination first either....

That mindset suits someone like me just fine though, because I'd rather be in a less crowded train than get to my destination by a margin of less than 120 seconds earlier...

[Deucey]

10 hours ago, Collin said:

If the trains are running less than 2 minutes apart, people won't feel the need to hold doors since the next train will be there so soon.

Folks can look at the tunnel behind the  or  train at the platform and see the next train holding but will still pack onto the one at the platform.

[Jova42R]

11 hours ago, Around the Horn said:

So I've got a bit of a wacky idea (I'll admit that right off the bat) that came about because of a discussion elsewhere about bringing back the els...

Bring back the Myrtle Avenue el, with a portal underground somewhere where feasible and then after stops in Downtown Brooklyn and DUMBO, cross into Manhattan at Catherine Street, turning onto Worth Street at Chatham Square and then using the bellmouths south of Canal Street to merge with the . This line would allow for the merge at Myrtle-Broadway to be completely eliminated (but kept for non-revenue moves/disruptions).

After Central Avenue, the would stop at:

-Myrtle Avenue-Broadway (upper level)

-Throop Avenue

-Nostrand Avenue B44 SBS potential connection to

-Vanderbilt Avenue

-Jay St-MetroTech

-High Street-Brooklyn Bridge

-Chatham Square

-Foley Square

-Canal Street

You're probably thinking what on earth is it connecting to that line for? Well, this line would also allow for @RR503's QBL deinterlining proposal. I'll explain:

Instead of just the , the and would be the 8th Avenue/53rd Street/Queens Blvd Locals (with the shifting to 8th Av Express and the removed from QBL entirely).

As a result, we can bring back the as a full ten car train to Jamaica Center and on the south end as Culver Express (eliminating the ) to pair with the as 6th Avenue/63rd Street/Queens Blvd Expresses. Now both Jamaica branches retain full ten car trains, as opposed to trying to fit in 8 car trains somewhere.

With the removed from the Jamaica Line, the can also be beefed up to take advantage of the 24 TPH capacity of the Williamsburg Bridge.

 

 

I think that reactivation would be a great idea, however, you can't keep it on Myrtle. There are no spots to go underground, so you'd have to go over the Bklyn Bridge, which would require trams, which would require the  to be booted back to the Willy B

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1v8q_wmMZRc_xRnCmgG185iaHLtZNFxV1&usp=sharing is my map. It'd go underground, through the Navy Yard, with a stop at DUMBO, and then follow your route.

Thoughts?

[bobtehpanda]

12 hours ago, Around the Horn said:

So I've got a bit of a wacky idea (I'll admit that right off the bat) that came about because of a discussion elsewhere about bringing back the els...

Bring back the Myrtle Avenue el, with a portal underground somewhere where feasible and then after stops in Downtown Brooklyn and DUMBO, cross into Manhattan at Catherine Street, turning onto Worth Street at Chatham Square and then using the bellmouths south of Canal Street to merge with the . This line would allow for the merge at Myrtle-Broadway to be completely eliminated (but kept for non-revenue moves/disruptions).

After Central Avenue, the would stop at:

-Myrtle Avenue-Broadway (upper level)

-Throop Avenue

-Nostrand Avenue B44 SBS potential connection to

-Vanderbilt Avenue

-Jay St-MetroTech

-High Street-Brooklyn Bridge

-Chatham Square

-Foley Square

-Canal Street

You're probably thinking what on earth is it connecting to that line for? Well, this line would also allow for @RR503's QBL deinterlining proposal. I'll explain:

Instead of just the , the and would be the 8th Avenue/53rd Street/Queens Blvd Locals (with the shifting to 8th Av Express and the removed from QBL entirely).

As a result, we can bring back the as a full ten car train to Jamaica Center and on the south end as Culver Express (eliminating the ) to pair with the as 6th Avenue/63rd Street/Queens Blvd Expresses. Now both Jamaica branches retain full ten car trains, as opposed to trying to fit in 8 car trains somewhere.

With the removed from the Jamaica Line, the can also be beefed up to take advantage of the 24 TPH capacity of the Williamsburg Bridge.

 

 

Tbh, if you build this we should probably just abandon WTC terminal entirely since it's shit.