Department of Subways - Proposals/Ideas

[LGA Link N Train]

While we're on the topic of interlining and how routes go, I want to being up the Line as an example for a minute.

Astoria Riders have a preference for Express Service on Broadway, yet 49th Street ranks 70 in ridership (as of 2021 with 2,653,104 Riders; 7,410,041 pre-pandemic), all due in part of Astoria riders having the preference of wanting a Stop at 49th Street. The result we get (as you all know) is that flat junction merge outside of 34th Street-Herald Square, which not only delays riders, but also  Riders (going southbound), and  and Riders (going Northbound). As a result, we have a line on a trunk that isn't very good (with a 44% satisfactory rate as shown here: https://youtu.be/loY_i5ie7z8 1:38:25). Yet, the subway routes are designed for the benefit of the passangers. Likewise, Sea Beach/4th Avenue Riders want a direct Express Ride to Broadway so making the Local is an Automatic No-Go. While 96th Street/2nd Avenue may be able to handle a higher capacity of trains terminating than it currently does, Coney Island most certainly can't. So how do we streamline service while making sure the routes benefit the passengers?

 

[MTA Researcher]

Basically it comes down to do you want  one seat rides with delays, or do you want smoother transit but lose one seat rides?

 

You cant have both…. There must be a compromise sacrifice for the greater good….

[Wallyhorse]

6 hours ago, LGA Link N Train said:

While we're on the topic of interlining and how routes go, I want to being up the Line as an example for a minute.

Astoria Riders have a preference for Express Service on Broadway, yet 49th Street ranks 70 in ridership (as of 2021 with 2,653,104 Riders; 7,410,041 pre-pandemic), all due in part of Astoria riders having the preference of wanting a Stop at 49th Street. The result we get (as you all know) is that flat junction merge outside of 34th Street-Herald Square, which not only delays riders, but also  Riders (going southbound), and  and Riders (going Northbound). As a result, we have a line on a trunk that isn't very good (with a 44% satisfactory rate as shown here: https://youtu.be/loY_i5ie7z8 1:38:25). Yet, the subway routes are designed for the benefit of the passangers. Likewise, Sea Beach/4th Avenue Riders want a direct Express Ride to Broadway so making the Local is an Automatic No-Go. While 96th Street/2nd Avenue may be able to handle a higher capacity of trains terminating than it currently does, Coney Island most certainly can't. So how do we streamline service while making sure the routes benefit the passengers?

 

What I would likely do here:

becomes a full-out local no matter what Astoria/Sea Beach riders want (as it is in the overnights anyway, maybe you do a supplemental route in rush hours (maybe a  train?) that is express all the way from 59th/4th and runs with the  to 96th/2nd), 

becomes a full-time route (except overnights) between Whitehall and 71-Continental, replacing the  in Queens (during rush hours, some trains. would end and begin on the tunnel level of Canal Street).

 as noted before becomes brown and becomes 95th-Bay Ridge to Canal Street on the at all times (with the save for a few rush hour runs that end and begin at Broad Street ending/beginning at Chambers with the abandoned northbound tracks at Canal and Bowery re-opened for this purpose) with this  based out of ENY with scheduled in-service yard runs that end and begin at Broadway Junction on the .  Late nights and weekends, this  is extended to Metropolitan Avenue and absorbs the late night and weekend shuttles as part of its extended route.  

That to me would be the compromise that ends the problems with the current  in Brooklyn.  

[subwaykid256]

I like your idea for the train especially if we can get the to extend to Red Hook

can terminate at 96 St/2 Av along with the future 

  trains can go to Astoria with the going to 96 St/2 Av on weekends

 

[subwaykid256]

While I understand theres a lot of Expansion projects that are more important than this. I want to know what are your guys take on stop removal/consolidation

Personally the main idea i support is consolidating Hewes & Lorimer Sts on the and creating a Union Av stop with a transfer to Broadway

[ActiveCity]

Wow, I just thought of something crazy. What if the train ran to Staten Island via the unfinished Staten Island tunnel under Owl's Head Park southwest of 59th Street? The train will then run on the abandoned North Shore Branch. I see the Interborough Express as an opportunity to replace some sections of the BMT Sea Beach line and possibly the entire Staten Island Railway network.

Edited October 7, 2022 by ActiveCity

[ActiveCity]

To add onto my proposed train and Interborough Express routes to Staten Island, I have proposed the following: In order to replace the Southeast section of the BMT Sea Beach line, the train will be shifted from the BMT Culver line onto the BMT Sea Beach line. In order to do that, I'm proposing a new track connection from McDonald Avenue and Bay Parkway to Sea Beach and Bay Parkway. This new connection will feature two new stations at 59th Street, Bay Parkway, and Bay Parkway, on top of the Sea Beach right of way where it will then descend onto the Sea Beach right of way with a ramp. If built, the BMT Culver line, south of Bay Parkway, will be demolished, however this will also allow for some benefits. For example, this will allow for and trains to continue to Coney Island without having to terminate at Brighton Beach. As dumb as this sounds, it may just work.

Edited October 7, 2022 by ActiveCity

[BreeddekalbL]

Im still for converting woodhaven blvd on the queens blvd into an express station 

[Reptile]

17 hours ago, BreeddekalbL said:

Im still for converting woodhaven blvd on the queens blvd into an express station 

Yeah, if there's ever a subway extension via the LIE it would be great

[ActiveCity]

7 minutes ago, Reptile said:

Yeah, if there's ever a subway extension via the LIE it would be great

I'd use the abandoned set of tracks on the Nassau St Line, and the unbuilt Worth St line to construct a new, 4-track, Long Island Expressway line running through Lower Manhattan, Central Queens, and Northeast Queens. I'd rather do that than build a branch off the Queens Blvd line because it'll be needed for the Rockaway Beach Branch reactivation. Even if none of these get built, at least the Woodhaven Blvd station can still be converted into an express station in our lifetime if we advocate for it.

Edited October 18, 2022 by ActiveCity

[TMC]

On 10/2/2022 at 1:50 AM, Kamen Rider said:

(I am not directing this at Reasearcher, this is just me voicing my opinion on the subject)

… I hate “de-interlineing”. It actively makes the system worse.

Here’s the thing about the subway…

IT WAS BUILT TO BE INTERLINED.

That’s what it was designed to be., designed to do.

The through put of a line is controlled by its terminals. Having different terminals branching off a core trunk allows said trunk to have a HIGHER TPH than otherwise would be possible, because otherwise the terminals would limit the core capacity.

 

 

the other thing I never liked about the concept it that it doesn’t take the wants of the ridership into account.

You know why the A is still split at Rockaway Blvd?

Why the Q is the Brighton Local?

the F still rarely goes express in Brooklyn?

it’s because that’s how the riding public wants them to be.

Ozone Park WANTS an express

Brighton line Passengers WANT Broadway.

Carol Gardens/Gowanus/ Prospect Park area Culver Line passengers don’t want to transfer twice or ride backwards.

This is what the public wants, so this is what they get.

 

like, I will say this about Reasercher’s map… taking the Briadway off SAS… bad idea, because it removes the connection between SAS and the 63rd street line.

You’re removing the transfer to/from the F, which, speaking as someone who has actually been the conductor on trains on both lines through that station… is a VERY popular transfer. Going from Downtown Q to queens bound F and in reverse, Brooklyn bound F to 96th bound Q.

 

The whole “it was built to be interlined” argument is moot for several reasons. De-Interlining doesn’t necessarily mean that every branch is receiving an insane amount of TPH. It just removes reverse-branching so that every pair of tracks in the core corresponds with 1 or 2 other pairs of tracks elsewhere. Most branches can handle at least 15 TPH with their current termini, given current short-turn locations. There are only a few cases in which some lines need serious capacity improvements for the project to work, but those also happen to include more capital works for de-interlining itself to happen (*cough* IRT *cough*). The system was designed to be interlined back then, and it worked, because there were more trunk lines to divide capacity onto, along with Els using line-of-sight (from my knowledge) which afforded higher capacity. Now that we have less trunk lines, and slightly more modern signaling, interlining doesn’t really work as well as it did back then. 

I don’t see ridership as a huge concern either. The point is to retain and grow ridership, but that doesn’t necessarily mean appeasing them. They now have a 2 seat ride? So what? No sane person will drive or stop riding the subway because they suddenly have to transfer during their commute. This idea that ridership would drop as a result of de-interlining is insane, as people are generally drawn to higher frequency and reliability.

Also, once CBTC, and eventually ATO, then potentially driverless takes over, which it should in the very far future, good luck running a legacy interlined system.

[MTA Researcher]

2 hours ago, TMC said:

The whole “it was built to be interlined” argument is moot for several reasons. De-Interlining doesn’t necessarily mean that every branch is receiving an insane amount of TPH. It just removes reverse-branching so that every pair of tracks in the core corresponds with 1 or 2 other pairs of tracks elsewhere. Most branches can handle at least 15 TPH with their current termini, given current short-turn locations. There are only a few cases in which some lines need serious capacity improvements for the project to work, but those also happen to include more capital works for de-interlining itself to happen (*cough* IRT *cough*). The system was designed to be interlined back then, and it worked, because there were more trunk lines to divide capacity onto, along with Els using line-of-sight (from my knowledge) which afforded higher capacity. Now that we have less trunk lines, and slightly more modern signaling, interlining doesn’t really work as well as it did back then. 

I don’t see ridership as a huge concern either. The point is to retain and grow ridership, but that doesn’t necessarily mean appeasing them. They now have a 2 seat ride? So what? No sane person will drive or stop riding the subway because they suddenly have to transfer during their commute. This idea that ridership would drop as a result of de-interlining is insane, as people are generally drawn to higher frequency and reliability.

Also, once CBTC, and eventually ATO, then potentially driverless takes over, which it should in the very far future, good luck running a legacy interlined system.

I couldn’t have said it better myself! Right on!

[Kamen Rider]

20 hours ago, TMC said:

The whole “it was built to be interlined” argument is moot for several reasons. De-Interlining doesn’t necessarily mean that every branch is receiving an insane amount of TPH. It just removes reverse-branching so that every pair of tracks in the core corresponds with 1 or 2 other pairs of tracks elsewhere. Most branches can handle at least 15 TPH with their current termini, given current short-turn locations. There are only a few cases in which some lines need serious capacity improvements for the project to work, but those also happen to include more capital works for de-interlining itself to happen (*cough* IRT *cough*). The system was designed to be interlined back then, and it worked, because there were more trunk lines to divide capacity onto, along with Els using line-of-sight (from my knowledge) which afforded higher capacity. Now that we have less trunk lines, and slightly more modern signaling, interlining doesn’t really work as well as it did back then. 

I don’t see ridership as a huge concern either. The point is to retain and grow ridership, but that doesn’t necessarily mean appeasing them. They now have a 2 seat ride? So what? No sane person will drive or stop riding the subway because they suddenly have to transfer during their commute. This idea that ridership would drop as a result of de-interlining is insane, as people are generally drawn to higher frequency and reliability.

Also, once CBTC, and eventually ATO, then potentially driverless takes over, which it should in the very far future, good luck running a legacy interlined system.

Deinterlinging leads to more transfers and less service, specifically because the terminal capacity is not set up to deal with one corridor having only one line. WHICH WILL RSULT IN LOSS OF RIDERSHIP because people are NOT drawn to high frequency and reliability, they are drawn to convenience.

It's the same mental triggers that cause items to be priced at $19.99 instead of $20.

If their one seat ride switches to two seats, they will seek other means to travel, because they will perceive their trip as now being longer. And it will be, because the line's capacity is set by the teriminals and with the exception of 179... they just can't handle it. 

Also happen to live on a live you pro-de-interliners love to give the short end of the stick to, so excuse me for not being on board with this nonsense. 

[TMC]

30 minutes ago, Kamen Rider said:

Deinterlinging leads to more transfers and less service, specifically because the terminal capacity is not set up to deal with one corridor having only one line. WHICH WILL RSULT IN LOSS OF RIDERSHIP because people are NOT drawn to high frequency and reliability, they are drawn to convenience.

It's the same mental triggers that cause items to be priced at $19.99 instead of $20.

If their one seat ride switches to two seats, they will seek other means to travel, because they will perceive their trip as now being longer. And it will be, because the line's capacity is set by the teriminals and with the exception of 179... they just can't handle it. 

Also happen to live on a live you pro-de-interliners love to give the short end of the stick to, so excuse me for not being on board with this nonsense. 

There’s only a few corridors which I know of that have serious terminal capacity issues. Coney Island can only handle 10 TPH (per pair of tracks), although most services can short-turn just north if necessary, and sometimes do so during rush hour. Jamaica Center can handle 12 TPH due to the distance of the crossovers from the platforms. Forest Hills is limited to 20 TPH, and Ditmars can only handle 15 TPH, and is the only one that should be reconfigured. Norwood-205th turns 10 TPH. Every other terminal can handle at least 15 TPH. Service every 6 minutes is the minimum, with most pumping out trains every 4. 
 

High frequency and reliability IS convenient. There aren’t a whole lot of people who will have to transfer, save for a few edge cases. Live on QBL, but work on Broadway? The walk-sheds overlap between the 3 B-Division trunks. Even 6th to 8th is within an acceptable walk-shed distance. Even if they do choose to transfer, or have to transfer, there has been no example in the entire world where this practice has led to a loss in ridership, but actually an increase in ridership. What is there to even perceive? Most people follow GPS, whether it be Apple or Google. There’s nothing to perceive. It’s just faster, plain and simple. Not like they have a choice to drive anyways, when congestion pricing becomes a thing. 

[JustTheSIR]

So I made a thing with the 9 and 12 trains

 

[Benny Kanner]

On 1/1/2011 at 1:53 AM, EE Broadway Local said:

Similiar to Create your own bus route! in our MTA Bus Operations forum, create your own subway route. Assign your subway route a route bullet, describe the route, station locations and transfers, assign cars (past, present or future subway cars), and assign a yard. Most of all have fun!

 

This is my own Create Your Own Subway Route:

 

70(8) Third Avenue

• New I.R.T. (A Division) Route

• Uses R62s

• Serves Third Avenue, Webster Avenue and East Gun Hill Road

 

Stations

Manhattan

• East Harlem-Park-Lexington Avenues Transfer MNRR

 

The Bronx

• East 138th Street Transfer

• The Hub-East 149th Street Transfer

• East 156th Street

• East 161st Street

• East 168th Street

• Claremont Parkway

• East 174th Street

• East Tremont Avenue

• East 180th Street

• East 183d Street

• Fordham Plaza

• Bedford Park Boulevard

• 204th Street

• Williamsbridge-210th Street

• White Plains Road Transfer

• Seymour Avenue-East Gun Hill Road Transfer

 

The 70(8) is based at Unionport Yard in The Bronx

The BMT 3rd Avenue Elevated line should serve the , while the  should terminate at Astoria-Ditmars Boulevard. 

Ⓜ Fordham Plaza
Ⓜ Bathgate Avenue
Ⓜ 180th Street
Ⓜ Tremont Avenue
Ⓜ 174th Street
Ⓜ 169th Street
Ⓜ 166th Street
Ⓜ 163rd Street
Ⓜ 156th Street
Ⓜ 149th Street
Ⓜ 143 Street-Saint Mary's Park
Ⓜ 138th Street

[Benny Kanner]

On 10/18/2022 at 5:04 PM, Reptile said:

Yeah, if there's ever a subway extension via the LIE it would be great

The should instead be associated with the IND Crosstown Line & be light green like the  & . The , , , , <U>, &  should be light green. 

[Benny Kanner]

On 10/6/2022 at 8:33 PM, subwaykid256 said:

While I understand theres a lot of Expansion projects that are more important than this. I want to know what are your guys take on stop removal/consolidation

Personally the main idea i support is consolidating Hewes & Lorimer Sts on the and creating a Union Av stop with a transfer to Broadway

I prefer frequent stops such as those on the IRT & BMT lines. Leave the BMT Broadway alone, transfers could still be built. 

[Benny Kanner]

On 10/22/2022 at 4:48 PM, TMC said:

The whole “it was built to be interlined” argument is moot for several reasons. De-Interlining doesn’t necessarily mean that every branch is receiving an insane amount of TPH. It just removes reverse branching so that every pair of tracks in the core corresponds with 1 or 2 other pairs of tracks elsewhere. Most branches can handle at least 15 TPH with their current termini, given current short-turn locations. There are only a few cases in which some lines need serious capacity improvements for the project to work, but those also happen to include more capital works for de-interlining itself to happen (*cough* IRT *cough*). The system was designed to be interlined back then, and it worked, because there were more trunk lines to divide capacity onto, along with Els using line-of-sight (from my knowledge) which afforded higher capacity. Now that we have less trunk lines, and slightly more modern signaling, interlining doesn’t really work as well as it did back then. 

I don’t see ridership as a huge concern either. The point is to retain and grow ridership, but that doesn’t necessarily mean appeasing them. They now have a 2-seat ride? So what? No sane person will drive or stop riding the subway because they suddenly have to transfer during their commute. This idea that ridership would drop as a result of de-interlining is insane, as people are generally drawn to higher frequency and reliability.

Also, once CBTC, and eventually ATO, then potentially driverless takes over, which it should in the very far future, good luck running a legacy interlined system.

I totally agree! we need more subway routes & lines to run to underserved communities. There should be all consecutive numbers from [1] through [24] along with every letter in the alphabet including the {ACE}, {BJ}, {BX}, {CJ}, {CSX}, {DQ}, {DJ}, {EJ}, {FH}, {HUG}, {JZ}, {KP}, {MJ}, {MS}, {PT}, {PG}, {QB}, {QJ}, {QT}, {RF}, {RV}, {TX}, {VP}, {XD}, {YF}, {YT}, & {ZK} routes.

[Benny Kanner]

8 hours ago, Benny Kanner said:

It should instead be associated with the IND Crosstown Line & be light green like the  & . The , , , , <U>, &  should be light green. 

[JeremiahC99]

2 hours ago, Benny Kanner said:

I prefer frequent stops such as those on the IRT & BMT lines. Leave the BMT Broadway alone, transfers could still be built. 

Consolidating the Hewes Street and Lorimer Street will not negatively impact existing riders at these station and even with this one station consolidation, the stops will still be frequent.

[Benny Kanner]

53 minutes ago, JeremiahC99 said:

Consolidating the Hewes Street and Lorimer Street will not negatively impact existing riders at this station and even with this one station consolidation, the stops will still be frequent.

Let's keep it neutral & not fight over this. I will have my own preference, while yours will be respected. Thanks for your input! I hope you understand. 

[T to Dyre Avenue]

13 hours ago, JeremiahC99 said:

Consolidating the Hewes Street and Lorimer Street will not negatively impact existing riders at these station and even with this one station consolidation, the stops will still be frequent.

There definitely should be a transfer between the  and the . And I think it’s feasible to have it a Hewes St. But most of the platforms would have to be relocated further east to minimize the length of the transfer.

[JeremiahC99]

1 minute ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

There definitely should be a transfer between the  and the . And I think it’s feasible to have it a Hewes St. But most of the platforms would have to be relocated further east to minimize the length of the transfer.

That could also be feasible as well though I feel that at this point, it would be better off just building a new station to replace two close ones in between, especially if we are also looking to lengthen platforms to accommodate 10-car trains.

[T to Dyre Avenue]

Just now, JeremiahC99 said:

That could also be feasible as well though I feel that at this point, it would be better off just building a new station to replace two close ones in between, especially if we are also looking to lengthen platforms to accommodate 10-car trains.

That’s sort of what I had in mind. With the new Hewes platforms located further east, it would put the station much closer to Lorimer , so you can close Lorimer. Or you can even relocate the Lorimer platforms further west, putting them very close to the  at Union Ave and close the less-busy Hewes. This map shows how it could work. 

I also think the middle track should extend through Marcy Ave, with express trains bypassing the station, OR Marcy should be closed and replaced by a new dual-island platform station on the other side of Havemeyer St to better connect to the buses at Williamsburg Bridge Plaza.