Department of Subways - Proposals/Ideas

[ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ]

11 hours ago, Vulturious said:

Well, the MTA has definitely shown that they don't learn from their mistakes most of the time so I kinda doubt that they will wake up any time soon. Maybe their hands will be forced a bit, but who knows for sure how much will actually be forced. It might end up as like some publicity stunt to show they care only to go back to their roots and continue the way they are now. Maybe I'm just too skeptical, a pessimist that is just tired of their bullshit, that's not to say this is entirely their fault since there are other factors to this whole thing as well. 

3rd Av extension is definitely something the MTA should investigate since they used to have that as part of their plan back in the 60's until money became an issue. The line that needs to do so would have to be a Broadway line since it already covers pretty much all the major midtown areas along with major transfers to other lines. Having the  serve as the crosstown line along 125 St would better attract riders giving the line some much needed transfers and a way to go from the east to the west and vice versa in uptown Manhattan. To this day, I'm still glad the MTA has noted a CPW connection from the 125 St crosstown idea. Granted, it's not much since they could easily say not bother with it, but it's still something, especially with the advantages it would provide doing so. 

Yeah I agree; assuming the MTA goes with the current plan plus the crosstown and the Bronx extension, having the  be the crosstown and  go to Bronx would be the way to go and would actually give the  a bit more of a purpose, since now riders from say the  or  trains trying to get to the East side have a much better commute.

I was at least glad to see the 125th crosstown in the MTA's draft assessment, though as you've said that doesn't mean much given a lot of their draft assessment plans aren't ever going to come to fruition. Either way, Phase II as is should be built in a way that allows for relatively easy crosstown extension in the future if the MTA wants it, I'm just worried they won't build any provisions for a future Bronx service, the same way Phase I made it basically impossible to ever have true express tracks.

[TMC]

16 hours ago, ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ said:

Also why I'm worried that if the line is fully built as is, the  train will be heavily favored relative to the  for Upper East Side riders.

That's why I stand for rerouting the line to 3rd Avenue south of 72nd Street.

[ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ]

11 minutes ago, TMC said:

That's why I stand for rerouting the line to 3rd Avenue south of 72nd Street.

I'm conflicted on making it 3rd Av South of 72nd Street. On the one hand, it would make the line closer to the CBD and hence make the  more desirable for riders coming from uptown. On the flip side though, the lower East Side between Houston and 42nd Street is kinda a transit desert, and a 2nd Avenue line would be more effective at getting rid of the desert.

[TMC]

On 2/11/2023 at 3:10 PM, TDL said:

Thanks for the feedback.

The purpose of the  is for more Inter city connectivity. Transfers between the two airports, which could be made possible with a direct connection. When flights are diverted due to emergencies there’s more redundancy. 
 

The  served a Queens Bronx connection the IBX won’t.

in regards to the , given that 53rd and 60th already have crosstowns. The benefit of another crosstown further up seems moot to me. Better to have a crosstown on 34th St connecting to Penn. Regarding Lower Montauk, it may not need a lot of stations or service, because, as you said, it’s mostly cemeteries. However, it would serve a gap in the subway system along with QueensLink. I en if the and  didn’t happen, the could be a compromise between those who want the park, those who want Lower Montauk Service, and those who want QueensLink service.

- I see your point, but I don't think that kind of redundancy is needed. Until we get construction costs to Spanish levels, or even below (which is hard, because of labor costs), building just to build doesn't really cut it. The amount of times that kind of transfer would be needed is close to zero, so a direct line isn't warranted. 
- Queens-Bronx connections would be nice, but it's hard to do, given the recent news of the IBX. Going from Eastern Queens is a no-go because that corner of Queens isn't developed enough for it, and the area it would enter in the Bronx is quite desolate, with some scattered high-rises, but not consistent density. For now, we need to engineer a station at Ditmars Blvd and Sunnyside for Penn Station Access and switch to a more S-Bahn-like service structure on the commuter railroads. 
- I see this argument all the time, and in my eyes, it doesn't matter. Core concentration is good because that's where you need the most capacity. I think 50th Street is the ideal alignment for another crosstown (aside from 125th, that's obvious), because it's just above Times Square, the center of job density in Manhattan. I know 34th Street has Penn Station, and it's a major street through Midtown, but I think the sacrifice in coverage is worth it. 50th Street would also naturally have a tunnel towards Queens, and that tunnel would hit LIC better, compared to 34th Street into Lower Montauk, which might hit Crosstown and Flushing, but nothing else. 
- Speaking of Lower Montauk, the coverage could be worth it if costs go down tremendously, but we're not in a position where we could afford to build 24/7, so it's very far down the priority list. I don't want to discount it completely though, because once we saturate the housing density in the rest of the city, we could look towards Lower Montauk and other desolate rail lines. 

[TMC]

2 minutes ago, ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ said:

I'm conflicted on making it 3rd Av South of 72nd Street. On the one hand, it would make the line closer to the CBD and hence make the  more desirable for riders coming from uptown. On the flip side though, the lower East Side between Houston and 42nd Street is kinda a transit desert, and a 2nd Avenue line would be more effective at getting rid of the desert.

The coverage would be nice, but then again, at current cost levels, do we really want to build a core-miss line? Even if it did serve that transit desert, it wouldn't be effective, since it's not taking them where they need to go. 

[JustTheSIR]

Just watching these discussions makes me wanna become a politician just to get these through

[ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ]

54 minutes ago, JustTheSIR said:

Just watching these discussions makes me wanna become a politician just to get these through

A successful MTA head could def have some leverage for NYC mayor or smtg. The issue is in order to become head of the MTA, you have to be somewhat corrupt or at least have pre-existing connections.

[engineerboy6561]

13 hours ago, ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ said:

A successful MTA head could def have some leverage for NYC mayor or smtg. The issue is in order to become head of the MTA, you have to be somewhat corrupt or at least have pre-existing connections.

A big part of the problem with the MTA is that it's a state agency that's largely run by Albany, and Albany doesn't really have any incentive to manage it well because discontent with how the MTA is run is fairly unlikely to wind up determining control of Albany or cost any individual legislator (or the governor) their job on its own, and it's an incredibly convenient cash cow/place to hand out jobs to the governor's friends (which means that on balance the governor and the state legislature are incentivized to raid the cash box all the time and appoint their friends to the board). Like a better, more sensical structure would be to have a single regional agency covering the current MTA (including MNR and LIRR), PATH, the northern half of NJT, and bits of CT (mostly stuff covered by MNR) that had a mostly elected board.

Here's my proposal: let each governor (NY, NJ, CT) have a political appointee, and give the NYC mayor two. On top of that, each county that receives service should elect a representative, and each NYC borough should elect four. Like I'm imagining a situation where Passaic, Morris, Essex, Hudson, Bergen, Union, Ocean, and Monmouth Counties in NJ would join Nassau, Suffolk, Westchester, Putnam, Dutchess, Rockland and Orange Counties in NY and Fairfield, New Haven, and maybe Litchfield County in CT would all join in the structure. That would give a total board size of 20 elected representatives from NYC, 18 from suburban counties, and five political appointees; a bit large and perhaps unwieldy, but better than what we have now. Elect the representatives for four-year terms, possibly staggered so that you have some level of continuity on the board (though there is a tradeoff there between continuity and accountability).

Give that board a dedicated operating funding stream from a mix of fares and a service tax on counties that get at least some service from the new MTA, and if needed add additional minimum statutory funding commitments, legally indexed to the CPI, for remaining maintenance obligations, capital expenditures and expansion. Use the capex money to establish an in-house engineering department that does planning and design work for new services, expansion, electrification, etc. and then have the board lay out and vote on a set of projects (with associated start dates and priorities for funding) to be completed over a rolling 5- to 10-year period. The goal of structuring it this way would be to make the new MTA far more directly accountable to the people who depend on it for service, in a way that sidesteps the messes in Albany and Trenton.

The design I've outlined above would give NYC on its own a bare majority of the votes on the board (20 elected officials and two political appointees, so 22 votes out of 43), and NYC plus either NYS or NJ suburbs a supermajority (30 out of 43 for NYC + NYS, 31 out of 43 for NYC +NJ). That would basically be enough for NYC to unilaterally make any decision requiring a majority, and NYC plus any one bloc of suburbs able to jointly make any decision requiring a two-thirds supermajority. Since political appointees by themselves make up only 5 out of 43 board members, no governor or state legislature would be able to get a quorum to raid the cash box or implement poorly-conceived pet projects that make no sense for the majority of New Yorkers.

The reason I'm suggesting doing this is that there's a lot of value we could add by un-Balkanizing the provision of public transit to the NYC metro area, including fare integration, eventual subway or PATH extensions through the densest parts of northeastern NJ (basically from Journal Sq to Fort Lee), including new connections into Midtown, and through-running at Penn Station. Part of the reason I've suggested a structure with NYC having a majority on the board is because I don't want to see the new RTA I'm suggesting wind up in a situation like WMATA was in where wealthy suburbs had enough board seats to consistently deprioritize urban service to working-class and poor neighborhoods until the mayor of DC basically threatened to veto WMATA's budget if the Green Line didn't get built.

I could see a new MTA structured that way being free to actually build subway extensions at reasonable prices (a lot of which can be accomplished by moving from tunnel boring to the Milan method of construction (cut and cover but done from the top down so you get a lot less disruption while you're working; that would likely drop construction costs by enough to make quad track viable again), implement variants of commuter rail through-running, better integrate northeastern NJ into the NYC belt, and make the sorts of proposals we talk about on here a lot more likely to happen.

Unfortunately, the only way I could see this happening would be a citizen initiative/ballot proposal like we have in MA, which would unfortunately require 50% plus one in both houses across two sessions separated by an election in all three state legislatures to refer things to the citizens as a direct vote. Ideally, you'd get all three states to authorize citizen initiatives as a general good governance thing, and then once that passes you'd create the new MTA I'm describing through a citizen initiative.

Edited February 13, 2023 by engineerboy6561

[TDL]

On 2/11/2023 at 10:02 PM, T to Dyre Avenue said:

Well, that is one way for the M and V trains to coexist in Midtown Manhattan. Though I do wonder how popular a 2nd Ave  would be versus the current 6th Ave . Not to mention that the Chrystie St connection would have to be reconfigured to permit trains to go north onto 2nd Avenue. 

The tracks from the Willy B are on the outer side so that shouldnt be an issue.

[TDL]

23 hours ago, TMC said:

- I see your point, but I don't think that kind of redundancy is needed. Until we get construction costs to Spanish levels, or even below (which is hard, because of labor costs), building just to build doesn't really cut it. The amount of times that kind of transfer would be needed is close to zero, so a direct line isn't warranted. 
- Queens-Bronx connections would be nice, but it's hard to do, given the recent news of the IBX. Going from Eastern Queens is a no-go because that corner of Queens isn't developed enough for it, and the area it would enter in the Bronx is quite desolate, with some scattered high-rises, but not consistent density. For now, we need to engineer a station at Ditmars Blvd and Sunnyside for Penn Station Access and switch to a more S-Bahn-like service structure on the commuter railroads. 
- I see this argument all the time, and in my eyes, it doesn't matter. Core concentration is good because that's where you need the most capacity. I think 50th Street is the ideal alignment for another crosstown (aside from 125th, that's obvious), because it's just above Times Square, the center of job density in Manhattan. I know 34th Street has Penn Station, and it's a major street through Midtown, but I think the sacrifice in coverage is worth it. 50th Street would also naturally have a tunnel towards Queens, and that tunnel would hit LIC better, compared to 34th Street into Lower Montauk, which might hit Crosstown and Flushing, but nothing else. 
- Speaking of Lower Montauk, the coverage could be worth it if costs go down tremendously, but we're not in a position where we could afford to build 24/7, so it's very far down the priority list. I don't want to discount it completely though, because once we saturate the housing density in the rest of the city, we could look towards Lower Montauk and other desolate rail lines. 

For now, we need to engineer a station at Ditmars Blvd and Sunnyside for Penn Station Access and switch to a more S-Bahn-like service structure on the commuter railroads. 

The height at Ditmars precludes such a station, and it would be isolated from the rest of Queens, unlike a Junction Blvd-RBL line.

Core concentration is good because that's where you need the most capacity.

People are shifting away from traveling to a core area since the pandemic.

[ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ]

9 hours ago, engineerboy6561 said:

A big part of the problem with the MTA is that it's a state agency that's largely run by Albany, and Albany doesn't really have any incentive to manage it well because discontent with how the MTA is run is fairly unlikely to wind up determining control of Albany or cost any individual legislator (or the governor) their job on its own, and it's an incredibly convenient cash cow/place to hand out jobs to the governor's friends (which means that on balance the governor and the state legislature are incentivized to raid the cash box all the time and appoint their friends to the board). Like a better, more sensical structure would be to have a single regional agency covering the current MTA (including MNR and LIRR), PATH, the northern half of NJT, and bits of CT (mostly stuff covered by MNR) that had a mostly elected board.

Here's my proposal: let each governor (NY, NJ, CT) have a political appointee, and give the NYC mayor two. On top of that, each county that receives service should elect a representative, and each NYC borough should elect four. Like I'm imagining a situation where Passaic, Morris, Essex, Hudson, Bergen, Union, Ocean, and Monmouth Counties in NJ would join Nassau, Suffolk, Westchester, Putnam, Dutchess, Rockland and Orange Counties in NY and Fairfield, New Haven, and maybe Litchfield County in CT would all join in the structure. That would give a total board size of 20 elected representatives from NYC, 18 from suburban counties, and five political appointees; a bit large and perhaps unwieldy, but better than what we have now. Elect the representatives for four-year terms, possibly staggered so that you have some level of continuity on the board (though there is a tradeoff there between continuity and accountability).

Give that board a dedicated operating funding stream from a mix of fares and a service tax on counties that get at least some service from the new MTA, and if needed add additional minimum statutory funding commitments, legally indexed to the CPI, for remaining maintenance obligations, capital expenditures and expansion. Use the capex money to establish an in-house engineering department that does planning and design work for new services, expansion, electrification, etc. and then have the board lay out and vote on a set of projects (with associated start dates and priorities for funding) to be completed over a rolling 5- to 10-year period. The goal of structuring it this way would be to make the new MTA far more directly accountable to the people who depend on it for service, in a way that sidesteps the messes in Albany and Trenton.

The design I've outlined above would give NYC on its own a bare majority of the votes on the board (20 elected officials and two political appointees, so 22 votes out of 43), and NYC plus either NYS or NJ suburbs a supermajority (30 out of 43 for NYC + NYS, 31 out of 43 for NYC +NJ). That would basically be enough for NYC to unilaterally make any decision requiring a majority, and NYC plus any one bloc of suburbs able to jointly make any decision requiring a two-thirds supermajority. Since political appointees by themselves make up only 5 out of 43 board members, no governor or state legislature would be able to get a quorum to raid the cash box or implement poorly-conceived pet projects that make no sense for the majority of New Yorkers.

The reason I'm suggesting doing this is that there's a lot of value we could add by un-Balkanizing the provision of public transit to the NYC metro area, including fare integration, eventual subway or PATH extensions through the densest parts of northeastern NJ (basically from Journal Sq to Fort Lee), including new connections into Midtown, and through-running at Penn Station. Part of the reason I've suggested a structure with NYC having a majority on the board is because I don't want to see the new RTA I'm suggesting wind up in a situation like WMATA was in where wealthy suburbs had enough board seats to consistently deprioritize urban service to working-class and poor neighborhoods until the mayor of DC basically threatened to veto WMATA's budget if the Green Line didn't get built.

I could see a new MTA structured that way being free to actually build subway extensions at reasonable prices (a lot of which can be accomplished by moving from tunnel boring to the Milan method of construction (cut and cover but done from the top down so you get a lot less disruption while you're working; that would likely drop construction costs by enough to make quad track viable again), implement variants of commuter rail through-running, better integrate northeastern NJ into the NYC belt, and make the sorts of proposals we talk about on here a lot more likely to happen.

Unfortunately, the only way I could see this happening would be a citizen initiative/ballot proposal like we have in MA, which would unfortunately require 50% plus one in both houses across two sessions separated by an election in all three state legislatures to refer things to the citizens as a direct vote. Ideally, you'd get all three states to authorize citizen initiatives as a general good governance thing, and then once that passes you'd create the new MTA I'm describing through a citizen initiative.

I actually really like your idea, though as you state ballot initiatives can be annoying and I think it'd take a lot of work to get it to pass the legistlature in all 3 states mainly.

Don't want to get political, but in NY you really have a 3 party system. Republicans, Moderate/Establishment Democrats, and Working Families/Socialists/Progressive Dems. There isn't always a clear-cut line between the latter 2, but from my point of view, the legislature is currently split about 1/3 1/3 1/3 making Albany particularly annoying. Generally speaking though, these "Moderate/Establish" Democrats seem to be on the decline, while Rs have been making slight gains and the Progressive/WF/Socialists making large gains. Eventually, it's def possible a more unified Progressive majority in the legistlature which might be more willing to throw money at public transit, but it would take seats outside NYC and several election cycles.

Even though most legislative districts in NYC are safe, I wish politicians would be more willing to use it as a leverage point in primaries. Generally, I think too much of these intense primaries between so called moderate and progressive Dems is just posturing, especially around certain social issues.

[engineerboy6561]

2 hours ago, ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ said:

I actually really like your idea, though as you state ballot initiatives can be annoying and I think it'd take a lot of work to get it to pass the legistlature in all 3 states mainly.

Don't want to get political, but in NY you really have a 3 party system. Republicans, Moderate/Establishment Democrats, and Working Families/Socialists/Progressive Dems. There isn't always a clear-cut line between the latter 2, but from my point of view, the legislature is currently split about 1/3 1/3 1/3 making Albany particularly annoying. Generally speaking though, these "Moderate/Establish" Democrats seem to be on the decline, while Rs have been making slight gains and the Progressive/WF/Socialists making large gains. Eventually, it's def possible a more unified Progressive majority in the legistlature which might be more willing to throw money at public transit, but it would take seats outside NYC and several election cycles.

Even though most legislative districts in NYC are safe, I wish politicians would be more willing to use it as a leverage point in primaries. Generally, I think too much of these intense primaries between so called moderate and progressive Dems is just posturing, especially around certain social issues.

Thanks! I'd agree mostly with your assessment of Albany, and I'd argue that the steady decline of the moderate/establishment Dems is largely a function of the 1990s grand bargain (minimal safety nets, free trade, privatization, and public-private partnerships in exchange for a steadily rising standard of living) hitting rocks and foundering, especially post-2008. A lot of working-class people got left behind when that happened; one chunk turned to right-wing populism whose main hallmarks are -isms and xenophobia; the other turned to progressivism with the goal being to restore the old New Deal, but updated for modern times.

Edited February 14, 2023 by engineerboy6561

[mrsman]

A new modified "light" deinterlining proposal for B Division:

 168th St - CPW / 8 Ave local - W4 switches - Rutgers Tunnel - Culver Line

 Bedford Park Blvd [rush hours] - Concourse local [rush hours] - CPW / 8 Ave local - W 4 switches - Williamsburg Bridge - Myrtle Ave line

 Jamaica Center - QBL express - 53rd street - 8 Ave express - Cranberry Tunnel - Fulton Express - Far Rockaway

 Forest Hills - QBL local - 53rd street - 8 Ave express - Cranberry Tunnel - Fulton Express - Lefferts

 Forest Hills - QBL local - 53rd street - 8 Ave express - Cranberry Tunnel - Fulton Local - Euclid

 207 St - CPW express - 6 Ave express - Manhattan Bridge - Brighton express

 205 St - Concourse express - 6 Ave express - Manhattan Bridge - Brighton local

 179 St - Hillside local - QBL express - 63rd street - 6 Ave local - W 4 switches - WTC

 Same as , except express Hillside express (stopping at only Union Turnpike, Parsons, and 179 east of Forest Hills)

 96th/2 Av - Broadway express - Manhattan Bridge - 4 th Ave express - Sea Beach

 96th/2 Av - Broadway express - Manhattan Bridge - 4 th Ave express - West End

 Astoria - 60th street - Broadway local - Montague tunnel - 4th Ave local - Bay Ridge [serviced by Coney Island Yard using unused capacity on Sea Beach or West End lines]

[ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ]

7 minutes ago, engineerboy6561 said:

Thanks! I'd agree mostly with your assessment of Albany, and I'd argue that the steady decline of the moderate/establishment Dems is largely a function of the 1990s grand bargain (minimal safety nets, free trade, privatization, and public-private partnerships in exchange for a steadily rising standard of living) hitting rocks and foundering, especially post-2008. A lot of working-class people got left behind when that happened; one chunk turned to right-wing populism whose main hallmarks are -isms and xenophobia; the other turned to progressivism with the goal being to restore the old New Deal, but updated for modern times.

I've always wondered what would happen to the NYC subway if Rs got full control of NY Government? Republicans tend to disfavor public infrastructure and programs and hence the MTA might be in big trouble, but at the big time any path to an R legislative majority and statewide victory runs through doing well in places like South Brooklyn and outer Queens which heavily rely on the subway and other public transit.

The only other way the MTA ever budges is if there's some huge disaster that has widespread impacts and hence gains tons of media and gets a lot of folks very angry. Say like part of the Lexington Avenue line just collapses leading to months of no service and no real alternative service. That would force changes and progress as awful as that is. I've honestly been surprised how relatively few MAJOR incidents there have been on the subway historically given how old and big the system is, and just the fact this is NYC.

[ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ]

17 minutes ago, mrsman said:

A new modified "light" deinterlining proposal for B Division:

 168th St - CPW / 8 Ave local - W4 switches - Rutgers Tunnel - Culver Line

 Bedford Park Blvd [rush hours] - Concourse local [rush hours] - CPW / 8 Ave local - W 4 switches - Williamsburg Bridge - Myrtle Ave line

 Jamaica Center - QBL express - 53rd street - 8 Ave express - Cranberry Tunnel - Fulton Express - Far Rockaway

 Forest Hills - QBL local - 53rd street - 8 Ave express - Cranberry Tunnel - Fulton Express - Lefferts

 Forest Hills - QBL local - 53rd street - 8 Ave express - Cranberry Tunnel - Fulton Local - Euclid

 207 St - CPW express - 6 Ave express - Manhattan Bridge - Brighton express

 205 St - Concourse express - 6 Ave express - Manhattan Bridge - Brighton local

 179 St - Hillside local - QBL express - 63rd street - 6 Ave local - W 4 switches - WTC

 Same as , except express Hillside express (stopping at only Union Turnpike, Parsons, and 179 east of Forest Hills)

 96th/2 Av - Broadway express - Manhattan Bridge - 4 th Ave express - Sea Beach

 96th/2 Av - Broadway express - Manhattan Bridge - 4 th Ave express - West End

 Astoria - 60th street - Broadway local - Montague tunnel - 4th Ave local - Bay Ridge [serviced by Coney Island Yard using unused capacity on Sea Beach or West End lines]

I like this quite a bit actually; W4 switches are always underrated and underdiscussed as cursed as it would look on a subway map. Getting to the far west side from South Brooklyn can actually be pretty annoying so the  solves that. 

My 2 suggestions would be I don't think there's really a need for your  service to supplement the  on Fulton which is already going to be running at 4-minute headways, an increase from the . I would cut the . My second suggestion would be to send a Broadway service, call it the , to at least supplement QBLVD during rush hours.

I don't think we need de-interlining yet, but as discussed elsewhere SAS Phase II may force it if built as planned just cause the  alone ain't gonna be enough.

[T to Dyre Avenue]

6 hours ago, TDL said:

The tracks from the Willy B are on the outer side so that shouldnt be an issue.

Only in the northbound direction. The southbound  track appears to go below both  tracks as well as the  tracks before connecting with them. Though I suppose it is still possible to connect a southbound  from 2nd Avenue into the southbound Chrystie track, but it would require shoring up the existing Manny B-bound tracks and the southbound Willy B-bound track.

[engineerboy6561]

5 minutes ago, ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ said:

I've always wondered what would happen to the NYC subway if Rs got full control of NY Government? Republicans tend to disfavor public infrastructure and programs and hence the MTA might be in big trouble, but at the big time any path to an R legislative majority and statewide victory runs through doing well in places like South Brooklyn and outer Queens which heavily rely on the subway and other public transit.

The only other way the MTA ever budges is if there's some huge disaster that has widespread impacts and hence gains tons of media and gets a lot of folks very angry. Say like part of the Lexington Avenue line just collapses leading to months of no service and no real alternative service. That would force changes and progress as awful as that is. I've honestly been surprised how relatively few MAJOR incidents there have been on the subway historically given how old and big the system is, and just the fact this is NYC.

A Republican trifecta would likely either mean a very different local Republican party or some sort of fascist crazy that disenfranchises most of NYC; if we ignore the latter case (in which the subway system would be the least of our problems) then we're left with a Republican party that looks very different from what we have now, and a lot would depend on in what ways the Republican party had shifted. The most likely worst case scenario for the MTA would be a Republican party that was truly committed to privatizing everything that turned around and broke up and privatized the MTA the way the UK broke up and privatized British Rail during the Railtrack era; you'd get a slow and steady degradation of infrastructure and fare hikes until things become completely untenable in 10-20 years. Alternately, a right-wing populist party that was able to be racially reasonable enough to actually compete and win in the outer boroughs might wind up in a weird spot where they promise massive improvements to service but all the money actually goes into the pockets of people politically connected to the ruling government (so similar to now, except with a whole lot less transparency, and fewer homeless people because the homeless just disappear).

[TMC]

16 hours ago, TDL said:

Core concentration is good because that's where you need the most capacity.

People are shifting away from traveling to a core area since the pandemic.

That doesn't mean what you think it does, they are shifting from Midtown and Lower Manhattan, sure, but they are going to other core areas, such as Downtown Brooklyn and LIC. So, they are still going to cores, that's always where jobs have been concentrated, just less-so primary cores. 

[TDL]

2 hours ago, TMC said:

That doesn't mean what you think it does, they are shifting from Midtown and Lower Manhattan, sure, but they are going to other core areas, such as Downtown Brooklyn and LIC. So, they are still going to cores, that's always where jobs have been concentrated, just less-so primary cores. 

They're also shifting to their core workouts at home

[TMC]

5 minutes ago, TDL said:

They're also shifting to their core workouts at home

And that's many of the people who work in Midtown...

Not secondary CBDs that still have a long way to grow towards that status.

[mrsman]

11 hours ago, ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ said:

I like this quite a bit actually; W4 switches are always underrated and underdiscussed as cursed as it would look on a subway map. Getting to the far west side from South Brooklyn can actually be pretty annoying so the  solves that. 

My 2 suggestions would be I don't think there's really a need for your  service to supplement the  on Fulton which is already going to be running at 4-minute headways, an increase from the . I would cut the . My second suggestion would be to send a Broadway service, call it the , to at least supplement QBLVD during rush hours.

I don't think we need de-interlining yet, but as discussed elsewhere SAS Phase II may force it if built as planned just cause the  alone ain't gonna be enough.

Thank you for your wonderful comments.  I was in a rush to get this out, so I did not have the time to adequately explain my ideas.  So here it goes:

I am a de-interlining believer since it would reduce a lot of the entanglements that produce delays.  It also allow for increased frequency and would provide in some cases even provides that all trains to your destination will meet at the same platform (as opposed to service being split to two or more platforms).  The downsides, though, are that some (or many) may have increased walking and/or increased transfers in order to complete their journeys.  So it is wise to implement something that will reduce delays, yet a pure deinterlining system would not be practical as it will make some current trips very difficult.

The exercise is meant to run the system in the most efficient manner with as little capital expense as possible.

The A division is already partially deinterlined, so I am not recommending any changes.   and  runs completely separate from other trains at all times except late nights and certain GOs, and these train lines run very reliably, even as the express counterparts face delays.  In the B division there is no line (except the shuttles and  ) that isn't affected by other lines, so the delays propagate.  A problem with  can affect  which in turn can affect which in turn can affect   .  

 

 

168th St - CPW / 8 Ave local - W4 switches - Rutgers Tunnel - Culver Line .  

Bedford Park Blvd [rush hours] - Concourse local [rush hours] - CPW / 8 Ave local - W 4 switches - Williamsburg Bridge - Myrtle Ave line 

For the 8th Ave locals, I make use of the W4 switches to continue to allow Midtown service for the Myrtle Ave line.  Since the platforms are short along this line, I felt it would be better to connect it with the CPW locals instead of the very busy QBL.  Utilizing the switches allow 8th Ave locals to turn onto Houston to serve the Rutgers tunnel and Williamsburg Bridge while allowing 6th Ave locals to continue south on 6th Ave toward the WTC without interfering with each other.   is a 24 hour service that is extended to 207 St late nights.   operates to Bedford Park Blvd rush hours, to 168th St mid-day and evenings, to Chambers Street weekends, and as a Myrtle Ave shuttle late nights.  For rush hours, I anticipate 18 TPH  service and 12 TPH  service.  With that service level, there should be enough capacity for several rush hour  to provide express service through Park Slope for some Culver passengers.

 

Jamaica Center - QBL express - 53rd street - 8 Ave express - Cranberry Tunnel - Fulton Express - Far Rockaway 

Forest Hills - QBL local - 53rd street - 8 Ave express - Cranberry Tunnel - Fulton Express - Lefferts 

Forest Hills - QBL local - 53rd street - 8 Ave express - Cranberry Tunnel - Fulton Local - Euclid 

For the 8th Ave express service, I do allow a partial intermingling to make things work better.  When looking at QBL deinterlining, there are a lot of hard choices to be made.  53rd hits more midtown destinations than 63rd, so it would make sense for expresses to take 53rd and locals to take 63rd, but doing that would mean that QBL locals would have a very dificult trip to reach the LIC area.  Making all expresses take 63rd and all locals take 53rd would also be problematic, since Forest Hills is limited to 20 TPH, so we are limiting the trains on 53rd (and by extension the Cranberry Tunnel), while at the same time not providing enough capacity for the expresses on 63rd.   63rd feeds into the 6th Ave local which has only two destinations:  WTC (with less than 30 TPH capacity for turning) or Houston, which will send some trains to Williamsburg Bridge where capacity is limited due to the short platforms along this line in Brooklyn.  So some form of hybrid is necessary, which is what I propose above.   is a 24 hour service and will run at 10 TPH at rush hours.   is also 24 hours service and will also run at 10 TPH during rush hour.  will run at all times, except late nights, and will run at 10 TPH during rush hour.  During late night hours,  will run local in Brooklyn.  Running three services on Fulton will better distinguish between Far Rockaway, Lefferts, and Euclid destinations 

 

207 St - CPW express - 6 Ave express - Manhattan Bridge - Brighton express 

205 St - Concourse express - 6 Ave express - Manhattan Bridge - Brighton local 

the 6th Ave express service will .  During rush hours,  will also run express along Concourse in the dominant direction, and make all Bronx stops at other times.   is a 24 hour service with 18 TPH during rush hours.   will run at all times except late nights with 12 TPH during rush hours.  

 

179 St - Hillside local - QBL express - 63rd street - 6 Ave local - W 4 switches - WTC  

Same as  , except express Hillside express (stopping at only Union Turnpike, Parsons, and 179 east of Forest Hills) 

Despite using the same letter, I envision both  and  as two separate services with 10 TPH frequency each during rush hours.  Regular express service to teh easternmost stop in the system is necessary, as many people at 179 have very long trips and are often coming from buses from the very far reaches of Queens or even Nassau county.  WTC has the capacity to turn 20 TPH, which is what  and  combined provide.   will run 24 hours.

 

96th/2 Av - Broadway express - Manhattan Bridge - 4 th Ave express - Sea Beach 

96th/2 Av - Broadway express - Manhattan Bridge - 4 th Ave express - West End 

Astoria - 60th street - Broadway local - Montague tunnel - 4th Ave local - Bay Ridge [serviced by Coney Island Yard using unused capacity on Sea Beach or West End lines] 

Each line above will run 24 hours and provides a mechanism of completely separating the Broadway trains from the 8th and 6th trains and providing adequate separation between the Broadway locals and Broadway expresses.

 

[TDL]

26 minutes ago, TMC said:

And that's many of the people who work in Midtown...

Not secondary CBDs that still have a long way to grow towards that status.

Which is exactly why a 34th Street crosstown would work and no need to shove more capacity into Midtown with 50th Street.

[TDL]

13 minutes ago, mrsman said:

Thank you for your wonderful comments.  I was in a rush to get this out, so I did not have the time to adequately explain my ideas.  So here it goes:

I am a de-interlining believer since it would reduce a lot of the entanglements that produce delays.  It also allow for increased frequency and would provide in some cases even provides that all trains to your destination will meet at the same platform (as opposed to service being split to two or more platforms).  The downsides, though, are that some (or many) may have increased walking and/or increased transfers in order to complete their journeys.  So it is wise to implement something that will reduce delays, yet a pure deinterlining system would not be practical as it will make some current trips very difficult.

The exercise is meant to run the system in the most efficient manner with as little capital expense as possible.

The A division is already partially deinterlined, so I am not recommending any changes.   and  runs completely separate from other trains at all times except late nights and certain GOs, and these train lines run very reliably, even as the express counterparts face delays.  In the B division there is no line (except the shuttles and  ) that isn't affected by other lines, so the delays propagate.  A problem with  can affect  which in turn can affect which in turn can affect   .  

 

 

168th St - CPW / 8 Ave local - W4 switches - Rutgers Tunnel - Culver Line .  

Bedford Park Blvd [rush hours] - Concourse local [rush hours] - CPW / 8 Ave local - W 4 switches - Williamsburg Bridge - Myrtle Ave line 

For the 8th Ave locals, I make use of the W4 switches to continue to allow Midtown service for the Myrtle Ave line.  Since the platforms are short along this line, I felt it would be better to connect it with the CPW locals instead of the very busy QBL.  Utilizing the switches allow 8th Ave locals to turn onto Houston to serve the Rutgers tunnel and Williamsburg Bridge while allowing 6th Ave locals to continue south on 6th Ave toward the WTC without interfering with each other.   is a 24 hour service that is extended to 207 St late nights.   operates to Bedford Park Blvd rush hours, to 168th St mid-day and evenings, to Chambers Street weekends, and as a Myrtle Ave shuttle late nights.  For rush hours, I anticipate 18 TPH  service and 12 TPH  service.  With that service level, there should be enough capacity for several rush hour  to provide express service through Park Slope for some Culver passengers.

 

Jamaica Center - QBL express - 53rd street - 8 Ave express - Cranberry Tunnel - Fulton Express - Far Rockaway 

Forest Hills - QBL local - 53rd street - 8 Ave express - Cranberry Tunnel - Fulton Express - Lefferts 

Forest Hills - QBL local - 53rd street - 8 Ave express - Cranberry Tunnel - Fulton Local - Euclid 

For the 8th Ave express service, I do allow a partial intermingling to make things work better.  When looking at QBL deinterlining, there are a lot of hard choices to be made.  53rd hits more midtown destinations than 63rd, so it would make sense for expresses to take 53rd and locals to take 63rd, but doing that would mean that QBL locals would have a very dificult trip to reach the LIC area.  Making all expresses take 63rd and all locals take 53rd would also be problematic, since Forest Hills is limited to 20 TPH, so we are limiting the trains on 53rd (and by extension the Cranberry Tunnel), while at the same time not providing enough capacity for the expresses on 63rd.   63rd feeds into the 6th Ave local which has only two destinations:  WTC (with less than 30 TPH capacity for turning) or Houston, which will send some trains to Williamsburg Bridge where capacity is limited due to the short platforms along this line in Brooklyn.  So some form of hybrid is necessary, which is what I propose above.   is a 24 hour service and will run at 10 TPH at rush hours.   is also 24 hours service and will also run at 10 TPH during rush hour.  will run at all times, except late nights, and will run at 10 TPH during rush hour.  During late night hours,  will run local in Brooklyn.  Running three services on Fulton will better distinguish between Far Rockaway, Lefferts, and Euclid destinations 

 

207 St - CPW express - 6 Ave express - Manhattan Bridge - Brighton express 

205 St - Concourse express - 6 Ave express - Manhattan Bridge - Brighton local 

the 6th Ave express service will .  During rush hours,  will also run express along Concourse in the dominant direction, and make all Bronx stops at other times.   is a 24 hour service with 18 TPH during rush hours.   will run at all times except late nights with 12 TPH during rush hours.  

 

179 St - Hillside local - QBL express - 63rd street - 6 Ave local - W 4 switches - WTC  

Same as  , except express Hillside express (stopping at only Union Turnpike, Parsons, and 179 east of Forest Hills) 

Despite using the same letter, I envision both  and  as two separate services with 10 TPH frequency each during rush hours.  Regular express service to teh easternmost stop in the system is necessary, as many people at 179 have very long trips and are often coming from buses from the very far reaches of Queens or even Nassau county.  WTC has the capacity to turn 20 TPH, which is what  and  combined provide.   will run 24 hours.

 

96th/2 Av - Broadway express - Manhattan Bridge - 4 th Ave express - Sea Beach 

96th/2 Av - Broadway express - Manhattan Bridge - 4 th Ave express - West End 

Astoria - 60th street - Broadway local - Montague tunnel - 4th Ave local - Bay Ridge [serviced by Coney Island Yard using unused capacity on Sea Beach or West End lines] 

Each line above will run 24 hours and provides a mechanism of completely separating the Broadway trains from the 8th and 6th trains and providing adequate separation between the Broadway locals and Broadway expresses.

 

That yard access for the will still be an issue even with the spare capacity, the deadheading is a lot. Also, 30 tph through Cranberry??? That seems even CBTC level impossible

[TMC]

1 hour ago, TDL said:

Which is exactly why a 34th Street crosstown would work and no need to shove more capacity into Midtown with 50th Street.

If we were planning the subway based on current needs and not the NYC of the future, your argument would work. Midtown subways are still overcrowded by the MTA's metrics and are important for leisure travel, which has increased due to remote work. Midtown, in addition to having a high job concentration, also has a high concentration of other destinations. It's also easier to transfer in Manhattan to travel between secondary CBDs, and probably faster. So yes, we do need more core capacity because of the growth of CBDs outside of Midtown.

[TMC]

1 hour ago, TDL said:

That yard access for the will still be an issue even with the spare capacity, the deadheading is a lot. Also, 30 tph through Cranberry??? That seems even CBTC level impossible

It isn't, you just have to run a consistent base frequency of 6 minutes, as well as a running every 6 minutes from Ditmars to Whitehall. That way, you can deadhead the trains only just before the morning rush, and just after the evening rush. It shouldn't affect late night service too much.