Department of Subways - Proposals/Ideas

[MTA Researcher]

8 minutes ago, JustTheSIR said:

Funny part is that’s the reason the MTA changed the ‘s north terminal in the first place

I know right?

[MTA Researcher]

Heck I don’t even agree that  going from Astoria - Whitehall is even a good setup, mostly because of the long deadhead to/from Whitehall.

 

Since 2 Av is flawed (meaning no express between 125 - 72 St); I feel like having Broadway Exp go there while Queens gets abysmal midtown local service is just a waste… maybe I’m not seeing something that all are seeing….

 

Since we are now in ridership topic; let’s calculate and compare Astoria and QBL residents in numbers vs 2 Av residents.

 

Which is densely populated; Astoria and QBL combined or 2 Av?

[TMC]

2 hours ago, MTA Researcher said:

What about  accessing a yard?

Doesn’t need to, they should spend more time circulating providing better off-peak service, rather than sitting in yards. 

[Amiri the subway guy]

4 minutes ago, MTA Researcher said:

Heck I don’t even agree that  going from Astoria - Whitehall is even a good setup, mostly because of the long deadhead to/from Whitehall.

 

Since 2 Av is flawed (meaning no express between 125 - 72 St); I feel like having Broadway Exp go there while Queens gets abysmal midtown local service is just a waste… maybe I’m not seeing something that all are seeing….

 

Since we are now in ridership topic; let’s calculate and compare Astoria and QBL residents in numbers vs 2 Av residents.

 

Which is densely populated; Astoria and QBL combined or 2 Av?

The problem is that we don’t have enough data to see how service on Broadway really runs 

[TMC]

3 hours ago, Amiri the subway guy said:

The problem is that we don’t have enough data to see how service on Broadway really runs 

We do, actually, from tons of different angles.

[TMC]

3 hours ago, MTA Researcher said:

Since 2 Av is flawed (meaning no express between 125 - 72 St); I feel like having Broadway Exp go there while Queens gets abysmal midtown local service is just a waste… maybe I’m not seeing something that all are seeing….

It isn’t flawed, and I wouldn’t call the fact that Queens riders get consigned to local service “abysmal”. 
 

There really isn’t a need to run 60 TPH along 2nd Avenue, especially at current costs and even globally average costs. If you’re going to build a quad-track line, you better be slamming it to capacity, or else it’s not worth the spending. Midtown absolutely needs more capacity, and that’s where the issues with 2nd Ave really are, not the lack of quad-tracking. 
 

From Queens, local trains make the same stops as s down to 34th Street, which is where job density starts to drop off in Midtown. For the Financial District, which is a much smaller job center (and might as well be dying as one), transferring to an express is doable. 

[Teban54]

Since we're looking at yet another Broadway/DeKalb deinterlining proposal, here are some questions that I always wanted to ask.

1. How much of a political challenge is it to remove the one-seat ride on the between Manhattan Chinatown and all Brooklyn Chinatowns? From what I've read, this is a highly popular link that can't be covered by the standard justification of "6th Ave and Broadway are close in Midtown". Preserving this OSR while deinterlining DeKalb would mean that West End and Sea Beach need to get 6th Ave service, while both Brighton express and local get Broadway.
2. A very common idea in the Broadway proposals is  to 96th St. But wouldn't this put a major limit on future 's capacity, if both and  are on SAS?

 

13 hours ago, MTA Researcher said:

Since 2 Av is flawed (meaning no express between 125 - 72 St); I feel like having Broadway Exp go there while Queens gets abysmal midtown local service is just a waste… maybe I’m not seeing something that all are seeing….

I believe most calls of  to 96 are mainly for deinterlining purposes: that's where Broadway Express tracks lead to. Without any merges, SAS is the only place you can go.

The only other ways out for a Broadway Express route (say ) are: 

• Merge onto Broadway Local / 60th St tunnel, at either 34th (like the today) or 57th, which is basically status quo and means you still have all the same issues with interlining as today.
• Or merge on 63rd St from  to  and become a QBL local, possibly replacing . Sounds like a good way to utilize 63rd St tunnel's capacity into Queens, but there's still a merge on 63rd St, and I'm not sure how problematic that is. You also inherit all the other issues that a 63rd route has for QBL riders (skips LIC and no express transfer at Queens Plaza, no  in-station transfer, etc).

[TDL]

12 hours ago, TMC said:

We do, actually, from tons of different angles.

This is how it should be:

-via Broadway Local/Tunnel/4th Ave Local/West End

-unchanged

-via 63rd Street/Broadway Express/Bridge/4th Ave Express/Sea Beach. 

-unchanged, except after 36th Street, new switches will allow the  to go local to Bay Ridge

-eliminated

[Wallyhorse]

2 hours ago, Teban54 said:

Since we're looking at yet another Broadway/DeKalb deinterlining proposal, here are some questions that I always wanted to ask.

1. How much of a political challenge is it to remove the one-seat ride on the between Manhattan Chinatown and all Brooklyn Chinatowns? From what I've read, this is a highly popular link that can't be covered by the standard justification of "6th Ave and Broadway are close in Midtown". Preserving this OSR while deinterlining DeKalb would mean that West End and Sea Beach need to get 6th Ave service, while both Brighton express and local get Broadway.
2. A very common idea in the Broadway proposals is  to 96th St. But wouldn't this put a major limit on future 's capacity, if both and  are on SAS?

 

I believe most calls of  to 96 are mainly for deinterlining purposes: that's where Broadway Express tracks lead to. Without any merges, SAS is the only place you can go.

The only other ways out for a Broadway Express route (say ) are: 

• Merge onto Broadway Local / 60th St tunnel, at either 34th (like the today) or 57th, which is basically status quo and means you still have all the same issues with interlining as today.
• Or merge on 63rd St from  to  and become a QBL local, possibly replacing . Sounds like a good way to utilize 63rd St tunnel's capacity into Queens, but there's still a merge on 63rd St, and I'm not sure how problematic that is. You also inherit all the other issues that a 63rd route has for QBL riders (skips LIC and no express transfer at Queens Plaza, no  in-station transfer, etc).

And on top of that, any QBL local via 63rd misses Queens Plaza, which is a big stop.  That in itself makes it an issue going via 63rd instead of 60th for any Broadway line.  

[MTA Researcher]

At this point why are even here debating on whose idea is best? The MTA really doesn’t take these ideas seriously.
 

During pandemic era and to this day I give negative feedback on  for stopping at 49 street.  And funny part they say is how we can improve; I say have  skip 49 street. They either say we do based on demand or we forward to Board of proposals… but they don’t do it anyway…

 

Put it simply They have their own ideas and we cannot tell them flaws or they get mad… Is it me or is the MTA really a dictatorship?

[LGA Link N Train]

Here’s a better proposal that every rider in the system can agree on.

  - All stay as is

Yes. This IS the status Quo but the main takeaway from what I’m seeing is here is that while the current setup has its issues, its set up the way it is for a reason. While some proposals here would address some of said issues, new issues would arise and take their place. But thats not a bad thing in of itself, as there will always be someone who opposes some type of change to the system. 

Ultimately at the end of the day, we all want to see a more reliable system.

 

11 minutes ago, MTA Researcher said:

Is it me or is the MTA really a dictatorship?

No. It’s a Public Benefit Corporation. 

[Teban54]

30 minutes ago, LGA Link N Train said:

Here’s a better proposal that every rider in the system can agree on.

  - All stay as is

Yes. This IS the status Quo but the main takeaway from what I’m seeing is here is that while the current setup has its issues, its set up the way it is for a reason. While some proposals here would address some of said issues, new issues would arise and take their place. But thats not a bad thing in of itself, as there will always be someone who opposes some type of change to the system. 

Ultimately at the end of the day, we all want to see a more reliable system.

The following things can be true at the same time:

1. Every proposal, including the status quo, has its pros and cons.
2. Better operations (CBTC, switch replacements, etc) can resolve some issues within the current system.
3. And, there can still be a "best" proposal that maximizes benefits and minimizes shortcomings, depending on how much you value them - and it may not be the status quo.

This is definitely not saying "everything needs to be deinterlined just because the current system has issues". It can jolly well be the case that, at the end of the day, the current setup is still found to be the "best" after we carefully evaluate all options. But such evaluations need to take place - here, they're in the form of transit fans brainstorming proposals, but ideally they should have been studies conducted by the  and other agencies. While it's certainly possible that they've been done internally, it's not unreasonable to cast doubt on that given the typical way the  does things are often far from ideal.

The fact that  is officially proposing deinterlining Rogers Junction as part of the 20-Year Needs Assessment should be a sign that not everything with the status quo is optimal. Keep in mind, they were willing to do so while spending $$ for new switches, at the cost of losing the Nostrand-Lex OSR on the . And things like this PCAC study, which offered many concrete suggestions including deinterlining Broadway, suggests that Rogers may not be the only case.

I think the bottom line is, the shitshow of the present-day  and the fact that it has become a meme among foamers should be a sign that something is not right. Bay Ridge residents shouldn't have to endure highly unreliable service, especially if the only reason is resistance to change. It feels that something needs to be done there, whether it involves routing changes or not.

[TMC]

3 hours ago, TDL said:

-via Broadway Local/Tunnel/4th Ave Local/West End

-unchanged

-via 63rd Street/Broadway Express/Bridge/4th Ave Express/Sea Beach. 

-unchanged, except after 36th Street, new switches will allow the  to go local to Bay Ridge

-eliminated

I don’t like this, it keeps reverse-branching on Broadway, and the  shouldn’t touch Queens Blvd.

[TMC]

2 hours ago, Teban54 said:

Better operations (CBTC, switch replacements, etc) can resolve some issues within the current system.

CBTC is not a true fix without de-interlining, it doesn’t allow capacity improvements, and definitely doesn’t improve reliability. 
 

Switch replacements should be routine, but they aren’t a main contributor to capacity issues, nor are they the root cause of reliability problems. 

Not to say these are bad, but planning should prioritize reliability and capacity, not the “convenience” of riders (which is a false idea, more reliable service is always more convenient, less reliable service is always less convenient, simple). 

[TMC]

7 hours ago, Teban54 said:

How much of a political challenge is it to remove the one-seat ride on the between Manhattan Chinatown and all Brooklyn Chinatowns?

Simple, ignore complaints from the communities, if the community boards can’t be dissolved (they should be)

[TMC]

3 hours ago, LGA Link N Train said:

Here’s a better proposal that every rider in the system can agree on.

  - All stay as is

So true. If "all riders can agree on this" was the metric used for transit planning, nothing would improve substantially for everyone as a whole, but maybe a few individuals. 

[Wallyhorse]

14 hours ago, Teban54 said:

I think the bottom line is, the shitshow of the present-day  and the fact that it has become a meme among foamers should be a sign that something is not right. Bay Ridge residents shouldn't have to endure highly unreliable service, especially if the only reason is resistance to change. It feels that something needs to be done there, whether it involves routing changes or not.

And that is why I address the  by turning it brown and having it run on weekdays to a re-done Canal Street station on the where the northbound platforms at Canal Street and Bowery are re-activated and Canal is converted back to the terminal it once was (and keep in mind, this version of the  was not possible when Canal previously was a terminal because there used to be a crossover at the south end of the station that is no longer there).  It would be set up where the terminates at Chambers (excluding a handful of rush-hour runs to Broad Street) where northbound, the transfer point between the  and the is Chambers with the waiting across the platform from the , with the leaving first and then the  crosses over to terminate on (usually) what is the current northbound track.  Southbound, the reverse happens where the transfer is from the  to the  at Canal with the  leaving first and then the  crossing over to terminate on the terminal tracks at Chambers.  

(Note: As noted elsewhere, there would be in-service yard runs where this  runs from and to Broadway Junction on the  since this  would be based out of East New York) while late nights and weekends, this  would be extended to Metropolitan Avenue to absorb the current shuttles).  

Putting the  on Nassau is the only realistic way to fix this problem IMO.  The would become full-time and replace the in Manhattan between Whitehall and 71-Continental (with at certain times some trains ending and beginning on the tunnel level platform at Canal Street and turning there) while a new "Yellow " would operate from Bay Parkway or 9th Avenue on the (MAX 6 TPH) to Astoria to supplement the and keep the Montague Tunnel connection for those who actually use the  to get to lower Manhattan on the Broadway line.   

[Amiri the subway guy]

12 hours ago, TMC said:

So true. If "all riders can agree on this" was the metric used for transit planning, nothing would improve substantially for everyone as a whole, but maybe a few individuals. 

I hope your aware that the MTA is not a private community for fun and games and that they have to know what the people want not what you want 

[Amiri the subway guy]

On 10/25/2023 at 1:47 AM, TMC said:

We do, actually, from tons of different angles.

Oh really and where is that?

[TMC]

2 minutes ago, Amiri the subway guy said:

I hope your aware that the MTA is not a private community for fun and games and that they have to know what the people want not what you want 

There are tons of things they have to consider aside from rider feedback.

[TMC]

2 minutes ago, Amiri the subway guy said:

Oh really and where is that?

You can look at stringlines (which are maybe 85% accurate), know what current TPH figures are, ridership.

Stringlines are here: https://pvibien.com/stringline.htm (Broadway does not run well at all)

TPH is supposed to be about 25 TPH on the local north of 42nd, 17 TPH south of 42nd, 11 TPH express north of 42nd, 19 TPH south of 42nd. But these are all uneven TPH counts that contribute to unreliability and inconsistent scheduling.

Broadway is the least used of all the Midtown trunks, which is a really bad sign that something is wrong because it is the most direct B Division hit on Midtown's peak job density (6th Avenue is also pretty direct, but gets somewhat better service). 

[TMC]

17 hours ago, Teban54 said:

This is definitely not saying "everything needs to be deinterlined just because the current system has issues". It can jolly well be the case that, at the end of the day, the current setup is still found to be the "best" after we carefully evaluate all options.

There's an issue where people measure de-interlining proposals against the current status quo when really, de-interlining changes the entire status quo completely. 

I take issue when people speak mostly about de-interlining as a speed improvement because that's a side effect of it, not the main benefit. 

The main benefits of de-interlining are reliability, frequency, and capacity:

- Reliability is the biggest benefit from a passenger's perspective. The argument about one-seat rides completely falls apart, when you realize why one-seat rides are so important nowadays. It's not because they are the objectively quickest way between two points, but rather, in an unreliable system, people perceive transfers as another chance for an incident to occur. Schedules also are not very consistent, meaning it's hard for a passenger to be confident in knowing exactly when to expect your train. De-Interlining changes this by allowing schedules to be extremely consistent, so instead of a pattern like 2323223222323233, for instance, it will always be 2323232323232323232323 at the platform, each train running equal headways, or multiples of each other's headways. Obviously, this doesn't solve every issue with reliability, but I consider reverse-branching to be the root cause, as it allows delays to propagate around the system, as well as causing crowding on lines where the average crowding is actually pretty low. People have adapted to this system, so of course people would prefer one-seat rides when the chance of random long wait times, signal problems causing issues rippling across the network, etc. is pretty high. Commuters also add insane amounts of buffer time to avoid being late. I recall a NYT article who interviewed a commuter who gave herself 90 minutes for what should have been a 30 minute trip. My take is that one-seat rides would be much less relevant to non-CBD bound riders if reliability was seriously improved through de-interlining and other more minor fixes. 

- Frequency goes hand in hand with reliability and capacity, but the gist is that frequency induces ridership (to a point). About the , it runs abysmally low frequencies, and the 4th Avenue Line should be stronger in terms of ridership numbers, but it isn't. Put together the pieces. 

- Capacity is an issue. It's easy to say "build new lines" when we have capacity issues, but the current plans wouldn't even add capacity where necessary. Reverse-branching, even with CBTC and switch improvements, caps capacity, because after a certain point, reliability issues happen. Lexington Ave Express manages to get 24-27 TPH, though I believe it's timetabled for 29 TPH. 7th Ave Express achieves 24 TPH. They were both chronically overcrowded pre-pandemic (and I'm optimistic about post-pandemic ridership, if the system was run well), along with other Midtown trunks, and some lines in the outer boroughs. Organization before Electronics before Concrete, de-interlining is an organizational issue. Building new lines should happen, but it shouldn't be our first attack towards a capacity issue. 

[ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ]

On 10/25/2023 at 1:54 AM, TMC said:

It isn’t flawed, and I wouldn’t call the fact that Queens riders get consigned to local service “abysmal”. 
 

There really isn’t a need to run 60 TPH along 2nd Avenue, especially at current costs and even globally average costs. If you’re going to build a quad-track line, you better be slamming it to capacity, or else it’s not worth the spending. Midtown absolutely needs more capacity, and that’s where the issues with 2nd Ave really are, not the lack of quad-tracking. 
 

From Queens, local trains make the same stops as s down to 34th Street, which is where job density starts to drop off in Midtown. For the Financial District, which is a much smaller job center (and might as well be dying as one), transferring to an express is doable. 

In addition, NYC is really the only metro system in the world that uses a large amount of express quad-tracking. Many of these quadtrack lines have allowed NYC to grow to what it is today, but many are underutilized in their capacity. Busier metros around the world like Tokyo and many Chinese metros are able to get by with lines just being 2 tracked, but there's also far less interlining.

I think the main argument that SAS is flawed would be the reverse-branching aspect. This means you have several subpar options:

1. You just run the current proposed service pattern with the  and , which means South of 72nd St SAS is only served at about half capacity

2. You run the current proposed service pattern + a light blue "V" service that runs via 63rd St and does smtg in Queens. The issue with this is it leads to more interlining, both on SAS and QBLVD.

3. You stop running the  if Phase III opens and the  can serve the line at full capacity, but I think people would be very very unhappy with that change, especially since without the  it's hard for Upper East Side and Harlem Riders to get to the west side of midtown.

The other problem with SAS is it forces a weird situation with Broadway express where once the  operates, Broadway express has to operate at best half capacity or you're forever stuck with the  train crossover.

[ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ]

On 10/26/2023 at 11:09 AM, TMC said:

There's an issue where people measure de-interlining proposals against the current status quo when really, de-interlining changes the entire status quo completely. 

I take issue when people speak mostly about de-interlining as a speed improvement because that's a side effect of it, not the main benefit. 

The main benefits of de-interlining are reliability, frequency, and capacity:

- Reliability is the biggest benefit from a passenger's perspective. The argument about one-seat rides completely falls apart, when you realize why one-seat rides are so important nowadays. It's not because they are the objectively quickest way between two points, but rather, in an unreliable system, people perceive transfers as another chance for an incident to occur. Schedules also are not very consistent, meaning it's hard for a passenger to be confident in knowing exactly when to expect your train. De-Interlining changes this by allowing schedules to be extremely consistent, so instead of a pattern like 2323223222323233, for instance, it will always be 2323232323232323232323 at the platform, each train running equal headways, or multiples of each other's headways. Obviously, this doesn't solve every issue with reliability, but I consider reverse-branching to be the root cause, as it allows delays to propagate around the system, as well as causing crowding on lines where the average crowding is actually pretty low. People have adapted to this system, so of course people would prefer one-seat rides when the chance of random long wait times, signal problems causing issues rippling across the network, etc. is pretty high. Commuters also add insane amounts of buffer time to avoid being late. I recall a NYT article who interviewed a commuter who gave herself 90 minutes for what should have been a 30 minute trip. My take is that one-seat rides would be much less relevant to non-CBD bound riders if reliability was seriously improved through de-interlining and other more minor fixes. 

- Frequency goes hand in hand with reliability and capacity, but the gist is that frequency induces ridership (to a point). About the , it runs abysmally low frequencies, and the 4th Avenue Line should be stronger in terms of ridership numbers, but it isn't. Put together the pieces. 

- Capacity is an issue. It's easy to say "build new lines" when we have capacity issues, but the current plans wouldn't even add capacity where necessary. Reverse-branching, even with CBTC and switch improvements, caps capacity, because after a certain point, reliability issues happen. Lexington Ave Express manages to get 24-27 TPH, though I believe it's timetabled for 29 TPH. 7th Ave Express achieves 24 TPH. They were both chronically overcrowded pre-pandemic (and I'm optimistic about post-pandemic ridership, if the system was run well), along with other Midtown trunks, and some lines in the outer boroughs. Organization before Electronics before Concrete, de-interlining is an organizational issue. Building new lines should happen, but it shouldn't be our first attack towards a capacity issue. 

In an ideal de-interlining world, you want a situation where 3 services never have to share a track, and when 2 services share a track have them share it for a significant chunk of track. Ignoring other factors (terminal capacity, sharp corners), this would allow every service to run on a 4-5 minute headway with interlined services nicely alternating abababab; a consistent 4 minute headway feels very solid for most it's once you start getting every 8 minutes people start looking to time the trains and missing a train feels really bad.

I also think when making deinterlining plans, it's important to consider not all transfers are equal. On basically any quad-track express line, it's really easy to just get off and go across the platform to catch a local and vise-versa, whereas walking across the Fulton St complex or dealing with Court Square can start adding meaningful time to a commute. This is why deinterlining smtg like the  on CPW such that Concourse riders lose their CPW local really shouldn't be a reason to stop deinterlining, especially since the combined frequency of the  local in this scenario would be 20tph+

[MTA Researcher]

1 hour ago, ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ said:

You stop running the  if Phase III opens and the  can serve the line at full capacity, but I think people would be very very unhappy with that change, especially since without the  it's hard for Upper East Side and Harlem Riders to get to the west side of midtown.

The other problem with SAS is it forces a weird situation with Broadway express where once the  operates, Broadway express has to operate at best half capacity or you're forever stuck with the  train crossover.

Aha! You see now folks? This is why 57 St Flip MUST Happen. I may not know much about TPH calculation, but my intuition/instinct says that  express coming from Queens while Yellow  local coming from 2 Av would increase capacity… at least from Broadway Express. Now what about Broadway Local now at half capacity? Well to supplement such service; I would connect Broadway Local north of 57 St/7 Av to CPW Local. Thus we get this:

My Idea for a Long Term Solution (Assuming All Goes Well With SAS)

unchanged 

168 - WTC: CPW/8 Av Lcl (12 TPH) 

JC - Euclid: QBL/8 Av Exp via Cranberry St - Fulton St Lcl 

205 - CI: CPW/6 Av Exp - Brighton Lcl (Concourse Weekday Exp) 

absorbed by  

179 - CI: QBL Exp via 53rd - 6 Av Lcl via Culver 

 71 Av - Brighton Beach: QBL Lcl via 63rd - 6 Av/Brighton Exp

 Metro Av - Broad St 

Astoria - CI: Bway/4 Av Exp via Sea Beach (15 TPH) 

71 Av - 95 St: Bway/4 Av Exp (stops at 45 and 53 Streets) (15 TPH) 

BPB - Whitehall: Concourse/CPW/Bway Lcl (12 TPH) 

Yellow 125 - CI: 2 Av/Bway/4 Av Lcl via Montague and West End (14 TPH) 

125 - Hanover Sq (10 TPH) 

 

If I miscalculated the TPH; how can I calculate TPH correctly? I base my proposals on instinct…