Department of Subways - Proposals/Ideas

[Jcb]

On another note, I overheard that the MTA is planning to extended the to Ozone Park sometime next year, with rush hour trips to Rockaway Parkway. Is this true?

Wouldn't that add another problem merge to the and ?

[CenSin]

So schedule Manhattan-bound and trains to come/leave both Brighton Beach and Sheepshead Bay at the same time then...you can also do the same for Brighton Beach-bound and Coney Island-bound trains at Church Avenue, meaning a Coney Island-bound would come first, followed by a Brighton Beach-bound immediately right behind it at all stations between DeKalb Avenue and Prospect Park...

 

What do you think?

It seems that the MTA already does this. On a good day (which is only 75% of the time), the and will meet up at Kings Highway during early morning rush. It's still such a big gamble that I still have to give an additional 6 minutes of my time for delays (late conductor, late train operator, late train, school kids holding doors, etc.). Of course, if the Brighton express served Coney Island directly, this would be much less of a problem, as a little delay still means I'm on an express train, and I would come out ahead versus waiting for the next express or taking the local all the way.

 

People always seem to be awestruck by my 40-minute commute to Manhattan for work when I tell them where I live and how long it takes. I think maybe I should be less accepting of my current transit situation.

[RollOver]

I plan on doing a timetable for all present lines in the system, including the . I know it's hard though, given the complexity of the subway system, but still.

 

I still think scheduling Manhattan-bound and trains to come/leave both Brighton Beach and Sheepshead Bay at the same time is better, because you can properly make a fast commute instead of the current setup where you see the express leaving you and then you have to wait another 10 minutes for the next one or stay on the local all the way to Manhattan. Trust me. And to be clear, I'm talking about off-peak, not rush hour. But yes, during rush hour, a can catch up with a at Kings Highway or Newkirk Plaza.

 

I also think having Manhattan and trains come/leave 59 Street at the same time is better too. Just trying to make a fast commute for everyone in general at the first opportunity they get.

[CenSin]

I plan on doing a timetable for all present lines in the system, including the . I know it's hard though, given the complexity of the subway system, but still.

 

I still think scheduling Manhattan-bound and trains to come/leave both Brighton Beach and Sheepshead Bay at the same time is better, because you can properly make a fast commute instead of the current setup where you see the express leaving you and then you have to wait another 10 minutes for the next one or stay on the local all the way to Manhattan. Trust me. And to be clear, I'm talking about off-peak, not rush hour. But yes, during rush hour, a can catch up with a at Kings Highway or Newkirk Plaza.

 

I also think having Manhattan and trains come/leave 59 Street at the same time is better too. Just trying to make a fast commute for everyone in general at the first opportunity they get.

The and are actually on a schedule already. The problem is that the crew and/or train is often late. My timeliness is entirely dependent on two different trains being on time with the express terminating at Brighton Beach currently. (Side note: It's easier to get a head flipping one coin than two heads flipping two coins.) Of course, I'm not late, but only because I begrudgingly dedicate extra time to counter possible lateness—time that I should not have to dedicate with a better arrangement.

Edited November 15, 2015 by CenSin

[RollOver]

It's easier to get a head flipping one coin than two heads flipping two coins? How do you figure that? I guess having both Manhattan-bound trains come/leave Brighton Beach and Sheepshead Bay at the same time isn't good enough for you then I suppose. So you prefer that the should be extended to Coney Island so that you can have your one-seat express ride or what?

Edited November 15, 2015 by RollOver

[CenSin]

It's easier to get a head flipping one coin than two heads flipping two coins? How do you figure that?

I'm glad you asked!

 

I'm guessing you haven't made it to Statistics and Probability 101 yet. Sometimes it's taught in high school, but they definitely make you learn it in college. But the coin example is the simplest introduction to probability and these examples are pretty easy to follow:

 

1 coin

Possibilities: { H, T }

50%: 1 head

50%: 1 tail

 

2 coins

Possibilities: { HH, TT, HT, TH }

25%: 2 heads

25%: 2 tails

50%: 1 head and 1 tail

 

3 coins

Possibilities: { HHH, HHT, HTH, HTT, THH, THT, TTH, TTT }

12.5%: 3 heads

12.5%: 3 tails

37.5%: 2 heads, 1 tail

37.5%: 1 head, 2 tails

 

You can try at home and see for yourself. Flip coins and tally up your score.

 

If you didn't get my drift before, I meant to draw a parallel between the number of coins and the number of trains one has to take. The more trains (and also buses) you have to take, the more exposed you are to random delays.

 

I guess having both Manhattan-bound trains come/leave Brighton Beach and Sheepshead Bay at the same time isn't good enough for you then I suppose.

That would be good enough, but the reality is that they do not leave at the same time even if scheduled to be so. All it takes is one person holding the door to make me miss a and add 6+ minutes to my trip. Or maybe a late conductor running down the stairs after the green light and bell goes off. A schedule does not control these things, and I doubt the MTA is keep on propagating delays to other routes by holding other trains for connections from late trains.

 

So you prefer that the should be extended to Coney Island so that you can have your one-seat express ride or what?

That would be sweet, if not for the track layout. I think it'd be easier to lobby for an express to/from Coney Island considering the political support that already exists.

Edited November 15, 2015 by CenSin

[CenSin]

The 4th Avenue situation could be handled like this as noted before:

 

The becomes a full-time route of its own, running 24/7.

 

Rush hours (5:30-10:00 AM and 3:00-8:30 PM): Runs 95th Street on the to Broadway Junction on the .  This is a peak-direction express to/from Broadway Junction while the is fully local at all times.

 

Middays and Evenings: Runs 95th Street-Essex Street and terminates there.

 

Late Nights and Weekends: Runs 95th Street-Metropolitan Avenue on the .  This eliminates BOTH the and late night shuttles AND eliminates the weekend to Essex or Chambers since this would cover that.

That's a lot of letter-juggling there. Why not just call the last one an ? That eliminates the , which is just another , and gets rid of the shuttle.

 

But then you would have the all serving local stops. Even with late night frequencies, I foresee delays due to the switching of 4 different routes at the junction.

 

But with an eye on money, I think your proposal only adds to the MTA's costs. You must be assuming good finances for your proposals.

[RollOver]

@CenSin: So then have each train crew get to their originals/terminals a bit early so that they can be able to pull their trains out in time, or at least, have the train leave the terminal about 2 minutes early. Thoughts?

 

And no, I won't implement express service on the Culver Line at all, ever. Because I have already extended the to/from 18 Avenue with a new track layout design between 18 Avenue and Ditmas Avenue, so that Coney Island-bound trains are no longer held by any sort of fumigation and relaying delays caused by service at Church Avenue. Forget about the political pressure.

 

The only way to implement express service on the in Brooklyn and cut the back to Church Avenue is to restore the and have the revert back to its old, useless route. I won't consider doing any of that either.

Edited November 15, 2015 by RollOver

[Javier]

To Rockaway Beach - 116 St via the old LIRR ROW.

 

I like it.

[CenSin]

@CenSin: So then have each train crew get to their originals/terminals a bit early so that they can be able to pull their trains out in time, or at least, have the train leave the terminal about 2 minutes early. Thoughts?

What kind of punitive measuresincentives would get the train crew up and running on the dot every single time?

 

And if a train were delayed entering the terminal, it would also be late to leave the terminal—not any fault of the departing train crew. Yet, because the is the Brighton local and the is the Brighton express, the lateness causes a missed connection. My thought is that the only way to remedy the issue is to physically alter the infrastructure to funnel express trains into the Coney Island terminal.

 

Given that it's a fantasy proposal (as implied by the rest of your post), and we've seen instances of junction reconfiguration from you, what would your objection be if any?

 

And no, I won't implement express service on the Culver Line at all, ever. Because I have already extended the to/from 18 Avenue with a new track layout design between 18 Avenue and Ditmas Avenue, so that Coney Island-bound trains are no longer held by any sort of fumigation and relaying delays caused by service at Church Avenue. Forget about the political pressure.

 

The only way to implement express service on the in Brooklyn and cut the back to Church Avenue is to restore the and have the revert back to its old, useless route. I won't consider doing any of that either.

I.R.L., I may actually get my wish.

[RollOver]

Yawn.

 

Softly speaking, I don't care if my ideas are fantasy or not. I am glad that they are. This is the proposal thread anyway. You should have posted your aforementioned thought in the Random Thoughts Thread then if you didn't want me to object to you. Yet, I remember one time you claimed that you like some of my reconfigurations so.

 

I stand up for myself and my own posts. With all due respect, CenSin, you're a joke, put simply. I mean you want to inconvenience hundreds, if not, thousands of passengers by implement express service on the Culver Line in Brooklyn even though there's been well over millions of threads in the forums that it can't really happen at any time soon for reasons A, B, C, D, E, F, G etc. I get that you love express trains and all, but it's not always a good idea, especially when it comes to the Culver Line. You want to sacrifice something that's right for something that's wrong.

Edited November 16, 2015 by RollOver

[RollOver]

In addition, since you're still all about worrying of express trains mentality and the fact that you keep on mentioning them time after time, I might as well just simply entertain your own nonsense:

 

- is restored and is extended to/from Brooklyn, allowing either the or to run express on the Culver Line. is rerouted back to its old route. is cut back from 18th Avenue to Church Avenue.

- is extended to Coney Island, with some rush hour dropouts at Brighton Beach. R160s should probably run on the line, and give its R68/As to the , so swapping trains at Coney Island with the is easier (at least during rush hours and maybe off-peak).

 

I think that's about it. However, I don't think Jamaica can maintain R68/As at all.

[Wallyhorse]

The only way to implement express service on the F in Brooklyn and cut the G back to Church Avenue is to restore the V and have the M revert back to its old, useless route. I won't consider doing any of that either.

Not at all:

 

As I've noted numerous times, you have the move to the Culver Line after West 4th and make THAT the express to Coney Island (except late nights).  That gives riders on Coney Island a one-seat ride to Midtown via 8th Avenue as well as Park Slope riders (at express stations).  Those on 8th Avenue trains on the Culver looking for 6th Avenue can make a same platform transfer to the / / / at Broadway-Lafayette.  It also allows those on the Fulton Line looking for 8th Avenue Midtown the option of switching to the at Jay Street to avoid the Financial District.   In addition, on weekends the going to Coney Island as the Culver Express would have it stopping all along CPW as well as Columbus Circle, Times Square and Penn Station.  

 

The replaces the as the full-time local to Euclid and extends late night to Lefferts (eliminating that late-night shuttle).  During rush hours, ALL trains to/from 179th begin/end at Chambers and other selected Rush Hour (E)'s begin/end at Chambers to avoid overcrowding the Cranberry Tunnel.  You can also have (E)'s continuing to Euclid during rush hours run as a <E> on the 8th Avenue line and skip 23rd and Spring.

 

A supplemental train (a revival of what was known as that in later years before the current setup) runs 2-5 TPH between Chambers and 168 to accommodate those in lower Manhattan looking for CPW or are too lazy to walk to the express platform to get the or there for midtown.  As noted, some trains also would be beginning/ending at Chambers (including all such to/from 179th) during rush hours to supplement the at Chambers-WTC.

 

The remains local but is truncated to Church Avenue (except late nights when it would continue to run as it does now).  This keeps Park Slope residents happy as they keep their local but with the option to switch to an express at such stations, especially if looking for 8th Avenue.  There would be a LIMITED number of trains that would run via the Crosstown (the absolute bare minimum) if needed so there is not a capacity issue at Broadway-Lafayette, the one stop where three locals would stop on the same track in Manhattan (and for any handful of trains via the crosstown, those looking for 8th Avenue midtown would obviously be able to switch to the or in this format at Hoyt-Schermerhorn). 

 

In this, the remains as it is with Broadway-Brooklyn riders keeping their one-seat ride to Midtown.

 

Still think this is the way to go, especially as the Hudson Yards project comes more on-line in the years ahead.   What would actually be a sharp increase in service to/from Park Slope likely more than offsets the relative inconvenience of having the occasional via the Crosstown or three lines stopping at Broadway-Lafayette.  

[RollOver]

I.R.L., I may actually get my wish.

 

Can't tell if you're being sarcastic, but this is what proves my point about you, CenSin, especially that smirk on your face. Express service=great in your mind. Nothing else except for express service is all you're worried about.

 

I just wish you see how wrong it all is given the current track layout and current service patterns on each line, but whatever floats your boat...

 

@Wallyhorse: Look, while your ideas aren't too far off, however, your idea would just have trains being rerouted here and there, and also delaying other lines due to bottlenecks (such as West 4th Street where the would have to merge with not only the , but also the as well, and it can delay all other trains behind). Think about the real world Rogers Junction (not my world, but the real world Rogers Junction) for a moment.

Edited November 16, 2015 by RollOver

[P3F]

From what I've seen, the usually arrives at Kings Highway a bit before the .

[T to Dyre Avenue]

Not at all:

As I've noted numerous times, you have the move to the Culver Line after West 4th and make THAT the express to Coney Island (except late nights). That gives riders on Coney Island a one-seat ride to Midtown via 8th Avenue as well as Park Slope riders (at express stations). Those on 8th Avenue trains on the Culver looking for 6th Avenue can make a same platform transfer to the / / / at Broadway-Lafayette. It also allows those on the Fulton Line looking for 8th Avenue Midtown the option of switching to the at Jay Street to avoid the Financial District. In addition, on weekends the going to Coney Island as the Culver Express would have it stopping all along CPW as well as Columbus Circle, Times Square and Penn Station.

The replaces the as the full-time local to Euclid and extends late night to Lefferts (eliminating that late-night shuttle). During rush hours, ALL trains to/from 179th begin/end at Chambers and other selected Rush Hour (E)'s begin/end at Chambers to avoid overcrowding the Cranberry Tunnel. You can also have (E)'s continuing to Euclid during rush hours run as a <E> on the 8th Avenue line and skip 23rd and Spring.

A supplemental train (a revival of what was known as that in later years before the current setup) runs 2-5 TPH between Chambers and 168 to accommodate those in lower Manhattan looking for CPW or are too lazy to walk to the express platform to get the or there for midtown. As noted, some trains also would be beginning/ending at Chambers (including all such to/from 179th) during rush hours to supplement the at Chambers-WTC.

 

Why not just take those <E> trains and run THOSE trains to/from Coney Island via the Rutgers Tunnel and Culver express tracks? Wouldn't that be a whole lot easier and better than juggling so many letters around? And Culver el riders can at least still have 10-car trains which they would not have with the C.

 

You seem to be ok with cutting service to the WTC platform to once every 15-30 minutes with this K train. What I don't think you realize is that E trains leave that platform standing room only. If you really want all those so-called lazy people to walk to the express platform at Chambers, then you are going to have herds of people stampeding that way, crowding the passageway and overwhelming that last stairway closest to WTC. Just think about that. This is not the same Lower Manhattan of 2001 or 2002 that was reeling from the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

 

@Wallyhorse: Look, while your ideas aren't too far off, however, your idea would just have trains being rerouted here and there, and also delaying other lines due to bottlenecks (such as West 4th Street where the would have to merge with not only the , but also the as well, and it can delay all other trains behind). Think about the real world Rogers Junction (not my world, but the real world Rogers Junction) for a moment.

Believe it or not, Rogers Junction might actually prove Wallyhorse's point. It's a very crowded junction with the 2, 3 and 5 trains sharing tracks between Nostrand and Franklin Avenues. All of those lines run as frequently as the F during rush hours and more frequently than the C or M. And they've been sharing that short set of tracks day in and day out for decades. It's far from a perfect setup, but the MTA seems to be able to live with it and expects Brooklyn IRT commuters to live with it too. I'm not even sure if they have a real plan to decongest Rogers Junction (I sure hope they do). Edited November 16, 2015 by T to Dyre Avenue

[bobtehpanda]

Believe it or not, Rogers Junction might actually prove Wallyhorse's point. It's a very crowded junction with the 2, 3 and 5 trains sharing tracks between Nostrand and Franklin Avenues. All of those lines run as frequently as the F during rush hours and more frequently than the C or M. And they've been sharing that short set of tracks day in and day out for decades. It's far from a perfect setup, but the MTA seems to be able to live with it and expects Brooklyn IRT commuters to live with it too. I'm not even sure if they have a real plan to decongest Rogers Junction (I sure hope they do).

 

Rogers Junction has been on the MTA's wishlist for a while, but the MTA's wishlist is taking a backseat due to the fact that we still need to sink money into East Side Access.

[Mysterious2train]

Speaking of Rogers Junction, the original 2015-2019 capital program proposal from last year included $12 million to study redesigning Rogers Junction and Flatbush Av terminal, but the final program approved last month doesn't mention it at all. I hope its omission is just a typo or something. I'd hate to think it got postponed again...

 

Edited November 16, 2015 by Mysterious2train

[Around the Horn]

@Mysterious2train

About your sig,did you make that map or is there a template out there?I'd love to make a fantasy map like that...

[YungMarxian]

I don't now what to say!

I am sorry, but honestly this proposal is horrible. Also, you can't operate A and B Division trains on the same tracks.

 

That's why the 3 extension would run on a separate set of tracks that run alongside the J/Z.

I admit it is far out of left field idea, but I'm curious why it's horrible. 

[Trainmaster5]

Speaking of Rogers Junction, the original 2015-2019 capital program proposal from last year included $12 million to study redesigning Rogers Junction and Flatbush Av terminal, but the final program approved last month doesn't mention it at all. I hope its omission is just a typo or something. I'd hate to think it got postponed again...

 

Glad you picked up on the missing item. I do have one question I'd like to ask everyone who is NOT an RTO employee, past or present. Where did this term " Roger's Junction" originate? I've been a member for quite a few years and every few years there are posts about this imaginary location in the IRT. People who use the term are usually very knowledgeable about the area so I rarely correct them but let's get this out in the open.Everyone look at item #14 with the arrow pointing at it on the left hand side. That is the name of the junction. NOSTRAND, not Roger's. I know all about the layout, the switches n/b and s/b, the streets overhead, the old tower, the staircase between the levels.I've worked on work trains where we ran signal cable from Atlantic Avenue to Utica Avenue when the tower at the junction was being phased out and it's functions were transferred to Utica tower. Everyone  from the local Trainmaster down to the porters/cleaners who worked that tower will tell you the name is Nostrand Junction. Just thought I'd put that out for all to peruse..SubwayGuy, Snowblock, RTOman, dc, correct me if I'm mistaken. Carry on.

[Wallyhorse]

Why not just take those <E> trains and run THOSE trains to/from Coney Island via the Rutgers Tunnel and Culver express tracks? Wouldn't that be a whole lot easier and better than juggling so many letters around? And Culver el riders can at least still have 10-car trains which they would not have with the C.

 

You seem to be ok with cutting service to the WTC platform to once every 15-30 minutes with this K train. What I don't think you realize is that E trains leave that platform standing room only. If you really want all those so-called lazy people to walk to the express platform at Chambers, then you are going to have herds of people stampeding that way, crowding the passageway and overwhelming that last stairway closest to WTC. Just think about that. This is not the same Lower Manhattan of 2001 or 2002 that was reeling from the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

 

My plan would actually have close the same number of total combined trains terminating at Chambers during rush hour as is the case now.  Not all trains during rush hour would continue to Euclid (hence the <E> to Euclid during those hours that would run on the express track with the then).  Those that don't go to Euclid would terminate with my at Chambers.

 

That 5TPH max on my would actually be almost at all times other than late nights (which has a side benefit of allowing the to be express at all times since this would actually run 24/7 and the would go to at least Euclid at all times as well) and combined at peak hours with the (E)'s that don't go to Euclid also terminating at Chambers probably would suffice for those looking for midtown, plus such would give those coming from New Jersey on PATH actually looking for Columbus Circle and CPW the ability of NOT having to walk to the express platform at Chambers.  

 

Another benefit of this setup is during rush hour, there would be no merging at Canal Street since and <E> trains to Brooklyn would run straight through on the express track while the and would run on the local track then (yes, you would have the C/E/K merge uptown at West 4 and split going downtown, but the Fulton trains would not be merging in Manhattan during rush hours and the K here is simply a renamed C that replaces the C in lower Manhattan).  

 

Believe it or not, Rogers Junction might actually prove Wallyhorse's point. It's a very crowded junction with the 2, 3 and 5 trains sharing tracks between Nostrand and Franklin Avenues. All of those lines run as frequently as the F during rush hours and more frequently than the C or M. And they've been sharing that short set of tracks day in and day out for decades. It's far from a perfect setup, but the MTA seems to be able to live with it and expects Brooklyn IRT commuters to live with it too. I'm not even sure if they have a real plan to decongest Rogers Junction (I sure hope they do).

It is definitely far from the perfect setup having the and all stopping on the local track at Broadway-Lafayette, however, that to me is a small price to pay to increase service overall to Park Slope (even if it means having to have a handful of (F)'s run on the Crosstown each day) while given riders in Park Slope (at express stations) and Coney Island a one-seat 8th Avenue option they currently don't have (and those on Culver as noted looking for 6th Avenue can switch to ANY of the 6th Avenue lines at Broadway-Lafayette).  This also fits the bill of the Coney Island express service on Culver without disrupting the .

[j4lambert]

- IRT Nostrand Avenue Line

-Avenue K

-Kings Highway

-Avenue S

-Avenue U

-Avenue X

-Emmons Avenue

 

- IRT Flatbush Avenue  Line

-Avenue K

-Kings Highway

-Avenue S

-Avenue U/ Kings Plaza

-Floyd Bennett Field

(Provision to Expand to Howard Beach/Breezy Point)

 

The trains would splint off on to their separate lines following Flatbush Avenue/Brooklyn College and continue to their respected terminals. The Flatbush Avenue Line would continue underground, while the Nostrand Avenue Line would remain underground till Avenue W, when it will become an elevated line, with 4 storage tracks at Emmons Avenue.

Hold it right there. If the Utica Avenue Line is built, the Flatbush Avenue branch of the Nostrand Line will not be built. 

[bobtehpanda]

The Utica Av line is a significantly better proposal than the Flatbush Line, because it better evenly distributes passengers on the networks (as opposed to overloading everything onto the 2 and 5, the 2, 3 or 4, and 5 get to share in overcrowding distributing passengers.

[trainfanrod]

I keep thinking if they will make the local to kings plaza or the i believe this could also lead to the having a bklyn fulltime terminal but flatbush needs both trains??